|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Radish posted:Like the story here should be "Democrats almost take a heavily leaned Republican seat, let's get motivated for 2018" but instead it's now "Democrats fumble and ignore a seat they could have won" because they wanted to save $20k for some nebulous future race which is bad optics for a party that is struggling to win elections in every part of the US government. Why do you think they would spend money to help elect someone like Thompson, who might be a hostile force inside the Democratic party if elected? You've already seen the party line from the True Blue crowd in this thread: the REAL race is in the rich suburbs of GA 6 where a gentleman who thinks 'wasteful spending is a bipartisan issue' is running for office.
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:ah you so reject the entire notion of representation, good to know. And if this is going to be another one of those things where you keep asking me the same nebulous question without explaining yourself when repeatedly asked, just let me know now so I can ignore you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://ballotpedia.org/Jon_Ossoff They care about that race because although it's usually R+20, Trump won it very narrowly (something like +2.5), so there's never been a concern that it's out of reach and a waste of resources. They need to be able to win seats like this to get the majority: it's competitive and has been known to be competitive the entire race, so you pour in the resources you'd expect to see in a competitive race. It would be inexcusable to only be tossing in small amounts of resources given that they already know its vulnerable. If the Kansas seat had similar early indications it was competitive, then they'd have been putting those resources in there as well the entire race.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
I'm just going to point out real quick that using "centrist" as an insult is both loving creepy and alienating your potential allies (the Center being somewhere left of insane republicans).
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Yes, look at how increasing radicalization has hurt the Republican party in the last 8 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Sanders is a Democrat is all but name. He even gets funding from the DSCC. If he's not "under their control" that's most likely because the centrists take every opportunity to poo poo on him and his allies and lock them out of the party. Maybe they should cut that poo poo out? ok at this point you don't even know what you're arguing, you're just being a dumb baby
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
BardoTheConsumer posted:I'm just going to point out real quick that using "centrist" as an insult is both loving creepy and alienating your potential allies (the Center being somewhere left of insane republicans).
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The only reason JC isn't a massive hypocrite is that you need more self-awareness than he has, to be one of those. You think Hillary didn't run a progressive campaign because the progressive positions were on her website, but you think Thompson is a progressive because he said he supports single payer and 15 on a Reddit AMA and he won't even support them on his website or anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They care about that race because although it's usually R+20, Trump won it very narrowly (something like +2.5), so there's never been a concern that it's out of reach and a waste of resources. They need to be able to win seats like this to get the majority: it's competitive and has been known to be competitive the entire race, so you pour in the resources you'd expect to see in a competitive race. It would be inexcusable to only be tossing in small amounts of resources given that they already know its vulnerable. If the Kansas seat had similar early indications it was competitive, then they'd have been putting those resources in there as well the entire race. so it's just a coincidence that the only guy currently recieving support from the DNC worked as an aide for 7 years to both lewis and johnson? cause there are other dems in that race too, but he's the only one getting massive amounts from the DNC
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Yes, look at how increasing radicalization has hurt the Republican party in the last 8 years. This is actually a fairly good point, but if you had a democrat party that you were expected to religiously toe the line of at all times for fear of political and social rejection, would you even want it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Yes, look at how increasing radicalization has hurt the Republican party in the last 8 years. they control the government due to flaws in the american system allowing a minority party to take control of the government if its a rural party but still can't get a drat thing done? hmm. sounds like the plan for the democrats, a majority party concentrated in urban areas that wants to do things when it controls government, to enact.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:ok at this point you don't even know what you're arguing, you're just being a dumb baby
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:they control the government due to flaws in the american system allowing a minority party to take control of the government if its a rural party but still can't get a drat thing done? They got Gorsuch on the court which is all that really matters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:What are you talking about? I disagree he's a conservative Democrat in the style of Joe Manchin, but I'm saying that if you do agree that he is and you're a centrist then you should be upset with the DNC for pissing away a chance to elect one of your own. At what point here am I rejecting the idea of representation? no, a consistent position that is a centrist also maintains his desire to keep it local and state level via anti-brownback, not anti-trump/national. The only way your positions work is assuming that he would have abandoned his campaign promises once in DC which is a bad thing all around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:they control the government due to flaws in the american system allowing a minority party to take control of the government if its a rural party but still can't get a drat thing done? This is a good point. If it was some sort of broader movement you'd expect them to also control most of the state governments, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
BardoTheConsumer posted:I'm just going to point out real quick that using "centrist" as an insult is both loving creepy and alienating your potential allies (the Center being somewhere left of insane republicans). You're right, we should be more like our allies - we need our insults to be uplifting, like "Bernie Bro," is. From now on we should probably retire "Centrist" and go with "Hillary Bot."
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so it's just a coincidence that the only guy currently recieving support from the DNC worked as an aide for 7 years to both lewis and johnson? cause there are other dems in that race too, but he's the only one getting massive amounts from the DNC I have no idea how they picked which democrat to support, but it is absolutely the right decision to pick only one given how the special election (a jungle primary) works. If you want to tell me one of the other ones running is a better pick and why, I'm interested. If there was a separate primary and the DNC spent resources to intervene there I'd consider that a waste in almost all circumstances, but since it's a jungle primary (a) they need to make sure a Democrat is one of the top-two and (b) they desperately want to win it outright by getting 50% instead of going to a second election while the Republicans are fractured. Both make it the right thing to do to pick the strongest candidate and put all of the DNC's backing behind them. If the DNC picked a weaker candidate in this election because of DNC ties, that's bad, but I've seen nothing to that effect. Plus, that he worked as an aide to Lewis is a pretty big plus in my book. I have no idea who Johnson is because I know little to nothing about Georgia politics or politicians but I'm going to go with the guy Lewis endorsed in most circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
BardoTheConsumer posted:I'm just going to point out real quick that using "centrist" as an insult is both loving creepy and alienating your potential allies (the Center being somewhere left of insane republicans). When they undermine us at every turn they are not allies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
WillyTheNewGuy posted:You're right, we should be more like our allies - we need our insults to be uplifting, like "Bernie Bro," is. From now on we should probably retire "Centrist" and go with "Hillary Bot." Yeah just go hard left and see if you win any elections I guess. It's worth a try.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You think Hillary didn't run a progressive campaign because the progressive positions were on her website, but you think Thompson is a progressive because he said he supports single payer and 15 on a Reddit AMA and he won't even support them on his website or anywhere else. I suppose I should also point out that if Thompson does an AMA where he talks about single payer and 15 that's a lot more believable than Hillary finally doing that after figuring out the winds are blowing at gale force in that direction within her party and the Sanders wing basically forcing her to. Then mostly ignoring those issues in the general. I should point it out, even though I know you've got a ready-made excuse prepared and you don't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I have no idea how they picked which democrat to support, but it is absolutely the right decision to pick only one given how the special election (a jungle primary) works. If you want to tell me one of the other ones running is a better pick and why, I'm interested. If there was a separate primary and the DNC spent resources to intervene there I'd consider that a waste in almost all circumstances, but since it's a jungle primary (a) they need to make sure a Democrat is one of the top-two and (b) they desperately want to win it outright by getting 50% instead of going to a second election while the Republicans are fractured. Both make it the right thing to do to pick the strongest candidate and put all of the DNC's backing behind them. If the DNC picked a weaker candidate in this election because of DNC ties, that's bad, but I've seen nothing to that effect. so people who are rich enough to rub elbows with the dems get the funding floodgates to open. everyone else can hang. dems are for rich people only
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so people who are rich enough to rub elbows with the dems get the funding floodgates to open. everyone else can hang. dems are for rich people only do you even have any idea what you're arguing at this point, because i sure don't
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
BardoTheConsumer posted:Yeah just go hard left and see if you win any elections I guess. It's worth a try. going centrist sure as hell doesn't. that's why we're in such dire straights!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:do you even have any idea what you're arguing at this point, because i sure don't The political landscape is pretty confusing but keep at it buddy, you'll understand it eventually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:no, a consistent position that is a centrist also maintains his desire to keep it local and state level via anti-brownback, not anti-trump/national. The only way your positions work is assuming that he would have abandoned his campaign promises once in DC which is a bad thing all around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Condiv posted:going centrist sure as hell doesn't. that's why we're in such dire straights! I don't think policy has anything to do with why the Dems are in the situation they are in right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
The problem with Thompson wasn't that he was some far left radical, because he seemed to be a pretty bog standard populist, it was that he was outside of the power structure of the DNC and the point of the campaign funds are to recruit people they want, not necessarily help Democrats win in races.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Condiv posted:going centrist sure as hell doesn't. that's why we're in such dire straights! Or we could be some sort of coalition? I mean I know idiological purity is important in this radicalized age and all but eating each other probably isn't the answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Maarek posted:The problem with Thompson wasn't that he was some far left radical, because he seemed to be a pretty bog standard populist, it was that he was outside of the power structure of the DNC and the point of the campaign funds are to recruit people they want, not necessarily help Democrats win in races.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You think Hillary didn't run a progressive campaign because the progressive positions were on her website, but you think Thompson is a progressive because he said he supports single payer and 15 on a Reddit AMA and he won't even support them on his website or anywhere else. People don't believe Clinton ran a progressive campaign, because she spent most of her political career as a pro-austerity conservative Democrat, and only got dragged leftward kicking and screaming towards the end of the race. If she was ever a progressive, she was a very reluctant one. That's not something that inspires voters to turn out for her.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Maarek posted:The problem with Thompson wasn't that he was some far left radical, because he seemed to be a pretty bog standard populist, it was that he was outside of the power structure of the DNC and the point of the campaign funds are to recruit people they want, not necessarily help Democrats win in races. see, this is a stupid post like even under the most crazy of conspiracy beliefs, it's a really, really stupid post lets imagine the dnc has no interest in policy. they don't care. they just want to get all those sweet centrist kickbacks how do you get those? you get those by having a majority, so all the lobbyists have to bribe you. so your hypothetical dnc still wants thompson to win, they just thought he has no chance so why bother i mean this is what i mean when i say that you are an idiot. it's not just that you have idiotic beliefs that contradict facts. its that your idiotic beliefs aren't even remotely consistent because the actual belief you have is just that all bad things are caused by ~evil centrists~
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:do you even have any idea what you're arguing at this point, because i sure don't why is ossof funded to his hearts content while thompson wasn't given $20k? the only reason i can think of is cause the dems are nepotistic as hell and will only fund campaigns of people who've spent years chumming around with the establishment. only the idle rich can waste so much time making the connections the dems apparently require you to have to get any support from them, so the party is for the rich.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
BardoTheConsumer posted:Or we could be some sort of coalition? I mean I know idiological purity is important in this radicalized age and all but eating each other probably isn't the answer. The coalition as it stands has a what will be a major component of it in the near future (people under 40) who are very unhappy with the coalition consensus on strategy and policy. Hence the dire straits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
BardoTheConsumer posted:Or we could be some sort of coalition? I mean I know idiological purity is important in this radicalized age and all but eating each other probably isn't the answer. too bad centrists aren't interested in such a thing. they're more interested in telling us to vote for them and then ignoring us the rest of the time. it's not a coalition if one side is completely ignored
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:how do you get those? you get those by having a majority, so all the lobbyists have to bribe you. so your hypothetical dnc still wants thompson to win, they just thought he has no chance so why bother Nah you get those by being poo poo at your job, not trying, and getting paid anyway, which is what the Democrats do now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:see, this is a stupid post I think it's probably correct to assume that if the DNC or the DCCC aren't correctly allocating resources to win the most races, it's due to their incompetence, not their wanting to screw over undesirable candidates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why is ossof funded to his hearts content while thompson wasn't given $20k? the only reason i can think of is cause the dems are nepotistic as hell and will only fund campaigns of people who've spent years chumming around with the establishment. only the idle rich can waste so much time making the connections the dems apparently require you to have to get any support from them, so the party is for the rich. i already answered this question, gave you a very easy to understand answer, that you quoted and typed a response to if you can't think of an answer when i literally gave one to you, you quoted it, but now it has exited your head i can't help you i mean it's one thing if you disagree with the reason i gave but you didn't even do that, you have now completely forgotten it even existed
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why is ossof funded to his hearts content while thompson wasn't given $20k? the only reason i can think of is cause the dems are nepotistic as hell and will only fund campaigns of people who've spent years chumming around with the establishment. only the idle rich can waste so much time making the connections the dems apparently require you to have to get any support from them, so the party is for the rich. Yeah man that's sorta the problem lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Condiv posted:too bad centrists aren't interested in such a thing. they're more interested in telling us to vote for them and then ignoring us the rest of the time. it's not a coalition if one side is completely ignored liberals get listened to. idiots don't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:see, this is a stupid post they wanted him to win so bad, they sent a grand total of $0 in aid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:40
|
|