|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Digiwizzard posted:Joy Ann Reid has a great point. There's just no way the Democrats could ever win over the working class. It's not possible. They're just too stupid and racist and poor. If they keep shifting right though, they could easily win in a huge landslide by gaining all of those rational moderate republicans. For every blue-collar Democrat they lose in western Pennsylvania, they could pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin This sounds like a winning strategy! Why haven't they thought of it before!?!
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
Digiwizzard posted:Joy Ann Reid has a great point. There's just no way the Democrats could ever win over the working class. It's not possible. They're just too stupid and racist and poor. If they keep shifting right though, they could easily win in a huge landslide by gaining all of those rational moderate republicans. For every blue-collar Democrat they lose in western Pennsylvania, they could pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin We regret to inform you that the suburban Republicans were all proud boys and the Democrats are now a Neo Nazi party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I guess unlike you my posts in this thread are not a disorganized flow of consciousness, and so it's probably a bad idea to assume that it's literally the first time I've thought about something when I post about it here. Also here's me talking about Biden's chances of winning in december 2016.  JeffersonClay posted:I don't disagree [that Biden would be a lovely choice for President], but it seems like accepting Biden could have won means accepting neoliberalism isn't why Hillary lost. JeffersonClay posted:if you could be bothered to read the thread you'd see me express regret for not being more concerned with optics IRT the 2016 election two pages ago. You're just defending liberalism in general there, JC. There is no mea culpa to be found, anywhere. No indication you accept you misjudged the electorate. No summary of what you learned from the election. Certainly no assertion that the Democrats picked the wrong candidate. You've never posted those things, and your posting and behavior since the election indicate that you actually learned nothing. Your recent post in this thread did seem like a sort of half-assed admission of same in the context of the conversation in which it took place, but perhaps I'm wrong on that. Well, obviously, I am wrong on that. My point, which you should keep in mind going forward, is thus: any epiphany you have which moves you left, or even just expands the horizon of possibilities for you a bit, while it might seem like a hard-fought thing from your point of view, and a triumph of reason and methodical skepticism, in fact only serves to highlight how slow to come around you are. I keep coming back to this main point every time my self-esteem drops enough that I think you're worth talking to again: your reaction to the detonation of liberal politics on November 8 was "we need to tweak things a bit". Over time you have slowly pushed the boundaries of what that means, probably to the point that if your present self were to argue with your November 9th self, you'd be endlessly and (of course) very smugly criticizing your own lack of reading comprehension. But you shouldn't be proud of what you've learned. Pretty much everyone posting in this thread learned a lot on November 8, because that election told us that virtually everything we thought we knew about politics was wrong (for the former liberals here, anyway). The election tried to tell you that, as well, but you were too high on your own farts to listen. For many people the remainder of that November kept them busy essentially wiping their proverbial hard drive and installing an entirely new political operating system, after the previous one proved itself totally unfit for purpose. Not you though - you're too dumb, for the reasons stated upthread, and the nature of your stupidity makes you particularly contemptible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:We regret to inform you that the suburban Republicans were all proud boys and the Democrats are now a Neo Nazi party. Hmm, it appears that the democrats are a waste.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Digiwizzard posted:Hmm, it appears that the democrats are a waste. What if they got more racist...
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Yo, gently caress NPR. I'm listening now and the news guy just gave little 'hell yeahs' over the audio of Trump's tax reform bullet-points, stopping only to criticize repatriation of funds from tax havens. The best part about that segment was the insinuation that the main reason to oppose the detention and deportation of illegal immigrants in the Houston, TX area is because then we wouldn’t be able to exploit them for cheap labor during reconstruction. NPR (and especially Planet Money / Marketplace) are garbage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Oneiros posted:The best part about that segment was the insinuation that the main reason to oppose the detention and deportation of illegal immigrants in the Houston, TX area is because then we wouldn’t be able to exploit them for cheap labor during reconstruction. centrists are all about this, and it's disgusting every time they pull it out. that's why they whine about raising food prices if you want immigrants to have labor protections
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
get out fascist sympathizer, no one wants you here Condiv fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Pretty much everyone posting in this thread learned a lot on November 8, because that election told us that virtually everything we thought we knew about politics was wrong (for the former liberals here, anyway). The election tried to tell you that, as well, but you were too high on your own farts to listen. For many people the remainder of that November kept them busy essentially wiping their proverbial hard drive and installing an entirely new political operating system, after the previous one proved itself totally unfit for purpose. I was right but the regulars of D&D still dismiss me as a covert conservative, an accretionist or a useful idiot who's only good for dunking on establishment dems, as long as I don't stray too far from the reservation. Usually by the same people who argued with me until they were blue in the face about how Hillary Clinton was really a good candidate and I was just a delusional (white) Bernie Bro out of touch with reality. People that say they've learned a lesson on November 8th usually didn't learn poo poo. They've shifted their perspective to what they think is 'right' today but they don't comprehend any of the whys that put us in this situation. Yourself included. At least JC has the excuse of being a gimmick poster. He has his position set in stone and he'll stick it out till the bitter end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I was right but the regulars of D&D still dismiss me as a covert conservative, an accretionist or a useful idiot who's only good for dunking on establishment dems, as long as I don't stray too far from the reservation. Usually by the same people who argued with me until they were blue in the face about how Hillary Clinton was really a good candidate and I was just a delusional (white) Bernie Bro out of touch with reality. You believe in an Old Earth which formed via accretion disc?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
You claimed I had an epiphany that biden would have won yesterday. I proved you wrong by linking a post where I'd said that in December. If you really want to read more of my old posts where I talk about the mistakes and flaws in the clinton campaign, here you go, always happy to prove you wrong. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3797387&pagenumber=87&perpage=40#post467398939 "Team Clinton overestimated the number of people who would vote against racism and sexism, so they spent their time tying trump to his racism and sexism instead of promoting their economic plan." JeffersonClay posted:She lost because she ran a lovely campaign and because of exogenous factors like Comey and Putin. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3797403&pagenumber=1469&perpage=40#post469975671 Clinton was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign and she almost certainly would have won anyway if she hadn't gotten hosed by Comey and Putin. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3804043&pagenumber=156&perpage=40#post469913282 Part of the reason Clinton's "I am very smart look at all these well crafted policies" strategy didn't work is it fed into sexist opposition to uppity know it all women. I don't think it was a good strategy regardless, but it probably would have worked better for a white man. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3796651&pagenumber=607&perpage=40#post468229104 I don't think Clinton ran a good campaign, and have said so many times. We clearly erred in thinking pluralism could pull moderate republicans, when instead it created a backlash. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3796651&pagenumber=516&perpage=40#post467469063 "Trump is deeply flawed and easy to beat" was part of the mindset that led to his victory in the primary and the general. I was as guilty as anyone of buying into it. Maybe he would have been destroyed by a better campaign or candidate, but maybe large swaths of America didn't see his actions as disqualifying like we did. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3797387&pagenumber=55&perpage=40#post467239913 If you wipe those tears of rage out of your eyes you can see I'm not defending Clinton's campaign strategy. I'm identifying the tactical choice to focus on "trump is evil" instead of her demonstrably popular economic policies as bad. (This one was in response to you, in December!)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/WordMercenary/status/902869856168673282
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Oneiros posted:The best part about that segment was the insinuation that the main reason to oppose the detention and deportation of illegal immigrants in the Houston, TX area is because then we wouldn’t be able to exploit them for cheap labor during reconstruction. Not this racist horseshit again. The median wage of construction workers in Houston is 19 dollars an hour. undocumented immigrants are not some teeming mass of plantation slaves. "Immigrants do important, needed work" is not some dogwhistle for laissez faire capitalism. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_26420.htm#47-0000
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Not this racist horseshit again. No. That is the median wage for everyone who works in construction. The median wage for construction workers is ~$14.25 according to your data. And it isn't clear to me these numbers include independent contractors who I suspect are classified as self-employed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3797403&pagenumber=1469&perpage=40#post469975671 Bernie would have won if he hadn't gotten hosed by Hillary and Wasserman Shultz
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 05:35
|
|
L
|
JeffersonClay posted:You claimed I had an epiphany that biden would have won yesterday. I proved you wrong by linking a post where I'd said that in December. If you really want to read more of my old posts where I talk about the mistakes and flaws in the clinton campaign, here you go, always happy to prove you wrong. Thanks for the classic hits, JC, and to many more to come before you and your liberal buddies get us all shoved into an oven if we're not boiled alive by climate change first. And, uh, you didn't say Biden would have won, in December, as opposed to Hillary, which is the entire point. JFC read your own drat posts if you're going to ask everyone else to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I was right but the regulars of D&D still dismiss me as a covert conservative, an accretionist or a useful idiot who's only good for dunking on establishment dems, as long as I don't stray too far from the reservation. Usually by the same people who argued with me until they were blue in the face about how Hillary Clinton was really a good candidate and I was just a delusional (white) Bernie Bro out of touch with reality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I was right but the regulars of D&D still dismiss me as a covert conservative, an accretionist or a useful idiot who's only good for dunking on establishment dems, as long as I don't stray too far from the reservation. Usually by the same people who argued with me until they were blue in the face about how Hillary Clinton was really a good candidate and I was just a delusional (white) Bernie Bro out of touch with reality. 'Man, I just don't get why a forum full of people who are (ostensibly) left-wing would be mad that I voted for Trump. It is baffling!'
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
I'm afraid I'll need an explanation for this one. I don't get what I'm looking at here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
It's a shitload of journalists crowding around a single busted trashcan to take pictures of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Like, straight up? That's the entire context?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
The cops brutalist leftist protesters and nobody panics, because that's all part of the plan. But one of those protestors kicks over a single trash can, and everyone loses their minds!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Like, straight up? That's the entire context? Hyperreality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Like, straight up? That's the entire context? From that image alone, I wonder how many hundred "Antifa are worse than Nazis" articles came up
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:The cops brutalist leftist protesters and nobody panics, because that's all part of the plan. But one of those protestors kicks over a single trash can, and everyone loses their minds! This is why nobody gives a poo poo about OWS; they never brought sledgehammers and axes to that corporate park.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
You guys sound as if no matter what we do to fix things, America is still going to collapse from first world major power status. What a lovely time to be born in. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:You guys sound as if no matter what we do to fix things, America is still going to collapse from first world major power status. What a lovely time to be born in. I'm p sure everyone thinks there's a way out of this mess. It involves the dems tacking hard left. Unfortunately the dems seem deadset on sticking to the "center" despite getting crushed over the last 8 years for it
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
People who drink PBR and Coors Light are Republicans. And people don’t vote with their wallets. Two things I learned from Liberal commentator Joy Ann Reid. What is the end goal if this were the case? Hispanic and Black congress people passing laws to gently caress everyone over with an Asian president signing the legislation? Is the march to the Right ok in their view so long as it includes women and people of color loving over the rest?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
Dirk Pitt posted:People who drink PBR and Coors Light are Republicans. And people don’t vote with their wallets. Two things I learned from Liberal commentator Joy Ann Reid. Got it in one. Also the idea that the entirety of a huge and important voting bloc can never be won over no matter what when you can't even articulate a single reason for this to be the case is some supreme goddamn political incompetence right there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:No. That is the median wage for everyone who works in construction. The median wage for construction workers is ~$14.25 according to your data. And it isn't clear to me these numbers include independent contractors who I suspect are classified as self-employed. Thanks for the pedantry but I'm pretty sure NPR was referring to carpenters (17.86) electricians (22.47) and plumbers (23.97) as well when they referenced the labor needed to help rebuild Houston. Kilroy posted:Always laden with caveats to the point you're barely saying a thing, always missing the forest for the trees, never showing an ounce of self-awareness. Your grounds for describing her campaign as "bad" are and have always been "she wasn't liberal enough!" *pounds on desk* quote:And, uh, you didn't say Biden would have won, in December, as opposed to Hillary, which is the entire point. JFC read your own drat posts if you're going to ask everyone else to. There. Now we've established that your running memory of my posting history is utter poo poo and we can talk about all the other things you're wrong about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:its not really gloating to point out a state that continuously elects politicians that cut public services, refuse to pay for disaster relief, and deny climate change is now reaping the rewards of such policies Local politics isn't too great either. A lot of neighborhoods that flooded in Harvey are on the west side of Houston, the richer, whiter, newer parts of the Houston metro area. All the new development removes drainage capacity. Prairies and forests absorb more water than manicured lawns and concrete. Also, almost no one there has flood insurance because they were outside the 500 year flood plain (1 in 500 chance of flooding per year). Most of the flood plain maps were drawn before all the new development went up. Boomtown, Floodtown https://projects.propublica.org/houston-cypress/ Houston's previous flood control manager and the current one do not believe in climate change, so they don't believe in preparing Houston for possibly more frequent and stronger storms. They both also think that man made structures can drain just as much rain as green space, which could be true if the flood control district and city had the money and authority to force developers to comply. Last I heard, upgrading Houston's flood control will cost around $25 billion, and every attempt by the city to do something about flooding has been swamped with law suits from real estate developers. Most of the flood plain maps for the downtown Houston area have not been updated in nearly 2 decades. Some more fun articles about how Houston is not ready for flooding. https://www.texastribune.org/hell-and-high-water/
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
Dirk Pitt posted:People who drink PBR [...] are Republicans. It's like she's never met a grad student. Condiv posted:I'm p sure everyone thinks there's a way out of this mess. It involves the dems tacking hard left. Unfortunately the dems seem deadset on sticking to the "center" despite getting crushed over the last 8 years for it So here's my thing with this, and I'm hoping that I come across with the genuine curiosity I mean and not like I'm trying to stir poo poo: What evidence is there that turning hard left is a way to win elections in America? I admit that I'm no expert, but it seems to me like people generally know whether they want to vote for right-wing or left-wing policies, and a hard left turn isn't going to win over the people won over by right-wing populism, necessarily. The other part is, I suppose, banking on a "silent majority" who'll be stirred to vote by seriously progressive left-wing policies. I'm not saying I oppose strong left-wing policies. I support them, and I think the Democrats need to turn left because it's the right thing to do--but I remain unconvinced that it's also going to significantly increase their chances in elections. I will say that it can't hurt, because it's clear that wishy-washy equivocating isn't getting them anywhere while simultaneously getting them derided as "radical" by the far-right, so they might as well embrace it and run left as fast as possible. But I worry that it won't help, either. Harrow fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
That "we've lost the white people" clip is going to get so much loving play next year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Harrow posted:What evidence is there that turning hard left is a way to win elections in America? I admit that I'm no expert, but it seems to me like people generally know whether they want to vote for right-wing or left-wing policies, and a hard left turn isn't going to win over the people won over by right-wing populism, necessarily. The other part is, I suppose, banking on a "silent majority" who'll be stirred to vote by seriously progressive left-wing policies. Left-wing policies like single payer are popular as all hell and even moreso among the dem base, who are the people that the dems need to turn out. Besides that, as you mentioned, the dems obviously have to do something other than doubling down on a massively failed strategy, and tacking right is sure as poo poo not going to work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Harrow posted:What evidence is there that turning hard left is a way to win elections in America? Well the other choices are: 1 - Stay on the centrist train and just try to tweak things slightly without actually doing anything meaningful to change the party and fully commit to a losing strategy 2 - Turn hard right and really go after the Republican voters, aka look into the mirror, sigh, and go "We gotta get more racist." Given those two alternatives, how about we try turning left instead and see if people actually want to vote for a party who promises them (and would go on to deliver, or at least try to deliver in an honest attempt) extremely popular things like true universal healthcare, free college, and a higher minimum wage. You don't need evidence to try a new strategy when the old one is failing and all the new ones have no evidence yet because no one's tried them before. To be frank, the obsession with data and evidence seems to be a centrist tactic to shut down leftist talking points. "How come leftist ideas aren't already winning, if they're so popular?" is a dance we've done many many times in this thread. Hillary had the most data driven campaign in history. Oops, maybe relying on nothing but data is actually a terrible idea, because you get so bogged down in it that you end up doing really dumb poo poo like not campaigning in the loving Rust Best because the data told you to. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Harrow posted:It's like she's never met a grad student. the biggest one is the time Democrats tacked left and ruled as loving emperors for thirty years it was pretty sweet, tbh
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Thanks for the pedantry This is what you say in the mirror every night before bed, isn't it? I think we either need to all create a blood pact to mute JC and EVERYONE YNE WHO RESPONDS TO HIM, start a gofundme for our mental health expenses (aka bribe lowtax to permaban him) or he needs to get the loving point that This Is Not His Lane and gtfo. Re: Joy Ann Reid, if the Democrats are a party of marginalized people, then how do they expect to be anything but a marginal, ineffective party? She's either incredibly loving dumb or so committed to her image of herself-as-Democrat that she'll say anyfuckingthing ever to defend that image. Poor people need more money, Joy. I'm serious about this blood pact thing tho,
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
Harrow posted:
We have evidence of the following: - Centrist policies are a losing proposition because they do not attract voters - There already is an established right wing party with a loyal voting base and a more credible Conservative reputation than a hypothetical right-wing-embracing Democratic Party. So what can we tell from that, as far as Democrats are concerned? - Their current policies are losing ones - They have been crowded out of the right by another party What strategy is left than to become ideologically leftist? It wouldn't even mean turning to the left compared to the stated goals, they already claim to represent the leftist ideals, they would merely have to commit to them, and to fire all the terrible people who have a reputation as spineless, corrupt opportunists. The centrism of the Democratic party isn't the platform on which it is meant to rest, it is the result of recklessness and complacency of politicians who have allowed their party to be emptied of all meaning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You don't need evidence to try a new strategy when the old one is failing and all the new ones have no evidence yet because no one's tried them before. To be frank, the obsession with data and evidence seems to be a centrist tactic to shut down leftist talking points. "How come leftist ideas aren't already winning, if they're so popular?" is a dance we've done many many times in this thread. That's fair, and I didn't mean it that way. From what (little) I knew, my perspective was: turning left certainly can't hurt, and I definitely like progressive policies, so I'm far from opposed to it. I just wanted to know whether, should a leftist turn actually happen (and I realize the whole point of this thread is "it won't unless we loving force them to"), I should feel a bit more optimistic about electoral chances as well. Hell, the answer to "How come leftist ideas aren't already winning, if they're so popular?" seems pretty obvious to me: very few politicians with any sort of exposure are actually running on those ideas with any credibility at all. Harrow fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
Like the whole point of centrism was it was supposed to be the compromise we needed to make in order to win elections even though we knew it wasn't ideal. That's been shown to not work, but over the years centrism has become the real ideology of the party leaders so purists want to continue down that path despite all failures. I know that the argument is that because leftists don't compromise and vote dogmatically the plan doesn't work, but for some reason the people that are VERY concerned about being pragmatic in winning elections always want the leftists to vote based on the lesser of two evils despite not getting what they want (other than not enacting all the GOP policies) while not making the theoretical people that want centrist policies to compromise ever. Like why is it never "hmm we are going hard left this year and if you upper middle class Democrats don't vote for this candidate you are traitors responsible for the GOP winning"? Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 15:39
|
|
