|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Bernie couldn't come close to beating Hillary, and Hillary lost to Trump. By what logic could you see that working well at all? Most of Trump's attacks that slew Hillary wouldn't have worked on Sanders because Sanders doesn't have the appearance of impropriety like she did, and also there aren't decades of character assassination on him
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
Radish posted:I agree that wouldn't have worked nearly as well on Sanders but it's moot now unless the Dems are truly stupid and go back to the Clinton well. Bad news, probably
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Remember when Fox news and Republicans called Obama a socialist constantly and it prevented him from a second term? Bernie definitely wouldn't have been able to handle it
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
I also want to point out that a good political leaders works within their current circumstances while striving for and advocating something better. For example, working to get health insurance for all while advocating single payer, not saying single payer "will never ever" happen. One of those approaches inspires people and one does the opposite
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:The Democrats can't win with just their own base. Let people outside the party have a say on who gets elected. The second sign was when the party threw all their support behind a candidate having a hard time filling hugh school gymnasiums while the other Dem candidate was filling stadiums erryday
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Had Bernie been a Democrat before 2015 he very well could have won the primaries so it's great to see his supporters keep defending his dumb choice Source?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:70%+ of those who had negative views of both candidates voted for Trump. Textbook false equivalency thinking and the reason he won. Wouldn't false equivalency lead to neither candidate getting a vote?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:People keep saying Clinton but I don't think so. It'll be Cuomo/Booker, in some variation. At which point the party collapses right into the singularity up an oligarchs rear end More likely Trump will have screwed the pooch so spectacularly that whatever centrist they put up will win and they will take it as proof that the country is dying for lovely centrism
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:The fact that someone like Feingold lost, and by a larger amount than Hillary lost by in Wisconsin shows you how far right/left the country really is. Anyone who thinks Democrats lost because the party was too centrist, and a true liberal would have cleaned house needs to look at the Wisconsin senate race and see how nonsense that idea is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Donald trump is bad because he's a racist sexist islamophobe has everything to do with minority issues. You can claim she should have approached those issues differently, but with the same amount of emphasis. You can claim she should have emphasized economic issues more. But you can't claim she should have been able to do both simultaneously. Actually a lot of the same lovely economic policies Trump loves and advocated directly harm minorities of every stripe, assuming that she's bound by your bizarro restriction where she's unable to say more than one thing per mouth opening "Donald Trump wants to lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans. This takes money directly out of the pockets of you and your neighbors, and reinforces his constant attacks on those different than he is" whoa I said two things there and I just spit balled that on my toilet Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
In fairness it probably wouldn't have come out well from the mouth of a candidate taking funds from Goldman Sachs, so maybe she played the only hand she could lol
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:What policies did Hillary Clinton campaign on that would have any impact on bigotry? Well breaking up the banks wouldn't have solved racism so she didn't want that
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton was programmed with a simple algorithm that could have illustrated by a venn diagram with one circle labelled "Solves Racism" and another circle, not even close to touching the first one, labeled "Helps the Donor Class" This circle is also labelled "Hillary's policy"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Electing Donald trump has already resulted in a significant, measurable increase in bigotry. You can't legislate an end to racism. It's about culture, too, and a country's leadership is an important component of the transmission and modification of culture. So her platform was "is not Donald Trump"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Who tried to kick you out of a house? There was a primary, bernie lost. Then most of us moved on. We established that most bernie supporters went to clinton, we havent established who the rest were or why they didn't, though we can guess, or where they were or who they voted for. No one tried to kick anyone out of the party, as far as I know. If Hill Folk get to blame "Bernie Bros" for the ills of the party, it's only fair to remind people that Hill Folk told Sanders supporters they didn't need their votes, smugly and often.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:They didn't. Clearly, as President Clinton has illustrated.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Most Bernie voters voted for Hilary. This is settled. The key states she lost weren't because of Sanders supporters. psssst in an election determined by less than 100K votes, she really needed every possible vote.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Really? Like those 3 million votes she got more than donald? I think where the votes are matters a lot more, personally. frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Clearly, as President Clinton has illustrated. Nevvy Z posted:No. I'm saying that Bernie voters who didn't go to Clinton didn't matter at all regarding the final outcome. context matters. Oh boy, I'd sure love to see your data here
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Well, I'd actually put the onus anus Here's my evidence. Hillary Clinton lost the election by a very statistically small margin and Sanders supporters clearly were at least some of those people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Oh well, I'm sure convinced. Who gives a poo poo if you're convinced? You're clearly a loving idiot to have lost the election and STILL try to claim the moral high ground that you didn't need more voters. Protip: Clinton lost because she didn't get enough votes to win the electoral colelge.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I didn't lose the election. I'm not trying to claim a moral highground. I'm not sure why you are mad at me. Sorry, the side you're playing Dipshit's Advocate for or whatever. You're claiming she didn't need more votes. She clearly, demonstrably did. That's a real stupid position to take.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I didn't say she didn't need more votes. I said that she needed specific votes. More votes in Cali clearly would not have helped her, agreed? You know there were Bernie supporters in every state in the country? Including the ones she lost? Hmm. If she didn't get the votes she needed to win, that means that MORE of those votes would be required for victory. So what is your point besides idiotic pedantry?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I don't have it handy, but I got it from Bernie supporters in one of these threads. Maybe Frijo has it Um do you think it's more or less likely that no Sanders voters in those states stayed home The best part is how angry you're getting at the assertion that Hillary Clinton, bad Presidential candidate who lost the election, needed votes she did not receive. Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:What action do you take to get them out to vote? How does that action affect the rest of voters? Why does it matter if there aren't enough to swing those states? Turn left, DNC! Turn leffffffffft!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:People keep saying that, yet not providing evidence it would do any good. You're right, banks have such high approval ratings there's no need to turn left there, just as a start Mmm, check out the Criminal Justice System, and Big Business too. America sure loves that hot centrism that treats those industries as flawless beacons of American exceptionalism
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:And congress has a 20% approval rating yet somehow they mostly keep getting reelected. Hmm. You know which groups Trump bitched about a lot on the campaign trail?  Spoiler alert: A lot of the same ones Bernie did Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Exit polls can tell you that people who voted for Sanders in the primaries also voted for Clinton, but that doesn't take into account anyone who didn't vote. Exit polls are also not super accurate. People have become way too reliant on polls in general. They are supposed to be a set of data used to plan a strategy, or read a pulse. They are not meant to be predictors of future events.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Going further left would definitely get more leftists to vote for democrats. The question is if those gains would outweigh the losses among moderates who would no longer vote for democrats. For those who assert that moderate voters are a myth, how do you explain the Wisconsin voters who voted for Hillary and against Feingold, or the NY voters who voted for Hillary and against Teachout, or the voters who voted for Hillary in CA and CO but voted against prop 69 and prop 61? "Moderate" is not mutually exclusive with "chooses the least poo poo candidate of two choices"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Er... doesn't that support his point? They voted for the Republican in local races, but Trump was so terrible that they voted for Hillary instead of the Republican? No, I'm saying that doesn't necessarily tag the voter as a Dem or a Republican because Trump was an extraordinarily bad candidate
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:That's actually not what I'm doing at all. And that Sanders beat Clinton in MI and then clinton lost MI doesn't mean that clinton lost MI because sanders supporters didn't vote for her. Lol All the people who stayed home were?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Have we established yet that the 2020 run is going to be Clinton (jr)/Bloomberg with Warren as the sacrificial progressive and that the centrists will still wonder how they could have lost with the second most qualified candidate in history? The same people who were backing Clinton would absolutely back her a third loving time because they'd rather have a losing candidate friendly to the donor class than a winning candidate that's not
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Whether 15 or 8 as the min wage, a wage increase will not result in AAs not over-representing the bottom 20% of poverty. Saying a min wage increase will help AAs out is a red herring for those issues. It's weird how "this will help but won't solve the entire problem overnight, so let's not do it" was a Republican congressional slogan before but Hill Folk seem to have latched onto it. What policy was Hillary advocating that would have ended racial disparity entirely in America, since that seems to be your criteria for worthiness? quote:I'm not going to repeat super Tuesday arguments. The older AA community as a whole is rather centrist due to being hosed over so many times in the past, something Sanders should not have been blind to, which could have been avoided if he would have had the desire to surround himself with a diverse staffing and not make such cringe worthy comments about them as a bloc. Meanwhile the Clintons are quite notable for having a very good relationship with the AA community despite not even campaigning directly to them in '91 and '95. Oh for sure, a relationship so good that they didn't even come to vote, so confident their friend Hillary had it in the bag. quote:The assumption there was political will from sanders to do the latter is ridiculous. I do not care that he was arrested once, this thread shows that "the left" is more concerned with "economic anxiety" Yeah remember that time the BLM protesters showed up at his rally and he brutally threw them down and stomped their heads into the pavement rather than let them talk? Meanwhile Hillary calmly and politely let BLM protectors speak at infinite length. Just as an example
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Reparations Wait you think reparations would fix systemic racism?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:christ you need to read, that's when he affirmed economics => 0 racism. Hey dumbfuck you're the one who made the argument that his disapproval with reparations was evidence he doesn't care about racial justice. You also made the argument that minimum wage increase didn't matter because it didn't completely solve racial inequality despite helping Don't blame me your poo poo is loving idiotic
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:bolded is false That's a good point, or it would be if PoC didn't work minumum wage and other low paying jobs
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:
Clearly, as President Clinton illustrates
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:The other 85% are Russian botnets or the wrong kind of person. Doesn't count. They sure aren't PoC, Sanders doesn't even have a plan to completely eliminate racism forever and ever, just help them in a way that bad Dems don't like
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:NAFTA is a boogieman of the right and won't be going away under this admin anyway. The "super left" itt credit support of positions that Hillary did not take, like loving the 90s welfare reform. When this is used by a democrat (lol bernie) against democrats it instantly becomes valid for the right. They can't all carpetbag safe seats This pearl clutching over Bernie saying mean things about abuela is hilarious when you consider that Trump had like 8 or 9 dudes constantly making GBS threads all over him on his own team during the primary, and even up to like a few days before election day his entire party was dumping on him. But yeah dude, Bernie dunking rightfully on Hillary during the primary was way more damaging lol Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:While pushing aside the woman who wanted to run for the seat, facing no real primary vetting, and then running a massively expensive mudslinging campaign that results in under performing Al Gore by 5 points even after Giuliani imploded and dropped out to be replaced at the last second by an unknown. Yeah but the REAL story is an Independent honest to God socialist couldn't get "anything" done in Congress
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Also wouldn't have gotten out the Latino vote as massively as abuel- pffffft, I'm sorry, I couldn't keep a straight face.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 10:01
|
|