|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
readingatwork posted:Voting third party is perfectly valid. It shows both sides that you are willing to withhold your vote until there are better options while still making your general political wishes known. Plus's unlike just staying home you can't be written off as lazy or unengaged. The mistake in voting third party is treating the Democratic Party or Republican Party as rational goal based organizations. Instead they are petty hierarchies with massive power in our broken system. Look to the successes of the Tea Party and the Sanders movement. They both succeeded in changing their party from the inside not from a third party. These parties are controllable institutions and it is by engaging with them you can use their power to your ends. Compare the Tea Party and the Libertarians, where the libertarians are now effectively far less in control than the Tea Party and the Tea Party is driving the Republican Party even on pet issues like Sessions's attitudes on weed legalization. They did this by organizing outside the party to take over the party: They found a bunch of politicians unable to say what the base wanted and got them primaried. People stop being huge pussies and demanding what they want by getting together and taking over the party infrastructure until they get it. Even if that work is hard, tedious and inane. Leftists as precinct captains, committee members and convention delegates matter. And sadly this only necessary but not sufficient. It is clear there is a deficiency on the left of outside institutions. The left needs the FEI equivalent that can indoctrinate leftist-Cruz by sending him to nursing homes to quote Malcolm X by memory and also control the party to later run him on. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 22:32 on May 3, 2017 |
#
?
May 3, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:05 |
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Montana special election update: Terrific. I had heard the poll numbers had slipped a bit, so hopefully the DNC is, you know. Getting their asses into gear. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:a) people who voted for Bush got their preferred candidate between Gore and Bush; those who voted for Nader didn't All true, but the Democrats still didn't learn the correct lesson from that whole debacle. One can't control for a bad SCOTUS ruling like Bush v. Gore; one can control one's campaign strategy and messaging to ensure that an election isn't so close, that a bad SCOTUS ruling has a chance to happen in the first place. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:43 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:All true, but the Democrats still didn't learn the correct lesson from that whole debacle. One can't control for a bad SCOTUS ruling like Bush v. Gore; one can control one's campaign strategy and messaging to ensure that an election isn't so close, that a bad SCOTUS ruling has a chance to happen in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Err, that's the exact opposite of what Killary did. If anything, Sanderistas have been beating Abuela's campaign over the head about how she should have focused on winning the 50%+1 over trying to run the board. Stein 2020 I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Err, that's the exact opposite of what Killary did. No one is doing this. The closest I've seen is people pointing out the way she focused on running up the score in certain states while ignoring more vital areas like the rust belt.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The mistake in voting third party is treating the Democratic Party or Republican Party as rational goal based organizations. Instead they are petty hierarchies with massive power in our broken system. Look to the successes of the Tea Party and the Sanders movement. They both succeeded in changing their party from the inside not from a third party. These parties are controllable institutions and it is by engaging with them you can use their power to your ends. I'm all for a primary-focused strategy and have been advocating action like this for some time. However I don't feel that this and refusing to vote for conservative democrats are mutually exclusive. If anything the two strategies compliment each other.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
I'm just going to leave this here and hope it helps some of you get clarity because, jesus christ this thread. Quoted text is the words of a friend but I co-sign 100%. Meet the Left Radical Who Will Likely Be Jackson, Mississippi’s Next Mayor quote:The Malcolm X Grassroots Movement decided to ignore the advice of the self-appointed leaders of the far left, who have spent their lives claiming that using the Democratic primary (or electoral politics period!) is inherently deradicalizing. Instead, they committed wholeheartedly to an electoral strategy with the Democratic primary as a focal point.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Hey I voted for him!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And holy lol Clinton was so offputting to everyone, not just the third-party voters, but she racked up the highest faithless elector count for a Presidential candidate in US history. Forget the random ordinary voters: 8 Electors literally hand-picked for party loyalty who had taken an oath to support the nominee refused to support her. Of all the hilariously dumb things about this election cycle, this might be the one that takes the cake. Clinton's camp spent weeks desperately urging Trump's electors to instead vote their conscience, and the result of that final post-campaign campaign was that she had more faithless electors than Trump did.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:Of all the hilariously dumb things about this election cycle, this might be the one that takes the cake. Clinton's camp spent weeks desperately urging Trump's electors to instead vote their conscience, and the result of that final post-campaign campaign was that she had more faithless electors than Trump did. That's what happens when you let Bernouts pick your electors. The Washington and Hawaii caucuses were in late March and May, and the only people who thought Bernie could still win were completely deluded, but they sure dominated caucuses that every sane person knew didn't matter. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 02:50 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Weren't the faithless electors trying to vote for Sanders? Talk about Sanders supporters trying to spin leftists being faithless into a fault of Hillary's
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
wikipedia posted:In the Electoral College vote on December 19, seven electors voted against their pledged candidates: two against Trump and five against Clinton. A further three electors attempted to vote against Clinton but were replaced or forced to vote again. Ultimately, Trump received 304 electoral votes and Clinton garnered 227, while Colin Powell won three, and John Kasich, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Faith Spotted Eagle each received one. Goddamn Bernouts  (guillotine all centrists)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Sanders only got one valid and two invalid faithless votes. Meanwhile, 3 democrats had validated faithless votes for Colin Powell. But BERNOUTS!!! Also one dem and one gop elector voted Kasich.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:That's what happens when you let Bernouts pick your electors. The Washington and Hawaii caucuses were in late May, and the only people who thought Bernie could still win were completely deluded, but they sure dominated caucuses that every sane person knew didn't matter.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
The democratic electors who voted for Colin Powell or Spotted Eagle were chosen in caucuses held in late March and May, when everyone but the most deluded Bernouts knew the primary was over. Bernouts dominated those meaningless caucuses. Four of the electors they chose ended up not voting for the democratic nominee. How this somehow indicts Hillary Clinton and not Bernouts generally or Sanders himself I cannot imagine.
JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 02:46 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Err, that's the exact opposite of what Killary did. He's not talking about where she ran adds but what was she was actually selling. Hillary ran on 75% Trump bad and the remaining 25% was a mix of idpol and centrism. If you were part of the 4/5ths of the country that's slowly rotting and weren't all that afraid of Trump, she offered you nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The democratic electors who voted for Colin Powell or Spotted Eagle were chosen in caucuses held in late March and May, when everyone but the most deluded Bernouts knew the primary was over. Bernouts dominated those meaningless caucuses. Four of the electors they chose ended up not voting for the democratic nominee. How this somehow indicts Hillary Clinton and not Bernouts generally or Sanders himself I cannot imagine.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
I'm not indicting democracy, I'm indicting the dumb Bernouts who voted for those Bernout electors. And I guess Sanders for giving them false hope that he could somehow win at that point.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Yes, I'm sure Bernouts were the ones holding out for Colin "Iraqicus" Powell
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm not indicting democracy, I'm indicting the dumb Bernouts who voted for those Bernout electors. And I guess Sanders for giving them false hope that he could somehow win at that point. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:He's not talking about where she ran adds but what was she was actually selling. Hillary ran on 75% Trump bad and the remaining 25% was a mix of idpol and centrism. If you were part of the 4/5ths of the country that's slowly rotting and weren't all that afraid of Trump, she offered you nothing. I didn't realize Trump won the election with 80% of the vote. It's really too bad Bernie with the popularity of leftism in the country couldn't even win the primaries.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Yes, I'm sure Bernouts were the ones holding out for Colin "Iraqicus" Powell Those electors were chosen in caucuses that Bernie won. Caucuses that were held so late in the cycle that only the most deluded Sanders supporters, who thought he could still win, ended up dominating. That's what happened. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 02:55 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The democratic electors who voted for Colin Powell or Spotted Eagle were chosen in caucuses held in late March and May, when everyone but the most deluded Bernouts knew the primary was over. Bernouts dominated those meaningless caucuses. Four of the electors they chose ended up not voting for the democratic nominee. How this somehow indicts Hillary Clinton and not Bernouts generally or Sanders himself I cannot imagine.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
twodot posted:So your story here is the Clinton supporters, thinking they had the election in the bag, refused to even show up to party events necessary for the functioning of the general election, and your takeaway is to be angry about the people who bothered to show up, and not Clinton supporters? Clinton did have the election in the bag. Those caucuses could not and did not affect the outcome of the primary. But they were dominated by Bernie supporters who thought he could still win. And the Bernie-supporting electors that were chosen at those caucuses were the ones that ended up being faithless electors. I'm not angry about it, because it didn't end up mattering. But the suggestion that it somehow reflects badly on Clinton that Bernout electors ended up being faithless is real dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I didn't realize Trump won the election with 80% of the vote. It's really too bad Bernie with the popularity of leftism in the country couldn't even win the primaries. Disingenuous BS. This argument ignores the fact that at the start of the election he had almost no name recognition and no institutional/media support, yet despite this he managed to give Hillary a run for her money. That actually pretty impressive. You also overlook the fact that his popularity has only gone up after the election despite losing in the primary.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Lower than hated centrists Obama and his wife. Again, seems to run counter to Americans loving leftism and hating neoliberalism.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Ah the good old "In '76 Reagan lost the primary to the guy who lost to Carter, that makes Reagan double-unelectable against Carter in 1980" argument, always funny to see that old chestnut.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
OK, let's see Bernie run against Corey Booker in 2020. I can't wait to see a rehash of this except with Bernie aged another 3 years and with less popularity.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Clinton did have the election in the bag. Those caucuses could not and did not affect the outcome of the primary. But they were dominated by Bernie supporters who thought he could still win. And the Bernie-supporting electors that were chosen at those caucuses were the ones that ended up being faithless electors. I'm not angry about it, because it didn't end up mattering. But the suggestion that it somehow reflects badly on Clinton that Bernout electors ended up being faithless is real dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
It's a stupid narrative (even for JC and shrike) regardless since the faithless electors were - 1 guy from Hawaii that was suppose to vote for Clinton but voted for Sanders/Warren - 2 guys from Texas that were suppose to vote for Trump but voted for Kasich and Ron Paul - 3 people from Washington that were suppose to vote for Clinton but compromised for Colin Powell - 1 native american from Washington that was suppose to vote for Clinton but voted for Faith Spotted Eagle There were two people from Minnesota that were going to go Bernie and one guy in Colorado that was going to go Kasich but they had their votes invalidated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Recorded_faithless_electors
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Man, it's something to see Sanderistas doubling down on wanting to fault Hillary for Bernie electors choosing to be faithless. That's something special alright.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:It's a stupid narrative (even for JC and shrike) regardless All the faithless democratic electors were chosen in caucuses dominated by Bernie supporters, held so late in the primary that everyone but the craziest Sandersnistas knew it was over. Also you voted for Trump in loving Florida you moron. twodot posted:Your assertion that Clinton supporters were unwilling to engage in basic governance necessary for the party to function does seem very relevant and damning for Clinton supporters to me. Like maybe Bernouts are idiots, but at least they tried. (edit: Perhaps more clearly, was their strategy explicitly to foist this task on Bernie supporters, who they trusted to do the work they weren't willing to do, or did they just not care who got chosen as electors?) It's not the Bernouts' fault they chose faithless electors, it's Clinton's fault she didn't win the meaningless caucus. Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Man, it's something to see Sanderistas doubling down on wanting to fault Hillary for Bernie electors choosing to be faithless. elector, it was literally one guy but hey it's great we've managed to discover the ur-berniebro I guess Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 03:15 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
4 out of 8 but what's fudging numbers between leftists
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:^^^All the faithless democratic electors were chosen in caucuses dominated by Bernie supporters, held so late in the primary that everyone but the craziest Sandersnistas knew it was over. So explain to me how 3 of the 5 faithless electors that were suppose to vote for Hillary ended up voting for loving Colin Powell.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's not the Bernouts' fault they chose faithless electors, it's Clinton's fault she didn't win the meaningless caucus. Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:4 out of 8 but what's fudging numbers between leftists I definitely see the resemblance between Colin Powell and Bernie Sanders now that you suggest it. Almost twins really.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:4 out of 8 but what's fudging numbers between leftists well if we're going to include the invalidated ones it's 3 out of 10 so back at you
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Among my more left leaning friends, the narrative that 'the democrats are a waste' is pretty darn popular. In particular one shared an article where Pelosi was quoted saying things along the lines of 'abortion access is becoming less of priority', but within the context of not immediately turning potential candidates from the party if they're anti-abortion, citing some guy in Pennsylvania who is a Democrat, pro-life, but also votes to keep Planned Parenthood, contreception, etc. We chatted for a bit on this, and the main thread I noticed where I think we differed was that I'm ok with that guy considering himself a Democrat. I'm ok with Clinton saying 'yeah I'm part of the resistance'. Namely because I don't think you're going to find perfect candidates everywhere, and we're at a very scary time where we need at least logical people in office. For him tho, for every person like the Pennsylvania dude in office, that's just another person that isn't Left enough, and is therefore isn't going to get things done, isn't going to win elections, etc. So I'm curious how much that stands up to data (if it exists) on elections. I imagine far left people don't run for office frequently for a multitude of reasons, but is there any data to suggest that what happened between Clinton & Bernie- the lefty beat out by centery candidate- happens nationwide for lower offices as well?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:05 |
|
|
I can see this self-deception that seems endemic to Bernie voters about basic facts of the election becoming an issue in 2020 and becoming a more general leftist "stabbed in the back" cultural myth a la Chapo Trap House "actually the Russians aren't that bad compared to hated Killary" bullshit. But again, I suspect most of these extreme Sanders-supporters are 100% white males and don't have to worry about deportations or healthcare for women.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:19
|
|