|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Fulchrum posted:Russia, the Media, sexism, voter suppression, an ongoing smear campaign that lasted 30 years, the profligation of fake news and an alternate self enforcing reality bubble - I assume you think that somehow, these were in her control? Man, it's almost like winning a primary doesn't translate directly into success during the general!! It's almost as if the demographics of the voting population of each are totally different!
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:I think all of those things combined hurt her less than her total failure of a campaign strategy and her lack of charisma. You are seriously trying to pretend that every single major media platform spending more time on the buttery males than any other single story that year had no significant impact. BadOptics posted:Man, it's almost like winning a primary doesn't translate directly into success during the general!! It's almost as if the demographics of the voting population of each are totally different! DO the people supporting a socialist really want to try playing that card?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You are seriously trying to pretend that every single major media platform spending more time on the buttery mails than any other single story that year had no significant impact. Maybe if she knew she had this major scandal haunting her recent past, she shouldn't have run?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Maybe if she knew she had this major scandal haunting her recent past, she shouldn't have run? And it surely was a major scandal and not invented out of loving nothing by Republicans just to scream about to try and drag her down. Now you're just adopting right wing talking points to defend a point you know is indefensible. You know goddamn well that if it wasn't emails, it would be Sneezegate, and the media would have devoted to the second the exact same amount of time to it over the entire year because they were sucking dick for whataboutism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Well, it might have something to do with her getting more votes in the primary. Yeah but why was she presented as the only option? A bunch of people in the party apparatus made choices to endorse, support, fundraise, and not run against someone known to have high negatives and frankly who ran a shitshow primary campaign eight years earlier. This is the "invisible primary" as it's known, which occurs before the first primary votes are cast. Probably Elizabeth Warren and others didn't run because they were shut out at that level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:And it surely was a major scandal and not invented out of loving nothing by Republicans just to scream about to try and drag her down. Hillary lost, fair and square. Accept it. She lost to a man who had a scandal list longer than hers by an order of magnitude. Do you honestly believe that happened due to outside factors alone? Or will you admit she was a loving lovely candidate with a terrible black hole of charisma for a personality?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
hillary is a fckin loser 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Hillary lost, fair and square. Accept it. She lost to a man who had a scandal list longer than hers by an order of magnitude. Do you honestly believe that happened due to outside factors alone? Or will you admit she was a loving lovely candidate with a terrible black hole of charisma for a personality? I'm saying its a combination of the two with the former playing more of a part. I'm also saying that Bernie's failure of a primary campaign played way the hell more of a part in his losing the primary than Hillary's did in losing the general, so its time to cut this "Bernie was cheated" BS out. Also, when you collaborate with a hostile foreign power to steal the election, you didn't do loving ANYTHING "fair and square". No part of any of what Trump did to win the election can be possibly be construed as "fair and square".
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Also, when you collaborate with a hostile foreign power to steal the election, you didn't do loving ANYTHING "fair and square". No part of any of what Trump did to win the election can be possibly be construed as "fair and square". I didn't realize Mr. Mueller had finished his work! Care to link the findings?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I didn't realize Mr. Mueller had finished his work! Care to link the findings? And we're right back to spewing right wing talking points just to defend the indefensible. loving hell. I would have thought you wouldn't try this after Don Jr. released the emails where he admitted to collaborating with Russia in order to fix the election against Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhrAhkWnKq8
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
fck off wit hthe right wing talking points, sky is blue gravity makes stuff fall down its bullshit
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:fck off wit hthe right wing talking points, sky is blue gravity makes stuff fall down its bullshit "Trump did nothing wrong and ran the most scrupulous, ethical and above board campaign ever, and that is a scientific fact" - a Leftist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Well, it might have something to do with her getting more votes in the primary. The DNC curates who's allowed to vote in the primary, making it unrepresentative of the voting public as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Holy poo poo get a load of this fuckin' Fulchrum guy. Imagine caping for Hilary Clinton at this point in history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
btw Bernie would have won
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:Holy poo poo get a load of this fuckin' Fulchrum guy. Imagine caping for
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:The DNC curates who's allowed to vote in the primary, making it unrepresentative of the voting public as a whole. How dare the Democrats try to say that Democrats should choose the Democratic nominee? So intensely unfair.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Fulchrum is Peter Daou
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:How dare the Democrats try to say that Democrats should choose the Democratic nominee? So intensely unfair. It just means that popular candidates get weeded out leading to Democrats losing to comically bad candidates
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:It just means that popular candidates get weeded out leading to Democrats losing to comically bad candidates So what you're saying is that Democrats should ignore the people who vote for them and what they want, and instead exclusively poll contrarians who decided to list their political party as the nazis?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Russians be hacking people's brains. Who knew!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Anyone who looks at the primary system and thinks "This is a good way to elect people, who needs Condorcet methods?" is just an idiot. I realize there are no viable Condorcet methods because, America, but we shouldn't pretend like primaries as they exist are actually helping anyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:And it surely was a major scandal and not invented out of loving nothing by Republicans just to scream about to try and drag her down. I don't understand how you're not able to comprehend that good candidates don't have poo poo stick to them. Obama was a Socialist Kenyan Muslim Christian-Hating Gay With Ties To Left Wing Terrorists Who Would Take All Our Guns and none of it stuck. Yet everything stuck to Clinton. Why? Because she comes across as a shifty, unprincipled ladder-climber, so much so that if you hire a male actor to ape Clinton's mannerisms against a female Donald Trump, the audience immediately start hating male Clinton and liking female Trump. (much to the chagrin of the academics who set up the experiment - they expected the opposite)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Well, it might have something to do with her getting more votes in the primary. But Dems added in super delegates specifically because they don't believe that a person getting the most votes in the primary is sufficient reason to think that person is the best candidate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I don't understand how you're not able to comprehend that good candidates don't have poo poo stick to them. Obama was a Socialist Kenyan Muslim Christian-Hating Gay With Ties To Left Wing Terrorists Who Would Take All Our Guns and none of it stuck. Yet everything stuck to Clinton. Why? Because she comes across as a shifty, unprincipled ladder-climber, so much so that if you hire a male actor to ape Clinton's mannerisms against a female Donald Trump, the audience immediately start hating male Clinton and liking female Trump. (much to the chagrin of the academics who set up the experiment - they expected the opposite) I like how you're trying to compare Obama in year 9 of him being attacked nonstop by the right wing propaganda engine with Hillary in year 25. In January 2001, the comparable time to Obama now, Hillary had a favorability rating of 60%. Obama has one of 57%. You still want to continue on with how Hillary is just so very unlikeable and always has been, and everyone knows it? Or are you going to concede that an additional decade and a half of constant, unceasing smears and attacks may make a small amount of difference? Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I don't understand how you're not able to comprehend that good candidates don't have poo poo stick to them. Obama was a Socialist Kenyan Muslim Christian-Hating Gay With Ties To Left Wing Terrorists Who Would Take All Our Guns and none of it stuck. Yet everything stuck to Clinton. Why? Because she comes across as a shifty, unprincipled ladder-climber, so much so that if you hire a male actor to ape Clinton's mannerisms against a female Donald Trump, the audience immediately start hating male Clinton and liking female Trump. (much to the chagrin of the academics who set up the experiment - they expected the opposite) i always enjoyed this study all the people saying "it all makes sense now..." after watching male hillary (the real life incarnation of manbun ken)
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
racing identity posted:Fulchrum is Peter Daou That really actually seems plausible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:That really actually seems plausible. Have you stopped spreading nazi propaganda yet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:That really actually seems plausible. have you stopped putting your fingers in your butt and then putting them in your mouth
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I like how you're trying to compare Obama in year 9 of him being attacked nonstop by the right wing propaganda engine with Hillary in year 25. In January 2001, the comparable time to Obama now, Hillary had a favorability rating of 60%. Obama has one of 57%. You still want to continue on with how Hillary is just so very unlikeable and always has been, and everyone knows it? Or are you going to concede that an additional decade and a half of constant, unceasing smears and attacks may make a small amount of difference? Holy poo poo lol. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that in 2030 we won't be talking/hearing about how Obama is a gay, atheist Kenyan who's married to a trans person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Clinton lost ~1.5m Rust Belt Obama-voters, losing by ~0.1m
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:Holy poo poo lol. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that in 2030 we won't be talking/hearing about how Obama is a gay, atheist Kenyan who's married to a trans person. Right, because he won't be in politics. Hence he won't be attacked nonstop by the right wing propaganda engine. I don't know why you think that's a point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Fulchrum aka Peter Daou posted:Have you stopped spreading nazi propaganda yet? You're the one who fought for the Nazi sympahzing Kataeb. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Right, because he won't be in politics. Hence he won't be attacked nonstop by the right wing propaganda engine. I don't know why you think that's a point. fulchrum. she lost. the most popular politician in America, here and now, is Bernie Sanders. what does this suggest about the future of the Democratic Party to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Right, because he won't be in politics. Hence he won't be attacked nonstop by the right wing propaganda engine. I don't know why you think that's a point. If she can't handle the right-wing propaganda machine, she's not competent to run for president. She was a mistake both times. Edit: Ze Pollack posted:the most popular politician in America, here and now, is Bernie Sanders. And he can win elections.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:fulchrum. The Democrats should idolize never actually acomplishing anything, because doing literally anything of consequence might mean a stain against that precious purity? Or it might lead to having negative ads made about you, and thats not something that you can deal with? Accretionist posted:And he can win elections. Wow, the woman he lost to must be some amazing politician by your logic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:fulchrum. Obviously that Bernie is _stealing_ Hillary's well-earned popularity with his atheist jewish sexist mojo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:The Democrats should idolize never actually acomplishing anything, because doing literally anything of consequence might mean a stain against that precious purity? Or it might lead to having negative ads made about you, and thats not something that you can deal with? the question was genuine, Fulchrum. what should the Democrats do with the fact that Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America today. let's see some pragmatism, pragmatist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Wow, the woman he lost to must be some amazing politician by your logic. He showed up late and unprepared to push issues against the political godzilla of the Democratic party. Presenting that as a fair fight speaks volumes as to how badly Clinton did. The Iron Abuela barely won against a socialist rando from Vermont. And she only won thanks to red state olds. He pulled 40%. Clinton hosed the primary up almost as badly as she hosed up the election
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 01:27
|
|