|
Chilichimp posted:lol if you haven't already thrown money at Mike Espy. I know nothing about Mike Espy but I can presume that as a Dem running for a statewide election in Mississippi he wouldn’t pass muster to warrant support for about half of this thread. It’s actually a good thing he’ll likely lose by a lot.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
Someone really needs to explain to me how not covering pre-existing conditions didn't amount to death panels, and how being poor didn't amount to indefinite wait times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:If Florida is on the brink of being lost, as is Ohio, Democrats better have really clever plans for the Wisconsin, Arizona and making Pennsylvania the next Virginia. Also getting PR and DC into loving statehood. The thing about the idea that a Republican has never won the presidency without winning Ohio, is that it implies the fact that Democrats both have and can. Ohio's historical importance relies on its high population density compared to other states, and it isn't really keeping up with that. Typo posted:I say Ohio is lost by this point, there is only 1 state-wide Democrat in elected office at this point (Sherrod Brown), who didn't win this election by all that much Brown's seat was called immediately upon the closing of polls and he won by 6.4%. He won by a wider margin than most Republicans won state offices. The race for State Auditor was more competitive. There are likely hundreds of thousands of people who voted straight-ticket Republican for state offices and still voted for Brown. Teddybear posted:I think Ohio is falling victim to demographics; throughout the state but prominently in the southern half, young Ohioans are moving away to the coasts or to Chicago rather than stick around their towns and cities. We’ll have to wait and see how 2020 shakes out, but I’m similarly not optimistic about it. The median age in Columbus and Cincinnati is ~32. The median age in Cleveland is 36. Depopulation is actually more prominent in northeast Ohio, which hasn't been able to replace the jobs lost in the recession. This is why you see historically Democratic working-class counties in those areas trending redder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/1061716516385841154
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Gee, I wonder if 2015 saw a rise of some candidate in one party who the establishment wanted to stop at all costs, who then grabbed the nomination easily, thus disproving that notion. But that would require you actually thinking about these things for two seconds. Can't have that.. Or maybe Trumps racist rhetoric energized the already angry and reliable right a lot more than Bernie's progressive platform did the fractured left. Therefor Trump was able to overcome the RNC trying to stop him while Bernie wasn't able to do the same with the DNC. Not to mention the Democratic primary system gives the party a lot more power than the Republicans'. But that would require you actually thinking about things at all. Can't have that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
I hope North Carolina can become the new Ohio in swing state status.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's funny because "the invisible primary" and "the party decides" are long running and uncontroversial cliches in political science and until around 2015 I never saw anybody familiar with politics serious disputing the idea that of course the party establishment plays a significant role in selecting the nominee but suddenly it became a beyond insane conspiracy theory to suggest that a party primary was anything other than flawlessly impartial. the right to rig and alter primaries has even been defended in court. but happening on such a broad scale means that now it's common knowledge, and there's no way to defend it without admitting the process is undemocratic, so people just deny it instead
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Or maybe Trumps racist rhetoric energized the already angry and reliable right a lot more than Bernie's progressive platform did the fractured left. Therefor Trump was able to overcome the RNC trying to stop him while Bernie wasn't able to do the same with the DNC. Not to mention the Democratic primary system gives the party a lot more power than the Republicans'. But that would require you actually thinking about things at all. Can't have that. Maybe the GOP's primaries are more fair than the DNC's
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
Helsing posted:You know when a more left-wing Democratic party could have really come in handy? 2009-2010 when they could have passed a comprehensive universal healthcare bill that would have massively improved tens of millions of people's lives and household budgets overnight and that would have been an extremely concrete and visible benefit to motivate them at the polls, as well as a very direct refutation of Republican ideology. quote:They could have backed it up with a very visible campaign to jail Wall Street executives, using carefully timed announcements of prosecutions to whip up popular anger just before the next midterm in much the same way that Trump whipped up anger about migrants to try and motivate people to the polls. quote:To top it all off they would have spent the summer of 2010 constantly talking about how the economic recovery was recent and fragile and how important it was to elect more Democrats in 2010. quote:By the time you get to 2016 and are asking how the left could have done better it may well have already been too late. The reason to demand leftist candidates isn't necessarily because they're more likely to win elections (though at this moment many of them are just by virtue of having something they actually care about) but because the policies they might pass while in office - especially in the midst of another crisis - actually have some chance of improving people's lives and breaking out of the death spiral the country is in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:https://twitter.com/Education4Libs/status/1061287157573320705 Don't read into the likes too much. She's at the center of several chud circlejerk networks where they all like and retweet loving everything from each other. I'm not entirely sure that they are even proper botnets because "chud boomer hitting forward/like/retweet on everything that hits their Facebook/twitter feed" is definitely a thing. They basically break every single "trending" algorithm by mindlessly liking everything. Twitter taking away the like option is going to really piss them off. Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Nov 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:YourBoyFancy very likely does far more in his daily life to pursue progressive, um, progress than 99% of people here so it’s always interesting seeing him bashed in these discussions. I mean he still drags Lee Carter whenever that subject comes up, despite Carter doing pretty much exactly what YBF would tell you a leftist is supposed to do to effect change and move the conversation left. He just doesn't have a mental model of politics that allows for leftist victories that aren't either one-off flukes or thanks to a masterful Sorkinesque manipulation of a framework bought and paid for by centrists. But Your Boy Fancy was just a convenient example because he had a stupid reply that I had happened to quote in my post. There are plenty of others like him who consistently get it wrong despite being good people. Like you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Maybe the GOP's primaries are more fair than the DNC's Nah, they still have a lot of winner take all primaries, so the highest plurality will take the entire state's delegates
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Did that. Didn't help. Welcome to the Republican Party (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I know nothing about Mike Espy but I can presume that as a Dem running for a statewide election in Mississippi he wouldn’t pass muster to warrant support for about half of this thread. It’s actually a good thing he’ll likely lose by a lot. He's black so he's probably not a racist, at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Or maybe Trumps racist rhetoric energized the already angry and reliable right a lot more than Bernie's progressive platform did the fractured left. Therefor Trump was able to overcome the RNC trying to stop him while Bernie wasn't able to do the same with the DNC. Not to mention the Democratic primary system gives the party a lot more power than the Republicans'. But that would require you actually thinking about things at all. Can't have that. Clinton got more votes. She won more open primaries. and then had the gall to win the popular vote nationally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Gee, I wonder if 2015 saw a rise of some candidate in one party who the establishment wanted to stop at all costs, who then grabbed the nomination easily, thus disproving that notion. But that would require you actually thinking about these things for two seconds. Can't have that.. The fact a primary can have an outcome contrary to what the party establishment wanted doesn't disprove a theory saying that party elites have outsized impact on candidate selection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Maybe the GOP's primaries are more fair than the DNC's So fair, in fact, that they can be hijacked by racist morons with no government experience who desire nothing but money, fame, and to burn it all down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Did that. Didn't help. Not really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:
Spite does weird poo poo to a person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:"Dems can't effectively fight facsists, therefore, we should elect the fascists" is certainly a take. It also seems illogical from a strategic standpoint. If Dems lose to a fascist they're not likely to "get" the message to go full socialist. Seems like the message there would be "half the country wants fascism, the other half could take it or leave it". Even if you assume all undecideds and nonvoters want socialism, it's hard to see how not voting sends any discernable message at all. It would make sense as a bargaining tactic: basically approach the DNC and say you loving go socialist or I'm voting for Trump (or not voting against him - whatever). But that would require making that argument in real life, not on this forum. I doubt that anyone making the argument here would say to a person in real life "Yes I would rather vote for Trump than Hillary" so I think this is their only socially acceptable place to express that sentiment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Or maybe Trumps racist rhetoric energized the already angry and reliable right a lot more than Bernie's progressive platform did the fractured left. Therefor Trump was able to overcome the RNC trying to stop him while Bernie wasn't able to do the same with the DNC. Not to mention the Democratic primary system gives the party a lot more power than the Republicans'. But that would require you actually thinking about things at all. Can't have that. No it loving doesn't. The primary system is still set up by the RNC the exact same way that the DNC sets up theirs. The only difference is unbound delegates vs. superdelegates, which is an utterly meaningless distinction in this context outside of your goddamn idiotic "Number bigger. MUST VOTE FOR PERSON WITH BIGGER NUMBER!" idiocy. But yeah, it proved that if a candidate is offering something the people want, then the party is powerless to stop them. So we are in agreement that Bernie lost because the base liked Hillary more. corn in the bible posted:Maybe the GOP's primaries are more fair than the DNC's "How could this be fair if I still lost" will never not be the most unintentionally revealing thing leftists keep posting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:So fair, in fact, that they can be hijacked by racist morons with no government experience who desire nothing but money, fame, and to burn it all down. I mean, that is a kind of fairness, yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I'm not entirely sure that they are even proper botnets because "chud boomer hitting forward/like/retweet on everything that hits their Facebook/twitter feed" is definitely a thing. Chud logic/herd behavior must fail a Turing test more often than not
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Clinton got more votes. She won more open primaries. and then had the gall to win the popular vote nationally. corn in the bible posted:Maybe the GOP's primaries are more fair than the DNC's Fulchrum posted:
We're all in agreement then. I was saying why people all of a sudden thought that primaries were rigged when the parties run their own primaries and it's always been common knowledge that they're setup to give the advantage to their preferred candidate, which is common sense stuff. Trump overcame the RNC because of racism energizing the base. Bernie couldn't do the same on the left because the left is a lot more splintered and purity test everything instead of reliably pulling that lever like the right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Someone really needs to explain to me how not covering pre-existing conditions didn't amount to death panels, and how being poor didn't amount to indefinite wait times. Because every Republican knows a guy in one of those socialism medicine places that broke his arm and had to come to the US to get it fixed. Every. Single. One of them. While this doesn't answer your question, it doesn't matter. That was always the rebuttal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:I mean, that is a kind of fairness, yes fair primaries: errm... I mean like... sure, I guess? I wouldn't have gone that way, but yeesh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
"leftists are idiots who can't realize they lost fair and square to clinton, also clinton would destroy trump in a fair election". okay dude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:We're all in agreement then. I was saying why people all of a sudden thought that primaries were rigged when the parties run their own primaries and it's always been common knowledge that they're setup to give the advantage to their preferred candidate, which is common sense stuff. Trump overcame the RNC because of racism energizing the base. Bernie couldn't do the same on the left because the left is a lot more splintered and purity test everything instead of reliably pulling that lever like the right. They don't give an advantage to the establishment preferred candidate, they give an advantage to the candidate the voters like more. You are just incapable of accepting when that is not the candidate YOU like, because you refuse to accept that there is a single voice in the party aside from yours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
HPanda posted:Because every Republican knows a guy in one of those socialism medicine places that broke his arm and had to come to the US to get it fixed. Every. Single. One of them. I got into it on twitter with a guy claiming to be a Canadian whose wife waited 6 months for a cancerous cell biopsy or something. I went on the internet and looked up average procedure wait times and if he was telling the truth he'd have been basically the person with the longest wait time for any medical procedure in the history of the Canadian health system. I say this only to pile on that yes, they all have anecdotes, and yes, they're almost all lies or gross embellishments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:They don't give an advantage to the establishment preferred candidate, they give an advantage to the candidate the voters like more. You are just incapable of accepting when that is not the candidate YOU like, because you refuse to accept that there is a single voice in the party aside from yours. wait i thought that the primaries were perfectly fair? now you're saying they give an advantage to one of the candidates rather than letting the voters decide! i don't know what to think here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I can't emphasize the point enough, Claire McCaskill ran TV ads calling fellow Democrats crazy, it cannot be more apparent that the resistance to criticizing Democrats only goes one way: to silence criticism of corporate Dems who are of course under no reciprocal obligation to refrain from criticizing antiracists and other left-wing Democrats. How can someone who spends all of their time on this board not understand the simplest thing about successfully running as a Democrat in a red state? About not stirring up the chuds in a chud-heavy state? You take everything a Democrat says that you don't like as literal, rather than strategic. Meanwhile, every time a Democrat says something you like, you assume it's a lie. You don't understand the first thing about electoral politics or about the need to have power before you can exercise power, yet you never stop badposting. It's astounding, really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
clinton lost to trump...and will lose to trump again. the democrats are all but guaranteeing trump 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:They don't give an advantage to the establishment preferred candidate, they give an advantage to the candidate the voters like more. You are just incapable of accepting when that is not the candidate YOU like, because you refuse to accept that there is a single voice in the party aside from yours. I literally just said Bernie lost because the left is splintered and he didn't energize them to come together. I.e. lots of voices you dense dumbshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:We're all in agreement then. I was saying why people all of a sudden thought that primaries were rigged when the parties run their own primaries and it's always been common knowledge that they're setup to give the advantage to their preferred candidate, which is common sense stuff. Trump overcame the RNC because of racism energizing the base. Bernie couldn't do the same on the left because the left is a lot more splintered and purity test everything instead of reliably pulling that lever like the right. I mean, frankly primaries totally suck in the first place, if you ask me. We should have candidates collect enough signatures in their jurisdictions to appear on the ballot, and then select from all such candidates in the general election by ranked-choice. That's easier on the electorate, as well. But that's not something the Democratic party could or would do on its own. I just mention this to clear up that I'm not trying to argue about the "correct way" to do primaries, because I think primaries are bad to begin with. This is more like triage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Stexils posted:wait i thought that the primaries were perfectly fair? now you're saying they give an advantage to one of the candidates rather than letting the voters decide! i don't know what to think here. Stexils, man, cool it with this bad faith poo poo. We're all extremely tired of the demsbadchat and you being an insufferable shithead while doing it is the worst part of this entire experience. Peter Daou Bundy posted:clinton lost to trump...and will lose to trump again. the democrats are all but guaranteeing trump 2020. She's not getting the nom, cool it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
Peter Daou Bundy posted:clinton lost to trump...and will lose to trump again. the democrats are all but guaranteeing trump 2020. Should I interpret this as you toxxing that Hillary will be the 2020 nominee?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
predicto posted:How can someone who spends all of their time on this board not understand the simplest thing about successfully running as a Democrat in a red state? About not stirring up the chuds in a chud-heavy state? You take everything a Democrat says that you don't like as literal, rather than strategic. Meanwhile, every time a Democrat says something you like, you assume it's a lie. You don't understand the first thing about electoral politics or about the need to have power before you can exercise power, yet you never stop badposting. It's astounding, really. i love that you drop this incredibly condescending reply about the guy questioning mccaskill's campaign obviously not understanding strategy when she lost
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Should I interpret this as you toxxing that Hillary will be the 2020 nominee? no, im saying the democrats are idiots and have given trump every single thing he's wanted, and are so out of ideas that clinton or biden 2020 is all they have. democrats are fascist enablers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Didn't it come out shortly after the election that the Clintons basically owned the DNC?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Okay, so if that's the case, then clearly voting in primaries for the preferred candidate isn't enough (no argument there), and more must be done. And that might include not voting for the Democrat in the general No that's stupid as gently caress. Instead of voting for the candidate that shares most of the agenda as your ideal candidate you're just going to cede your vote to a literal fascist party? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 22:20
|
|