|
Venom Snake posted:I think this at the very least should stop people from freaking out about Hill 2020. She knows she couldn't win another primary lmao AKTSCHUALLY she's gonna run with chelsea and bill as a weird 3 person ticket
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/okayplayer/status/868829222046883840
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:I mean, it was an organization that she'd had immense influence over for decades. So that does check out. She also has an incredible affinity for blaming everything elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:https://twitter.com/Naseeoh/status/870001336749744128 Iv never said that Obama was a smashing success; it's the opposite. He totally let the party infrastructure rot in favor of his own campaigns and orgs. I dislike him as much as I dislike Hillary for that exact reason. He could have gotten rid of DWS at any point but chose not to. He's a loving idiot 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
bernie owns part the infinity https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/870021835320172545
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Iv never said that Obama was a smashing success; it's the opposite. He totally let the party infrastructure rot in favor of his own campaigns and orgs. I dislike him as much as I dislike Hillary for that exact reason. i don't think obama "let the party infrastructure rot" so much as the infrastructure was already irreparably rotten and he simply worked around it. there are so many states where the same typical people established themselves as gatekeepers on particular sets of voters or issues and presidential campaigns would be forced to hand them money - obama just said "gently caress that" and built a parallel operation that simply did everything himself. which i generally think was the right move. suffice to say the party's structure in many places is too in the pocket of political interests mostly intent on ruling a powerless fiefdom to deal appropriately with the modern world of professionalized campaigns.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Joementum posted:bernie owns part the infinity if only he worked on his campaign prep as much as his twitter game
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i don't think obama "let the party infrastructure rot" so much as the infrastructure was already irreparably rotten and he simply worked around it. there are so many states where the same typical people established themselves as gatekeepers on particular sets of voters or issues and presidential campaigns would be forced to hand them money - obama just said "gently caress that" and built a parallel operation that simply did everything himself. which i generally think was the right move. I'm glad it's paid off with the GOP holding control over all 3 branches of government
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:I'm glad it's paid off with the GOP holding control over all 3 branches of government i wouldn't say those two things are really related lest we forget, this not the first time the democrats have found themselves in the wilderness even in recent history
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Joementum posted:bernie owns part the infinity Bernie's like cream, he's so topical.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i wouldn't say those two things are really related The president is the leader of the party. He chose to neglect the partys success and chose to promote his own. Running two good presidential campaigns does not absolve him of the failures that occurred on his watch.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i don't think obama "let the party infrastructure rot" so much as the infrastructure was already irreparably rotten and he simply worked around it. there are so many states where the same typical people established themselves as gatekeepers on particular sets of voters or issues and presidential campaigns would be forced to hand them money - obama just said "gently caress that" and built a parallel operation that simply did everything himself. which i generally think was the right move. suffice to say the party's structure in many places is too in the pocket of political interests mostly intent on ruling a powerless fiefdom to deal appropriately with the modern world of professionalized campaigns. building his own personal parallel political operation dedicated solely to his own reelection worked passably well for him, but few other Dems have the resources to build a whole new personal campaign infrastructure
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
hillary would do even worse in a 2020 primary, she has even fewer allies in the dnc and she's lost twice that doesn't mean she won't loving try though
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
UHD posted:hillary would do even worse in a 2020 primary, she has even fewer allies in the dnc and she's lost twice i hope she does because it will only help whoevers running against her
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:i hope she does because it will only help whoevers running against her Actually yeah, I agree, a decisive defeat of Hillary in the primary would be a pretty clear signal that things were different this time around. That said... I'd rather not risk it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:The president is the leader of the party. He chose to neglect the partys success and chose to promote his own. Running two good presidential campaigns does not absolve him of the failures that occurred on his watch. the president didn't "neglect the party's success." the downballot losing was not some deliberate strategy. it's not like he didn't fundraise a ton of money for the downballot, or campaign a lot when he was asked to do so. what he didn't do was fix a fundamentally broken party structure, which is really an impossible task. to be useful, the party needs to be essentially dissolved and totally revamped to eliminate the iron chokehold influential morons have on the county and state parties. the obama campaign in 2008 and 2012 recognized that state parties, in their current structure, are obsolete and chose to go around them and run a good campaign rather than watch their funds and staff get siphoned into doing stupid poo poo that doesn't serve the interest of electing democrats
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Actually yeah, I agree, a decisive defeat of Hillary in the primary would be a pretty clear signal that things were different this time around. you never know when those pesky minorities who live in states where their votes really shouldn't count anyway might derail the great hope (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:the president didn't "neglect the party's success." the downballot losing was not some deliberate strategy. it's not like he didn't fundraise a ton of money for the downballot, or campaign a lot when he was asked to do so. what he didn't do was fix a fundamentally broken party structure, which is really an impossible task. to be useful, the party needs to be essentially dissolved and totally revamped to eliminate the iron chokehold influential morons have on the county and state parties. the obama campaign in 2008 and 2012 recognized that state parties, in their current structure, are obsolete and chose to go around them and run a good campaign rather than watch their funds and staff get siphoned into doing stupid poo poo that doesn't serve the interest of electing democrats "It would be hard" is not an excuse for neglect. Even if said neglect was unintentional.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
if that's true then the dems imploding was going to happen eventually and obama just delayed it for eight years
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:building his own personal parallel political operation dedicated solely to his own reelection worked passably well for him, but few other Dems have the resources to build a whole new personal campaign infrastructure i've worked on 10 campaigns in 8 states and the one thing in common is that they've run more smoothly the more independent they are able to be from the state party. state parties rarely provide resources of any significance, the only reason campaigns get lashed to them is as a legal funding mechanism to allow federal committees to contribute
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:"It would be hard" is not an excuse for neglect. Even if said neglect was unintentional. it's not a "it would be hard," it's a "obama doesn't have the power." the people who would decide whether or not to reform are the same ones who would find themselves losing their positions if the reforms succeeded. it is a fundamentally impossible task, short of everyone dying.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:it is a fundamentally impossible task, short of everyone dying. ...go on
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
zegermans posted:you never know when those pesky minorities who live in states where their votes really shouldn't count anyway might derail the great hope why are you deliberately trying to make the suck zone suck? do you have some personal issues going on with your life? do you want to talk about it? we're all friendly here in cspam
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
UHD posted:if that's true then the dems imploding was going to happen eventually and obama just delayed it for eight years
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Nice
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
fuckin reagan broke all the brains
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i've worked on 10 campaigns in 8 states and the one thing in common is that they've run more smoothly the more independent they are able to be from the state party. state parties rarely provide resources of any significance, the only reason campaigns get lashed to them is as a legal funding mechanism to allow federal committees to contribute the state parties should be fixed, or replaced leaving a poo poo infrastructure in place and instead making candidates spend resources on replacing it is a massive inefficiency it's the political equivalent of "fixing" education with charter schools and school choice instead of making public schools better
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
the problem with state parties is not that they have too little money, or have received too little support from the national party. the problem is the people who lead them - becoming a leader in a state party relies on being friends with a lot of people, and has absolutely no relation whatsoever to experience or competence. and those leaders will typically choose to bring in loyalists to cement their control rather than actually improve the party's activites, in fact many state parties effectively do nothing other than fundraise to pay for their own salaries. this is, fundamentally, not "fixable." and there's no real reason why we need to fix it, instead we need to clearly detach campaigns from the party infrastructure, developing methods to allow them to finance and function independently while parties are relegated to simple logistical roles.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:the state parties should be fixed, or replaced the thing is, there's no inefficiency because the candidates aren't replacing anything that already exists or could be more efficiently done by the party. the only thing might be coordinated campaigns in certain areas, and that sometimes will go through county/state parties depending on the finance laws. in va i have seen it go through a PAC because their finance laws for local races are like lol. if anyone can develop some magic method of fixing or replacing state parties, i'd love to hear it. as far as i can tell, they are essentially permanently entrenched.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
state parties seem to work out ok for the republicans, maybe we should ask them
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Joementum posted:state parties seem to work out ok for the republicans, maybe we should ask them they work fine for them since they don't care about ideology, just getting as much control and money as possible, so the phenomenon CC describes doesn't prevent them from carrying out their purpose
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Joementum posted:state parties seem to work out ok for the republicans, maybe we should ask them i doubt it, and i don't think electoral success in an individual state indicates whether or not the state party itself is actually a competent organization
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:they work fine for them since they don't care about ideology the Republican Party is much, much more concerned about ideology than the democrats are
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:the problem with state parties is not that they have too little money, or have received too little support from the national party. the problem is the people who lead them - becoming a leader in a state party relies on being friends with a lot of people, and has absolutely no relation whatsoever to experience or competence. and those leaders will typically choose to bring in loyalists to cement their control rather than actually improve the party's activites, in fact many state parties effectively do nothing other than fundraise to pay for their own salaries. this is, fundamentally, not "fixable." and there's no real reason why we need to fix it, instead we need to clearly detach campaigns from the party infrastructure, developing methods to allow them to finance and function independently while parties are relegated to simple logistical roles. sure it's fixable - boot out the crony networks and replace them with people who have political objectives beyond paying their own salaries if it's not fixable, then abolish them altogether and recreate them totally. no point in having them suck up money if they're useless. but having common infrastructure and logistics that political newbies can hook into is actually super important, and letting local and state races wither on the vine because "the candidate could just come up with their own individual political operation if they want to win" is incredibly elitist
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Joementum posted:the Republican Party is much, much more concerned about ideology than the democrats are Yeah I was gonna say.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:why are you deliberately trying to make the suck zone suck? do you have some personal issues going on with your life? do you want to talk about it? we're all friendly here in cspam Anyone who willingly posts on ESS is clearly not right in the head
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
By the way I was involved with a state party and that way CC's describing them is so accurate it hurts.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I don't see how you reconcile something like Medicare Part C and single payer. why not? My preference would be for nationalized healthcare ala the u.k. but having private insurers adminster single-payer under Medicare has worked out pretty much, given that the government still sets reimbursement rates and insurance premiums. when I scoped out the medicare plans being offered this year there were plenty of supplemental plans that charged nothing beyond the Part B premiums and yet had reasonable caps on out-of-pocket costs, like $2500/year (as opposed to my crap ACA plan limited to one hospital + a $7k deductible/year). weird how "pragmatists" and incrementalists are OK with ACA's massive deductibles, or the 3x multiplier in premium costs for near-olds, but the modest costs under medicare are somehow a bridge too far.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
Rastor posted:Everything you can do for money, doing it is moral and just. Being paid to do something is sufficient reason to do it, and nobody should ever dare question why you are doing that thing. you're doing that thing where if you imagine that we only had more compassionate capitalist overlords, everything would be OK
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2017 22:57
|
|