|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Well well you ran so much farther than I expected with me stabbing you in the back the whole way, shame you ended up just shy of the finish line, I'm very disappointed in this failure on your part and it really calls your ability into question.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:When you say "obviously we can win" first ya need to actually, y'know, win. I'm open to being convinced by some wins on the board, but seems to me that until there's an actual labour majority this is spin and we have no idea how poo poo will play out. Corbyn or someone similar will get another shot, but what happens then. Can he hold on as long as Blair? He'll actually need time to get poo poo accomplished and entrenched? It's a fair question. I don't know the answer, and I don't think we can know from a six week stretch of campaigning and whatever-the-hell swingy UK polling numbers we happen to see. Hm, yes, the guy who had literally everything stacked against him at the outset and was trailing 20% in the polls only managed to close that gap to 2%, so surely there's nothing to be learned here. EDIT: yronic heroism posted:Chill bro. The very serious people haven't convinced me either. They have to own their loving losses. Both sides of this pissing match need to own their results. How is Blair not endorsing a better excuse than your hated Hilldawg fans whining about Bernie bros? Trump had plenty of Republicans not endorse him but still managed to get the votes he needed. I see that you're opining with great certainty on a topic you have no clue about. So basically you'll fit right in with the rest of the centrist crowd. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:When you say "obviously we can win" first ya need to actually, y'know, win. I'm open to being convinced by some wins on the board, but seems to me that until there's an actual labour majority this is spin and we have no idea how poo poo will play out. Corbyn or someone similar will get another shot, but what happens then. Can he hold on as long as Blair? He'll actually need time to get poo poo accomplished and entrenched? It's a fair question. I don't know the answer, and I don't think we can know from a six week stretch of campaigning and whatever-the-hell swingy UK polling numbers we happen to see. Also the absolute, and totally unjustified, arrogance that centrism would have done better. Not only have Labour beat every expectation "despite" (read: because of) having a leftist platform, they have outperformed, with the exception of 1997 and 2001 (coming on the heels of 18 years of Tory rule, and 2001 being nearly a tie), every previous election since 1970. Nearly fifty years. Again, despite every expectation (especially coming from the Blairites) of a crushing Tory majority of historical proportions just six weeks ago. You are a goddamned idiot. Stop posting. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Chill bro. The very serious people haven't convinced me either. They have to own their loving losses. Both sides of this pissing match need to own their results. How is Blair not endorsing a better excuse than your hated Hilldawg fans whining about Bernie bros? Trump had plenty of Republicans not endorse him but still managed to get the votes he needed. It wasn't just Blair. You are either being dishonest or you are clueless: https://twitter.com/BenSpielberg/status/872610744319311872 Elected labour MPs just last year voted 172-40 no confidence in Corbyn. And the main difference to Trump is that most of them didn't fall in line afterwards. And while he didn't win, the results pretty much guaranteed that there will be another election soon, and that the most draconian Tory changes are essentially DOA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I'm not really concerned with how things seem to you because you have the perceptive capability of a phytoplankton. Nice phytoplankton burn dude. Share it to your YouTube channel. Where did I ever say centrism would do better? Go ahead and check. I'll wait. Because I'm p sure all I said was this is drawing a sweeping conclusion from p limited data. I know that makes me technocratic swine or whatever, though, so I guess I'll just crawl off and die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Chill bro. The very serious people haven't convinced me either. They have to own their loving losses. Both sides of this pissing match need to own their results. How is Blair not endorsing a better excuse than your hated Hilldawg fans whining about Bernie bros? I am just spitballing here, but maybe....wait for it....it has something to do with the fact that unlike the Blairites Bernie loving endorsed Hillary and not one single politician from the Democratic Party campaigned against her? She was never stabbed in the back by her own party at all?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I guess I'll just crawl off and die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
Lol at "the voters didn't vote for me, I was betrayed" being equal to "literally, politicians from my own party are on the news disavowing my candidacy and claiming I would be a bad PM"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
I dunno, is it that centrist of a heresy to say when we talk about "beating expectations" that is essentially spin? Expectations are just that. Every very serious person beltway hack I ever laid eyes on loves to discuss the expectations game, hth. Edit: And who here would give a poo poo if it was some centrist shill who "beat expectations"? ( No one, because it's intrinsically a bullshit concept.) yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Lol at "the voters didn't vote for me, I was betrayed" being equal to "literally, politicians from my own party are on the news disavowing my candidacy and claiming I would be a bad PM" But Trump still overcame the latter, did he not? The voters still decide if they care or not about the opinions of Blair or whoever, so I'm not even sure why we are arguing about this penny ante bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
But we should probably learn from what improves our standing in the polls, no? That way we can do more of that, and less of other things we were doing when we lost hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:But Trump still overcame the latter, did he not? The voters still decide if they care or not about the opinions of Blair or whoever, so I'm not even sure why we are arguing about this penny ante bullshit. Trump lost the vote too tho, objectively he got fewer votes. He got in on a technicality because of our quirky electoral system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Lol at "the voters didn't vote for me, I was betrayed" being equal to "literally, politicians from my own party are on the news disavowing my candidacy and claiming I would be a bad PM" Better yet, post the Angela Eagle quotes. Bloodthirsty rear end Judas shits tried to put the knife in Corbyn and he only became stronger. The man is literally the physical embodiment of my Tekken main:  Arrows in his back, still the champion of the night with all odds against him. Corbyn will be king before I'm in the loving grave.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But we should probably learn from what improves our standing in the polls, no? I agree with that. Corbyn earned another shot, no doubt. By the same token Clinton definitely earned the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But we should probably learn from what improves our standing in the polls, no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:But Trump still overcame the latter, did he not? The voters still decide if they care or not about the opinions of Blair or whoever, so I'm not even sure why we are arguing about this penny ante bullshit. First, name a single major republican figure that still openly opposed Trump by the time of the election. Now, try to compare the names you come up with to 172 mps voting no confidence. Corbyn and labour were toxic. And then corbyn releases the most left-wing platform in decades and suddenly Tories lose their majority. A coincidence, i imagine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I dunno, is it that centrist of a heresy to say when we talk about "beating expectations" that is essentially spin? Expectations are just that. Every very serious person beltway hack I ever laid eyes on loves to discuss the expectations game, hth. Yes indeed, why should we learn from unexpected things that happen?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The New Left turned against New Deal liberalism because the primary proponents of New Deal liberalism were also the primary supporters of the Vietnam War. The larger public turned against it because of inflation and racial panic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/how-democrats-killed-their-populist-soul/504710/ quote:Indeed, a revolution had occurred. But the contours of that revolution would not be clear for decades. In 1974, young liberals did not perceive financial power as a threat, having grown up in a world where banks and big business were largely kept under control. It was the government—through Vietnam, Nixon, and executive power—that organized the political spectrum. By 1975, liberalism meant, as Carr put it, “where you were on issues like civil rights and the war in Vietnam.” With the exception of a few new members, like Miller and Waxman, suspicion of finance as a part of liberalism had vanished.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Trump lost the vote too tho, objectively he got fewer votes. He got in on a technicality because of our quirky electoral system. How far do you want to take that? Because then it sounds like Clinton did halfway decent and I assume that's the guillotine for you itt. The real answer is both sides know the quirks of the system and campaign accordingly. Never Trump stuff from within his party did not stop Trump from waging a winning campaign. He held onto everything he needed to as a Republican.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
The modern rhetoric of social justice is simply an extension of the way rich people have always seen the worse off - uncultured, stupid and disposable. The constantly shifting and opaque rhetoric of social justice/idpol serves exactly one purpose - to act as a barrier to entry and keep out the riff-raff, the separate the impure and evil from the pure and enlightened. The behavior up thread, were a Trump voter who recognized their fault, was attacked and rejected, is basically proof of that - the goal wasn't to include, but exclude. The treatment of liberals towards rurals is basically an extension of the way the rich have always thought about the poor. Only this time, minorities get a pass, because white guilt. As soon as white liberals stop feeling guilty, they're gonna treat PoC and minorities the same way they treat poor whites now. "Oh, have you heard, they don't even know what 'intersectionality' means!" "We really should just gas them all, and be done with it"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yes indeed, why should we learn from unexpected things that happen? Cool story david brooks Tell gail collins I say hi Edit: meant to write Maureen Dowd. That was possibly unfair to Gail Collins who I don't remember anything about. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
"oh but don't you see, they could just read this free blog on feminism for everyone blah blah blah" Even if you give a $100 Calculus textbook to someone, doesn't mean they're now an expert in calculus. Simply having the free time and the cultural background, to engage with the modern monolithic rhetoric of social justice, is itself a demonstration of privilege. The rejection of anyone who's not 'up to speed' is a manifestation of classism, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:How far do you want to take that? Because then it sounds like Clinton did halfway decent and I assume that's the guillotine for you itt. Clinton's opponent was a pussygrabbing rapist with no experience, it should have been a blowout. yronic heroism posted:I agree with that. Corbyn earned another shot, no doubt. By the same token Clinton definitely earned the opposite. Well he will probably get that chance because it's unlikely May or whichever Tory knifes everyone for her spot will be able to form a government. The blair wing is kissing the ring now, so we'll likely get to see if Corbyn's momentum will continue and what he might accomplish when prominent Labour politicians aren't on TV wringing their hands that Corbs will redistribute your toothbrush to the entire neighborhood and appoint Al-Baghdadi to the cabinet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:First, name a single major republican figure that still openly opposed Trump by the time of the election. I seem to recall a bunch of republicans yanking their endorsements in October. No endorsements from the Bushes. 41 even let it be known he would vote for the wife of the guy that beat him. As far as coincidence goes: If you're right Corbyn will clearly win next time, right? I think it's fair to say it's good for there to be more than one data point before we declare the end of history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
amusingly the ills that rudatron diagnoses which represent a certain type of politics advanced by a certain echo chamber of Hilldawg fans pretty much tracks with some of the poo poo itt: don't say anything questioning, or you're concern trolling... pretty much substitute Bernie bro for centrist or whatever and it's the same poo poo the world over.
yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
The Bush's didn't endorse because Trump basically emasculated Jeb on live television, the GOP fell into line come general election time. See: Ted Cruz, another guy who Trump really took the town, kissing the ring. It's not a valid comparison to Corbyn, who has had a lot of his MPs try to throw him out, literally steal the party leadership election from him, and has been on the end of an incredible media beating:  source: http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/general-election/media-coverage-of-the-2017-general-election-campaign-report-3/
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
I accept it's not a one to one comparison, but I also think it's not that relevant. Either you hold your coalition together in politics or you don't. If you shed 2-3 percent because someone doesn't like you while gaining that same amount from voters who like what you're up to, that's all baked into the cake, right? It still goes to whether you can win/govern.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
There isn't a single Trump policy that hasn't been something promised by GOP representatives at some point or another, the only difference being that he's been more crass and unwilling to cloak the full implications behind dog whistles. Corbyn faces entrenched, ideological opposition to basically everything he says, because the leadership of Labor has, for the past couple of decades, being corrupted by moneyed interests. It's become less the party of the working class, and more the party of liberal minded professionals. This is 'blairism', something that the base of Labor has finally got fed up with. The only reason Corbyn is in the position he is, is because he represents everything the blairites aren't. He's not and was never an ambitious person, ala Trump, planning for several cycles to take leadership, but someone thrust into the limelight because he was the put in the leadership contest on a whim - and then, inexplicably, won.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
I can even track the argument here. If Corbyn did well by massively outperforming his expectations, Hillary actually did equally well by massively underperforming?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
No, the argument is "expectations" is a bullshit artificial pundit circle jerk to begin with. It's a little surprising to see it given that much currency itt but at the end of the day maybe everyone's secretly a Very Serious Person. The guillotine thirsts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
I'll lay it out: 1) Very serious people argue that leftism is bad because of the consensus expectation. 2) The consensus expectation is proven to be very wrong. 3) Leftists rush to point out that the expectations of the left were wrong and so should never be used against the left again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:No, the argument is "expectations" is a bullshit artificial pundit circle jerk to begin with. It's a little surprising to see it given that much currency itt but at the end of the day maybe everyone's secretly a Very Serious Person. The guillotine thirsts. What point are you trying to make? Obviously an outright win would have been better, but you keep ignoring the context of this election and the drastic shift in polling that occurred in a short amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
Well if he didn't he might have to consider that he's wrong
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
It's fairly simple. When centrism does horribly and loses, it's irrelevant that it didn't win, it's still the best choice because the left would obviously do even worse. When that proves to be wrong and the left spanks the centrists, hmmm well actually the only thing that matters is the left didn't win outright so the centrists are again the best choice. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
In case people were still wondering why Democrats pretend corbyn doesn't exist, Obama's campaign manager was a lead on May's campaign. And he's great at predictions: https://mobile.twitter.com/trumwill/status/872973233905172480
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Verus posted:I just don't understand why liberals need to keep defending Hillary. Yes, she was objectively the better choice on election day and I voted for her, but why the gently caress do so many democrats have to try to act like none of her obvious, disgusting problems are real? I hear your point, and I don't know / assume you're referring to me. I'm not a Dem; I not a Repub. Both make me sick. Both have sold out the working class. which is what? 98% of the entire population. The fact that HRC even got nominated shows have off the rail the Dems have gone, and it started decades ago. The Dems are a corporate elitist party that puts forth a couple of token progressive polices, many of which are irrelevant b/c (for one example) the Supreme Court has already ruled on it. I'm out of the process. I still vote, always, but only for 3rd party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
I will vote dem because now Corbyn shows we can win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
rudatron posted:'Vietnam' only makes sense if you ignore that war-adventurism/pro-imperialism of blarite/clintons. It was absolutely entwinned with class, and in particular, the experience of the kids of rich people: Vietnam is probably the singled greatest factor driving apart the student driven New Left and the union backed Johnson administration. I'm not sure what you think military conflicts occurring many decades later has to do with that point. You shouldn't brush over one of the most consequential and divisive conflicts in American history when you're trying to explain the trajectory of the modern Democratic party. The McGovern–Fraser Commission, which transformed the nomination process in 1972 and which effectively sidelined the power of the unions, was a direct response to mass student rioting - largely against the war - during the 1968 convention. Meanwhile, Great Society programs caused working class white Americans to increasingly associate liberal tax and spend policies with greater welfare for black people, and with controversial programs like school busing. They weren't crazy about students doing drugs, burning flags and having lots of sex either. That primed them to support Nixon, Wallace and Ronald Reagan. There are plenty of criticisms to make about the post 1970s Democrats and progressives in general but distorting the history here isn't particularly helpful. The Democratic party didn't crack-up because one manifestly villainous or stupid group of people suddenly lost their minds - the entire political and social structure of the USA was shook to its foundations between roughly 1968-1974 and the foundations of the New Deal voting coalition was one of the casualties (though large parts of the New Deal have survived as legacy programs to this day).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Trump lost the vote too tho, objectively he got fewer votes. He got in on a technicality because of our quirky electoral system. Actually he got significantly more votes in the states that actually matter, you appear to be one of those uneducated persons that look at the overall popular vote in an EC system, which is a very dumb thing to do indeed. Be smarter! You describe his win as a technicality which is also very ignorant. You are smarter than this! It's literally how elections work in the US:, you do not vote for president. That isn't a technicality in any sense of the word whatsoever. It would be like saying the opposing team won on a technicality because they scored more baskets. It's literally the name of the game!!! This seems to be a very hard concept for some people here to understand, and I'm not sure why: the popular vote means literally nothing in the US, it tells you nothing, it is nothing, full stop. It does not mean "Hillary would have won" because, as any political science expert would tell you, voting strategies and patterns are inherently tired to the process. We do not know the outcome of a theoretical election that uses the PV because everything would have been different from day 1. Like you realize this isnt changing right? The PV will not matter in 2020, it will not matter in 2024, and it will not matter in 2028. Hopefully this has all been of some help!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
rudatron posted:"oh but don't you see, they could just read this free blog on feminism for everyone blah blah blah" Yea it's really weird how so called leftists want to throw poor white people under the bus because of the grave mistake of having bad political opinoins. As if they were given the education and tools needed to form Correct Opinoins in rural Alabama. It's team sport politics and nothing more. It certainly isn't progressive. It certainly isn't leftist. It's disgusting and shows you that many "leftists" are just as reactionary as the people they hate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 17:00
|
|