|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Majorian posted:I don't think anyone has suggested anything of the sort - just that the importance of Big Donor Bux has been massively overstated, particularly by mainstream Democratic strategists. Gaining lots of funds for your campaign but losing key portions of your coalition is a very bad trade if you're trying to get elected. Exactly. Getting an extra half-billion dollars over your opponent and spending more money in the history of the Republic doesn't help as much as you think it will when you're left stuttering and stammering at the debates trying to explain away the secret promises to Goldman Sachs that you made in order to get that sweet cash: "uh um when I told Goldman Sachs that my public position of actually punishing financial fraud was just a sham for votes and don't worry you'll like my private position of letting Wall Street write their own regulations, that was just like when Lincoln made public speeches about saving the Union but secretly campaigned to abolish slavery in the Union except his private position was good and mine is despicable". Oh yeah and also all the secrets came out because apparently $1.4 billion doesn't buy competent IT if your candidate and her entire staff are smug self-absorbed morons 
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think anyone has suggested anything of the sort - just that the importance of Big Donor Bux has been massively overstated, particularly by mainstream Democratic strategists. Gaining lots of funds for your campaign but losing key portions of your coalition is a very bad trade if you're trying to get elected.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What a charmer. Party unity, everyone!  
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
It's irritating that the new corporate shill argument is that if you're not selling out everything the party stands for for maximum corporate donations, you must be proposing taking in zero dollars. Like there's no way we can raise money by appealing to the people with policies that they want and for which they would donate, or telling corporations that a new new deal is actually in their long-term best interests so it behooves them to donate to us despite the fact that sweetheart deals and immunity from prosecution for financial crimes are no longer on the table. Speaking of corporate shill arguments, I need to come up with a new emotion that's a combination of amusing and depressing to describe corporate dems saying "no see we can't compete in the districts we need to win because we're so toxic that any commitment of funding or infrastructure will doom the campaign. Since our corporate bootlicking and contempt for labor is so dreadfully unpopular outside of Silicon Valley and Wall Street, we only dare show our faces in wealthy Republican-voting suburbs that will never ever vote for us anyway" treating that as an excuse for funding exclusively centrist losers and refusing to campaign outside of wealthy enclaves rather than the blaring emergency siren that it actually is, warning us that the party needs a drastic overhaul to resuscitate the dreadful image that renders it permanently unable to function as a national party anymore. Demusing. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Sep 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
They probably don't care as much about winning as they do about getting the money. I mean, this is basically literally the rich paying the Democrats to throw elections at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:They probably don't care as much about winning as they do about getting the money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:They probably don't care as much about winning as they do about getting the money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
That makes sense from the standpoint of party leaders who stay on the gravy train win or lose. What's mystifying is the smugposters here who get none of that corporate cash but are committed to condescending about how turning the party into corporate lickspittles with no ideals is the Serious Adult pragmatic election-winning thing to do while their bumbling neolib prophets blow election after election despite spending more money than God to buy their way into office.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Also worth pointing out that the RNC has surged ahead of the DNC in fundraising this year, and since the national committees depend on corporate money, we see corporations are abandoning the Democrats anyway because there's no return from investing in losers. Treating money as the be-all and end-all of politics and assuming election victories will follow not only failed to deliver the expected victories as a corollary, but has also failed in its main objective because the money dried up too, so we whored out the Party of the People to corporate ghouls for nothing in the end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
I thought Democratic fundraising was basically the same, just that money was going to candidates instead of people donating to the DNC which is now fantastically unpopular.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Radish posted:I thought Democratic fundraising was basically the same, just that money was going to candidates instead of people donating to the DNC which is now fantastically unpopular. under normal circumstances i'd consider that Really Bad, as you kind of want someone coordinating what money goes where but given the phenomenal ability to learn from mistakes the DNC has demonstrated...
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Yeah the DNC has no loving idea what they are doing so any money not going to them instead of actual candidates is good. Of course a national organization that was actually interested in winning elections would be preferable but it's pretty clear at this point that the DNC is a social club first and a political party second.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:They probably don't care as much about winning as they do about getting the money. I don't think that's likely. They would be paying the Democratic leaders a lot less than they have for the last several elections if that were the case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/905456368416641024quote:Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday brushed off Hillary Clinton's criticism of him in her new book about the 2016 presidential election, saying he's not interested in playing the blame game. gently caress them up bernie
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Because before the primary, no one had ever thought to throw shade on Clinton's character. Yep, if not for Bernie's pernicious innuendo, Trump would have been helpless to make any attacks against her during the general. This is a thing believed by very smart people who are excellent at winning elections.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:Because before the primary, no one had ever thought to throw shade on Clinton's character. Yep, if not for Bernie's pernicious innuendo, Trump would have been helpless to make any attacks against her during the general. Their argument is probably that Bernie gave cover to progressives to buy into all the old propaganda and spread it to young people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Its funny, they called Bernie Bros a cult obsessed with the primaries still, yet the Left is the one that's actually doing stuff on the ground level while HRC and her supporters keep wallowing in misery griping about how bad everyone else is. They're trash people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Zikan posted:https://twitter.com/thehill/status/905456368416641024 "Copying her ideas and super-sizing them"? Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't he been pushing basically this entire line for a good twenty years before she was even a Senator, much less running for POTUS? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
haha thats not even "firing back" lol, he's shrugging her off like a boss
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Bernie criticized Hillary's public record. Hillary started lying that Bernie and everybody who supported him was a white, racist and sexist broseph. Truly Bernie is the evil one here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Of course, that crap isn't new. During the primary itself Sanders had to tweet the following when Hillary attacked him saying he never did anything for single payer: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/687317650658189312/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Of course, that crap isn't new. During the primary itself Sanders had to tweet the following when Hillary attacked him saying he never did anything for single payer: "Thanks for Trump, Bernie."  
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:That's kind of my point. Yong people overall broke for Bernie, older people overall broke for Hillary. Taking into account the self-selecting nature of the primary electorate and the overrepresentation of older black voters in it, it's kinda questionable to draw strong conclusions about the appeal of the candidates among the wider black community, especially when polling showed that a large majority of black voters would be happy with either one. Sorry this is a long ways back in the thread but what specifically about the primary process would cause there to be an over representation of black voters? Is it due to the registration rules or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
 3 guesses who made this image and why
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
TrixR4kids posted:Sorry this is a long ways back in the thread but what specifically about the primary process would cause there to be an over representation of black voters? Is it due to the registration rules or something? I think that the point was that older black voters are over represented. Primary voters are substantially older than general election voters. A full 61% of DEM primary voters were 45 or older. Sanders and Clinton almost evenly split the young PoC vote in the primaries, and Clinton won the older PoC vote. Due to the demographics, it made it seem like that Clinton's edge was larger than it was among the general population.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:3 guesses who made this image and why Some unfathomable piece of poo poo who is as we speak smugly declaring that "identity politics" are why Trump won.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/905236180391878656
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
This just in: representatives from conservative states... are conservative? Maybe the problem isn't the representatives. ^ are you taking quotes from my extended family now Condiv?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Oh no, I agree, but I think it is going to be a slower walk than many here would want. It will need to be done over a few election cycles, and will not be something that is attainable by 2020. It is going to take some crazy good intentions on the part of the DNC to win people's trust, and I think we all know that it is too easy to rely on corporate cash. Any sign of DNC backing away from moving left is going to cause even more upheaval in the party. Except you don't have the time to wait and slowly assume control. There's already been significant blows dealt to the presumptuous DNC voter base, who knows what will be left after 7.5 more years of Trump and another round of GOP gerrymandering, which may or may not be upheld by the courts but will have a lasting impact regardless. The Tea Party overtook the GOP in 2010 and were fully entrenched by 2012 and effectively won the presidency in 2016. Doing anything longer than that cycle and you're going to run out of time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Some unfathomable piece of poo poo who is as we speak smugly declaring that "identity politics" are why Trump won. hmm, kinda. i doubt they'd out and say identity politics are why trump won though. answer: the third way made these 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:hmm, kinda. i doubt they'd out and say identity politics are why trump won though. Those are essentially just how most people in my family talk about politics, really. It's not an inaccurate portrayal of the level of discourse among middle aged and older Midwestern people. By "third way" do you mean that dumb PAC that popped up last month?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
I buy my groceries with a credit card. gently caress you if you ain't got that cash back card pay with paper like a chump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Those are essentially just how most people in my family talk about politics, really. It's not an inaccurate portrayal of the level of discourse among middle aged and older Midwestern people. no, the third way think tank 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
I'm not sure what those images are meant to get at out of context.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Motto posted:I'm not sure what those images are meant to get at out of context. wegottagetmoreracist.jpg The implication is that swinging right on social issues will win back the Midwest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
here's the article if you missed my link
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
it's worse than just swinging right on social issues. the third way thinks we can become "the party of jobs" by handing out tax credits like candy to big businesses tax credits for bringing jobs back (isn't this trump's plan ), tax credits for job retraining, etc.it's trickle down welfare!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
The democrats just made a big win against the Republicans today. In just three hours, they got Trump to agree to limiting the debt ceiling increase to only three months. Why is this a big win for the democrats? Why are republicans furious? This means that now, from today to April 15th (as the treasury can take emergency action until then) Congress can now negotiate on the debt ceiling and not the Republicans legislative agenda. The democrats have hinted they plan to use this as a noose to force Republicans to sign on for everything to avoid a government shutdown in April: DACA as law, obamacare financial protections, etc. To put this in simpler terms, Trump, THE MASTER NEGOTIATOR!!!, just traded away 6 months of his legislative agenda for...nothing. Absolutely nothing. He just hosed his entire agenda until April 15th for no gain whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
Zoro posted:The democrats just made a big win against the Republicans today. In just three hours, they got Trump to agree to limiting the debt ceiling increase to only three months. Why is this a big win for the democrats? Why are republicans furious? This means that now, from today to April 15th (as the treasury can take emergency action until then) Congress can now negotiate on the debt ceiling and not the Republicans legislative agenda. The democrats have hinted they plan to use this as a noose to force Republicans to sign on for everything to avoid a government shutdown in April: DACA as law, obamacare financial protections, etc. And if anyone but the masters of fail was on the other side of the aisle this would be a joyful occasion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 18:26
|
|
