|
Oracle posted:Rahm isn't getting picked for poo poo and will probably lose mayor. Madigan isn't running for mayor and will likely be the Senate candidate, if for whatever reason she doesn't run my money is on Simon for name recognition because who else is there? Schakowsky. eta: I mean, I think she's gonna run for the senate seat, rather than Madigan. Madigan will run for gov. Willa Rogers has issued a correction as of 23:37 on Nov 10, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:This may be a silly question, but why do the Democrats have so few good candidates, in so many states? I keep hearing about how the Dems in Florida, Arizona, Wisconsin, etc., have a weak bench that's costing them a lot of races they could otherwise win. Why? And, is anything being done to ensure that they don't have this issue in the future? http://www.salon.com/2014/11/25/people_yelled_and_carried_on_howard_dean_on_how_he_remade_the_dnc_and_dems_new_path_forward/
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
What's up with the yellow background when people quote me?  eta: My Imaginary GF posted:Yes, as states that aren't dominated by well-run Democratic machines continue with their poo poo practices, non-poo poo individuals will gravitate towards the opportunities available in non-poo poo areas. I think Dean's most salient point was that Dems see a self-funding millionaire as a potential candidate and go KA-CHING, thereby making their GET RID OF CITIZENS UNITED rhetoric even emptier and hollower than it usually is. Willa Rogers has issued a correction as of 03:13 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Joementum posted:We've veered enough away from the original point (which was about candidate strength) that I might as well also mention there's evidence that the public reacts to administrations like a thermostat, becoming more conservative during Democratic administrations, more liberal during Republican administrations. Or, if you're a cynic's cynic, you realize that the political pendulum is an elaborate dance that disguises the genuine points of agreement among the 1 percent who rule the 99 percent.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
FFS. Go away already, Charlie.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Well, there's also that failed Senate run in 2010, in which Dems split their votes between the indy (Crist) and the Dem who won the primary, thus handing the race to the GOP. But yeah, let's go to bat again for the warmed-over failure who changes parties more often than his hairstyle, because third time will definitely be the charm.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Acrophyte posted:How is Wasserman-Shultz policy wise? I'm sensing some dislike in this thread but I still like to have a modicum of rationale before I start parroting the DnD hivemind. She was against medical marijuana before she was for it, out-and-out trying to sell her support to a rich Dem donor. She's everything wrong with most Congressional Dems these days: craven, pro-Israel (as mentioned), clinging to tired tropes about wars on women, etc. If only Dems had nurtured new party blood in the purple states like Florida, rather than offering up stale and out-of-touch candidates year after year. If only someone had had a plan for something like a 50-state strategy, and had been allowed to spearhead it for longer than a couple years after the plan had proven its worth in 2006.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Bad votes on some issues is better than bad votes on all issues. Debbie W-S, I think we've got a new slogan for you! "Vote Dem; our votes are only lovely half the time, instead of all the time." (Bonus irony points to EW, who has argued in the past that getting better Dems takes primary challenges, although he's never met a Republican-turned-Dem he hasn't loved and deemed too worthy of such a challenge. I shudder to think of his torment should Murphy & Crist ever decide to run for the same office.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I've actually repeatedly pointed to people who should get primaried. I can see, however, you don't remember that as much as you remember me mocking your magical thinking about how electing actual republicans is secretly good for the democratic party and the country as a whole. Your spittle's a word salad without any actual examples, and resorts to your laughable "Willa's a secret Republican!" bullshit to boot. Medicare-for-all and an expanded welfare state are deffo GOP memes, as is the desire that the DNC spend money + time toward actual candidate development rather than siphoning off loser Republicans like Crist and Specter.  Feather posted:The weighting matters. 1 bad vote on Iraq vs. 100 good votes on post office names doesn't balance the scale. Totally. And I think that FL Dems likely could do better than both Murphy or Grayson if enough resources were put into the development of state-level pols instead of the party's reflexive embrace of DINOs under the mistaken belief that being more like the GOP is good for Dems.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Feather posted:Well if course it would. Unfortunately OFA kind of cemented the whole "POTUS matters more than anything else" meme. The entire DNC/OFA worldview is to target POTUS and only those regional federal offices deemed necessary for the primary mission. The sorry state of affairs in the party is deliberate. Yah, and Debbie W-S, who a few years ago declined to support the Dem running against "her friend across the aisle," and who's continuing as the chair of the DNC--even after the abortion that was the 2014 midterm election--is a fitting figurehead for the party.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
So: more spittle-spiced word salad, just as I figured. Tell me more about my using GOP framing, Mr. "Entitlements-Isn't-GOP-Framing Because the NYT Used it Once in a Story 45 Years Ago." Your rock-solid castle is actually sand.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
^^^ What about "Wouldn't you rather pay a static tax rate and get Medicare instead of private insurance that increases by double digits each year?" The problem with DINO Dems isn't that they know how to use GOP frames about tax increases; it's that they no longer sell what are winning and popular social programs. evilweasel posted:willa, when you start a conversation with nonsense insults, on this very page, and continue them, in this very post, it is sort of pointless to whine that I am not replying to your contentless insults with specific citations I'm not whining, I'm laughing at you. I've only pointed out your intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy, and your laughable record of shitposting lies and calling them truth. If you want to point out a specific "GOP talking point" I've made, then man up and do so, rather than continuing your spittle-flecked word salads. The only one doing any mocking around here is me, hoss. Bob Ojeda posted:I agree with this but I also think that given the choice between Grayson and Murphy, Murphy is the better choice Based on what: Issues, perceived electability, both, or something else? Willa Rogers has issued a correction as of 22:18 on Aug 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:This slapfight is irrelevant to the topic and, worse, isn't funny. You're right; I gave into the temptation of finally being able to talk to EW the way he talked to me when he was a mod without my being allowed to respond in kind. I'll drop it now, bc I know the pissing contest is boring as hell. :-) De Nomolos posted:I don't know, who's setting provider prices in this presumed system so that such a tax can remain static? That part of the equation is still going to fail in that scenario. Open-ended Medicare funded by p/r taxes needs new funding as it is. Medicare sets rates across the board; why would that change should we open the program to all? As it is under ACA's privatization scheme, the government is at the mercy of each individual insurer's having to negotiate provider rates--every year. Medicare Part D needs to have negotiated rates, though (whether under expanded Medicare or existing), but we need a party ready to stand up to PhRMA rather than making secret deals with them to make that happen. Cliff Racer posted:Its funny, I feel that Specter would have been far better off going independent than going Democrat. I bet he could have won 2010, sucking up Democrats who knew that their nominee, whoever he was, didn't have a shot AND moderates who didn't like Toomey. They let Specter keep his seniority when he switched, I suspect that they'd have done it if he went to I-caucusing with D, too. Huh, interesting theory about if he'd gone indy; I never thought of that. Still, it's hard to buck the 2-party system and successfully run as an indy, especially for a Senate race into which the big-money donors pour a lot of money.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Sounds like we'll have that Progressive Revolution once we have a Triumph of the Will. Feel the Bern. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 02:28
|
|