|
Zach for DNC chair
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
I feel like Hillary adopting Bernie's platform was a rhetorical weapon to shut down people trying to call her centrist rather than an actual platform of policy stances she believed in and wanted to sell people on
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Thanks for this thread, guys, it's nice to see people taking this poo poo seriously when my usual political discussion space (politoons thread) is full of people who refused to discuss Clinton's flaws during the election and refuse to discuss the DNC's flaws now. Why people would rather clamp their hands over their ears and say "it was all those racists out there, nothing we could do, nothing we can do, la la la" than figure out how to actually loving win poo poo is beyond me. That said the thread moves too fast for me to post in it regularly but I'll try 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:California was not a part of this nation when its history began, but we are clearly now the keeper of its future. I was ok with it until this line which just made me go "loving California"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Hillary won voters whose most important issue was the economy by 10 points. Obama lost that group to Romney by 4 points. People just flat out didn't like Hillary, and among voters who cared more about immigration/terrorism Hillary lost by 30 points. You're pretty aggressively missing the point. Those numbers are counted from among people who showed up to vote. Turnout was super low because Clinton didn't give middle America a good enough reason to care. You need a message. Bernie's message was top-notch.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Condiv posted:reminder that hillary clinton was pondering bill gates or zuck as veep As a techie I'd have been stoked for BillG but not zuck, never zuck
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Is this the right place for me to vent about how the biggest hill shill I know IRL (one of three people from my actual life to get actually mad at me for being a Bernie supporter during the primary) just texted my wife a bunch of times about how she's sad specifically because "now today's kids won't know that girls can be president" Like, even during the election the fact that Hillary is a woman is the only thing she ever bothered saying in support of her. We now have a president that wants to put muslims on a national registry because they're a security threat, and she's mad because one hypothetical platitude for children will be a slightly harder sell. I dunno if I'm being a douche here but that makes me mad. It's just the whitest reason to get depressed. Even from a feminist perspective you should be more mad that we're probably gonna lose Roe V Wade. Peel posted:looking forward to the woke progressive tech ceos bending the knee to trump Zuck probably will; BillG never will; Notch probably already has
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
When does Bill Gates get his biopic anyway, is the problem that he's not as much of a douchebag as Zuck or Jobs?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It doesn't even make sense on its face because Hillary won the popular vote. If she hadn't been the head of the worst presidential campaign in history, she would have won. She also still thinks that Hillary only lost because of sexism (my wife said she didn't have the heart to bring up any of the other reasons) so her narrative makes internal sense, it's just (a) wrong and (b) "white feminism" af
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:I was thinking before I hope this time the gop can't blame the dems for loving over their base when nothing gets better. But gently caress it. I want the dems to go full scorched earth back. They declared war a long time ago it's time to actually fight it. Quote Cruz about 8 justice court has precedent until you pass out. Investigate voter suppression, ballot destruction, whatever for the election. Give Trump the full BENGHAZI circus After we get our own house in order I'm 100% for this. The Keith-Ellison-led DNC can make this their pet project.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:krugman would agree! in his series of anti-bernie articles during the primaries, this shithead wrote: Remembering that now Paul Krugman will never be rewarded for his bootlicking hackjob bullshit has been a light in the darkness for me a couple times this week  I mean, there's no telling how much of the poo poo we're in now is the direct result of his efforts, but at least he's not gonna get sec treasury for it
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Dr_0ctag0n posted:Got an email from DFA with Jim Dean trying to get me to sign a petition to end the Electoral college because that's apparently the only reason why democrats lost and somehow the EC is "racist". Minorities disproportionately live in areas the EC devalues, so therefore the EC is racist. It doesn't follow if you measure intent, but you could make a case for it being racist in effect. Honestly the EC seems undemocratic and super outdated in 21st century society and I can't think of a reason it should continue existing 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:The EC is a positive if only for us not having 2000 Florida happen across the entire country in the event of a close popular vote I think we learned enough lessons from 2000 Florida's bullshit hole-punch voting system for that kind of clusterfuck to be unlikely to happen again Dr_0ctag0n posted:I agree, but DFA needs to be calling for complete upheaval of the DNC and democratic party and making calls to grassroots action, not sending it's members e-mails with the subject line "Trump didn't win the election" and the first line saying "hillary Clinton won the election" lol DFA hasn't been anything more than a DNC outreach program for a while. I agree it'd be great if they were calling for upheaval, but the party line is this and I can think of worse party lines The DNC might be able to win elections WITHOUT reform if they get rid of the EC. I'm not surprised that's the course of action they're calling for.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:REPEAT AFTER ME: THERE WAS NO POPULAR VOTE I keep forgetting that, yeah The idea that your vote matters less if you live in a solid red/blue state goes out the window in a one-man-one-vote system. Hell, I very nearly checked a box for Stein myself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Okay I can see that, unaffiliated can have a voice, but if you're green or libertarian or forefathers or constitutional, you gotta stick with your own guy. I don't think anyone has ever argued for this though I'm actually not a registered Democrat, because I like the flexibility of my state's open primaries, but I cannot imagine ever voting Republican in a general. If our primary had been less competitive, though, I might have tried to influence the Republican one with my primary vote instead.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Feel-good memory time, remember Ted Cruz's "filibuster" 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
I freely admit that I was salty as gently caress all through the general about the treatment of Sanders and Sanderistas during the primary, and the clintonites not receiving their promised reward has been a light in the Trumpian darkness for me I also know it will be extremely fleeting solace whereas Trump isn't going anywhere for four years so if we could start being constructive that'd be a good idea
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Come to Boston, it rules and nobody actually has the accent Drivers are awful though
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Man, people are really, really resisting the idea that class is a thing that exists huh Like, I knew they were doing this before too, I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the idea of a young coastal professional writing an article with the headline "poor white people can kiss my brown rear end" and thinking they still have the moral high ground and are #woke can we like #wake people a little bit more
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Being a salesperson must be really easy "It's your job to buy my product, not mine to convince you. Such a self-centered argument: my prices are exorbitant and my product is worst-in-class" or, like, a lawyer "It's your job to find in my favor, not mine to convince you. Friggin JURY BROS!!!!!" Interesting question: what does Peter Daou think his job, y'know, is
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
 Mr. Daou, what-- what would you say... ya DO here? *confused shrug*
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
I get mad all over again every time I remember how much "Bernie Sanders' only real base is rural white people" was thrown around as a negative thing during the primary
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
In 2004 I was 17 and wasn't really paying attention to political discussion spaces; anyone know how long after that went down people were still trying to pretend John Kerry was a good candidate
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
The key difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats have some sort of interest in running a country while Republicans are basically LARPing Game of Thrones That said I am keenly interested in knowing what Schumer means by "sparingly"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:
I mean I actually don't disagree with the idea that a Clinton v Trump campaign was a best-case scenario for Clinton Just, y'know, not for anyone else e: actually this is Pre-Election Thinking on my part, any of the other GOP candidates apart from possibly Cruz would have lacked Trump's populist/"populist" appeal and it would have been a more traditional-style election which Clinton would have had a decent shot at
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:What if all those nothingburgers were in fact burgers to everyone outside the Clinton bubble? Sure a lot of them were tiny White Castle sliders but when your response to real scandals is to lie and cover poo poo up then it becomes easy to assume that you're lieing and covering poo poo up whenever they hear about something. So many people I know assumed that things were nothingburgers because everyone in their (also 100% pro-Clinton) circles treated them that way and paid no more attention to it SEE: the Goldman Sachs speeches, by the time they were leaked the specter of Trump had eradicated all dissent on the left, and the right honestly didn't give a poo poo about the speeches, so therefore the speeches were nothing special, the fact that reading them made me want to puke notwithstanding
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:...these were leaked? I admit, I was thoroughly in "gently caress this poo poo I'm working out and drinking until election day" territory once the democratic primaries were over. https://theintercept.com/2016/10/07/excerpts-of-hillary-clintons-paid-speeches-to-goldman-sachs-finally-leaked/ quote:Touching on her view of developing financial regulations, Clinton declared to a crowd of Goldman Sachs bankers that in order to “figure out what works,” the “people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.” 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Pretty much the same as the Podesta emails. Nothing earth shattering and nothing that someone voting Trump would care about, or anything that would make someone switch to Trump. But a lot of stuff that probably made independents decide to stay home or vote third party because they confirmed a lot of the stuff that had been assumed but shouted down earlier. It's still getting shouted down now Since you mention it the Podesta emails had a similar effect on me but it wasn't exactly like they were gonna make me vote Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:Could we maybe agree that Russia did hack those emails, they were nothingburgers, and Clinton also hosed up? On the contrary, I cared about them very much 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:I mean if you didn't know Clinton was firmly in the business Dem part of the party before those emails I dunno what to say. They were a confirmation of things I had suspected but could not prove and was routinely called sexist etc for suggesting
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Is that really what you were called sexist for, or was it the way you said it? This is key. Our side habitually reflexively judging people we have absolutely no knowledge of is one of many reasons we lost this election, yes
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think there's truth to that, but let's cleave to the question at hand, ie: whether you got called sexist for bringing up issues with the Clinton campaign, or for bringing up those issues in a way that read as sexist. Because I think that's a possibility you're glossing over. The people doing this were largely SA posters reacting to the fact that I was raising objections which had been deemed sexist in other conversations I was not present for; at no point did I say anything about how she needed to get back in the kitchen or call her a screeching harpy or anything else I imagine you are fishing for. But this was months ago and I'm not going to be able to conjure up enough detail to really get a satisfying answer to this question which is of highly dubious relevance to our current discussion anyway (RE whether I'm right to be mad about the leaked Goldman speeches and Podesta emails) so I'm not really sure where to go from here on it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It is, but it touches upon a broader point, which I think deserves to be underlined: yeah, of course the Clintons were/are corrupt. Whoop de poo poo. So is every other politician in Washington. The Clintons are pretty garden-variety in that sense, and compared to Trump, they're small potatoes. So it's a little weird that Hillary Clinton was somehow the poster child for corrupt pols. It was because she was running against someone who is in fact not corrupt, and this "so what EVERYBODY DOES IT" excuse was being used as a reason not to support the non-corrupt guy somehow
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Wait a second, how was it being used as a reason to not support the non-corrupt guy (Sanders, presumably)? It was used as a deflection against accusations of corruption ("Obama was also corrupt by these metrics, so why are you so mad about it in Hillary's case?") in order to remove that factor from the conversation The answer, of course, is that there was no non-corrupt alternative to Obama, which really did make it sound much more palatable, but when you have a viable alternative that excuse doesn't really apply anymore. An analogy I favored during the primary was that Sanders was one of those grass-fed fair-trade gourmet hipster burgers that costs like $9, and Hillary was the same McD's quarter-pounder you've been eating every night for years. When you're used to it, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it, but when you put it next to actually good food suddenly it seems kinda lovely
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:y'all lusting for blood (which is understandable) but it's silly because all your supposed enemies literally bent the knee without you having to do anything. barring an act of god or keith ellison having a secret human trafficking operation in his basement, the progressives are going to own the DNC from the top down I freely admit I'm just shitposting because I am Still Super Salty and because a lot of people on the Internet haven't gotten the memo that this week we're all about full communism now yet I'm still kinda worried the Progressive Revolution will either fizzle out or get coopted like Obama's movement did but the correct things are happening at the DNC that need to be at this point in time
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's not exactly the argument that a lot of Bernie Bros made here during and after the primaries, though. It wasn't just that Clinton is more corrupt than Sanders; at times, it seemed to be that she was, personally, the single most corrupt, dishonest, Wall Street-friendly person to ever run for office. Which, I think we should be able to agree, is a little bit overboard. I say that as someone who supported Sanders in the primary myself, and argued at the time a lot of what you're saying here. You, personally, may not have made these hyperbolic arguments, and if you didn't, good for you - you were honest in your assessment. But a lot of Bernouts weren't, choosing to adopt the weird caricaturing of Hillary Clinton as something uniquely and peculiarly evil, and that's why their viewpoints got dismissed so reflexively here. I also see this as honest: it had a lot to do with the fact that Clinton is a Clinton, and her political dynasty (which is associated with Third-Way moderation) had staffed the Democratic establishment with loyalists who seemed to have already made up their mind about this primary as a sort of resolution to the 2008 primary. When you're up against a firebrand outsider populist, this is not a good look. The Bushes had of course done the exact same thing, but Jeb! was uniquely awful and so he fizzled out
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Peel posted:a glimmer of solace in this Jeb failed immediately, despite the fact that he was basically indistinguishable from HRC and a dude. Maybe Trump really was a better campaigner than Sanders. Majorian posted:It's not, but bear in mind, more people felt Clinton was speaking for them than Sanders. Part of that is because Clinton had way more name recognition, but another part of it is that the Democratic base is a big, diverse coalition, and some of the major factions in that coalition felt that Sanders wasn't speaking for them adequately. You're right that Clinton was also Obama's heir-presumptive for years, and the DNC had a stake in her getting the nomination, but one can't simply reduce her winning the nomination to DNC corruption or whatever. In the end, more Democrats voted for her than for Sanders. There's a lesson in that: if left-wing economic populists want to take control of the DNC, and drive out enough votes to win in 2020 (and possibly 2018), they're going to have to do a better job of speaking to all the factions in the Dems' big tent. An interesting inversion of my main thesis, but not ultimately contradictory with it. We can say that the DNC has to appeal more to the rural working class AND that the demsoc wing has to appeal more to the coastal liberal slash minority blocs. I'm okay with that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Ugh I had managed to forget that David Brock existed until just now, thanks a lot jerks
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
bump_fn posted:what about misty and ash Misty was a Bernie supporter obviously Ash was really into Jim Webb for some reason Thoguh posted:Payback for this It's me, I was the East Coast liberal elite all along
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Al! posted:On the other hand, the superdelegates didnt help dems much Superdelegates helped the Democrats accomplish exactly what they wanted to do during the election phase where they were relevant: nominate Hillary Clinton for President. the problem was that they wanted to do the wrong thing
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 21:05
|
|