|
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:What was that? I missed it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...=APPLENEWS00001 Can't find the full statement (probably press release), but here's a celebrity: https://twitter.com/SarahKSilverman/status/855229317739143168
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Also this Hillary has her reputation in the shitter because of all the poo poo that has been revealed after the election. She was never liked but besides the lovely hangers on alot have given up on hercdue to these internal revelations. Her getting removed would have been a confirmation of Hillaries rants abot a vrwc. But now with Bernie being part of it. Alot would have stayed home. Yes Bernie Sanders would have been fingered as a member of a vast right wing conspiracy and Democrats would have let Trump take the white house to show their solidarity. What are you even talking about? Would all of these "just shut up you have to vote Hillary or Trump will win" people just not vote if Bernie was nominated? Kind of makes you wonder whether they were ever worth listening to in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
The DNC just nullifying Hillary wouldve been even worse than what they did to bernie. Keep in mind, Hillary was not the DNC. The DNC cheated, not Hillary. Bernie needed a legit win, not something like this. I say this as someone who thinks bernie woulda won, but you can't separate the primary from the general.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...=APPLENEWS00001 Well, I'm relieved to hear that. I hope it's good enough for other Dems. (probably won't be though) NewForumSoftware posted:Really? You think Hillary Clinton is more appealing to your average gop voter than Bernie Sanders? How adorably quaint. I actually didn't say that at all. I think, at the time, it probably would have been a push, in terms of how many voters they would get to cross the aisle. I certainly don't think Sanders would have gotten enough Republican voters to make up for the Democrats who would have stayed home, had the DNC unseated the more-popular Democrat (in terms of primary votes) and replaced her with an old white man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Here's a hot take, if the presidential ballot said Donald Trump - R Bernie Sanders - D Bernie would have won. short of a nuclear explosion or katrina 2.0 nothing could have changed it Majorian posted:I actually didn't say that at all. I think, at the time, it probably would have been a push, in terms of how many voters they would get to cross the aisle. I certainly don't think Sanders would have gotten enough Republican voters to make up for the Democrats who would have stayed home, had the DNC unseated the more-popular Democrat (in terms of primary votes) and replaced her with an old white man. I'm sorry but what does him being old have to do with anything? Hillary is like 3 years younger than him. Like you want to distill this down to race or whatever, I know it hurts to realize this, but a baked potato could have beaten Trump in the general, much less the most popular politican in America being granted a democratic nomination after his opponent cheatred
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I'm sorry but what does him being old have to do with anything? Hillary is like 3 years younger than him. Like you want to distill this down to race or whatever, The reason why I brought up him being old and white is because, when your electoral success depends, in part, upon turnout among black people, Latinos, and women, and when nerves are already raw because old white men wield a disproportionate degree of power in both parties, it's a pretty bad look to replace the Democratic candidate with the most primary votes with an old white man. quote:I know it hurts to realize this, but a baked potato could have beaten Trump in the general, much less the most popular politican in America Sanders was not the most popular politician in America at the time. I know it hurts to realize this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
I'm all for pointless bullshit but why would you speculate on who would win an election in the bizarro world where the DNC unilaterally killed the campaign of a Clinton? That's so far out from reality nothing that follows it makes any sense at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, I'm relieved to hear that. I hope it's good enough for other Dems. (probably won't be though) It's good enough for me. I'd prefer a lifelong pro-choicer, but I'm happy to embrace converts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Maarek posted:I'm all for pointless bullshit but why would you speculate on who would win an election in the bizarro world where the DNC unilaterally killed the campaign of a Clinton? That's so far out from reality nothing that follows it makes any sense at all. Because hypothetical good things are the only good things left Majorian posted:The reason why I brought up him being old and white is because, when your electoral success depends, in part, upon turnout among black people, Latinos, and women, and when nerves are already raw because old white men wield a disproportionate degree of power in both parties, it's a pretty bad look to replace the Democratic candidate with the most primary votes with an old white man. It's a pretty bad look to elect someone who pushed crime bills in the 90s and coined the term "superpredator" too but you don't see that stopping anyone. quote:Sanders was not the most popular politician in America at the time. I know it hurts to realize this. Who was? Michelle Obama? She would have won too so I guess I would have been fine with the DNC just putting her up too. At least she has a conscience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's a pretty bad look to elect someone who pushed crime bills in the 90s and coined the term "superpredator" too but you don't see that stopping anyone. It is, but you know what? That doesn't really enter into this discussion. Hillary Clinton was very popular among her supporters, and they made up the majority of Democratic primary voters. This is a fact you're going to have to be a big boy and come to terms with. Removing her as the Democratic nominee would have been a suicidal move, regardless of how popular Sanders is now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It is, but you know what? That doesn't really enter into this discussion. Hillary Clinton was very popular among her supporters, and they made up the majority of Democratic primary voters. This is a fact you're going to have to be a big boy and come to terms with. Removing her as the Democratic nominee would have been a suicidal move, regardless of how popular Sanders is now. You still haven't told anyone why? You seem to think Bernie would have had lower turnout because the lack of democracy displayed by the DNC would have shocked the electorate? Not a chance in hell. I'm sorry but your "well it would have been just so" doesn't pass the smell test. Removing her as the Democratic nominee was the only path to victory for the Democrats. Trump did anything wrong you could possibly do wrong and still beat her. Thank god he wasn't slightly competent or it could have been even more shameful. The DNC is not, and will never be, run democratically. Acting like the primary vote matters once a candidate cheats is just a comedy. What's even the point of the rules exactly? Do you think if Donald Trump was convicted of voter fraud people would just say "well he would have won anyways so who cares"? NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:You still haven't told anyone why? You seem to think Bernie would have had lower turnout because the lack of democracy displayed by the DNC would have shocked the electorate? Not a chance in hell. No, the lower turnout would have been caused by PoC voters, women voters, LGBT voters, and plain-old white people who just liked Hillary Clinton better, seeing their favored candidate (who got more primary votes) unseated by a small council of elites, and replaced with an old white man. They would have resented this, and they largely would have stayed home, out of disillusionment and anger at the DNC. Just as there are lefties who would rather have stayed home and helped Trump win rather than vote for Hillary, there would have been a similar feeling against Sanders, had he been handed the nomination under these circumstances. There is a reason why no major party has done anything like what you're suggesting: because they know it would be suicide. quote:I'm sorry but your "well it would have been just so" doesn't pass the smell test. You are literally the only person here who believes what you are arguing. There's a reason for that: it's one of the dumbest arguments I've seen in this thread and its predecessor, and by God, I argued with Effectronica for pages. quote:Acting like the primary vote matters once a candidate cheats is just a comedy. It matters to those who supported that primary candidate. And guess what? There were more of them than there were of us. 
Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
I just can't believe you really think LGBT voters would stay home instead of vote Bernie Sanders if the opposition is Trump "because he's an old white man". I'd like to meet this mythical person. "I'd vote for that guy that has openly campaigned for social justice for the past 50 years of his life if the Democrats hadn't taken away the lady who campaigned with Barry Goldwater" NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I just can't believe you really think LGBT voters would stay home instead of vote Bernie Sanders if the opposition is Trump "because he's an old white man". That's not why they'd stay home, dingbat. They'd stay home because the DNC unilaterally removed their preferred candidate. How are you not getting this? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's not why they'd stay home, dingbat. They'd stay home because the DNC unilaterally removed their preferred candidate. How are you not getting this? Yeah I don't see people deciding to not vote in the Presidential election because the DNC decided to enforce its own rules
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Yeah I don't see people deciding to not vote in the Presidential election because the DNC decided to enforce its own rules And which rules are those, again?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:And which rules are those, again? Why change the subject? I'd really like to know what makes you think people would choose to let Trump take the Whitehouse? Do you think Bernie's messaging wouldn't have gotten to them? Abuela or bust? I imagine there's about as few people there as there are on St Bernards side. I don't know why you're so vehemently against the DNC, a private organization, pushing the scales to choose the good candidate. They basically did the opposite thing already, and now we have Trump
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Why change the subject? I'd really like to know what makes you think people would choose to let Trump take the Whitehouse? Do you think Bernie's messaging wouldn't have gotten to them? Abuela or bust? I imagine there's about as few people there as there are on St Bernards side. People are spiteful. Especially when you remove their candidate on a technicality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:People are spiteful. Especially when you remove their candidate on a technicality. Yeah something tells me the spite would have worn off over the next year as reality set in, but I guess I do underestimate the centrist's ability to throw a year long temper tantrum Spite doesn't drive voters, hope does, something that Hillary could never give, and Bernie excels at. Fact is, had they chosen the good candidate, however they did, the Democrats would have won.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Why change the subject? It's not changing the subject, it's demonstrating how incredibly stupid it would have been for the DNC to remove the primary candidate who got the most votes from the nomination, based on a rather vague charge of violating a party's rules. quote:I'd really like to know what makes you think people would choose to let Trump take the Whitehouse? Because again, idiot, they would have resented a body of predominantly old white men unilaterally replacing the candidate who is extremely popular with PoCs, women, and LGBT voters, with an old white man who was less popular with those groups.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Yeah something tells me the spite would have worn off over the next year as reality set in, but I guess I do underestimate the centrist's ability to throw a year long temper tantrum 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Because again, idiot, they would have resented a body of predominantly old white men unilaterally replacing the candidate who is extremely popular with PoCs, women, and LGBT voters, with an old white man who was less popular with those groups. Wrong. you keep forgetting "old people" because that's the only demographic Hillary is killing. Other than idiot rich white women I don't really think Hillary is pulling that big of an advantage with anyone. This is of course ignoring the fact that Bernie's popularity would have continued to grow as it has in reality and he would have crushed Trump like a bug in the general. Bernie's supporters overwhelmingly voted for Hillary
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Wrong. you keep forgetting "old people" because that's the only demographic Hillary is killing. Old people are the ones who actually vote, you tool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Old people are the ones who actually vote, you tool. Maybe because... and catch this... it's because we only run candidates that appeal to old people. If only there were someone who could reach the hordes of youth actually looking for a better future? Funny how Obama won in 2008 and tapped the exact same demographic to win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Maybe because... and catch this... it's because we only run candidates that appeal to old people. Clinton beat Sanders among most Democratic primary voting groups. It wasn't just old people. You are living in a fantasy world. Please take your meds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Clinton beat Sanders among most Democratic primary voting groups. It wasn't just old people. You are living in a fantasy world. Please take your meds. It's an age gap is what that data shows. If one of the top subgroups for Bernie was "white" maybe I'd agree with you. Also lol at "Healthcare" being won by the ol Hilldawg. Things like that are exactly why I think Bernie would have won the general. Democratic primary voters are morons and literally have no idea as to the realities facing their party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's an age gap is what that data shows. And, as I've pointed out to you, it's older demographics that vote most reliably. The DNC unilaterally replacing Clinton with Sanders on a technicality likely would not have changed that. quote:Also lol at "Healthcare" being won by the ol Hilldawg. Things like that are exactly why I think Bernie would have won the general. Democratic primary voters are morons and literally have no idea as to the realities facing their party. That's nice that you have strong opinions about people who think differently from you, but a Democratic nominee kind of needs those voters to win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Reading Shattered has been a blast. Is there more stuff out there to read about what goes on behind the scenes in the party?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:And, as I've pointed out to you, it's older demographics that vote most reliably. The DNC unilaterally replacing Clinton with Sanders on a technicality likely would not have changed that. You're right. And they would have voted for whoever had a D next to their name. Especially against Trump. And especially if that person's name was Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:You're right. And they would have voted for whoever had a D next to their name. Especially against Trump. And especially if that person's name was Bernie Sanders. No, probably not. Again, there's a reason why major parties don't do the retarded thing that you've advocated here. But thanks for playing, sport!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No, probably not. Again, there's a reason why major parties don't do the retarded thing that you've advocated here. But thanks for playing, sport! Wait so they are reliable or they aren't? I'm confused.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
tekz posted:Reading Shattered has been a blast. Is there more stuff out there to read about what goes on behind the scenes in the party? Probably not for a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:How could Bernie Sanders, the most popular politician, get fewer votes than Hillary, who nobody likes other than the feckless DNC, which has proven themselves to be incapable of winning elections? Institutional inertia, tribalism, the fact that poors vote less than the better off professionals the DNC has been targeting for 45 years (also a GOP tactic), concern trolling by Hillary supporters that Bernie is racist (the GOP has also been accusing him of "inciting racial tension" for years), media exposure that favored Hillary by five to one, deliberately ignoring that economic improvements would be both faster to pull off than social equality (this is obvious every year when tax returns come in for the poor), and provide disproportionately more economic improvement to minorities than whites, as they are the worst off, and because professionals already got theirs and Hillary is an Ivy League professional, therefore... Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Wait so they are reliable or they aren't? I'm confused. They're reliable when a party doesn't pull an incredibly stupid move like replacing the candidate who's most popular among that party's voters, late in the race, on a technicality. e: Especially when that candidate is overwhelmingly popular among the same old voters we're talking about. My GOD you're stupid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:They're reliable when a party doesn't pull an incredibly stupid move like replacing the candidate who's most popular among that party's voters, late in the race, on a technicality. Do you have any data to back this up or is this just a gut feeling kind of thing? Sounds kind of like "Trump could never win the general" ie Hillary's campaign strategy
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Do you have any data to back this up or is this just a gut feeling kind of thing? You're not going to find data for insane counterfactuals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Do you have any data to back this up or is this just a gut feeling kind of thing? There's no data, because as dumb as the DNC and RNC are, even they're not that dumb. quote:Sounds kind of like "Trump could never win the general" ie Hillary's campaign strategy That's literally what you're arguing: that Trump could never have won, if the DNC had unilaterally replaced Clinton with Sanders late in the campaign, based on a technicality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's literally what you're arguing: that Trump could never have won, if the DNC had unilaterally replaced Clinton with Sanders late in the campaign, based on a technicality. Well yes, because Bernie is a competent politician and not a lying friend of the banks. Honestly I can't believe you don't agree. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Well yes, because Bernie is a competent politician and not a lying friend of the banks. Or a former Walmart director Or a supporter of for-profit prisons Or a lobbyist for Clinton era "welfare reform" Or a negotiator for the provisions in the TPP Or a supporter of charter schools Or both supportive of "internet innovation in the job market" and non-committal about the effect of the "gig economy" on regulations and worker rights Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Well yes, because Bernie is a competent politician and not a lying friend of the banks. And you think that would have been enough to make up for the resentment that people felt at seeing "their" candidate get unilaterally replaced by a group of predominantly old white men, with another old white man, based on a technicality. Please, dude. Take your meds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 21:32
|
|