|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
McCloud posted:If the voters can't be arsed to vote for better candidates, then they deserve Trump, imo. I see we've reached the point where somebody is unironically arguing that political parties can't affect their electoral fortunes in any way. Which does call in question why the dems blew over a billion smackers on trying to get Hillary into the White House.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
McCloud posted:Like, there's a big difference between Obama using his supermajority to pass healthcare reform and stimulus bill which saved the economy, and Trump who used his Supermajority to ?!?!? You are actually right, Obama wasn't 100% ineffective, he just used his mandate to create policies that filled the pockets of the least deserving people, under the pretense that it was the best he could do. Which is a kind of failure as far as the electorate is concerned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
McCloud posted:they deserve Trump, imo. As a white, male, straight 1%er, Jesus just just embrace your privilege already and join the GOP. You don't have the stomach for the fight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
McCloud posted:If the voters can't be arsed to vote for better candidates, then they deserve Trump, imo. That's hard to do when you have no better options.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
"People deserve what they get for voting incorrectly, even if they themselves didn't vote for the bad candidate but live in areas where they are outnumbered or neither candidate cares about their interests" doesn't really speak to the compassionate nature of pragmatic politics. It reminds me of arguing with people here before 2016 in which they couldn't understand why you would do anything for younger Americans. Since they aren't going to vote for you in high enough numbers statistically in midterms they should be pragmatically ignored. The entire nature of that ideology is wait until people vote for you and then do what they want (maybe) which is so ludicrously backwards and it's clearly not working. At this point as Hillary is displaying, for many it's about punishing people that don't show sufficient faith in their betters rather than adapt to winning elections.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
McCloud posted:If the voters can't be arsed to vote for better candidates, then they deserve Trump, imo. So which mainstream candidate could I have voted for to end our 17 wars in the Middle East?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
I always knew people would try to rewrite the crash into "actually, people were super happy to be unemployed and broke and were desperately trying to find ways to shovel money at bankers and engage in the Grand Bargain to cut social security, because all Americans are idiot racist rubes'
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Wow, someone to the left of the establishment dems got elected in a blood red state! That's supposed to be impossible! Only blue dogs are supposed to be able to win here!! This is very good and interesting but the million dollar questions are a) can this be repeated elsewhere and b) does he manage reelection without a big fat Trump-shaped weight hanging on the Republicans' necks?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I see we've reached the point where somebody is unironically arguing that political parties can't affect their electoral fortunes in any way. Well they didn't succeed so clearly there's something to that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:So which mainstream candidate could I have voted for to end our 17 wars in the Middle East? Vermin Supreme.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
McCloud posted:If the voters can't be arsed to vote for better candidates, then they deserve Trump, imo. i voted for bernie in the primary and gloria la riva in the general i think i voted for the better candidates where possible 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:Well they didn't succeed so clearly there's something to that. Not really, it's like coming to the conclusion that money in politics doesn't matter since Clinton spent more and lost. It's pretty facile
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:Well they didn't succeed so clearly there's something to that. *Makes Republican healthcare plan the defining policy of the party* "Why can't voters recognize that we're the better option!?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This is very good and interesting but the million dollar questions are a) can this be repeated elsewhere and b) does he manage reelection without a big fat Trump-shaped weight hanging on the Republicans' necks? it's been repeated 3 times in the state lk you can try to be a little less pessimistic you know? as for "trump made this possible!!!" that's doubtful. oklahoma voted for ford after he pardoned nixon, and oklahoma loves arpaio so trump pardoning him (and banning immigrants, the wall, etc) should all be plusses for oklahoma under current theory and your reasoning Condiv fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
McCloud posted:I say this politely, but you're full of poo poo. The stimulus was poo poo though. It was one-third the size that economists recommended, and even that was tilted too far toward worthless non-stimulative tax cuts for the rich. It didn't loving work, so people concluded the stimulus was bad rather than realizing the actual problem: the stimulus was too small. McCloud posted:If you think the public stayed home because he protected wall street, prove it.  Look at the popular stuff that Obama didn't do (the first three) Now look at the unpopular stuff Obama did do (the last two, although at least the auto bailout was locally popular and likely kept Michigan and Ohio in our column in 2012) "But what about the stimulus" Not big enough "Obama helped homeowners, what about HAMP?" lol quote:AMP, the signature program to aid poor homeowners, was announced by President Obama on February 18th, 2009. The move inspired CNBC commentator Rick Santelli to go berserk the next day – the infamous viral rant that essentially birthed the Tea Party. Reacting to the news that Obama was planning to use bailout funds to help poor and (presumably) minority homeowners facing foreclosure, Santelli fumed that the president wanted to "subsidize the losers' mortgages" when he should "reward people that could carry the water, instead of drink the water." The tirade against "water drinkers" led to the sort of spontaneous nationwide protests one might have expected months before, when we essentially gave a taxpayer-funded blank check to Gamblers Anonymous addicts, the millionaire and billionaire class.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's been repeated 3 times in the state lk Donald J. Trump is President of the United States of America with the Democratic Party in opposition, and we have about 10 years to 180 as a species to save ourselves from global warming. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:Well they didn't succeed so clearly there's something to that. Money matter less than it used to, but it's only one part in a sophisticated two step system for getting elected. First, make money. Second, don't run a garbagedick candidate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Donald J. Trump is President of the United States of America with the Democratic Party in opposition, and we have about 10 years to 180 as a species to save ourselves from global warming. it's been repeated 3 times since his election, and there's nothing much that trump's done that would piss off oklahomans. we're talking about a state that voted ford after he pardoned nixon's criminal bullshit
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
like, i dunno how you go from arguing "the south is too racist to vote for progressives!" to "donald trump is bringing the republican party down in the eyes of oklahomans!!" it doesn't make a single bit of sense border wall? racist oklahomans would love it deporting dreamers? ditto blocking people from entering the US cause they're too brown? ultra ditto what's the thing trump did that would piss oklahoma off?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Condiv posted:like, i dunno how you go from arguing "the south is too racist to vote for progressives!" to "donald trump is bringing the republican party down in the eyes of oklahomans!!" It's possible for Donald Trump to make Republicans less popular but for Republicans to still win anyway because they're liked more than Democrats in Republican states, for example. That said, when I said "elsewhere" I more so meant "other states." It being possible in Oklahoma is a good sign though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:Money matter less than it used to, but it's only one part in a sophisticated two step system for getting elected. So then how do you explain the Trump victory? And Obama's before than, and so forth?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:It's possible for Donald Trump to make Republicans less popular but for Republicans to still win anyway because they're liked more than Democrats in Republican states, for example. oklahoma is a major republican state, steeped in patriotism, lots of military worship, etc. hell, our current governor had her daughter living in a trailer home on the lawn of the state capitol for a period. dems being electable here, when every drat county in the state has gone republican the past few presidential elections, and dems have slowly became extinct in the state government is an extremely good sign
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:So then how do you explain the Trump victory? Easy. In 2016 the DNC made lots of money, but ran a garbagedick candidate. In 2008 and 2012 the DNC made lots of money, but did not run a garbagedick candidate. Thanks and god bless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:Easy. In 2016 the DNC made lots of money, but ran a garbagedick candidate. I know a couple of people ITT who would contest that second point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:I know a couple of people ITT who would contest that second point. obama at least had a personality and knew he had to pander
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:So then how do you explain the Trump victory? But to answer more seriously, in 2016 the dems decided to run a right wing Establishment Candidate whose strategy was to appear at least socially left by screaming social leftist signifiers at every chance, and spreading propaganda that everyone who isn't her is a terrible *-ist who wants to execute everyone and set the World on fire. All while the mood of the country as a whole was turning intensely anti-establishment. Hindsight is 20/20 and all, but it makes a lot of sense in retrospect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
if hillary had won the primary in 2008 we may have had mccain/palin for president/vice president
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:I know a couple of people ITT who would contest that second point. Candidate, he wasn't a a garbagedick candidate. Edit: The only thing Obama was good at doing was running for office
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:obama at least had a personality and knew he had to pander Exactly, people tend to vote for those who makes the grandest promises. An idealist is always favorable to a nerd. He became president...and then what happened?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:I know a couple of people ITT who would contest that second point. Candidate Obama was a loving perfect politician. Too bad he turned into President Obama.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:I know a couple of people ITT who would contest that second point. I'm inclined to agree with them in a lot of ways But when he was trying to get elected Obama was running on Hope and Change, and the public thought maybe the party was going to pull an about face after the Bush years and maybe even turn left. Close gitmo, get out of Iraq, etc. Now what happened afterwards is another story. MizPiz posted:Candidate, he wasn't a a garbagedick candidate. Or I could have just empty quoted this and saved a lot of words. Welp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Candidate Obama was a loving perfect politician. Too bad he turned into President Obama. I start to understand why American elections are as long as they are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Radish posted:"People deserve what they get for voting incorrectly, even if they themselves didn't vote for the bad candidate but live in areas where they are outnumbered or neither candidate cares about their interests" doesn't really speak to the compassionate nature of pragmatic politics. It reminds me of arguing with people here before 2016 in which they couldn't understand why you would do anything for younger Americans. Since they aren't going to vote for you in high enough numbers statistically in midterms they should be pragmatically ignored. The entire nature of that ideology is wait until people vote for you and then do what they want (maybe) which is so ludicrously backwards and it's clearly not working. At this point as Hillary is displaying, for many it's about punishing people that don't show sufficient faith in their betters rather than adapt to winning elections. It was fuckin bizarre. "Oh great <critical demographic>'s turnout has dropped. Now we can get more election-winning campaign donations by loving them over for the benefit of corporate donors!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:dems being electable here, when every drat county in the state has gone republican the past few presidential elections, and dems have slowly became extinct in the state government is an extremely good sign It is. I just want to know if Wisconsin is salvageable. My home town is in the process of resegregating the school system. It's very bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
ACA passed with 0 republican votes didn't it? Why do people keep saying the Dems needed to compromise? Their compromises got them gently caress all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Fans posted:ACA passed with 0 republican votes didn't it? Why do people keep saying the Dems needed to compromise? Their compromises got them gently caress all. they had to compromise with blue dogs apparently and yet dems still don't want medicare for all to be a litmus test, cause then we might lose our poor bluedogs who make us write lovely, compromised legislation 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The stimulus was poo poo though. It was one-third the size that economists recommended, and even that was tilted too far toward worthless non-stimulative tax cuts for the rich. It didn't loving work, so people concluded the stimulus was bad rather than realizing the actual problem: the stimulus was too small. Yeah, the stimulus is too small. Obama knew this, and so did the financial eggheads. But the key part was actually having it get enough support to pass the house. Too big a price tag and it would be voted down, so by necessity he had to make the bailout smaller than what was actually needed. Again, better have a small improvement than a massive disaster. And yeah, bailing out the auto and bank industries is unpopular, but guess what, that saved jobs and the economy. It needed to be done, or the economy would melt down faster and more people would be out of work. Could he realistically have done more to help the actual poor people? I don't know. Certainly not if it needed bipartisan support, because GOP would have told him to gently caress off. I will say that his willingness to extend the olive branch and compromise with the GOP in some sort of mistaken belief of bipartisanship was pretty loving stupid, and he should have snapped out of that poo poo way sooner than he actually did. But saying the stimulus didn't work is not true. it DID work. It mitigated the damage and prevented a lot of jobs being lost. So again, Obama is hamstrung by the GOP/blue dog democrats, and he pays the price for it. A constant theme during his presidency.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Condiv posted:they had to compromise with blue dogs apparently They needed to compromise with turds like Lieberman, who alone did tremendous damage to the ACA. But again, it was a big improvement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It was fuckin bizarre. Seriously. You say "Younger people are drowning in debt before they enter the job market, which alone should cause widespread outrage, and can't afford to start families because even if they get hired those jobs are horribly underpaid." and the response would be something like "if we do anything that implies we are going left we will lose out on our important Even if it was the Pragmatic thing to do (which it clearly wasn't) you are sacrificing your party's entire future because these people aren't going to suddenly start liking you when they turn 35 and are still hosed over by your lovely half backed compromises. Condiv posted:they had to compromise with blue dogs apparently Even Manchin is turning on this which makes Pelosi's comment even more stupid. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
McCloud posted:They needed to compromise with turds like Lieberman, who alone did tremendous damage to the ACA. But again, it was a big improvement. maybe we should make single-payer a litmus test then so we can't have tremendously damaging turds like lieberman in our party (and as potential veeps)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 14:49
|
|