|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
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. Lmao at calling yourself a pragmatist in TYOOL 2017
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
white sauce posted:Lmao at casting your vote for the Shillster lmao for having enough privilege to vote third party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Democrazy posted: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. That's not what I said but okay
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Falstaff posted: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. All these candidates are currently on the left, yes. And I agree that they do in some sense represent the will of the left in some kind of actionable form. But, for instance, Sanders' campaign went far to the left of any major candidate for the Democratic Party since perhaps Ted Kennedy in 1980, and certainly since the 1992 shift of the party rightward. His position on healthcare was far to the right of the candidates running in 2008, 2004 etc. to the point where the previously leftward position of a public option or Medicare buy-in are the next likely centrist positions. This isn't happenstance, this is the push and pull of party platforms and ideology. The center, by its very nature, can never be aligned with the left and the left with the center. One caught in inertia, the other carried by momentum.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Democrazy posted: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. Hillary Clinton's problem is that her rebuttal to "look at this smug person who thinks she knows better than you" was, in its entirety, "yeah well Donald Trump is Bad." the rationale makes perfect sense, if you're a centrist. if you run on policies instead of personalities, you might actually be asked to deliver on them. but running entirely on Look What A Prick That Guy Is safely insulates you from any of that icky, expensive, "actually trying to help voters" nonsense. the perfect pragmatic decision: offer people nothing. and pray they don't return the favor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
In retrospect Hillary Clinto would have lost to anyone the republicans out up and is the worst candidate to have ever run for a major party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Hillary Clinton's problem is that her rebuttal to "look at this smug person who thinks she knows better than you" was, in its entirety, "yeah well Donald Trump is Bad." Regardless of whatever problem you might have with Hillary Clinton, talking about how smug she was in comparison to Donald Trump is still a sexist sentiment that should be spread in progressive spaces. Are we going to start calling her bossy too?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:In retrospect Hillary Clinto would have lost to anyone the republicans out up and is the worst candidate to have ever run for a major party. she'd probably have eked out a nailbiter win against jeb! because they're equally hollowed out shells of ambition who viewed feigning enough humanity to get people to vote for them as an irritating chore rather than a necessity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Regardless of whatever problem you might have with Hillary Clinton, talking about how smug she was in comparison to Donald Trump is still a sexist sentiment that should be spread in progressive spaces. missing the point, friend. that was Trump's argument against her. and she found herself incapable of rebutting it. that you would prefer that argument had not been so devastatingly successfully wielded is nice, but utterly meaningless at this stage of the process.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
That Hillary thought Trump was the easy mode candidate instead of JEB! is another mark against her ability to understand politics. A bunch of people underestimated Trump all along the process but I kinda expected the person who has been in the political system for over thirty years to have some intuition on what gets someone elected. Of course maybe Trump WAS the easiest to beat and any of those guys would have won, we have no way of knowing. To be somewhat fair she got screwed by our lovely electoral system but she went in knowing the rules. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Sep 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:she'd probably have eked out a nailbiter win against jeb! because they're equally hollowed out shells of ambition who viewed feigning enough humanity to get people to vote for them as an irritating chore rather than a necessity. JEB! Would have won because everyone felt sorry for the schmuck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:missing the point, friend. that was Trump's argument against her. and she found herself incapable of rebutting it. The original poster said that Donald Trump's sexist attacks against Clinton were actually true, which is an endorsement of Trump's sexism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:The original poster said that Donald Trump's sexist attacks against Clinton were actually true, which is an endorsement of Trump's sexism. that Hillary Clinton was smug and arrogant is, unfortunately, something Hillary Clinton made true though her choice of ways to respond to the accusation, following the precise blueprint of JEB! before her. and like JEB!, she paid for it by losing her coronation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Democrazy posted: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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU06-3mPH1I
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Lol at defending Hillary by comparing her to JEB! gently caress off ZeP!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Lol at defending Hillary by comparing her to JEB! have you honestly been so broken by the election that you think comparing someone to JEB! is ever a point in their favor
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
It is truly and sincerely bizarre to hear people talking about a trade off between being pragmatic and progressive this year. First, it has become abundantly clear that democratic centrism is a sincerely held belief as opposed to a pragmatic approach to winning elections. All you have to do is look at the trend lines for key progressive policies and key progressive politicians in the polls and overall favorability ratings for democrats as they resist pushing for those policies. Second, the percent of true swing voters is incredibly small and energizing the base has become much more important. For years there were all these think pieces about how extreme republicans purging moderates like Cantor, Crist and Specter would lead to a permanent democratic majority and turning all purple states blue. How did that turn out? Finally, it is specially ridiculous to point to Sessions as AG when discussing how "moderate" democrats in swing states are important. One would think that Republicans continuous success by going as extreme as possible would be a prima facie case against the power of moderates. I mean, are we really discussing the importance of being moderate and voting against the party in the one example where 4 of the 5 who did it lost their seats anyways? Also, Sessions was nominated by the executive, so whether Kay Hagan won in a purple state or not was irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:have you honestly been so broken by the election that you think comparing someone to JEB! is ever a point in their favor JEB!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
isn't it funny about how all this monday morning quarterbacking/analysis is pretty much poo poo compared to "imagine this person will act the way they're paid to" like lol at ever believing that democratic centrism was purely a strategic position
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
The only person who can save the Democrats is the man they once considered their biggest enemy. Draft JEB! 2020
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:The only person who can save the Democrats is the man they once considered their biggest enemy. Draft JEB! 2020 He aligns with current centrist pragmitism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:that Hillary Clinton was smug and arrogant is, unfortunately, something Hillary Clinton made true though her choice of ways to respond to the accusation, following the precise blueprint of JEB! before her. Are you saying that the attack on Hillary Clinton on Donald Trump were not motivated by sexism and that agreeing with them isn't agreeing with a sexist sentiment? Is that your Honest-to-God stance?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
white sauce posted:Lmao at calling yourself a progressive in TYOOL 2017 fixed
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:All these candidates are currently on the left, yes. And I agree that they do in some sense represent the will of the left in some kind of actionable form. But, for instance, Sanders' campaign went far to the left of any major candidate for the Democratic Party since perhaps Ted Kennedy in 1980, and certainly since the 1992 shift of the party rightward. His position on healthcare was far to the right of the candidates running in 2008, 2004 etc. to the point where the previously leftward position of a public option or Medicare buy-in are the next likely centrist positions. This isn't happenstance, this is the push and pull of party platforms and ideology. The center, by its very nature, can never be aligned with the left and the left with the center. One caught in inertia, the other carried by momentum. Sanders was to the right of Jackson '88, which won 11 primaries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
call to action posted:isn't it funny about how all this monday morning quarterbacking/analysis is pretty much poo poo compared to "imagine this person will act the way they're paid to" we'd live in a far less stupid world were that the case, tbh. but there is an underlying ideology that means people are willing to accept such tiny buyouts. you know that "political capital" thing centrists treat like it was real? that's not a lie they tell us to get them off their backs. it is a lie they tell themselves, and genuinely believe. they believe making any promise inherently spends that precious, precious capital, and so granted the opportunity to try to win election by promising -nothing-, just Holy poo poo This Guy's An rear end in a top hat, of course they leapt all over it. ~whoops~
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Are you saying that the attack on Hillary Clinton on Donald Trump were not motivated by sexism and that agreeing with them isn't agreeing with a sexist sentiment? Is that your Honest-to-God stance? He is saying that Hillary failed to appear like a human being compared to a brash, loud serial liar caricature of capitalist excess. And he's right. Trump at least has a huckster's gift for saying whatever the rubes want to hear, b it war, peace, jobs, family, tradition, whatever. Hillary simply assumed her spiel about 21st century skills and 'they go low, we go high' was what the masses were craving, and we all paid the price. It wasn't just her, to be honest, as there was a whole machine and philosophy behind the campaign, but she still embodied it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Are you saying that the attack on Hillary Clinton on Donald Trump were not motivated by sexism and that agreeing with them isn't agreeing with a sexist sentiment? Is that your Honest-to-God stance? I am, in fact. They were instead, motivated by the fact they'd worked perfectly against JEB! and Donald Trump understands nothing beyond "this line got me applause before, so I'll keep using it." A more competent campaign would have learned something from that. Unfortunately, the geniuses behind "the problem with Blood for Oil wasn't the strategy, it was the execution" decided that no, doing exactly what JEB! did to defend himself from the charge, but with more money behind it was the winning ticket. Making the charges of smug, out-of-touch arrogance retroactively correct. Funny how that works, huh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Sanders was to the right of Jackson '88, which won 11 primaries. You're right. As an aside, anyone who has not taken the time to listen to Jesse Jackson's 1988 DNC speech needs to give it a listen. He gives a shout-out to D.C. Statehood!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:He is saying that Hillary failed to appear like a human being compared to a brash, loud serial liar caricature of capitalist excess. And he's right. Trump at least has a huckster's gift for saying whatever the rubes want to hear, b it war, peace, jobs, family, tradition, whatever. Ding ding ding Hillary came off as an out of touch rear end in a top hat who didn't actually give a poo poo It was slobs vs snobs and like any good eighties comedy the slobs stole the show
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
This is the 2016 Rosetta Stone
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:I am, in fact. They were instead, motivated by the fact they'd worked perfectly against JEB! and Donald Trump understands nothing beyond "this line got me applause before, so I'll keep using it." Donald Trump, a man who hosted a reality TV show wherein he was the boss of company where he fired someone each week, a man who claimed he was very smart and could master any topic in an hour, a man who regularly got into shouting matches during debates, said that, in comparison to him, Hillary Clinton was a shrill, bossy, arrogant know-it-all. You don't think that agreeing with him has anything to do with gender, maybe gender roles in society?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:the liberal platform, everybody: "We Refuse To Even Try." "A twenty state strategy will lead us to the White House."
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:lmao for having enough privilege to vote third party. Lmao at assuming that I have any privilege or that I voted third party
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Bernie was a flawed candidate if he thought running as a Democrat was the smart thing to do. They would never have accepted his radical (by American standards) beliefs. Reminder, these people voted in Trump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:The only person who can save the Democrats is the man they once considered their biggest enemy. Draft JEB! 2020
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:Bernie was a flawed candidate if he thought running as a Democrat was the smart thing to do. Is this your gimmick now, calling Americans dumb and saying they deserve Trump?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Donald Trump, a man who hosted a reality TV show wherein he was the boss of company where he fired someone each week, a man who claimed he was very smart and could master any topic in an hour, a man who regularly got into shouting matches during debates, said that, in comparison to him, Hillary Clinton was a shrill, bossy, arrogant know-it-all. You don't think that agreeing with him has anything to do with gender, maybe gender roles in society? Why not apply this fact to your strategy and not nominate someone all of a society naturally dislikes 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Is this your gimmick now, calling Americans dumb and saying they deserve Trump? I'm not calling you dumb, I am calling you stubborn. And Trump is very clearly a product of the system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Donald Trump, a man who hosted a reality TV show wherein he was the boss of company where he fired someone each week, a man who claimed he was very smart and could master any topic in an hour, a man who regularly got into shouting matches during debates, said that, in comparison to him, Hillary Clinton was a shrill, bossy, arrogant know-it-all. You don't think that agreeing with him has anything to do with gender, maybe gender roles in society? man, those goalposts moved in a hurry, didn't they
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Is this your gimmick now, calling Americans dumb and saying they deserve Trump? The second part of this sentence is true when applied to white people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2017 17:55
|
|