|
hobbesmaster posted:Clinton also out polled Trump. how'd that work out
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
radical meme posted:Obama is not a socialist. poo poo he's the definition of third way centrist. The point is that the label has lost much of its scare factor through overuse. And hell, younger Americans approve of socialism more than capitalism
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Marlows posted:class-only leftists Literally no one thinks this way.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:gently caress off mom Remember that time some Hillbot blew up at everyone in the Bernie thread because they were making fun of MOMS 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Irony of ironies, it would have been infinitely easier for the Democrats to defend themselves after 2008 had they just passed free, universal single-payer health care, but too many dumbasses listened to the snakes in Washington who thought that what most Americans could agree with was an arcane market solution that didn't make much sense and wasn't easy to sell
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:I guess they think the electoral college are basically superdelegates? Well that's what the founders wanted them for, and we all know how much these people love Hamilton. TyrantWD posted:What did Trump do other than promise to bring coal and steel back? Retraining people to work in the manufacturing jobs of the future does not appeal to anyone, and that's probably the only way out for these communities. Why do these voters vote so heavily for a Republican party that explicitly runs on all of the things that would hurt their communities even more? It's not like Berniecrats are dominating in rural America. He was willing to do the bare minimum: he acknowledged that their lives sucked and that the system had hurt them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
jackofarcades posted:Read this entire thread and it's cool and good and I'm here to eat poo poo with the rest of the Clintonites. Anti-racism is part of the socialist project, and the task before us is to build solidarity between working people of all races. That means on-the-ground organizing. It means listening to people who feel hurt by the system and not sneering at them for voting wrong. And it means pursuing simple, universalist policies that can't be attacked as handouts to the undeserving (because everyone benefits visibly from them). People love Medicare and Social Security a lot more than Medicaid and food stamps for precisely this reason. Don't fall into the trap of wonkery where you fiddle around with three dozen tax incentives and come out with some too-clever-by-half market solution—people don't have the time to understand that poo poo, and they don't even realize that they're benefiting from government programs. Single payer and child allowances (as direct payments) are a good start. Zoran has issued a correction as of 19:09 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:DWS didn't give Hillary the nomination. The entire party did the minute the election was called for Obama in 2008. Hillary 2016 was practically written for stone for most Democrats. If Bernie had been a Democrat earlier - even from 2012, he likely would have been able to wrangle away some establishment support - like Obama did in his nomination fight, and when it became clear that the emails were going to be a critical problem, more party members would have felt comfortable jumping ship. 1. We should do everything we can to marginalize deep-pocketed donors and build a sustainable, broad base of low-dollar donations. 2. The DNC could save a shitload of money by never buying another TV ad ever again.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:I'm going to remind you guys not to regress into primary chat as a warning. I see some posts about it and I could've dropped some hammers right off. I don't think we need to spend time discussing rigging or chair-throwing or whatever, but the case that Bernie was a better candidate absolutely does need to be litigated. Zoran has issued a correction as of 19:53 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Uh, it's not as though the Wikileaks stuff was fake Peel posted:the speeches were leaked, but i remember people saying there was some pretty fishy (as in, didn't look real) stuff in them. any of the wikileaks releases would have been easy to doctor They were all real. A bunch of Dem operatives (like Donna Brazile) tried to muddy the waters by heavily implying that there was something suspicious in these leaks, but none of them could point out even a single fake or doctored item when asked. Zoran has issued a correction as of 18:04 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:Could we maybe agree that Russia did hack those emails, they were nothingburgers, and Clinton also hosed up? No
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Webbeh posted:This is someone who just won a Presidential election, folks. He's not necessarily wrong
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Ew, Feinstein heading Judiciary. Is the leadership role for Bernie anything beyond being the ranking member on Budget?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Manchin at Vice Chair for Policy and Communications  Sanders gets Outreach Chair
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Battle Royale Baby posted:Where does the party go in a presidential election where their candidate is already coming out of this with a million more votes than her opponent in growing? Hopefully, not too far. And, anyone purposefully trying advocate for some huge shift is likely someone trying to re-fight a primary they couldn’t win because their guy could not attract the diverse coalition that is the Democratic Party. If they try this coup, it’ll be beaten back, again. Truly Hillary's vision was just too darn ambitious to win over all those unrepentant racists who voted twice for Barack Hussein Obama
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
loquacius posted:She did adopt Bernie's platform Well, kinda
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:It was all Trump. People were so terrified of the idea of a Trump presidency, they latched onto the person who was the least likely to save them. Fixed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
I don't understand how Iowa manages to hold on to its starting position in the primary cycle, seeing how literally every other state and territorial delegation at the DNC has a vested interest in destroying that advantage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:iirc theres an iowa state law saying they have to be first There is, but it's not as though they can actually control the election scheduling decisions of a private organization.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:Iowans love being first and taking it away from them is a great way of losing them in November. Because if there's one thing we've learned about general elections, it's that voters really care a whole lot about procedural issues?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:iowans really, really care about going first. it's all they have. I understand this argument, but I really think you guys are overstating the impact this would have. If the change was made three years out from a presidential election, like in 2017, there would probably be a few weeks of controversy before everyone shrugs and forgets about it. Alas, this hypothesis won't get tested any time soon.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:it doesn't really work that way. the states get to pick their primary dates. the dnc gets to decide how many delegates they are worth. if iowa decides they're going first, they will be set for a showdown at the DNC/RNC challenging for their delegates to get counted. it's like florida in 2008. Yes, and I'm saying the national party could exploit this setup by (semi-randomly) picking a schedule and punishing states that break it by reducing their representation. I say "semi-randomly" because I think an ideal system would have something like 1 primary in this first week, 2 the next week, then 3, and so on, but you wouldn't want random chance to give all the early primaries exclusively to northeastern states, so you might divide all the states into regional pools first. Zoran has issued a correction as of 19:28 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Pissing off all your state parties for little gain seems like a bad idea, but I'm no organizing expert. It just seems to me that most of the states that don't already have early carve-out exemptions would be happy to shake things up and give themselves a chance at an early spot, simply because that serves their own interests.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:good capitalism is the original trilogy and bad cap is the prequels duh The prequel Jedi are neoliberals The OT rebels are revolutionary anti-fascists
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:gently caress yeah dude this thread truly embodies the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:unironically and seriously gently caress both of those concepts. Until the GOP is metaphorically hanging from a lamppost like a Hitlerjungen in April 1945 I will not be appeased Pollyanna posted:gently caress that poo poo it got us trump and it got a bunch of my friends broke and without healthcare it is a Star Wars thread joke
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Racist cops abuse their power, so we better not take power away from them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Or, more likely, until we have just eliminated the concept of police. There isn't a power or duty of the police that cannot be abused by a racist to hurt black people. Agreed. quote:If we treat the badge as the problem, and not the guy wearing the badge, we won't solve the problem. Never mind, you lost me. I'm being serious: your insistence that racism is an individualized thing that we can simply root out on a case-by-case basis by throwing out "the bad ones" dooms your ideology to failure.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Serf posted:"120k isn't that much! 120k isn't that much!" I continue to insist as I am abandoned by the American electorate how will the middle class support us if we say we're going to raise taxes on incomes of $250,000+???
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Tatsuta Age posted:did the CIA fall for it too Never assume that the CIA is competent at anything. (Except at installing brutal dictators and poisoning everyone's relationship with the US.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Pretty much, turns out the secret best universe would have been Hillary 2008 with Obama SoS or some other high profile position, then Obama 2016 I strongly disagree that this is any kind of "best universe."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Tulsi: We need to stop doing all this dumbass regime change in the Middle East! Me:  Tulsi: ...because Muslims are savage animals who don't deserve our help. Me: 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
rudatron posted:*pulls out tissues* these people say that their lives suck but my spreadsheet says the numbers are going up. stupid idiots
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Zikan posted:trump only won by 80,000 votes yet people act like he got a landslide lmao he didn't, but the Republican Party sure did
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:I'm trying to figure out how an election where a billionaire who's basically signing up a shitload of other billionaires to be his cabinet was a repudiation of elitists in government in any way that makes any loving sense at all Hillary Clinton made herself the candidate of the status quo. lol
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:Cool but it doesn't address what I was talking about. We know she had lovely campaign slogans. If people just picked who had a better slogan then fine but let's not pretend there was some morality behind that decision. It was a loving reality TV contest. It was not just a slogan. It was not just messaging. It was Hillary Clinton's actual intention to mostly maintain the course set by President Obama, except in foreign policy, where she wanted to make things worse (because she's a neocon). This broad maintain-the-status-quo goal included areas where Obama has failed. You can look at health care. Obamacare ended many of the worst abuses of the old system, but if you couldn't afford to go to the doctor before, you likely can't now. But now you have to pay an insurance company for the privilege of not using your high-deductible plan. The entire model, which was built on enlisting the services of private, for-profit corporations to run a large public policy initiative, naively assumed that insurance companies would act in good faith in order to help more people get access to care. In many cases, this has not come true. Or in the economy in general: it's true that overall numbers have improved and unemployment is down. However, for all but the highest earners, there has been no recovery since 2008. Real wages haven't improved at all. And the ongoing deterioration of economic life in many cities and towns has coincided with an outbreak of addiction to meth, heroin, and prescription opiates. In light of these facts, a vote against Hillary Clinton (or just a decision to stay home and not bother) doesn't seem so irrational.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:Hoo boy is that trade war with China really gonna heat things up I don't think for a second that any of his plans will actually fix these problems. But that doesn't matter. Given his opponent's stance, all Trump had to do was acknowledge people's problems and promise to do something about them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:Keep in mind I'm not defending Clinton because she should have been able to clown on him and failed to. I'm just sort of pointing out the weird disconnect with reality that exists out there that is going to be insanely hard to overcome. Trump is an elite and people voting for him felt like they were voting against the elites and how the gently caress do you deal with that sort of disconnect The key to understanding is that the "weird disconnect with reality" goes both ways. That's why the technocratic vision of responsible, non-ideological governance fails so badly. If your whole vision of politics is one where smart, qualified people put their heads together to solve everyone's problems (which was basically Clinton's plan), then you're forgetting one crucial fact: those people do not have everyone's problems. So the opioid epidemic and the slow disappearance of small towns in Middle America and the missing economic recovery aren't real to them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:this is a really weird, literalist, reframing of how most people use it that has some very unfortunate connotations. Like, does that mean the political elite are inherently better than you and me? The political elite absolutely do think this, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:How anyone can say, in December 2016, that centrist Democrats are the more pressing problem than Republicans just boggles the mind In the wake of crushing across-the-board defeat, it is absolutely essential for the nominal opposition to battle over strategy and come up with a coherent plan. If we avoid this kind of intra-party battle, then we're just going to fall back on the incumbent strategy, which is a giant pile of poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2016 17:01
|
|