|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
The only people unduly insistent on ideological purity tests are the centrists, the problem is that the test they're applying is that a candidate may not threaten the ruling class in any significant way.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
Condiv posted:basically, hillary's campaign was for old people. she was not interested in pandering to "self-interested" college attending millenials, she was not interested in pandering to young black people, or young poc in general. the only group she specifically targeted (and increased her vote share with over obama) was rich old people. and that's just not a path forward. this isn't true at all and her primary campaign was explicitly aimed at turning out African Americans to the point where she had the opposite base that she had in 2008: he completely lost the white working class to Bernie but won by huge margins among AAs. She more or less became the candidate for minorities and white people voted accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Serious question after 2009: Why the gently caress do we want Blue Dogs after they hosed over healthcare reform and still got their asses kicked the next year by the goddamned Tea Party? And as someone who's fundraised for Planned Parenthood this year and been just been waiting for full defunding on the federal level, why the hell would we allow anyone to compromise on basic human rights and healthcare that should have been settled decades ago? Some things shouldn't be compromised. Maybe if the Democrats actually loving stood for something they'd win more elections?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Typo posted:this isn't true at all and her primary campaign was explicitly aimed at turning out African Americans to the point where she had the opposite base that she had in 2008: he completely lost the white working class to Bernie but won by huge margins among AAs. She more or less became the candidate for minorities and white people voted accordingly. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/clinton-votes-african-americans-latinos-women-white-voters/index.html sorry, but hillary was down in vote share vs obama in every category cept rich and white. she was down with black people and latinx entirely because she was not the candidate for minorities, just like she was weaker with every other group cept rich people cause she was only the candidate for rich people. and dems are now chasing rich people again with their blue dogs plan. they never learn...
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:Serious question after 2009: Why the gently caress do we want Blue Dogs after they hosed over healthcare reform and still got their asses kicked the next year by the goddamned Tea Party? winning is more important than anything. we must win at any cost. even if the dems become just a hair less racist than trump, we must vote for them so they can do good!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Typo's version of the story does totally justify "look the real problem was we paid too much attention to minorities" as a democratic strategy going forward, though Ex Panera, Victoria, baby
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Condiv posted:we must win at any cost. not if it means taxing the donors
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:not only did ossof get less votes than a figment of someone's imagination, he was outperformed percentage wise by Hillary Clinton in his district This just proves that Hillary should run for Georgia Senate. checkmate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
it is absolutely fascinating that the exact same brand of dipshit on either side of the Democratic fissure looks at the candidate who chucked the disproportionately-minority working class under the bus in the name of appealing to suburban white people and concludes "her problem was she wasn't racist enough"
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Condiv posted:http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/clinton-votes-african-americans-latinos-women-white-voters/index.html She was down in vote share with AA because you can't match turnout for the first African American president
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Typo posted:She was down in vote share with AA because you can't match turnout for the first African American president and your excuse for every other demographic?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Typo posted:She was down in vote share with AA because you can't match turnout for the first African American president Wow, that's sort of insulting towards black people, isn't it? You think they wouldn't vote as much for a white president who actually cared about their issues?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
The funny thing is that moving right will STILL lose the Democrats seats because everybody in the country that doesn't wear a lanyard is sick of the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and your excuse for every other demographic? http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/29/hillary-clinton-wins-latino-vote-but-falls-below-2012-support-for-obama/ her margins with latinos is pretty much the same as Obama's 2008 margins with Latinos quote:Reports from Florida, Nevada and elsewhere showed strong early-voter turnout among Latinos. And the national exit poll suggests that Latinos did make up a larger share of voters in 2016 than previously: 11% this year, up from 10% in 2012 and 9% in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:
what is it about your dipshit brain that thinks offering Americans houses, healthcare and jobs is "ideological purity"? does it make your status as a permanent political loser easier to bear?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Typo posted:http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/29/hillary-clinton-wins-latino-vote-but-falls-below-2012-support-for-obama/ um, she did worse than 2008 obama vs "moderate" mccain. this is versus a guy who literally wants to build a wall and charge mexico for it. that's not a good sign at all and in fact shows she's not representing the concerns of minorities worth a drat
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Wow, that's sort of insulting towards black people, isn't it? You think they wouldn't vote as much for a white president who actually cared about their issues? Come on, now! Hillary won big against Trump in her own group, white women! Didn't she? ...oh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:what is it about your dipshit brain that thinks offering Americans houses, healthcare and jobs is "ideological purity"? does it make your status as a permanent political loser easier to bear? You're tilting at windmills here. I'm saying if a human runs for congress in a conservative district and they're not ideologically perfect that's not a problem. Just saying "we want to offer Americans housing, healthcare and jobs" is the same meaningless dribble that was the 2016 platform, isn't it? Democrats need believable messengers and I'm arguing an ideologically flawed but human one is better than a robot or ceding the district to Republicans. I'd rather we risk getting a human in congress who's right 90% of the time over running a worse candidate that's closer to the desires of the out of district base.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'd rather we risk getting a human in congress who's right 90% of the time over running a worse candidate that's closer to the desires of the out of district base. And if that 10% wrongness kills us all? How many millions of people need to die before you decide to actually take a stand? How many iraqi civilians? How many uninsured americans? You spineless Democrats are the worst. America is deeply conservative because the Democrats have failed as political party, turning that around to use it as justification for continuing to be lovely is just 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're tilting at windmills here. I'm saying if a human runs for congress in a conservative district and they're not ideologically perfect that's not a problem. actually, more liebermans that backstab us and sabotage our laws and initiatives should be an extremely low priority for the party and the DCCC should not be focusing on gathering and running liebermans and JEB!s to try to beat the republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Just saying "we want to offer Americans housing, healthcare and jobs" is the same meaningless dribble that was the 2016 platform, isn't it? loving lol if you think this is the message the average voter took from the 2016 Dem campaign. How about we actually try pushing that message this time and not "More minority representation in corporate boardrooms!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're tilting at windmills here. I'm saying if a human runs for congress in a conservative district and they're not ideologically perfect that's not a problem. are you insane too? Don't say it. Do it. Have a platform. The dems offered jack poo poo and they got jack poo poo in return. Offer an alternative. You failed at this. You continue to fail at this. You would rather continue to fail at this than risk actually using the s-word.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:loving lol if you think this is the message the average voter took from the 2016 Dem campaign. actually, that wasn't the dem message for voters this was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H51HuNX41Fg
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:And if that 10% kills us all? That's fair, you're right. I'd still litmus test on nuclear war and climate. But I'd probably be wrong to do so. What about you, would you accept a candidate for House that's the perfect socialist, very charismatic and otherwise perfect for you but somehow is a climate skeptic?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
How many socialist climate deniers do you know, Trab
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Condiv posted:actually, that wasn't the dem message for voters Jesus loving christ at the end there's a moment of self awareness there where she goes "I wonder if I'm actually hurting her chances of winning?" I'm...at a loss for words.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:are you insane too? Don't say it. Do it. Have a platform. The dems offered jack poo poo and they got jack poo poo in return. My arguement mostly is they actually did offer a platform of pretty good poo poo and the party at large is actually tackling the issues. Democrats are talking about climate, automation, healthcare etc. Their messengers suck. That's the issue. The problem wasn't the 2016 platform, it was no one believed it when it came out of candidates mouths. We need better messengers and being human is step one. We can take a good messenger and make them change their mind on an issue but as history shows us, we can't make someone a good messenger no matter how they try. Democrats representing conservative districts should be to the right of the party by their very nature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:My arguement mostly is they actually did offer a platform of pretty good poo poo and the party at large is actually tackling the issues. Democrats are talking about climate, automation, healthcare etc. Their messengers suck. That's the issue. The problem wasn't the 2016 platform, it was no one believed it when it came out of candidates mouths. Maybe a leftist message does better in conservative districts than people think though? Emphasize the economy and sideline the identity politic BS and I bet you could flip a lot of districts. Even the GOP base is sick of handouts to the rich.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Maybe a leftist message does better in conservative districts than people think though? Emphasize the economy and sideline the identity politic BS and I bet you could flip a lot of districts. Great, and if we can find local candidates who want to run campaigns like that in conservative districts, that'd be wonderful. If we can't, we shouldn't throw away human candidates who fail to live up to that standard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's fair, you're right. I'd still litmus test on nuclear war and climate. But I'd probably be wrong to do so. I actually don't really care about climate legislation because there's nothing we can do to stop it at this point anyways. Hell I would have compromised for Hillary if she had done any of the following 1. Wanted to stop fighting wars 2. Came out in favor for single payer 3. Taxed the 1% like you think the people giving litmus tests are on the left but I'm wholly willing to compromise all my ideals if it means we could have some meaningful positive change, even if it meant voting for a slave owner. hell, climate skepticism is probably the easiest thing to compromise on because reality will win that one easily without my help
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I actually don't really care about climate legislation because there's nothing we can do to stop it at this point anyways. Noooooooooooooooo you loving idiot, we need to be doing everything we can.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Noooooooooooooooo you loving idiot, we need to be doing everything we can. I'd rather people in America have access to healthcare today than try to play "manage the climate we've already hosed up" There are things we have the means and ability to do today. Stopping climate change isn't one of them. Providing healthcare, education, food, clean water, housing to all americans? Not dropping bombs overseas? Trivial by comparison
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I'd rather people in America have access to healthcare today than try to play "manage the climate we've already hosed up" We can do both!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:We can do both! We can worry about the long term survival of the species when the BBC stops coming over here to interview six year olds about how their parents eat rats to survive Like I'm relatively well off, I have access to health care, etc. I see how it can be "omg climate change is a huge issue we must do something!" But it's just silly to talk about climate change when people are dying by the thousands from our hosed up healthcare system. You're going to need a much better world to convince everyone it's worth saving.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
also it's entirely irrelevant because as far as I know there are no climate denying lefties helps that dealing with climate change basically requires us to be socialist 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
See this is a good example, even if someone ran for congress with NSF like opinions and opposed a US climate bill, we should probably still support them if they're human and a match for their district even if I'd really consider this a litmus test issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Uhh yes, if someone runs with on saving the tens of thousands of people dying today from bureaucratic bullshit is more important than reducing emissions you should support them outright, because it's a correct opinion. Also I never said anything about opposing a climate bill it's just not as important as feeding children. It doesn't surprise me that you don't feel the same way, as bad dems have the uncanny ability to be wrong about everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:See this is a good example, even if someone ran for congress with NSF like opinions and opposed a US climate bill, we should probably still support them if they're human and a match for their district even if I'd really consider this a litmus test issue. No, I'm not going to vote for idiots who ignore giant fuckoff issues like that. It's not a purity test to demand that my elected officials acknowledge that we're rapidly approaching the 2 Celsius threshold and that poo poo needs to be done, now, today. Funny enough, you can do this WHILE talking about jobs, because creating green jobs is a loving great dovetail of both causes, but you actually have to be sincere and not relegate it to a website "issues" section. NewForumSoftware posted:Uhh yes, if someone runs with on saving the tens of thousands of people dying today from bureaucratic bullshit is more important than reducing emissions you should support them outright, because it's a correct opinion. Stop making it a choice. It's not a choice. We can do more than one thing at a time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Stop making it a choice. It's not a choice. We're having a conversation about compromising/litmus tests for politicians. Would you refuse to vote for a climate denier if he had great opinions otherwise? If you voted for Hillary Clinton in the general I'd think long and hard about this one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:We're having a conversation about compromising for politicians. Would you refuse to vote for a climate denier if he had great opinions otherwise? If you voted for Hillary Clinton in the general I'd think long and hard about this one. No, obviously when it boils down to it, I'm going to be pragmatic. I live in a battleground state, I can't afford to be all offended about my vote. But that's a discussion to have when we have actual candidates to vote for. The entire point of this is to demand better from our officials not to go "Well they support my one pet issue, who gives a gently caress if they're terrible about other stuff that I don't care about."
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2017 22:06
|
|