The democrats are a waste

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed.
B	77	25.50%
K	160	52.98%
M	65	21.52%
Total:	229 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Submarine Sandpaper posted:

he had to lock the last thread as his veil of leftism rather than fygm was uncovered a bit.

good to have you back with more made up bullshit

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 17:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:04

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

JeffersonClay posted:

I'm not sure this seat was actually winnable.

6% when they did gently caress all and no one cares if the DNC spends money anywhere because most people don't follow political inside baseball like that - even special election voters. The seat was winnable.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 18:13

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

I wonder how much the DNC spends on consultants in the typical month to craft idiotic tweets that people like JeffersonClay can partially digest and then regurgitate here. Probably more than $20K.

Kilroy fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Apr 12, 2017

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 18:19

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Radish posted:

The idea that if the DNC started spending money there all of the GOP voters would suddenly remember that Pelosi exists (so they were right to do nothing) is probably the worst take on this for a bunch of reasons.

Not to mention, if you were going to put that theory to the test, you'd do exactly what the Democrats did which is stay super quiet and see what the RNC does. And guess what they poured a bunch of loving money into the race anyway, making sure to remind people that Nancy Pelosi or whatever still exists.

Normally you say "the experiment was a failure" when something like that happens, but when you're a centrist shithead there's always a way to spin things so that you were right all along.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 18:27

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

evilweasel posted:

it wasn't the DNC missing this, it was everyone

Yes, everyone including the RNC, but somehow the Republicans were able to turn it around on short notice and support their god-damned candidate while the Democrats sat on their fat asses because one of their highly-paid consultants told them they could say devoting resources to the race would have made it less competitive.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 18:30

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

I can just imagine the meeting:

:butt:

: "hmmm, we kinda hosed up here. we kinda look like idiots."

:v:

: "what if we just tell people that our help would have made things worse?"

:butt:

: "doesn't that kind of make us look even more toxic and incompetent?"

:v:

: "nah most of our people won't put that together, and the ones that do will be yelled at by the rest"

:butt:

: "hmmm good point, well I'm going to leave early today can you fire up the twitter-mobile and get the word out to our pundits?"

:v:

: *checks twitter stream* "actually I didn't need to this time, they've already started doing this one on their own"

:butt:

: "weird that's happening a lot more lately. well. cya"

:shrek:

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 18:41

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

evilweasel posted:

ok. it's last week. you're in complete command of the dnc. you've found out the same instant that the RNC did that the race is actually competitive. what would you do?

remember: the $20k request wasn't made last week. that was rejected well beforehand. so we're not discussing that, at all.

What the hell are you talking about "was already rejected"? I'd go ahead and un-reject it first thing and give the man what he asked for. Then I'd see if there are any charismatic politicians who poll reasonably well in that area who can swing by for a day or two and help the guy out. Or, failing that, at least have them record a few robocalls. You know, basically what the GOP did when they figured out the seat was in jeopardy.

Maybe you should quit trying to play n-dimensional chess and just play chess? It's easier and it's also the one that actually exists.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 18:46

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

evilweasel posted:

Now, ironically, the only national politician I can think of that might have been helpful is Bernie. I don't knock him for not going there: I suspect he wasn't wanted because even a popular democrat would have reminded the voters that as much as they might like the guy, he was running as a democrat and democrats want to take your guns and abort your babies. But he certainly isn't under the control of the DNC.

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?

JeffersonClay posted:

He called for a 15 dollar minimum wage at some unspecified time in the future because rural Kansas isn't the same as NYC and you can't change things overnight. I don't think he actually campaigned on 15. Similarly he supports single payer but didn't advocate any specific implementation and didn't campaign on the issue. Supporting 15 and single payer are the magic words he said to get out of state Bernie money that he put into his moderate campaign.

Note that this post is by the same idiot who insists Hillary had a very progressive platform even if she didn't hammer on it during the general. She "campaigned" on it whatever that means, and this proves a progressive platform does not help win elections.

The only reason JC isn't a massive hypocrite is that you need more self-awareness than he has, to be one of those.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 19:08

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

evilweasel posted:

he would have absolutely been the sort of conservative democrat you would be furious about once elected, because that's what you get if you want a democrat to have a chance in a deep red district and that's what he ran as

okay well then centrists should be angry then because the party pissed away another opportunity to elect another blue dog democrat that will vote with Republicans nearly as often as he votes with Democrats

(note that I reject the premise here, but if you don't and you're a centrist then it seems you have reason to be upset, unless you're the sort who sucks off the national party without question)

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 19:10

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Submarine Sandpaper posted:

ah you so reject the entire notion of representation, good to know.

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?

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

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

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).

your dumb observation has been noted, thanks for posting

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 19:20

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

evilweasel posted:

ok at this point you don't even know what you're arguing, you're just being a dumb baby

I'm not really arguing with you anymore, just read the last bit and wanted to point it out.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 19:21

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

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.

Actually I think both Clinton and Thompson should have been more vocal about the parts of their platform that draw from progressive causes, and I don't think Thompson is super progressive just that he's not a conservative Democrat either. So it's just you here contradicting yourself. As usual.

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

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

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.

what specific campaign promises are you hypothetically accusing me of wanting him to abandon? single payer? $15 min wage?

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 19:32

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

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.

yep the DNC is a politicians' guild not the governing arm of a national political party

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 19:36

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

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 left has been trying that for about thirty years or more. Turns out that an alliance with nihilists isn't worth much.

Like, don't confuse talking about "centrists" in D&D with talking about people who just have moderate political views. We're referring specifically to the people who run the DNC (and their idiotic defenders here) who have basically no ideology to speak of, aside from power for its own sake. Establishment Democrats aren't in politics to make the world a better place, or for that matter really do much of anything when in office other than the bare minimum their constituency demands (assuming they can't weasel out of it somehow). They're mostly in politics because it's a good racket and because it feeds their ego. If forced to choose between sharing what power they have in the DNC, with people who want to do poo poo (which always carries some risk), and just remaining a minority party forever, they'll choose the latter. They have chosen the latter. These are the shitheads we're talking about - not people who aren't ideologically leftist enough. I know that gets lost in the rhetoric sometimes but that's what it is. I mean I can only speak for myself but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone on this.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 19:45

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Submarine Sandpaper posted:

You make distinction between Thompson and Hillary where there's none wrt policy even going as far down as promoting bipartisanship. You also consistently argue that Hillary would not enact or support leftist policy. So, if your Bernie bro won the election, was supported by the national democratic [ideals] and affirmed bernie's policies, he would be going against his constituents.

He's not a "Bernie Bro" you horse's rear end and how would he be going against his constituents who voted for him despite his coming out in support of $15 and single payer? Did they vote for him without knowing about his support for those things? Did they vote for him thinking he didn't really support them?

And note that Hillary does have a serious credibility problem. That's factored into the comparison as well. You can find evidence of her supporting and opposing almost anything, at some point in her career. For what it's worth I think she would have supported leftist causes as President to the extent that her triangulation calculator told her to, but no more. And I even supported her on that basis.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 19:51

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

evilweasel posted:

see this is what i don't get

sure, assume the dnc has no ideology other than power for power's sake

how on earth does that lead you to "the dnc doesn't want to win an election that would get them closer to power"

Because for them there isn't much point in winning elections if it means substantial power-sharing with the left. As far as they're concerned that's further from power, because they're not in total control of the Democratic party anymore.

JeffersonClay posted:

So you think Thompson ran a standard democratic campaign but that he totally would have won if he'd just been more progressive in his R+30 district? You're delusional.

The Sanders wing forced Thompson to state he supported 15 and single payer to get their money, and once he got it he ignored those issues in his campaign.

He came within 6% despite saying those progressive things in this R+30 district. You know I think you need to step up your excuse-making game - it's been really off lately. I guess now that centrists are safely in control of the party you don't think it's worth the effort anymore?

And where is this "oh Bernie Sanders put him in a choke hold that's why he said those things on Reddit for $900" coming from?

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 20:02

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

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???

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.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2017 20:14

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

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.

As I've mentioned, maybe the Dems should stick to plain ol' 2D chess for a while. It's easier and anyway the other forms of chess they're trying to play aren't actually real.

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

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

sudo rm -rf posted:

For someone who's only speaking for themselves you sure do know a lot about the desires and motivations of people who aren't you.

In my experience when people say "centrists" esp as a pejorative they're referring mainly to centrists in the Democratic party leadership. Maybe sometimes they just mean any old moderate Democrat? YMMV :shrug:

# ¿ Apr 13, 2017 02:02

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

SSNeoman posted:

They need more power and we need to take it from the Republicans by any means necessary.

...except in KS-04, because it's too drat expensive and those fuckers deserve it anyway.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2017 02:05

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Man if we got to take back power from Republicans by any means necessary and "any means necessary" doesn't seem to include "try to win winnable elections" then I don't know what the gently caress we're going to do :confused:

# ¿ Apr 13, 2017 02:12

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Gonna be real funny when Dems take the House in 2018

Condiv makes a good point about extremism though. When you leave entire states to twist in the wind and become a one-party GOP government, they become a crucible for all sorts of wickedness which is then exported elsewhere. We should try to keep fascists completely shut out of the national government, and not just be satisfied if there aren't enough of them to form a ruling coalition.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2017 08:21

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

dont even fink about it posted:

Good luck persecuting them man, but if you want to win in the marketplace of ideas all you have to do is market.

Too bad the DNC can't even be bothered to do that in places like Kansas.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2017 08:36

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Jitzu_the_Monk posted:

Who was it again that argued that DNC chair didn't matter and that even if it did Perez was the best equipped to implement a 50 state strategy anyway? Haven't caught up to every thread but have any of these posters recanted?

Apparently the 50-state strategy doesn't include red states.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2017 18:13

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Nevvy Z posted:

If money was not spent in Kansas now, but is spent in Kansas later, does the strategy include Kansas?

It means that the strategy eventually included Kansas but it included Georgia first.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2017 19:04

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Majorian posted:

Seriously, JeffersonClay, SSNeoman, et al., I'm not sure how you can defend your position on this, when you're making Vox and MoveOn look like visionaries.

The usual route: massive contradictions and gaps in logic followed by "I never said that" when called out on it. I don't know why you keep assuming that centrist apologists ITT are arguing in good faith, or for that matter even capable of keeping their own bullshit straight, when they keep demonstrating that they wouldn't do so even if they could.

These are the same people who didn't learn any lessons from 2016. To think they'll learn a lesson from a close race in Kansas is laughable.

# ¿ Apr 14, 2017 22:09

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Majorian posted:

Not finding anything. Obviously the smart thing to do would be to throw some resources that way, since the Kansas thing was not particularly a good look for the DNC.

So that means... nope.

They've kind of painted themselves into a corner with their idiotic rationale for not supporting Thompson. The first time they support a candidate in a red district the first question (and the second, and the third...) is going to be "isn't this contrary to your stated reason for not supporting Thompson?" and then the jig is up.

That's why this attitude of never admitting fault and constantly trying to spin your obvious gently caress-ups into some bullshit n-dimensional chess game is truly dangerous: it's not just that you don't learn anything, it's that even if you do learn a lesson it's harder to act on it because you just got done telling everyone there was no lesson and to let the experienced political masters handle it.

The Democratic Party isn't going to change until it's all different people running it. Establishment Democrats would rather double-down on a failed strategy for the party, than admit an error, because the latter makes them more vulnerable to challenges within the party.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2017 18:30

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Also the fact that if it is legitimately a good idea for the DNC to steer clear of these campaigns, then perhaps the DNC leadership should look into why they're apparently such an incompetent organization with such a piss-poor image that candidates who would otherwise need their help are telling them instead "nah, gently caress-all is a better deal coming from the likes of you".

I'm sure the DNC establishment, like a lot of posters here, just write off the entire region as racist assholes and so that's why they can't dirty their hands with it. Whatever rationale it takes as long as the result is: never, ever change.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2017 18:39

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

HannibalBarca posted:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.f0901f8818fa

"Ada is a complex computer algorithm that the campaign was prepared to publicly unveil after the election as its invisible guiding hand. Named for a female 19th-century mathematician � Ada, Countess of Lovelace � the algorithm was said to play a role in virtually every strategic decision Clinton aides made, including where and when to deploy the candidate and her battalion of surrogates and where to air television ads � as well as when it was safe to stay dark.

...

What Ada did, based on all that data, aides said, was run 400,000 simulations a day of what the race against Trump might look like. A report that was spit out would give campaign manager Robby Mook and others a detailed picture of which battleground states were most likely to tip the race in one direction or another � and guide decisions about where to spend time and deploy resources."

god these people were such idiots

This is likely more of a garbage in, garbage out sort of thing. There is probably a lot of value in Ada - bear in mind this was supposed to be the next iteration of the data-driven campaign that put Obama in the WH - but if you're cherry-picking data and flat-out ignoring evidence that contradicts your narrative, then you're probably better off not using it at all.

In light of article posted earlier, we get a clearer picture of what happened here: the campaign developed a culture of telling the boss what she wanted to hear, because those who didn't got humiliated or sacked. So they tweaked the inputs until the system told them what it was "supposed" to, and anyone who disagreed quickly found themselves shut out.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2017 04:32

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

axeil posted:

Yeah, I mean for all the poo poo Nate Silver got throughout the entirety of 2016 his model was the only publicly available model that wasn't Bill Mitchell's Halloween Mask Sales level of stupid to indicate there's a reasonable chance Trump might win. All Nate did was note "whole lot more poor white people than usual seem to like Trump" and went from there. Presumably the internal model the Clinton team had would have shown this but if there was a hesitancy to trust it or they were feeding it bad data...well that's on them.

On the other hand Nate wrote that "Trump's Six Stages of Doom" article which was dumb as hell and ultimately humiliated him. So while he ended up being "right", or rather being wrong by less than most anyone else, I think it's more a case of him fudging his own data to give Trump an edge that having a solid methodology.

Like if he hadn't written that article and been made a laughingstock because of it, he'd probably have been right there with everyone else and loving up just as bad.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2017 19:55

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

JeffersonClay posted:

The more blame that is placed on the Clinton campaign for the loss, the less need the democrats will feel to make fundamental changes in policy.

You hold her nearly blameless for the loss yet you concern-troll the gently caress out of any proposed shifts in policy.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2017 03:45

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Barry Convex posted:

Can someone explain to me how PA is supposed to prove that more resources devoted to WI and MI wouldn't have mattered, given that it's well documented that she ignored the state outside Pittsburgh and Philly?

A bit long but this sums it up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-sAmrGtRs

Grognan posted:

by diluting their own descriptions their position becomes like mist on the wind, impossible to find and refute.

a good post

# ¿ Apr 18, 2017 06:03

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

JeffersonClay posted:

I'm literally arguing that focusing on Robbie Mook's algorithm or wasting money in the LA media market makes it easier for centrists to ignore policy issues by focusing on the non-policy ineptitude of the campaign.

You guys should listen to JC on this he's speaking from personal experience here.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2017 19:32

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Larry Summers posted:

One of the reasons that inequality has probably gone up in our society is that people are being treated closer to the way that they're supposed to be treated.

Holy poo poo. That's a new one, for me at least. God drat.

If you think there is any compromise or working together with these fuckers to improve our economy, or for that matter just get Democrats elected you're a fool. There is only the :thermidor:

# ¿ Apr 19, 2017 18:10

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Mister Facetious posted:

So, do these people sidestep the fact that minorities have disproportionately higher rates of extreme poverty and single parentage situations which would be disproportionately improved over that of whites by increasing the minimum wage out of malice, or ignorance?

Based on the nature of the posts, I'm going with malicious ignorance.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2017 21:47

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Majorian posted:

I think it's at least possible to signal that you care. There's a reason why "I've been out LISTENING to REAL AMERICANS" is such a popular (albeit extremely hackneyed) refrain among politicians, regardless of their ideological stripes: listening and taking time to understand people's challenges signals that you care, and you want to learn more. And it helps that there are a lot more leftist PoCs, women, and LGBT leaders out there than there have been in the past. The more diverse the group becomes, the more different people of different backgrounds will feel welcome to join as well.

I cringe nearly into a singularity every time I hear that because my first thought is "okay who are all these fake Americans you're ignoring on purpose?" Maybe it resonates well with most people but I loving hate it.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2017 01:15

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/19/15351888/panera-bread-ossoff

quote:

Top Democratic strategist Brian Fallon thinks Ossoff�s strong showing is a sign of the kind of Republican House seat that the party has the best chance to flip. Hillary Clinton�s press secretary during the presidential campaign, Fallon even coined a term for the strategy, arguing that Democrats� path to the House �runs through the Panera Breads of America� in districts like Ossoff�s:

Even if he doesn't hit 50 tonight, Ossoff is showing us the path to retaking the House. It runs through the Panera Breads of America.
� Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) April 19, 2017

Fallon�s argument is that the most winnable districts for House Democrats are those that largely fit the profile of the Georgia Sixth � suburban, affluent, and full of voters who may be traditionally Republican but who voted against Donald Trump this fall. (Clinton only lost Ossoff�s district by one point.)

There is no power-sharing with centrists.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2017 18:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:04

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

JeffersonClay posted:

I don't know much about Corbyn, or U.K. politics. It is curious that when centrists talk poo poo about a leftist party leader, that's unconscionable backstabbing. But when leftists talk poo poo about a centrist party leader, don't you dare suggest they owe the party their votes or try to stifle their dissent.

Maybe there's a difference between a leftist candidate for the leadership winning on a wave of popular support, then being pilloried by establishment Blairites even to the detriment of their own drat party, and a Blairite winning the leadership as though it's their birthright and doing nothing for their constituency despite insisting they're owed the votes.

Serious question: have you considered defecting to the GOP? You'd do better as a moderating influence in that party that you would constantly trying to drag the Dems to the right and even more in thrall to the 1%.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2017 19:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

«‹›11 »