|
Perez is the pick of the wing of the party that seems determined to learn no lessons whatsoever from the worst overall defeat in decades, which ought to be a bit disconcerting.
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
Mukaikubo posted:this really feeds into my contention that modern leftism is a race to be able to say "i told you so" with the most moral authority to the other prisoners in the gas chamber before dying Naw, that's modern Centrism.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Right. When a Democrat was elected, conservatives wanted to punish democrats, and keep them out of power. Meanwhile, when a fascist is elected, self described leftists want to punish democrats, and keep them out of power. Yeah, it's kinda odd how you and the rest of the remaining Third Way diehards seem big on self-flagellation, but who am I to kinkshame?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Tim Kaine is fine. Hillary didn't install DWS, Obama did (and then came to regret it) after Kaine stepped aside to run for Senate after being termed out as VA Governor (he was DNC chair mostly while we was out of office as Governor.) Kaine was Obama's second pick for VP after Biden and basically given the DNC Chair as compensation, after Obama ousted the Howard Dean people from power. Maybe the fact that the New Democrats were willing to purge the most successful DNC chair in decades but not willing to purge a goddamn disaster that everybody apparently hated is indicative of a bigger problem here? And if this is the case, should you really want the guy these people are endorsing as DNC chair?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:part of the problem was that DWS realized everyone loving hated her and prepped an attack where she was going to call everyone anti-semities if she was forced out So they let some walking disaster take the entire party hostage because they were afraid to be called mean words? That's not exactly a point in their favour either.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
The 2016 primary is instructive not so much because of its results but because of how casually the New Democrats had assumed that they could take victory for granted no matter what they said or did, which came back to bite us all in the rear end come the general election. Now the question becomes how many of them will try to learn from this and how many will revert into screeching about Bernie bros and how you can totally win by just putting the same turd in a nicer package next time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
As the political strategy of the JeffersonClays of the party is limited only to running against whatever candidate the GOP fields, I shudder to think what will happen if and when the GOP manage to scrounge up an actually respectable candidate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:You keep saying the base, but you really just mean you. I, too, believe that the working class cares more about Russian hackers than they do about putting food on the table.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I mean the 2006 gains in the House and Senate were basically predicated on "Stop Bush." Letting the GOP gently caress over the entire world for a period of six years as opposed to eight doesn't sound like the greatest of victories. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Do you have any idea what a big loving deal even getting the watered down ACA was? Like passing legislation of that scope really was a big loving deal dude. Neither do big loving deals that are going to be scrapped because the New Democrats are a bunch of incompetents.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Why do liberals desire 8 years of.Trump? Why do Democrats desire to be as irrelevant as the Greens? Because they find it more important to make excuses for the failures of their political idols than actually improving things.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Lying about having solutions for workers worked pretty well for Obama and the Dems, right? Let's repeat that all over again With the small difference that universal healthcare is objectively the optimal way to run health services, and the amount of people who would care whether Medicare for All functions exactly like Medicare in every sense is entirely negligible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:At some point people are going to notice that they're not even slightly similar. Marketing doesn't rewrite reality. People are going to notice that they're suddenly getting better healthcare at prices that are a fraction of those they paid before, which is going to outweigh any ill feeling about New Medicare not being exactly the same as an upscaled Old Medicare.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
You can use Russian hacking as a good talking point but as for factors that actually influenced the election it's pretty drat far down on the list, which is why using it to claim that Dear Abuela Did Nothing Wrong is loving idiotic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Nobody is claiming Hillary did nothing wrong. But suggesting Wikileaks was some minor issue this election is nuts. "I'm not ratfucked, I'm not ratfucked" I continue to insist as I slowly transform into a matryoshka doll. It was entirely loving irrelevant in comparison to Hillary Clinton's campaign losing all contact with reality in favour of the word of Friend Computer, and the fact that you seem unable to comprehend this is in itself reason enough why you ought to be ignored when you opine on anything remotely related to politics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Also the voting public isn't going to be inspired by you rattling off some super-complex proposal. You say something that builds enthusiasm, and then you follow through on the intent behind said slogan.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:But like making something really specific like Medicare For All, when people generally understand what medicare is, and then proposing a very different kind of idea seems like it's a little further afield than that, if that makes sense. Like, maybe I am just too deep into the specifics of healthcare policy, but like universal single payer is very, very different from Medicare on a conceptual level. That's super silly. Are car manufacturers misleading the customer when they revise the design of a car model from one year to another but keep the name?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Clinton's campaign made many mistakes. But those don't make the Russian/GOP ratfucking campaign irrelevant, although given that you fell for it I understand why you'd want to minimize and deflect. The only one trying to deflect here is you, since I don't think that even you can be dumb enough to put a third party stealing and leaking information even close to the same level of relevancy as the campaign losing touch with reality in favour of their computer model when it comes to failure. Also I'm not even American, which makes your accusations even dumber. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Grandma already has Medicare, but what I am promising her is not going to look anything like Medicare. Like, that's my argument. You're not giving them medicare. It's nothing like universal, single-payer (and I think most people can concept that, btw.) Medicare is a non-universal single-payer program that provides partial health insurance coverage. Medicare For All would be a universal single-payer program that provides health insurance, presumablu with full coverage. The latter sells, and people like you who give a poo poo about the details are electorally irrelevant.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't like the idea on campaigning on a very specific thing, knowing it's not deliverable. So I guess FDR shouldn't have promised to take America out of the Great Depression in 32' because it would likely be impossible in a single term?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The European left has the same problem with useful idiots defending putin as the American left, and plenty of the "Clinton is red baiting and trying to start world war 3!!!" Idiocy came from exactly those idiots. It's clear why you feel a need to deflect from that. This is the worst attempt at deflection I've seen in quite some time. Congrats, take a dunce hat.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
"Why don't you dumb bernie bros get over the primary so we can unify the party? Now let me tell you how you're all dumb ratfucked traitors with absolutely nothing to back it up."JeffersonClay posted:Our preferred narrative was right, your reflexive opposition to that narrative was dumb. between that and chugging wikileaks ratfucking to fuel your Bernie was backstabbed narrative, yes, the outcome of the election could easily have been affected. Your preferred narrative was irrelevant because your hypercompetent campaign assumed that their computer model overrode reality.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
It's really goddamn surreal to see the exact same people who were 100% certain that Clinton had it in the bag and they didn't need those loving lefties anyway and the hacks were a nothingburger turn around and declare that the obviously irrelevant leaks caused those obviously irrelevant lefties to hand Trump an obviously impossible victory.BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Dude, just loving stop. Hillary Clinton is not running for the DNC chair no matter how much you want to turn this into a relitgation of the primaries, or a relitigation of the mistakes that campaign made. Actually I think you'll find that pointing out what Hillary's campaign did wrong is pretty loving important if the party is going to learn from its own dumbfuck mistakes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think a retrospective on what went wrong is useful. I think screaming into the wind about how "Bernie would have won" without any critical thought to it just dumb as gently caress. I think that pretending that the people who are doing the former are actually doing the latter is even dumber. EDIT: Also applying critical thought to it all leads us to the clear conclusion that Bernie woulda won. This is important because it gives an indication of what the Dems need to do in order to get back from the goddamn brink of oblivion. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Your critical thought is that Bernie, who lost to her in the primary, would have magically won in the general because Racist Whites in the rust belt who voted for a guy promising retribution against Those People would have suddenly gone "oh no, I am going to vote for the old maple grandpa socialist." No, it's because he was doing better by every available metric back during the primaries.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:And yet, he couldn't win the primary. You have clearly not understood much if you can't differentiate between an internal party election and the general election, and this is one of the lessons you need to learn from the fact that Bernie Woulda Won. Nevvy Z posted:Clearly not votes. No, I'm talking about polling and favourability ratings. You know, the things that indicate how likely you're to win the general. EDIT: Or in general the thing you two need to realize is that you might not be as good at understanding this whole politics thing as you think you are, as exemplified by the dumb unspoken assumptions and basic logical errors you both have on full display here. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Except for as we learned, really painfully in November, the only thing that matters is votes. Hillary led Trump in every poll in every Rust Belt State she lost. Dude, this is loving dumb. We're talking a real basic comparison of starting positions WRT the general here, and back when Bernie was still in the polls, his starting position was better in every way. Hence, the unspoken assumption that the primary automatically selects the better candidate is dumb as hell. You're not even talking about the right thing, and this is another example of the problem. EDIT: Hell, this isn't even about what canidate you would prefer, it's about making basic errors when you try to analyze actually existing politics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Was Obama misleading when he said "if you like your plan, you can keep it?" Nobody would have given a poo poo if he was had their plan suddenly got better and cheaper. EDIT: This is also why you keep your promises vague if you're making big promises.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:"Better Candidate" is a meaningless phrase then, because you're defining it by poo poo to mean that you wanted Bernie and he didn't win. No, it has a meaning. It's the candidate who is most likely to win the general, given the available data and conditions under which the elections are to be held. This was Bernie, and Bernie Woulda Won regardless of which canidate you or I prefer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Based on the same metrics that failed Clinton! Like you're basing your supposition of "Bernie would have won" on the same metrics that showed Clinton beating Trump, and that's not even adding confounding factors for why that's bad analysis. And here you're making the cumpletely and utterly unfounded assumption that if the metrics show candidate A and B beating canidate C then their chances of doing so are equal. This is, again, a real basic error of thought that you need to fix. The polls showed that Clinton would have won narrowly, and that Bernie would have won in a landslide. A super basic comparison of these show that Bernie was in the better position. Also what failed Clinton was to plug those metrics into a computer simulation and then assume that the simulation overrode reality. So at least what I and probably most everybody else who says it hope for when you hear that Bernie Woulda Won is that you reflect a bit on your own assumptions and judgement instead of assuming that you have it all figured out, because you really don't.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Maybe you should practice a little bit of this yourself, because you don't have it figured out and I've never claimed I did either. You're the one who's making super basic errors here, pal.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Why does it have to be that? Why can't they just have faith in him to do a good job and they know the kind of work he does? Because all the available evidence worldwide shows a near-perfect pattern of Third Way types preferring to keep a stanglehold of power even after it's clear that they don't know what they're doing (and sometimes even actively sabotaging their own party if they lose power) rather than admitting they were wrong and allowing others to try something different. This makes the whole Perez thing stink to high heaven. It also doesn't help that the New Democrats have a track record of saying nice stuff during the campaign and then making minimal changes when in office.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The ballots were signed and verified and the count made public to those in the room, so no they followed their rules. Are you seriously arguing that a meeting counts as being open to the public as long as they tell the members of the meeting what the vote count was and nobody else?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Also why are people engaging Effectronica when they're pretending that there's no difference between an organization's bylaws mandating transparency during its official meetings and your boss getting to know how you voted in a national election?BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The meeting was open to the public? Like I don't think you seem to have a very good grasp of what an "open meeting" is from this post. Yes, that's quite literally what the rules that have been quoted multiple times by now unambiguously say.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:They say they have to be open. Open meeting simply means that anyone may attend. This isn't hard dude. Yes, and part of mandating trasparency to the public as well as open ballots means that the public ought to be able to follow who voted for what. Otherwise the requirements are pretty drat meaningless. Like, you're half a step away from defending smoke-filled rooms here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I am not defending anything, I am trying to explain how poo poo actually works. The requirement is just "open meetings, no secret ballot." You're literally defending an rear end-backwards interpretation of transparency rules that would render then virtually toothless.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I am explaining how it works. If you don't like it, lobby for change. I am trying to make you understand that it wasn't "rigged" against Ellison, it's simply the way inwhich it's always been done. And I'm explaining to you that your interpretation of what the rules require is absurd if one wants actual transparency. Also you're the one who started talking about some kind of rigging of the election, I haven't even mentioned that idea with a single world before now. In general one would think that with the Democratic party being run as shittly as it has been everybody should welcome more transparency and accountability to the process, but apparently not.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I mean, yeah, it might be better if all votes were totally open, but as things stand it was conducted in accordance with the organizations bylaws. If this was the case the organization's bylaws are completely toothless WRT actual transparency, and they should release the rest of the information voluntarily instead of squirreling it away.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I just said, I don't think they ever really gave it a whole lot of thought beyond glancing transparency since it's literally never came up. Again, I welcome more transparency, but the mistake here is to frame it as they're ignoring or breaking some kind of rule when they very clearly aren't. If they're not ignoring the letter of the law, then they're at least doing their best to pretend that its spirit isn't anywhere in sight. I'm still not convinced that this is on the up and up, since I can't see how the outcome here could be in accordance with the intent of the bylaws, assuming that they were written in at least some semblance of good faith.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
If party officials, in an organization that they themselves have chosen to join, face backlash or criticism from party members due to their decisions it's not harassment, it's accountability. Which, once again, apparently is hella Un-American.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Oh, I think there's a big difference in "backlash" and calling people on their homes and constantly harassing them and leaving threats. There is, you know, a limit to that. That doesn't excuse killing off effective transparency within that party. In fact, doing that tends to make the things you describe worse.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:"Killing off" implies there was ever the level of transparency you're asking for, which there hasn't. Don't be pedantic. The entire point is that you can't justify less transparency with a problem that gets worse with less transparency. Nevvy Z posted:Anyone actually deciding how to feel about a politician based on that politician voting in this chairperson election is a loving idiot. Don't give idiots the tools to do stupid things, IMO. JFC, you're literally saying that anyone actually deciding how to feel about a politician based on that politician's voting record is a loving idiot. Like, holy poo poo you're not getting it. Nevvy Z posted:The DNC chairperson election is not a political issue. It's a party issue. Just like the hiring of the janitors to clean the building at night. Like, look at this poo poo right here. How clueless can one person be?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 19:45
|
|