|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
gtrmp posted:"why should we bother campaigning for votes that we don't already have" is a great way to ensure that your party never wins a contested election ever again ensuring that the Democrats never win an election is stone cold's gimmick
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/jonkarl/status/856138742628798468
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
I mean why not: Hillary is bad
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:The elections of 2000 and 2016 show that the correct way of using the system is not "nominate a compromised candidate". People are morons. News at 11.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
That happens every election though. People want to be winners and hate being losers. And Hillary is a proven loser.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:"why should we bother campaigning for votes that we don't already have" is a great way to ensure that your party never wins a contested election ever again A-freaking-men. US News has a great piece up about this. The Dems took too much confidence from impending demographic shifts in the electorate. I myself engaged in this hubris leading up to the election, hoping that burgeoning populations of PoC voters would make a difference and rise up against Trump. This didn't materialize, unfortunately. White people will be a minority in the US in a few decades, but for now, the Democrats cannot hope to win back the White House without peeling off some of Trump's coalition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
In light of all the allepo moaning https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/856138901240651776
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
that poll is clearly mistaken because nonwhites were very enthusiastic for hillary, as several nonwhite posters have attested itt
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
People talk about moderates like they're a uniform concept, but the truth is that there are hawkish, globalist moderates; dovish, protectionist moderates; and then there are issues like drug policy where Democrats support legalization 49% to 28% oppose and Republicans support it 32% to 50% oppose, where taking on that policy will lose some Democrats and gain some Republicans across the conventional political spectrum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I can't wait for Chelsea's candidacy From a reply: http://www.salon.com/2016/11/04/hillary-clinton-lost-sleep-trying-to-talk-wellesley-students-out-of-vietnam-war-protests/ LMAO
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:that poll is clearly mistaken because nonwhites were very enthusiastic for hillary, as several nonwhite posters have attested itt A lot were during the primary, and many still are. But clearly the bloom is off the rose for a good chunk of them now. That's a good thing, IMO. Hopefully the Dems will learn from this. They might not, but one can hope.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:From a reply: Clintons are giant alien insects whose true bodies (not the artificial humanoid avatars) are sustained by a constant flow of human carcasses. As their malice grows, so does their appetite, and they can't be satisfied with what natural mortality would provide. They need factory prisons, wars, police brutality... to keep them nourished and growing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
 These numbers are absolutely brutal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:From a reply: scab, unfalteringly pro-war, pro-wallstreet what part of hillary is a democrat again? are you sure we didn't have two republicans up for election in 2016?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:In light of all the allepo moaning Also should note liberals are more likely than moderates to stick with Clinton. The further left you are, the more loyal you are in situations like this because the further left you are the more the idea of a Republican scares you. The idea that the far left is the traitors in these situations is BS. People are centrists because their views are relatively more conservative than someone on the extremes. More Democrats generally cross over to vote Republican in these situations than vote Green.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:In light of all the allepo moaning I've reported this post as hatespeech. It contains unacceptable levels of racism and sexism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:"why should we bother campaigning for votes that we don't already have" is a great way to ensure that your party never wins a contested election ever again so your solution is to shift the party right to appeal to ayn rand fandies this helps us....how? libertarians made up 3% of the people who actually voted in the election, but the number of people who didn't vote totally eclipses that like, why should we sell out our leftist principles to appeal to objectivists? it's on thing to compromise and bring more people into the party, but the ideology is fundamentally incompatible between democrats and libertarians, which by the way, is a pretty loving good thing, as libertarians are batshit
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:ensuring that the Democrats never win an election is stone cold's gimmick imagine having your head so far up your rear end that you think the reason the democrats lost was they didn't appeal to people who voted libertarian like lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
stone cold posted:imagine having your head so far up your rear end that you think the reason the democrats lost was they didn't appeal to people who voted libertarian Libertarians have nothing to do with why your shrieking is worth more harm than good
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Libertarians have nothing to do with why your shrieking is worth more harm than good LIBERALS! LIBERALS! LIBERALS!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Don't people often under-report voting for the loser? Isn't that significant enough that pollsters have stopped weighting by votes in last election? Seems like the same sort of effect could lead people to say they wouldn't vote for the loser if the election happened again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:LIBERALS! LIBERALS! LIBERALS! Need a pic of Ballmer on stage yelling this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A-freaking-men. US News has a great piece up about this. The Dems took too much confidence from impending demographic shifts in the electorate. I myself engaged in this hubris leading up to the election, hoping that burgeoning populations of PoC voters would make a difference and rise up against Trump. This didn't materialize, unfortunately. White people will be a minority in the US in a few decades, but for now, the Democrats cannot hope to win back the White House without peeling off some of Trump's coalition. Whites will never be a minority because the definition of white is pretty malleable. Middle class Hispanics are going to get reclassified in the cultural consensus, just like the Irish and Eastern Europeans before them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
stone cold posted:so your solution is to shift the party right to appeal to ayn rand fandies I think his point is that these people aren't actually libertarians - they're low-info voters who are anti-intervention, pro-drug legalization, and above all, antiestablishment. The fact that there does seem to have been some crossover between Bernie primary voters and Johnson general voters speaks to this: they don't really know what Johnson stands for, or what libertarianism actually means. Those are voters the Dems can capture with economic populism. Not a Step posted:Whites will never be a minority because the definition of white is pretty malleable. Middle class Hispanics are going to get reclassified in the cultural consensus, just like the Irish and Eastern Europeans before them. Well, perhaps, but my point still stands: the Dems can't rely on demographics to save them in future elections.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:"why should we bother campaigning for votes that we don't already have" is a great way to ensure that your party never wins a contested election ever again "we have just lost an election by overfocusing on the assumption that suburban white people will vote for democrats if sufficiently pandered to" "i've got it, we'll try to appeal to libertarians instead"
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:"we have just lost an election by overfocusing on the assumption that suburban white people will vote for democrats if sufficiently pandered to" It doesn't has to be Libertarians, but this is an exact loving problem we see with the "gently caress you, we don't need you to win" Democrats who continually fail and then blame the people they told they didn't need for them failing. It's pure narcissism
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:"we have just lost an election by overfocusing on the assumption that suburban white people will vote for democrats if sufficiently pandered to" Instead of making strawmen out of idiot libertarians, the Dems could remember the working class exists every once in awhile
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Instead of making strawmen out of idiot libertarians, the Dems could remember the working class exists every once in awhile working class members like noted backers of the libertarian party the Koch brothers how does adopting libertarian nonsense help the working class exactly, like please elucidate how destroying welfare is a good thing we don't need to pander to moron libertarians, and we should keep on with our leftist principles, I don't see how those are mutually exclusive like if someone busts in here all "yes i voted for Bernie and Gary Johnson" then they absolutely should be ridiculed because clearly they put zero thought into that process like holy poo poo you could not get more opposite candidates
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:It doesn't has to be Libertarians, but this is an exact loving problem we see with the "gently caress you, we don't need you to win" Democrats who continually fail and then blame the people they told they didn't need for them failing. It's pure narcissism That's the real worry with KS-04 and the upcoming election in Montana. It shows that the DNC still hasn't learned this lesson and they're still up for leaving entire states to twist in the wind if they don't think there are enough easy votes there. They're still only interested in optimizing for the very next election, not in building a movement which can hand them the next 10 elections. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Apr 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
stone cold posted:working class members like noted backers of the libertarian party the Koch brothers I don't think anybody is saying attract libertarians; I think people are saying, attract low-information anti-establishment voters. Like I said earlier, I don't think most Johnson voters actually know what he's promising.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think anybody is saying attract libertarians; I think people are saying, attract low-information anti-establishment voters. Like I said earlier, I don't think most Johnson voters actually know what he's promising. oh totally this is merely a means for me to let out my frustration that bernie to johnson voter furious george is demanding to be taken seriously but also, again, the number of people who didn't vote versus the number who pulled the lever for johnson is mondo huge
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
stone cold posted:oh totally this is merely a means for me to let out my frustration that bernie to johnson voter furious george is demanding to be taken seriously Perfectly valid in my book.  quote:but also, again, the number of people who didn't vote versus the number who pulled the lever for johnson is mondo huge Sure, but it still bears repeating: the way to get non-voters to turn out for a Democratic candidate is the same as getting defecting former Dem voters to do the same. Give them hope for a better future for their families, their communities, and themselves. Promise them freedom from the fear of going bankrupt if they get sick. Guarantee them a living wage. Present them with a believable plan to get new, good jobs in their home regions. Do this, hold firmly to it, and rightists will never control the government to this extent again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Instead of making strawmen out of idiot libertarians, the Dems could remember the working class exists every once in awhile the joke, for those of you in the audience, is the Venn diagram for "white suburban republican" and "libertarian voter" is two concentric circles agreed that an appeal to the working class is the answer. on a related note, guess who the working class finds even more laughably unrepresentative a joke than the democratic or republican parties.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
stone cold posted:oh totally this is merely a means for me to let out my frustration that bernie to johnson voter furious george is demanding to be taken seriously FuriousxGeorge posted:If you don't need the vote, then don't campaign for it. Doesn't bother me. Of course, if you want to pander to me by taking kooky libertarian positions like ending the drug war and foreign military intervention, I am willing to listen. And again, I'm not a Bernie to Johnson voter. I'm a Johnson to Bernie voter. People were not betraying the Democratic party, they were betraying their anti-Democratic party position to support a borderline Democrat as a compromise. The reaction was, "Go gently caress yourselves, this is our party!" Which is fine, run your party how you want. Just don't complain to people you didn't campaign for when you lose. You were supposed to win by taking moderate suburban Republicans, go complain to them. You gave them the pandering and got nothing for it. FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Of course, if you want to pander to me by taking kooky libertarian positions like ending the drug war and foreign military intervention, I am willing to listen. And again, I'm not a Bernie to Johnson voter. I'm a Johnson to Bernie voter. I'm trying not to pull a big weepy one in here but as a Literal Communist in Texas who has made their peace with the world in a similar way that libertarians--to the definition that most actually existing self describing libertarians use the word--have, you're killing me. Why is it* that pundits are always talking about how divided america is while I keep finding common ground with people IRL with whom I disagree on paper yet it turns out we're both willing to concede that "big government" would be pretty cool if it worked at all for the citizens' favor. Literally at all. Just a thing or hell, even two. Here or there. Just a single loving life preserver in a sea of crony capitalism which we all agree demeans both capitalism and friendship. Why is it we can set aside our fundamental differences in the face of equally fundamental (and for the moment, municipal) realities? Aside from basic social skills, of course. I'm trying really hard to not do that thing where I ascribe the characteristics of bad internet posting to even worse ideologies which lost presidential elections, here. *I know why this is, shut up about why this is, the entire thread is about why this is and if you talk about it I will cut you. Thank.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Of course, if you want to pander to me by taking kooky libertarian positions like ending the drug war and foreign military intervention, I am willing to listen. And again, I'm not a Bernie to Johnson voter. I'm a Johnson to Bernie voter. People were not betraying the Democratic party, they were betraying their anti-Democratic party position to support a borderline Democrat as a compromise. The reaction was, "Go gently caress yourselves, this is our party!" Which is fine, run your party how you want. Just don't complain to people you didn't campaign for when you lose. buddy im not the avatar of the democratic party lol that you're so mad though, you voted for the stupidest prison lovin man literally made flesh through koch money, quit pretending you have any principles, you don't
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
stone cold posted:buddy im not the avatar of the democratic party until jeffersonclay comes into this thread mad-dogging a (e; federally) democratic voter taking CSPAM's advice and not voting for hillary clinton if they dont like her, then you'll do 'till he gets here. Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
"You maaaaaaaaaaadd you maaaaaaaaaaaaddd!!!" --a democrat, to a libertarian, during the Trump Administration
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Why is it* that pundits are always talking about how divided america is while I keep finding common ground with people IRL with whom I disagree on paper yet it turns out we're both willing to concede that "big government" would be pretty cool if it worked at all for the citizens' favor. Literally at all. Just a thing or hell, even two. Here or there. Just a single loving life preserver in a sea of crony capitalism which we all agree demeans both capitalism and friendship. It doesn't help that people easily forget that a democratic government is supposed to be the public banding together to resist corporate elites that would do us harm. That's one mantle that the Dems would be very, very wise to adopt: "Don't like corporate greed? Don't like widespread exploitation? Join us and fight back!" Even paying lip service to that principle would go a loooong way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 02:09
|
|