|
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 | ||
|
QuoProQuid posted:some of the rhetoric i have seen from the far-left remind me a lot of the tea party and ted cruz, who believed that there was this mythical hidden majority that would embrace hardline conservatism if given the chance. The GOP in the age of the Tea Party and Ted Cruz have kicked the everloving poo poo out the Democrats on the national level, so maybe you should take some pointers from them?
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:"how much a campaign focuses on an issue" only adds up to 100%; spending more time on economics necessarily means less time on pluralism Or you could not spend most of your campaign repeating that Donald Trump is Bad when most of America already agrees and instead spend some of that time discussing both the economy and minority issues that don't have to do with Donald Trump being Bad.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I mean She's Not Wrong if Sanders comes out and says this in his big "why I'm a socialist" speech Do you really think anybody is going to fall for this dumb attempt at equivocation when you know and I know and we all know that Bernie and Pelosi are talking about two entirely different things here?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:rewatch the video. she offered a solution: stakeholder capitalism Which is a drat pipe dream as long as both major parties remain beholden to Wall Street. And guess who you're not allowed to upset according to the democratic establishment?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
One would assume that poor minorities are not less concerned about the economy than poor whites, from which it would follow that the Democrats not actually articulating much of an economic message could lead to said people staying home. On the other hand I've been told by Very Serious People that minorities will turn out in record numbers for Dear Abuela because Donald Trump Bad and we don't need the votes of people concerned about the economy anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
poo poo, when I first said that the long-term plan of the JeffersonClays is to let the GOP burn the country down every four to eight years so that the dems can win the presidency by default I was half-joking, but apparently it's what they literally believe.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
The idea that policies aimed towards helping the working class and/or the poor are somehow inherently in opposition to policies aimed towards helping minorities is pretty weird unless you assume that there is no significant amount of poor and/or working-class minority people. Needless to say this assumption is pretty suspect on multiple levels.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:It's also funny to see the hatred for centrist Democrats, when they are all that is standing between you and one party rule. If the GOP were able to drop the overt bigotry, but keep every other part of their platform, we would probably be looking at decades of single party rule. The country is far more right wing than people like to believe. You mean the same people who hosed up so bad that the US is practically a one-party state?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:We got ratfucked y'all. You mean that you and your ilk eagerly chose to embrace a narrative pushed by russian psyops and consequently bought the lies about "bernie bros" hook, line and sinker, and now you're here to smug it up because you got "ratfucked"?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
The most bizarre part of the story here is that the Clintonistas, literally right after being proven wrong yet again, are trying to gaslight everybody else to accept their rewriting of history, as if Clinton's primary campaign isn't both in recent memory and exceptionally well documented.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Apparently the cunning Ivan employed his oriental wiles to force poor Hillary and her campaign to eagerly run with a full-blown smear campaign. Happens to the best of us, really.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
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. lol the Clintonistas were yelling about how they didn't need any leftist votes up until november 8th.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Maybe the bigger problem, which the Clintonista attitude towards Bernie supporters is indictive of, is that you're not supposed to be gripped by hubris to such a degree that you start to write off entire voting blocs as unnecessary.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
All the available data shows that the overwhelming majority of those who voted for Bernie in the primaries also voted for Hillary. However, this is not the problem here because hardcore Bernie supporters certainly weren't the only group who were turned off by the high-handedness of Clinton's campaign and fanclub.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
The other real problem with Hillary's smear campaign is that it killed off a lot, if not most, of the enthusiasm among Sanders supporters and thus cost the Democrats a lot of potential young and eager activists who could have been utilized in campaign work. But hey, Friend Computer says that Hillary will sweep the Rust Belt, so who the gently caress needs those goddamn lefties? Nevvy Z posted:People keep saying that, yet not providing evidence it would do any good. The New Democrat approach has been the biggest disaster ever for the party, and running further right isn't going to work because people always prefer actual rightwing bastards to rightwing bastards with a human face (and furthermore there is no evidence that it would do any good either). So you're kinda out of options here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
The super dumb thing about JC's attempted gaslighting is that he's went with the narrative that "we" all got "ratfucked", as if there could be no other reason for Sanders supporters to dislike Hillary besides the DNC email hacks. This is dumb because everybody with even half a brain can see that the actual explanation for most of that dislike is that Hillary & co willingly ran a vile and absurd smear campaign against Bernie and in particular against his supporters, falling entirely for Russian psyops in order to get a temporary political advantage. So to save his ego both sides have to be guilty here, and not the one that first ran with russian disinformation and alienated a huge group of supporters in the process, thus making them more inclined to get mad when the DNC emils were leaked. It would be funny if it weren't so blatantly obvious.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
You won't get better messaging for the current policies because the New Democrats who run the party don't actually believe in most of the message. EDIT: JeffersonClay posted:The Russians didn't create bernie bros, they just amplified them with sockpuppets after super Tuesday when it was clear Bernie couldn't win. But acknowledging the Russians actually interfered with the election and that we should care is progress! lol, look at this weak-rear end attempt to save face. And he's still trying to be smug about it. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Sorry, Russian interference can explain why there were so many bernie bros on social media but you can't say they invented the whole thing. No, the idea that "Bernie bros" were some kind of significant phenomenon and problem was invented by your ilk because you willingly fell for russian psyops, and then you went on to yell at the people you alienated with your smears that they were "ratfucked" becuse they didn't like the people who smeared them. EDIT: This is why you're such a slimy fucker, BTW.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:I did not make this argument. There are certainly problems assuming a higher min wage will help the AA community as much as other demographics. I find your implication that african-americans are shiftless welfare queens problematic. Maybe you should check your racism?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:You're projecting a bit here. Do you deny systematic disadvantages for AAs? Do you deny that african-americans can and do have jobs?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:They have 2x the unemployment of other races across all demographics and PoC as a whole are more likely to be paid under the table. This, to you, Mr. Progressive, is working as intended I guess and something that should be defended. Why are you minimizing the african-american working class and why do you use the exploitation of part of it as justification to deny another part of it better wages? Dividing minorities against themselves is a classic racist tactic, you know.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Are you unable to read? Are you unable to give a straight answer?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:You're strawmanning me, so yes.  But real talk here, why are you using the fact that African-American workers are often paid under the table as an excuse to oppose increasing the wage of African-American workers who are paid minimum wage?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
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. Funny how incrementalism is suddenly worthless when it comes to improving the lot of the working class. Also I still want to know your motivations for throwing a large part of African-American workers under the bus just because a proposed solution isn't perfect.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:The hosed up thing is that liberals love saying that conservatives vote out of spite and just don't want those other people to get nice things, and here you have someone defending Hillary by saying "minimum wage wouldn't help black people enough (and conversely, would help whites too much)". Look, the proposed solution won't solve racism and therefore all working-class minorities get to suck it until one that satisfies me comes along. Also have you heard about those loving Bernie Bros and their demands for ideological purity? Submarine Sandpaper posted:There's no such thing as "progress" unless it assists those who need it the most, else you're just reaffirming existing power structure. Yeah, so gently caress those working poor PoC, right?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Raise the min wage, it's fine, but don't wave it under a "progressive" flag, it will not address racism in any way shape or form. That's a massive issue that you're ignoring. Well gee, maybe you can do more than one thing at once? And maybe racism also has a massive economic component which isn't going to go away by sticking to the same failed neoliberal dogma that shits all over the poor (and hence disproportionately on African-Americans)?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:The minorities that rolled sanders were mostly young and had yet to know the oppression of the system and being cast aside for "progress". Pretending said oppression doesn't exist and affirming race blind policies as a solution is an affirmation of that oppression. So once again we return to you demanding that all PoC who don't agree with your opinion of what they ought to want should be thrown under the bus. Super progressive, that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:uhhh a majority of AAs are centrist democrat. I know all you burnouts want to ignore the southern states but you can't, they are your base as much as the mid west or coasts. I don't know why you think it's continually OK to ignore them. Unlike those drat kids, of course. It's really hard to take your wokeness seriously when you're the only one ITT saying that certain minority groups are dumb and should be ignored and when confronted about it you try to brush it off.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Fantastic to see that the dems are really learning their lesson from November.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't know how you can simultaneously believe that the reason Clinton lost is the Bernie Sanders critique of her trustworthiness on leftist issues and that the primary campaign had no impact on the outcome of the general election, unless you're arguing that he failed to convince anyone that they couldn't trust her with their vote. Like either one of those things might be true but it can't logically be both. lol yeah because the only possible reason that the left wouldn't find Hillary credible on leftist issues is because Bernie told them. Like, just because you're some golem animated by distilled Beltway recieved wisdom doesn't mean that other people can't think for themselves. Clinton killed her own credibility as someone who would push left-wing policy all by her lonesome, hth.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I dont think Bernie caused Clinton to lose. But I also don't think Hillary lost because she wasn't a credible messenger for leftist policy. I don't understand how you can believe the latter, and then deny that the Sanders primary campaign did not damage her ability to win in the general. It's just incoherent. It's because Bernie only pointed out poo poo that was on the public record already and because Hillary's own primary campaign did incomparably more to alienate the left than Bernie pointing out poo poo that, again, was on the public record. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, but I guess it can seem incoherent if you lack the brainpower to determine which things are more important than others.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This sort of logic leads to some very bad places. Do you really want it to become the status quo that primary candidates who are unlikely to win are condemned for merely criticizing the favored candidate? Where does this logic end? Should everyone remain silent with regards to their misgivings towards a candidate lest they risk hurting their chances in the general election? This is literally what the hillfolk demanded.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:And I replied that some attacks are more likely to do that than others, and we should prefer ones that leave us less vulnerable. For instance: Hasn't ever stopped you hillfolk from falling back on smears as your primary primary tactic.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
It's trivially obvious that the racists voted Trump. The problem is that the remaining hillfolk are trying to use this as a basis to defend their lovely economic policies and throw shade on the left because of no real reason other than the fact that they themselves know that said policies can't credibly be defended on their merits.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
There's nothing that stops you from going after both the voters who flipped to Trump and the voters who stayed home. In fact, the same policies might even appeal to both groups. EDIT: steinrokkan posted:Apparently politics is an area suitable for instant gratification, where you don't have to deal with issues that take years, decades, even centuries to run their course. Amazing - people who believe this are actually trying to achieve decision making powers. Look, as Very Serious People have said for years, the only election that matters is the next Presidential one. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Sanders has decided attempting to revitalize the Democratic Party is more important than his own grudges, because he is cool and good. Plus you know he's just going to give the only speech he has at every stop so its not even going to be a change in messaging. Hey now, that's really unfair to Hillary. She also gave an interview where she blamed everybody else for her own humiliating fuckup.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Well then, lets just tell the people who felt their skin melting and their nerves on fire before they died that it's their own fault, they should have just chosen not to be born under a madman, cause literally any action is just too much. I dunno, how about we call Obama and ask?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Remember when we were told that there were no differences between Ellison and Perez, that both would clearly subscribe to the 50-state strategy and that anybody who cared was a whiny leftist baby demanding purity tests? Good times. Also the establishment Third Way types are happy to lose rather than give up any actual power to the left. This is something that has been demostrated every time they've lost power in any nominally left of centre party in the entire western world.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:That doesn't seem super helpful. They're going to win like three of those seats by refusing to field candidates in the rest of them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 16:12
|
|