|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
mcmagic posted:It's just plain dumb to ignore the most popular political figure on the left in america if you're trying to be a left leaning party. Right, doy, I misread that part. The part about "non-Dem Bernie" was really dumb. The part about needing Perez to get off his rear end is pretty salient though IMO.  This is a dog, not a blobfish. Easy mistake to make. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Apr 12, 2017 |
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Majorian I'm gonna tell you straight up right now that I will not engage in seriousposting itt. Nobody here wants to talk about numbers or voting histories and instead would prefer to chase pie-in-the-sky solutions. And if I did bring up numbers I'll prob get WELL REMEMBER WHAT THEY SAID IN 2016???
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:"Please stop talking to rich allies and instead wave your hands to make america go Bernie's shad of blue" Hmmm. How is actually supporting democrats in special elections mean magically waving hands?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm up for talking about numbers and voting histories, and I've never been one for pie-in-the-sky solutions. I want the Dems to win in 2018 and 2020. I just think that the only way they're going to do that is by actually making an effort to speak to the needs of the working class again. I'm a Thomas Frank-type lefty. Yeah fair enough, nobody other than you and evilweasel. What would you propose for Dems to do to speak to the working class? and who are the working class cause that varies widely state to state? Kilroy posted:The sensation you're experiencing is that of being totally wrong about a thing. Take your compulsion to shitpost in response and try to turn that into a single post where you type exactly "hmmm I see your point mea culpa" and then never post again. I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THIS loving SICK DUBSTEP WUB BRAH VV "discussion" is a strong word from this thread also idgaf (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THIS loving SICK DUBSTEP WUB BRAH Yo, poo poo like this doesn't help the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Condiv posted:except it doesn't answer the most important question of my post. why did they sink that much resources into one race and claim they were cash strapped for thompson? as i said, 20K should be a starter amount for any of our candidates at his level. why could ossof not take 8.1m, and quist and thompson get 100k each from the dnc? They should sink those resources into Georgia because it's winnable. That's why it's getting $8m. Any analysis of those two races would say Georgia's the one that should get the lion's share of the money. I agree they should have sunk $20k into Kansas, and I've said that a lot. But the national DNC didn't say they were cash-strapped, the local DNC did. I have not seen the facts to know if the request got from the Kansas DNC to the national DNC: either way is bad, but fixable and doesn't indicate to me that they hate the idea of winning in Kansas but that they undervalue the usefulness of unproven long-shot candidates and they have poor links between the state and national parties that is already a priority to fix. So you ask what the reason is: the reason is (a) the DNC undervalued the cost/benefit of throwing $20k at what was (at the time) a very long-shot candidate and/or (b) the national DNC didn't even get the request. Neither is good. Both need to be fixed. But both are easily understandable reasons that make much more sense than the DNC just hates Thompson because he's not as well connected. I also don't know that the $8m is from the DNC as opposed to the total amount of money Ossof raised. Obviously it's very different if most of that $8m is private donations, not DNC money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They should sink those resources into Georgia because it's winnable. That's why it's getting $8m. Any analysis of those two races would say Georgia's the one that should get the lion's share of the money. There is zero chance the DNC is spending 8 million dollars on one congressional race. The vast majority of it has to be private donations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
axeil posted:In more heartening news, look at what's going on down-ballot in VA. In the 2015 election the Dems fielded candidates in about half the districts, just barely enough to win a majority if somehow all their people won. They of course lost horribly and only took 33 seats out of 100 member chamber. Yeah, this is much more important than worrying about money right now: the Democrats need to be fielding candidates everywhere. There's going to be more long-shots that might pan out but they only pan out if you've got a guy in the race when the Republican starts explaining his views on rape. From there, they can get the money and allocate the money but they're doing better on candidate recruitment and the Thompson getting close in a R+30 is going to be really, really helpful there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Craig K posted:in the alternate universe where this democrat who ran in a district that went r+a zillion actually WINS: Yeah, people have TOTALLY not been screaming at the DNC to support its candidates, it's just bitching now adter the fact.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
to be fair it WOULD be pretty nice to not have to write in "puck the fairy dragon" in a fourth congressional election in AR-3 for a loving row because the ballot is Republican/Libertarian/Constitution Party with no democrats in sight
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
I'm actually of the opinion that Perez did the right thing letting Kansas burn. In addition to not wasting money on a state that has been traditionally red, the state can now continue to crash under tax cuts which Dems can use as a cautionary tale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Craig K posted:to be fair it WOULD be pretty nice to not have to write in "puck the fairy dragon" in a fourth congressional election in AR-3 for a loving row because the ballot is Republican/Libertarian/Constitution Party with no democrats in sight No you see we can't be bothered to five you any support. My hope is that Thompson uses this as reason to purge the state dem party and instead of running for the house again runs for Governor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They should sink those resources into Georgia because it's winnable. That's why it's getting $8m. Any analysis of those two races would say Georgia's the one that should get the lion's share of the money. https://twitter.com/samknight1/status/851990942718492672/photo/1?ref_src=tw look at the second image. perez literally says we can't afford to spend on every race. that's claiming they're cash-strapped when there's only a couple of special elections going on right now. quote:So you ask what the reason is: the reason is (a) the DNC undervalued the cost/benefit of throwing $20k at what was (at the time) a very long-shot candidate and/or (b) the national DNC didn't even get the request. Neither is good. Both need to be fixed. But both are easily understandable reasons that make much more sense than the DNC just hates Thompson because he's not as well connected. i don't think they hate him. i think they just don't give a poo poo. like they don't give a poo poo about the rest of us, which is why they think it's fine to campaign on $15/hr and then veto it when they get into office. it really truly feels like the dems are disconnected from anyone who can't manage to enter the d.c. sphere of influence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
i don't blame them in many respects, i've heard people proclaim that tom cottons a filthy RINO because he didn't support the ACA repeal bill frankly just nuke this entire general area of the country and post a warning on like, msnbc or daily kos so us sane people can get out
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Yeah fair enough, nobody other than you and evilweasel. Well, to answer your second question first, it obviously varies, but I like Tom Frank's broad definition (I'm paraphrasing): people who work for a wage, often in manual labor or industrial jobs, who, until relatively recently, have mostly considered themselves to be "middle class." A significant portion of these folks have traditionally been loyal Democrats, and have been enthusiastic about involvement in unions. As far as speaking to them is concerned, pushing for things like a $15 minimum wage, vocally supporting labor, endorsing Medicare/Medicaid expansion, and promising jobs in new industries that have a chance of revitalizing suffering Rust Belt communities, are all good first steps. I understand the arguments against forcing a $15 minimum wage nationally, but that's part of how electoral politics works: you promise the moon, and sometimes you have to scale back on them a bit, but at least you cared enough to aim high, and fought for your beliefs. That wins you so much more good will from the public than going in ready to compromise from the get-go. It's not just policy positions that are important, though. Being emphatic about those positions matters a lot, as is being seen as credible when taking those positions. That was the biggest problem for Hillary Clinton: she ended up with decent policy prescriptions by the end of the campaign, but she didn't really seem to believe in them. Given her history of supporting free trade agreements and cuts to the social safety net, and that she didn't seem to care that much about winning votes in the Upper Midwest, it's hard for me to blame people in those districts for not believing her. An economic populist has to "feel their pain," as a certain other Democrat once famously put it. e: My point is, it's all very well for a moderate Dem to acquiesce to the Bernies and endorse a $15 minimum wage on his or her website; it's quite another to run proudly and unapologetically on it, shouting it from the mountaintop. The Dems need to be doing more of the latter if they want to win nationally. They need to remember that voters like their policy prescriptions, if sold correctly, and don't like what the Republicans are actually offering. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yeah, this is much more important than worrying about money right now: the Democrats need to be fielding candidates everywhere. There's going to be more long-shots that might pan out but they only pan out if you've got a guy in the race when the Republican starts explaining his views on rape. From there, they can get the money and allocate the money but they're doing better on candidate recruitment and the Thompson getting close in a R+30 is going to be really, really helpful there. this is why i'm angry. you say it's ok and they learned their lesson this time, i say they should've learned this lesson after trump's election. hopefully they actually learned something and fund quist. otherwise i hope you'll be there howling for blood with me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Condiv posted:this is why i'm angry. you say it's ok and they learned their lesson this time, i say they should've learned this lesson after trump's election. hopefully they actually learned something and fund quist. otherwise i hope you'll be there howling for blood with me. Trump's election gave a pretty different answer: that "safe" D areas were not safe. It certainly wasn't "deep red areas are up for grabs". That's what everyone expected Trump's election to do and whoooooooooops, maybe Clinton should have spent more time in WI/MI/PA locking those down and less in Georgia and Arizona trying to expand the map. That is certainly not the only reason she lost, but this just wasn't a lesson to draw from 2016.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:A big difference that people tend to forget is that Bush only tried to privatize social security after 2004. That was a big, big deal people have forgotten and that did a number on Republican support because, like the AHCA, it was so unpopular it never even got a vote. Kerry wasn't able to run on that. also Iraq popularity started sliding in late 2005
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:lets imagine the dnc has no interest in policy. they don't care. they just want to get all those sweet centrist kickbacks Let's remember that the DNC were the same group that pulled out all the stops so basically-a-Republican Patrick Murphy could beat noted pain-in-the-rear end Alan Grayson in the primary and than diverted most of their money away from the race once (recently eviscerated by Trump) Marco Rubio came back into the general picture. So they're painfully stupid when it comes to strategy and they still get big $$$ regardless of how poorly they perform since they're the only 'acceptable' game in town.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Trump's election gave a pretty different answer: that "safe" D areas were not safe. It certainly wasn't "deep red areas are up for grabs". That's what everyone expected Trump's election to do and whoooooooooops, maybe Clinton should have spent more time in WI/MI/PA locking those down and less in Georgia and Arizona trying to expand the map. That is certainly not the only reason she lost, but this just wasn't a lesson to draw from 2016. No, but it's considerably less of a game of whack-a-mole now than it was then, too. The Dems certainly have the bandwidth and resources to properly fund and support these special election campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Condiv posted:this is why i'm angry. you say it's ok and they learned their lesson this time, i say they should've learned this lesson after trump's election. hopefully they actually learned something and fund quist. otherwise i hope you'll be there howling for blood with me. so you're saying Hillary should have spent more time campaigning in Kansas?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Trump's election gave a pretty different answer: that "safe" D areas were not safe. It certainly wasn't "deep red areas are up for grabs". That's what everyone expected Trump's election to do and whoooooooooops, maybe Clinton should have spent more time in WI/MI/PA locking those down and less in Georgia and Arizona trying to expand the map. That is certainly not the only reason she lost, but this just wasn't a lesson to draw from 2016. you see it as two separate messages, i see it as one. we have to fight. hillary did not fight hard enough in vital states and lost them. the DNC did not do the bare minimum in this election and they barely lost. dems have been running for a long time. running from their own platform, running from their own policies, and running from red states. i and a lot of other red state dems are tired of being told by the party that we don't matter. we want the dems to fight for us for once
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you see it as two separate messages, i see it as one. we have to fight. hillary did not fight hard enough in vital states and lost them. the DNC did not do the bare minimum in this election and they barely lost. dems have been running for a long time. running from their own platform, running from their own policies, and running from red states. i and a lot of other red state dems are tired of being told by the party that we don't matter. we want the dems to fight for us for once hillary fought so hard she literally fainted on national tv her problem was going after states she didn't need when she should have just locked down MI/WI/PA
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Typo posted:hillary fought so hard she literally fainted on national tv that is true. she tilted at windmills in texas for example. but then again, hillary wasn't forced to hide from the media for months, but she did anyway
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you see it as two separate messages, i see it as one. we have to fight. hillary did not fight hard enough in vital states and lost them. the DNC did not do the bare minimum in this election and they barely lost. dems have been running for a long time. running from their own platform, running from their own policies, and running from red states. i and a lot of other red state dems are tired of being told by the party that we don't matter. we want the dems to fight for us for once Hillary didn't fight hard enough in vital states because she was overconfident in them, not underconfident in them. She didn't campaign in WI/MI not because she didn't think she could win them but she thought she had them in the bag, and focused on reach red states instead. She thought she was more popular than she was not less popular. If she was less optimistic about red states maybe she would have won! There's many better ways to have won, but "campaign more in red states" was not one of them. That's not relevant to 2018, but you keep saying black is white and it's just not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Hillary didn't fight hard enough in vital states because she was overconfident in them, not underconfident in them. She didn't campaign in WI/MI not because she didn't think she could win them but she thought she had them in the bag, and focused on reach red states instead. She thought she was more popular than she was. it's kind of a problem that dems only put up a proper fight when they feel appropriately threatened. especially since they've shown themselves to be blind to their actual situation. maybe they need to realize they're effectively blind right now and fight hard for every race instead that is extremely relevant for 2018. if we can't start fighting like hell we're going to lose seats in 2018 when we need to gain as much seats as possible as fast as possible before we're permanently locked out of power also i notice that you haven't said if the dems refusing to fund quist would be a breaking point for you. edit: then again tons of people warned hillary she was weak in those states and she ignored them. Condiv fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Hillary didn't fight hard enough in vital states because she was overconfident in them, not underconfident in them. She didn't campaign in WI/MI not because she didn't think she could win them but she thought she had them in the bag, and focused on reach red states instead. She thought she was more popular than she was not less popular. If she was less optimistic about red states maybe she would have won! There's many better ways to have won, but "campaign more in red states" was not one of them. Eh...I think she could have done both, really. I understand that she had to go to SOME fundraisers in California and New York, and I don't begrudge that in principle. But she spent way too much time in states that would be in the bag even under the worst circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's kind of a problem that dems only put up a proper fight when they feel appropriately threatened. especially since they've shown themselves to be blind to their actual situation. maybe they need to realize they're effectively blind right now and fight hard for every race instead It is a problem that you keep saying black is white and refusing to realize it's not. The claims you're making about what happened with Trump's election about lessons Democrats should have learned about where to campaign are flatly wrong. Full stop. You're trying to avoid admitting it was a really loving stupid thing to say by saying different things. The lessons of what states to compete in from 2016 are wrong. I don't even know what you mean by "dems only put up a proper fight when they feel appropriately threatened" and I don't care, it's a statement you're just throwing out to avoid admitting you were wrong. Whatever you mean by it is probably wrong, but I don't care because it has become immensely clear you have no connection to reality. I have repeatedly said that the Democrats need to learn the lesson from this race and put effort into the Montana race and that there's no excuse for failing to do so now that they have the Kansas example. Again, you don't read. I don't know why you think it should be in a post about another subject. Majorian posted:Eh...I think she could have done both, really. I understand that she had to go to SOME fundraisers in California and New York, and I don't begrudge that in principle. But she spent way too much time in states that would be in the bag even under the worst circumstances. I think where you fundraise and where you campaign are entirely different things. You're not fundraising to get votes, so you fundraise where the money is. You campaign where the votes are, so when she's fundraising in New York that's not a mistake about where she should be campaigning if the money is in New York. It may, however, be a mistake about the proper balance between fundraising and campaigning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
The lesson from 2016 is that the people who have been running the Democratic party for the past couple of decades never were the canny political operators they and their fanclub imagined them to be. In fact they generally were a bunch of idiots and hence ought to be replaced.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think where you fundraise and where you campaign are entirely different things. You're not fundraising to get votes, so you fundraise where the money is. You campaign where the votes are, so when she's fundraising in New York that's not a mistake about where she should be campaigning if the money is in New York. It may, however, be a mistake about the proper balance between fundraising and campaigning. Yeah, that's my point: fundraising is necessary, but it's pretty clear that a lot of the time she spent doing that would have been better spent elsewhere. She made the big overarching mistake that the Democrats have been making for decades now: assuming that Rust Belt working class voters were in the bag. They weren't, and there were plenty of warning signs that they weren't, that the Clinton camp nevertheless deliberately ignored. e: Cerebral Bore posted:The lesson from 2016 is that the people who have been running the Democratic party for the past couple of decades never were the canny political operators they and their fanclub imagined them to be. In fact they generally were a bunch of idiots and hence ought to be replaced. Even then, a lot of the third way Dems in the early 90's understood that they had to at least pay lip service to "feeling their (ie: the working class') pain." At some point, even that understanding apparently eluded them. That's the most  part about all of this: why did they expect the working class to uniformly stay with the Dems, and how did they think the numbers would add up without those voters? I know Dems were bullish in 2016 about minority voters becoming more numerous and more active, but still, the math doesn't add up. They still needed to keep their coalition intact. Yet somehow they seemed to forget this.I blame "Broad City" and Lena Dunham, personally. 
Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The lesson from 2016 is that the people who have been running the Democratic party for the past couple of decades never were the canny political operators they and their fanclub imagined them to be. In fact they generally were a bunch of idiots and hence ought to be replaced. Yeah the Hillary campaign in general was just absurdly bad. I can see why you might want to stop down in a state you win in a wave if there's an important Senate or Governor's race there but Hillary's strategy of map expanding was anything but that. You win the Presidency with 270 EVs, you don't get bonus points for winning 400 EVs. For the House and Senate it's a bit different as the larger your majority is the easier it is to rule so I'm far more sympathetic to funding extreme long-shots there because you never know when you'll get a Todd Aiken or Christine O'Donnell type as your candidate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
My feeling about this argument about the recent Kansas situation is that you have a bunch of dumb arguments being peddled from both sides (I hate making "both sides have wrong ideas" arguments, but it seems true in this case). On one hand, you have some leftists who are very clearly jumping at any sort of news that could possibly be interpreted as the Democrats loving up and being dumb, and on the other side you have a bunch of people who are obviously starting from the conclusion of "The Democrats didn't make a mistake (because if they did the formerly mentioned leftists would be correct)" and then seeking out evidence to prove a conclusion they've already settled on. I can sympathize with both of these perspectives to an extent. The former, like myself, have great dissatisfaction with Democratic Party leadership, and it is very useful to have clear examples of them loving up, so they're willing to suppress any sort of skepticism and just assume the Kansas situation is evidence in their favor. The latter are basically seeing the former and thinking "these guys are kinda dumb, therefore they must be wrong. let's look for evidence supporting my pre-formed conclusion that they're wrong." On a personal level, the latter people reflexively defending the Democrats annoy me a little more, even though in many cases they're actually more informed than the former group. I think this is because defense of the status quo/mainstream is intrinsically seen by most people as a comparatively "unbiased" position compared with people attacking the status quo. A person who has a bias against the status quo is (often correctly) viewed as a crank, but a person who has a bias in defense of the status quo is just overlooked as having "normal" views. Regarding this specific situation, I think the most useful information to have would be data on how the DNC allocated funds back when we still used a 50 state strategy. If, under that strategy, we still didn't fund races like this Kansas one, the "DNC hosed up and isn't holding to their 50 state strategy" folks are probably wrong. If we did fund such races, it casts doubt on the people trying to defend the DNC. Without that information I don't think it's really possible to reach a conclusion, because a "we can't fund every race" defense is pretty insufficient by itself (since you could use that same defense against any claims that a specific race should have been funded).
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Bad news. Chuck SchumerVerified account @chuckschumer .@TheDemocrats fight in Kansas is just the start of what we'll bring to campaigns across the county in 2, 4, 6 yrs & beyond. #KS04
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I'm actually of the opinion that Perez did the right thing letting Kansas burn. In addition to not wasting money on a state that has been traditionally red, the state can now continue to crash under tax cuts which Dems can use as a cautionary tale. Instead of consulting the oracles and staring at rabbit livers trying to figure out the correct combination of races to ignore and to support which will cause the GOP to combust or implode or turn into a Full Communism Now party, the Dems should just try to win some loving elections. You know, for a change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
tekz posted:Bad news. Poorly-worded, but it sounds like he means economic populism, not, you know, more loss. Still, yeah, that's really poorly-worded, and it's pretty funny SSNeoman posted:I'm actually of the opinion that Perez did the right thing letting Kansas burn. In addition to not wasting money on a state that has been traditionally red, the state can now continue to crash under tax cuts which Dems can use as a cautionary tale. Thompson winning wouldn't have stopped the state from crashing and burning, though - it was just one representative job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
The Democrats have this weird tendency to treat politics like its a gentleman's game between them and the Republicans. They observe rules of etiquette and say insane things like 'if we spend here it will only encourage the Republicans to spend here!' and of course the Republicans dump cash there anyways, because the Republicans are out to win, not play a goddamn game. It's like Obama proposing weenie compromise candidate Merrick Garland so he can wag a finger at the Republicans when they obstruct him, only no one cares and the Republicans are fine holding out a year to get Gorsuch in. Obama should have thrown decorum to the goddamn wind and made a recess appointment and told the right to suck his dick. Even the loving primaries are prime examples of this obsession with etiquette and games. The Republicans had a goddamn clown car's worth of candidates and engaged in one of the nastiest brawls imaginable, yet still managed to defeat the coronation candidate that got handled with kid gloves and yet some people are *still* salty about the possibility that the primaries tarnished her too much. KS-04 is just an example of the Democrats thinking they are smart and strategic and getting their asses handed to them once again because they're a party of sad nerds fantasizing about game theory while continuously getting stuffed into lockers
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Hillary had the resources to keep the blue states and still make token efforts at expanding the map. Just because she failed on both counts despite having the resources doesn't mean expanding the map is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I'm actually of the opinion that Perez did the right thing letting Kansas burn. In addition to not wasting money on a state that has been traditionally red, the state can now continue to crash under tax cuts which Dems can use as a cautionary tale. No, see, its actually a good thing that millions are getting hosed on a daily basis. Gotta be honest, its difficult to tell some self professed Democrats apart from Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:No, see, its actually a good thing that millions are getting hosed on a daily basis. This isn't an Electorial College. The majority chose this. They can live out the consequences. I'm done having pity for these people. Or are you suddenly gonna play the part of the good liberal where we need to give folks a chance? http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/kansas-house-special-election-district-4 look at this. Look at this stupid poo poo. 63,000 people looked at post-Brownback Kansas and decided "I mean you know what, why break with tradition/the emails/Islam/MSM/LIEBERALS/ehatever the gently caress" and pulled the red lever You see those pretty little red squares with like less than 500 people? Those are the people who will get hit the hardest by this decision. This is the much-fabled "base". Let em ride it out. Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:This isn't an Electorial College. The majority chose this. They can live out the consequences. I'm done having pity for these people. I agree, cut the South free to be its own hellhole and let the Klan take over. Its their own fault for not voting Democrat hard enough. I'm done having pity for those people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 23:16
|
|