|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Nanomashoes posted:Trump won because Hillary was the nominee, I'm glad you have the correct assessment here. Trump won because of your silly electoral college, HTH All I'm saying is, America got the president it deserved.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
Avirosb posted:Trump won because of your silly electoral college, HTH Trump won because Hillary robbed bernie of a fair run, put Trump on a pedestal for the easiest victory, and got hosed in the end because she loving sucks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 10:51
|
|
L
|
Dizz posted:Trump won because Hillary robbed bernie of a fair run, put Trump on a pedestal for the easiest victory, and got hosed in the end because she loving sucks. Yes but also, America got the president it deserved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
America certainly got the President that most represents America to everyone else in the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:Yes but also, America got the president it deserved. That IS true, I will not argue that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:Yes but also, America got the president it deserved. Dreamers don’t deserve this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
I voted and volunteered for Bernie in the primaries and then voted for Hillary in the general don't really regret either of those things 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
Mukaikubo posted:I voted and volunteered for Bernie in the primaries and then voted for Hillary in the general One thing we never addressed in the goon community is the enthusiasm gap between 2007 Dem primary for Obama vs 2016 for Bernie. Even early on there was a level of cynicism toward Bernie’s campaign here that sapped a lot of energy. In 07 there was a Genchat Obama fundraiser thread that raised crazy money. In D&D we had volunteer threads that turned everyone into unofficial campaign staff. When that was attempted for a real progressive 8 years later we were ostracized as naive, sexist bigots. How do we get back to 2007 level of organization? Not just for a single D&D subforum thread, but to galvanize the entire community.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:There was also another subset of her supporters who had this highly idealized image in their heads of her as this wonderful saint of a woman who's sacrificed her whole life for public service. Like, they see that one photo where Hillary is sorta looking up at an angle, looking all noble and poo poo (you know the one), and just feel awestruck. As opposed to the first group, this group seemed to like her based entirely off of a bizarre fiction they conjured up in their heads (and to be fair, it's kinda hard to blame some people for wanting there to be an awesome person as the first major woman candidate for president). I saw Megadeth before the election, and near the end of the set Mustane said something to the effect of "I won't tell you who to vote for, but if you really like the way things are going you know who to vote for. But if not..." And I think that's the sentiment that got us here. I watched one of the debates at a bar, and she was 100% the Hillary her supporters came to watch. And she won the debate from a "reality" perspective, but Trump loving nailed her on BS made-up garbage like the latest o'keefe tape, (((Globalists))), and bad hombres. And that's what people more wanted to see. But she still shot herself in the foot anyway by pointing out that she'd been part of the Establishment for 30 years. She ran as the stuffy, rich know-it-all villain from a Rodney Dangerfield movie. She made his irreverence and idiocy loving appealing, because you wanted to see someone, anyone, take that hateful fake-rear end smirk off her face and her smug confident fans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
I have a vague memory of the 2008 Democratic primary but I can't seem to find anything on it to confirm if I'm remembering it correctly. It was during one of the earlier debates where a bunch of people were still in it. Afterwards, I THINK it was Edwards, threw together an attack ad on Hillary that basically just highlighted to amount of times she flipped to opposite opinions in that one debate based on the question asked. It jives with how she hilariously flipped on gay marriage from not wanting to offend social conservatives to always being an ally once the Log Cabin Republicans and the courts made her lack of support irrelevant but I don't want to bring it up if it's untrue. Does anyone else remember that happening? The Democrats really need to pay for her to take a three year vacation since talking to my Republican family members they still hate her with a passion even after her loss and she's not doing anyone any favors by reminding everyone she sucks so bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
moths posted:She ran as the stuffy, rich know-it-all villain from a Rodney Dangerfield movie. She made his irreverence and idiocy loving appealing, because you wanted to see someone, anyone, take that hateful fake-rear end smirk off her face and her smug confident fans. "I'll never vote for a smug opportunistic grifter!" *Votes for opportunistic grifter who boasts about his wealth*
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:and obviously fake, the boat is a comedy account 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
I don't regret fundraising for Hillary or for centrists like Ossoff. Hell, as an immigrant from Latin America (though one who has become a citizen), I'd still do anything in my power to defeat Trump. But the time since the election has also made it abundantly clear that democratic centrism is not borne out of pragmatism (see how hard these ghouls punch left). Additionally, it has also become clear that a lot of the reason people identify as democrats is cultural. See the pass democrats give to Obama/Clinton on Honduras, on deportations, and on being the worst president in 30 years for HBCUs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Dreamers don’t deserve this. It's really their own fault for thinking America was good and that it's citizens would let them make a living.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
WHY CAN'T I TELL IF THIS IS REAL I AM GOING INSANE
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Amidst all of the DACA madness recently, I remembered that there was a push to pass DACA into law during the lame duck session during 2010, when the Democrats still had 59 members in their caucus. Passed into law, DACA would have been the law of the land and Trump would not be able to legally curtail it. Anyways, I remember that it failed to cross the cloture threshold, but at the time I just assumed it was all due to GOP intransigence, and that while the GOP had given way during that same lame duck session on START and a few other pieces of legislation, that they held the line on DACA. While I am certainly not going to defend the behavior of those who didn't support DACA in 2010, I would say that the party's move to the left on DACA is a good thing and we should encourage people who were previously against it to support it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:WHY CAN'T I TELL IF THIS IS REAL I AM GOING INSANE That is real. Edit: this is probably real too
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Lmao at casting your vote for the Shillster
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
If she were really that horrified at the idea of a President Trump, maybe she shouldn't have boosted him over the other R primary candidates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:While I am certainly not going to defend the behavior of those who didn't support DACA in 2010, I would say that the party's move to the left on DACA is a good thing and we should encourage people who were previously against it to support it. Nah you see we can one day have a truly pure party in total government power that functions according to my leftist values and beliefs. Swing states and states full of assholes don't exist at all, just California and Washington
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
gohmak posted:One thing we never addressed in the goon community is the enthusiasm gap between 2007 Dem primary for Obama vs 2016 for Bernie. Even early on there was a level of cynicism toward Bernie’s campaign here that sapped a lot of energy. In 07 there was a Genchat Obama fundraiser thread that raised crazy money. In D&D we had volunteer threads that turned everyone into unofficial campaign staff. You can't. Obama was the right person at the right time: a fresh face without anything in his background that you could pin on him that didn't require dogwhistles. In comparison to Abuela who had already been in an intense public spotlight for a decade and a half at that point, he was a breath of fresh air. Add in that Obama's charisma ran laps around everyone else in the race and that he came across as a cool smart hip black man to young suburban white people and you had someone who was primed to make a huge impact. The problem, which has been shouted to the heavens by the more rational people in this thread, is that Obama was all hat and no cattle and did far more damage to leftist causes than McCain/Palin/Romney could have dreamed of. Like I've said before, only Nixon could go to China and only Obama could crush civil rights. After eight years of buying into someone's bullshit only to be let down again and again, the appetite to support the person Obama beat wasn't there and will never be there. I re-read Gamechanger after this last election and what struck me was that both Obama and Trump didn't have campaigns as much as they had movements; Obama's Hope and Change and Trump MAGAing everywhere. Abuela could never inspire to that degree and Bernie was in the right place but not at the right time. As much as people don't want to hear it Bernie wouldn't have beaten Trump; his movement wasn't nearly as powerful as Trump's was to the people who were really beaten down by Obama's eight years of failure. Bernie's got a better chance in 2020 once we see the damage that Trump's done but he's going against the incumbent advantage and it may be too little too late by then. And there's no one in the Dem bench who can inspire people worth a drat; Harris and Booker would be slaughtered by Trump, Warren might have a better shot but I don't know if she's up for it, maybe one of the Castro twins down in San Antonio since the past two presidents have shown that previous experience is no longer necessary to getting elected but I don't know much about them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Nah you see we can one day have a truly pure party in total government power that functions according to my leftist values and beliefs. Swing states and states full of assholes don't exist at all, just California and Washington Replace leftist with centrist and you literally have the Clinton campaign strategy...?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Nah you see we can one day have a truly pure party in total government power that functions according to my leftist values and beliefs. Swing states and states full of assholes don't exist at all, just California and Washington the liberal platform, everybody: "We Refuse To Even Try."
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Boosting blue dogs in right-wing states may provide short-term gains, but it hurts the party long term because the more blue dogs you have, the less you can say the party stands for anything. It dilutes the party's brand (if you can say it even has a brand anymore.) Majorities don't mean anything if your party's so divided you can't actually use them, or you can't use them without killing the chances of a bunch of your representatives getting reelected. The alternative - standing for something and trying to convince voters of your vision - is hard work, though, which is why it doesn't get done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:Boosting blue dogs in right-wing states may provide short-term gains, but it hurts the party long term because the more blue dogs you have, the less you can say the party stands for anything. It dilutes the party's brand (if you can say it even has a brand anymore.) Majorities don't mean anything if your party's so divided you can't actually use them, or you can't use them without killing the chances of a bunch of your representatives getting reelected. Actually the alternative is Sessions right now announcing the end of DACA but hey
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
It's weird how leftists are constantly told that their wishes are impossible but they should vote anyway for candidates that support things they oppose (and if the candidates lose they are worse than Republicans regardless of how many of them held their nose and came out) but centrists are never asked to capitulate ever. If centrist Democrats were as pragmatic as they claimed we should get Lenin McCommie on the ballot since surely they would all understand game theory and vote against the Republican leading to a landslide.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Yea centrist democrats never vote for people they aren't entirely sure of or want to be in power. Only the true left makes sacrifices (because they so often lose). You guys lose the plot more and more every week.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Actually the alternative is Sessions right now announcing the end of DACA but hey Guess you should have voted for Bernie in the primary
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Just lol at a centrist accusing the left of losing elections in the wake of Clinton's stunning 2016 defeat to a senile cheeto.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Guess you should have voted for Bernie in the primary I did and I knew about Bernie 12 years ago when I was more political and had a nice dinner with him on the Berkeley campus. I'm a pragmatist and the messaging I see in this thread is both insane and stupid and will lose elections.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
speaking of the virtues of blue dogs
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
I've already seen centrist democrats on Facebook post that their candidate will probably suck and everybody needs to eat whatever warm poo poo they serve up in 2020. Or else!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:I did and I knew about Bernie 12 years ago when I was more political and had a nice dinner with him on the Berkeley campus. I'm a pragmatist and the messaging I see in this thread is both insane and stupid and will lose elections. I have extremely bad news for you about the election of 2016, friend. Centrism Incarnate, obliged to make no deals with the left, went up against its dream opponent on the right. one it had openly begged to be allowed to face, because it could run in its entirety on "look at this loving idiot." and lost. it lost to Donald J "Grab 'Em By The Pussy" Trump. you call yourself a pragmatist. does this chain of events imply an adjustment of strategy is warranted, in your eyes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Radish posted:It's weird how leftists are constantly told that their wishes are impossible but they should vote anyway for candidates that support things they oppose (and if the candidates lose they are worse than Republicans regardless of how many of them held their nose and came out) but centrists are never asked to capitulate ever. If centrist Democrats were as pragmatic as they claimed we should get Lenin McCommie on the ballot since surely they would all understand game theory and vote against the Republican leading to a landslide. Moderates can and do shift to the extreme. See the above discussion of DACA. However, when they do, the extremes shift with them, so that the formerly radical position is now the sellout compromise and formerly radical politicians are now centrists. This is something we see on both the left and the right. Also, when moderates shift, they are often labeled as phony for shifting, so even if they did shift, it still doesn't tend to fix their problems with the more extreme sections of their party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:I did and I knew about Bernie 12 years ago when I was more political and had a nice dinner with him on the Berkeley campus. I'm a pragmatist and the messaging I see in this thread is both insane and stupid and will lose elections. shoulda volunteered harder
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
moths posted:I've already seen centrist democrats on Facebook post that their candidate will probably suck and everybody needs to eat whatever warm poo poo they serve up in 2020. Or else! That's pretty much the only play they know. In their defense, it's worked pretty well for them in the past, in terms of getting the left to fall in line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:"I'll never vote for a smug opportunistic grifter!" Donald Trump was basically Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack and Hillary was the judge Donald sucks a lot but his campaign was based on "look at that smug rear end in a top hat who think she's better than you" and gently caress if he's not right
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Moderates can and do shift to the extreme. See the above discussion of DACA. However, when they do, the extremes shift with them, so that the formerly radical position is now the sellout compromise and formerly radical politicians are now centrists. This is something we see on both the left and the right. Nah. Folks like Bernie, Ellison, and Warren are, themselves, compromise candidates for a lot of left voters. It's just that they're compromise candidates whose positions on things still stand to do some measurable amount of good, and who have credibility when they say they'll push for those positions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Donald Trump was basically Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack and Hillary was the judge His campaign was based on basically a lot of other stuff and not this at all
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Donald Trump was basically Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack and Hillary was the judge If you look at Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and say that Hillary Clinton's problem is that she is smug, that's pretty sexist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:36
|
|