|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
"We need a 50-state strategy plus the territories, and that's what we talked about down in Atlanta last week, making sure that we redefine our mission as a Democratic Party so that we're not simply electing the president, but we're also working to elect people from the from the school board to the Senate across the nation," - chairman of the DNC, Tom Perez 02/28/2017 After the horrifying electoral failure of the democratic party following 2016, a promise like this was the bare minimum strategy to getting the dems back into power. Over the years the dems have lost so much power that the GOP is near to being able to call a constitutional convention on their own. things are dire to say the least, so tom perez' promise was welcome. hell, all the candidates for the DNC chair seemed to realize the importance of campaigning everywhere possible and the dem party supporting their candidates to grow the party as much as possible. https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/851974533665959936 and yet again the establishment of the democratic party shows they can't ever be trusted to do anything they promise to during a campaign there's a weird DNC show thing going on with perez tonight at 7pm ET tonight. hope he gets asked about this, and why he's for a 49-state strategy now https://twitter.com/TomPerez/status/851960464582037504 Calibanibal posted:When the centrists send their people, they’re not sending their best. They’re bringing insults. They’re bringing shitposts. They’re trolls. And some, I assume, are good people a list of fascist sympathizers you might wanna put on ignore if you haven't already:
Condiv fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Sep 2, 2017 |
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Yes, the Democrats are a waste, please continue to wallow in defeatism and apathy. not hard to be defeatist when the party slimes back to it's old behavior. promise poo poo during the campaign and never follow through once they get into office. they ceded a close race to the republicans. that dude lost by 6% of the vote
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:At this point I wish I could cast a vote for Le Pen just on the off chance it'll mean jackboots smashing in this guy's door. nice, centrists wishing they could vote for fascists i guess donald trump launching those missiles made you appreciate the charms of neo-nazis
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:he had to lock the last thread as his veil of leftism rather than fygm was uncovered a bit. what are you even talking about? Oxxidation posted:I'm not a centrist. I just hate you. right back at you. just surprised your anger would drive you to embrace fascism
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's almost like he's trying to influence elections in favor of the other party. do you spend your spare time dreaming up conspiracy theories about me? cause it's pretty creepy
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
parallelodad posted:Bernie Sanders podcast is pretty good.  he's not a democrat
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Typo posted:tbf the seat didn't look winnable just a week or two ago repubs didn't use that excuse. they poured 100k+ in emergency ads and visits from loving mike pence. dems are just poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Machinegun Arm! posted:Is this supposed to be a burn? Cuz it just makes you sound like an autist who can't tell the difference between serious talk and just joshin'. Like, I don't even have a horse in this race, but come on dude you have to do better than that. no oxxidation just stalks me, he's not joshin. quote:Uh anyways, yea I'm not sure what the dem strategy is supposed to be at this point. Are they an opposition party who backs centrist candidates? A centrist party which seeks leftist support? And why are they so enamored with the center when the republicans are living (undead?) proof that extremism gets votes? well a good first start would be to expand their roster while they look for a more coherent strategy, but it doesn't seem like they're gonna do that. i'm going to guess they are going to repeat the failed strategy of the last 4 years and hope they coast into office cause trump is terrible (only the easy ones in nice safe blue states though). also they'll probably run hillary again (and deffo put chelsea into a nice safe seat).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:We're not. It was a stupid thing to say. There's no way in hell Dems are winning certain states, Kansas was one of them. he was 6% off. with no local support and no national support. and the repubs put $100ks up against him cause they got scared. it was winnable
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:no, just no stupid criticism from idiots you really think it's stupid for the dems to try to win winnable seats?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:Because he doesn't have a stake in any of the politics in this country, he just uses it as a distraction while he squats in his lovely little apartment across the ocean. yeah how dare i have got a job in france years ago. really p hosed up if you think about it SSNeoman posted:He was 6% off in a close race in prob the most ideal conditions in a hick red state. If he didn't win then, he wouldn't have won ever. no, the most ideal conditions would involve support from the dem party.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:no, I think it was dumb of them not to toss the $20k the guy asked for, it is worth taking very low-cost fliers if for no other reason than to build goodwill i agree with you on the first part, but disagree with you on the second.this was a major error. the dems need to build trust after they lost a poo poo ton of it after 2016. and this makes people lose trust in them because they gave $0. also, ourrevolution did in fact endorse him and he was happy for that endorsement. so your claims the bernie wing was absent are patently false. quote:democrats are competing hard in GA-04 which is the race that was looked at as the best shot to start winning back the house despite it being a deep red seat that usually wouldn't be competitive, so the lesson everyone is whining about has gotten through: compete in hostile territory. it just didn't get through that everywhere is now on the board, not just places that are reasonable in a 10-15% swing which would be an enormous Republican wipeout already. people whining that true liberals knew but the DNC didnt are flatly wrong and so it's not an excuse to relitigate those dumb issues the lesson was compete in all hostile territory. try to break into red states. we are almost completely locked out of power as a party so expanding our power would be a really good idea asap, and throwing elections like in ks-04 by refusing to support democrats is only hurting us. i just want tom perez to abide by his 50-state strategy and not let possible wins like this one wither from lack of dem support. Condiv fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They endorsed him. They then gave him $900. The DNC endorsed him as well, endorsements aren't spending resources to help elect him. so you're saying the bernie wing was infinitely more supportive of him than the DNC was. despite tom perez promising to fight for every zip code. the DNC found the money for extremely expensive wasteful ads in 2016, the least they can do is throw a campaign like this $20k to try to help him win
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:here's a hint: anytime you, a moron, think that you can rephrase something anyone else says, stop because you can't don't pretend the bernie wing was absent if you know they weren't.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/emmaroller/status/852012264282480640 centrists can't help but be terminally wrong it seems 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the bernie wing gave a token $900, which is being effectively absent i am totally surprised that a nascent wing of the party might not have much resources to distribute. i wonder if there's a larger organization that's devoted to a 50-state strategy that could provide a much larger donation to the tune of $20k? the state dems gave him the 3k evil weasel, he got nothing from the dnc https://twitter.com/samknight1/status/851990942718492672/photo/1
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the state dems were also the ones who turned down the $20k ok, so you think the DNC should have contributed nothing? state parties are too cash poor in red states to bootstrap their own dem candidates. that's just a recipe for failure. the DNC should've supported this guy, just like how the republicans supported their guy
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i have said what i think the dnc should have done multiple times you've confused the DNC and the state party so forgive me for asking you to clarify do you think perez should've done something different than what he did when said he was committing no resources to this race. also note that I have not once posted about berniecrats in this thread. you're the one that keeps talking about them. I'm complaining that perez is not following his purported 50-state strategy to our detriment. edit: well now i just posted about them. thanks for that lol Condiv fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think Perez should have close enough relations with the state parties to make sure at least a token amount of funding - like the $20k - gets funded by the national party if it isn't able to be funded by the state party. I think that he should absolutely implement a full 50 state strategy and contest every single Republican district that can be contested. Money is still going to be limited so most of these long-shot people are going to be on their own beyond token funding until they demonstrate they're worth more investment, but $20k should be well within the amount for anyone who is running. if perez was anywhere as competent as he claimed he was he would've been ready for this poo poo. 20k should be the minimum we give out to any candidate we field. we spent a billion on hillary's waste of a campaign, we refuse to stop taking megadonor bucks, so why not at least put it to some good use so the dems can actually fight back against trump? if perez learns his lesson and supports al the remaining races now it'll be forgiveable i guess, but as someone who's lived in red states all his life this kind of stings cause it says that dems aren't gonna try to rejuvenate dead dem parties like my state's.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I do not know if the links between the national and the Kansas party are even good enough that the national DNC got a request for the $20k. That is absolutely the sort of thing that takes time. If the $20k request landed on his desk and he rejected it, it's definitely a bigger fuckup than if it never reached the national DNC. But getting the system there so the local parties ask for that help isn't instant. https://ballotpedia.org/Jon_Ossoff it's kinda worrying that the only race the DNC actually seems to care about involves a ceo former congressional-aide. are the dems only gonna help the people they happen to meet in D.C.?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:That's the spirit! Find any excuse to complain! well, it's not like the other candidates were bad. or terrible longshots. but not one thought of support for them. meanwhile a former congressional aide gets 8.3m
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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 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. 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: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
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i already answered this question, gave you a very easy to understand answer, that you quoted and typed a response to yeah, you said some bs about they only wanted to run one test run and they weren't sure thompson could win, but oh they sure wish he could, and that they just happened to choose GA, with the candidate they were familiar with as the testing grounds to throw 8.3 million dollars at. that doesn't explain a lot though, cause 8.3m is a lot and thompson wanted a fraction of that and was told no by perez.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:How much of that 8.3 is from the DNC and how much is from individual donors? not sure, but it's not like they didn't offer him support in other areas as well: quote:In addition to being well-funded, Ossoff is also heavily staffed. The DCCC sent eight staffers to Georgia in March to help his election efforts, bringing his total to 70 paid staffers and 2,000 volunteers. The DNC's bylaws mandate that the organization stay neutral during the primary, but the committee is prepared to deploy staffers and high-profile surrogates to the district for Ossoff if he finds himself in a head-to-head runoff. i wish thompson could've had just one of those staffers. oh well, the guy who hobnobbed in d.c. is the only one worth attention from the DNC
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah none of this is true, you are an idiot nah, you're obviously more interested in calling people idiots than making arguments. that's been about 90% of your responses to me, so forgive me if i don't waste the effort sifting through that to find the few specks of actual content in your posts
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I'm actually left as gently caress I just don't tilt at windmills. actually you do your conduct wrt third party voters is proof enough of that
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i gave comprehensive answers to your arguments that treated you like an adult, you ignored them and have now chosen to pretend they don't exist, so i'm just going to call you a moron rather than repeat putting in effort to explain why you're wrong again when all you can muster are to repeat the same stupid things i already debunked, but with less detail you've been calling me and other people in this thread a moron since shortly after you got in.  sorry i don't feel like wading through your posts again so i can find the specific quote you want. SSNeoman posted:His posts are fine, he's just telling people not to clutch pearls and eat each other. yes, i would like to see the DNC actually make an effort. instead of saying "nah, we're not gonna do anything, good luck!"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Craig K posted:in the alternate universe where this democrat who ran in a district that went r+a zillion actually WINS: https://twitter.com/Wobenar/status/852159629694029824 ugh i can't believe this fickle berniebro has the temerity to criticize perez
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:"Please stop talking to rich allies and instead wave your hands to make america go Bernie's shad of blue" she's calling bernie a fake dem... she's anti-bernie.... evilweasel posted:perhaps that is because you keep saying monumentally stupid things???????? 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?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Like normally at this point I'd make fun of your position with something like "man I remember when MLK's black followers were like 'boy I hate letting black people vote, but I love the 15th Amendment" but I can't even say that. Kansas' position on this shitshow is too absurd for me to even parody properly. why do you want repubs to have uncontested power in kansas? why are you blaming red state voters for voting republican when the dems have drat near no presence in the state and are afraid of even being seen?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 05:22
|
|