|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Kilroy posted:Think how much better Labour could have done if only they'd elected a better leader, and not swung hard and to the left! How do you defend Labour under Corbyn not winning though? I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know one way or another, but are you predicting he's sure to win next time?
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
Not a Step posted:Because despite being knifed in the back repeatedly by his own party and being expected to lose pretty monstrously, Corbyn and Labour pulled off a pretty stunning upset that has kicked the legs out from under the Tories. The Tories can't form a government without a coalition, most likely with the Irish DUP, which leaves them in a very weak position - especially when it comes to Brexit. Presumably in future elections the party will unite behind Corbyn after this upset. That's all punditry of the expectations game though, and I don't see how it predicts what an election in five years will look like. I'm interested in what kind of votes can any particular iteration of Labour expect to pull in. There's not a lot of evidence to show the U.K. is all that left a place to begin with. Yes you can always expect voters to eventually get sick of their ruling party and throw the bums out but there's some actual policy gains that flow from being in the driver's seat 55% of the time vs 30% too, and that's probably even more true in the US given our appointments system and structural gridlock. So how much of the gains are Corbyn and how much is Torres shooting themselves in the foot is a valid question. Same basic issue in the US is how sustainable is the Bernie moment. Yeah there are a lot of infrequent voters who probably would have turned out for him in the rust belt, but will they stick around if he wins? Will they really build a coalition around other candidates on a Sanders platform? Or will they just gently caress off when Democratic Socialism becomes part of the system. That's not clear to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Because Labour gained about 10pp from the last election and closed a 20% polling lead in six loving weeks? I'm not a big believer in momentum and beating expectations or whatever. I'm asking about fundamentals. Polling swings just mean lovely news cycles for the other side and the old polls didn't capture what was already going on. The real strength of weakness is in the final vote tally, not whether it met some benchmark. What I want to know is can someone not only get the votes in that final tally but keep it together for 10+ years, which I don't think labour has really done. (And US Dems haven't done in forever to be fair). And yeah they did beat their 2015 vote share but so did May so the jump is to quite as impressive when we consider some of it is just drop off from smaller parties...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 07:59
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Corbyn managed to get young voters to actually turn out to the tune of 72% and won them by an absurd number (something over 40% IIRC). The future of the U.K. is pretty loving red, mate. Obama had some pretty good numbers too. It got him a second term but not too much to show from Congress.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Okay, how about this for fundamentals: when the Labour manifesto leaked is when they start to really turn around in the polls. When you say "obviously we can win" first ya need to actually, y'know, win. I'm open to being convinced by some wins on the board, but seems to me that until there's an actual labour majority this is spin and we have no idea how poo poo will play out. Corbyn or someone similar will get another shot, but what happens then? Can he hold on as long as Blair? He'll actually need time to get poo poo accomplished and entrenched. It's a fair question. I don't know the answer, and I don't think we can know from a six week stretch of campaigning and whatever-the-hell swingy UK polling numbers we happen to see. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Stop concern trolling you loving idiot. You're transparent as a glass jar filled with the principles of centrism. Chill bro. The very serious people haven't convinced me either. They have to own their loving losses. Both sides of this pissing match need to own their results. How is Blair not endorsing a better excuse than your hated Hilldawg fans whining about Bernie bros? Trump had plenty of Republicans not endorse him but still managed to get the votes he needed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I'm not really concerned with how things seem to you because you have the perceptive capability of a phytoplankton. Nice phytoplankton burn dude. Share it to your YouTube channel. Where did I ever say centrism would do better? Go ahead and check. I'll wait. Because I'm p sure all I said was this is drawing a sweeping conclusion from p limited data. I know that makes me technocratic swine or whatever, though, so I guess I'll just crawl off and die.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
I dunno, is it that centrist of a heresy to say when we talk about "beating expectations" that is essentially spin? Expectations are just that. Every very serious person beltway hack I ever laid eyes on loves to discuss the expectations game, hth. Edit: And who here would give a poo poo if it was some centrist shill who "beat expectations"? ( No one, because it's intrinsically a bullshit concept.) yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Lol at "the voters didn't vote for me, I was betrayed" being equal to "literally, politicians from my own party are on the news disavowing my candidacy and claiming I would be a bad PM" But Trump still overcame the latter, did he not? The voters still decide if they care or not about the opinions of Blair or whoever, so I'm not even sure why we are arguing about this penny ante bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But we should probably learn from what improves our standing in the polls, no? I agree with that. Corbyn earned another shot, no doubt. By the same token Clinton definitely earned the opposite.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Trump lost the vote too tho, objectively he got fewer votes. He got in on a technicality because of our quirky electoral system. How far do you want to take that? Because then it sounds like Clinton did halfway decent and I assume that's the guillotine for you itt. The real answer is both sides know the quirks of the system and campaign accordingly. Never Trump stuff from within his party did not stop Trump from waging a winning campaign. He held onto everything he needed to as a Republican.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yes indeed, why should we learn from unexpected things that happen? Cool story david brooks Tell gail collins I say hi Edit: meant to write Maureen Dowd. That was possibly unfair to Gail Collins who I don't remember anything about. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:First, name a single major republican figure that still openly opposed Trump by the time of the election. I seem to recall a bunch of republicans yanking their endorsements in October. No endorsements from the Bushes. 41 even let it be known he would vote for the wife of the guy that beat him. As far as coincidence goes: If you're right Corbyn will clearly win next time, right? I think it's fair to say it's good for there to be more than one data point before we declare the end of history.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
amusingly the ills that rudatron diagnoses which represent a certain type of politics advanced by a certain echo chamber of Hilldawg fans pretty much tracks with some of the poo poo itt: don't say anything questioning, or you're concern trolling... pretty much substitute Bernie bro for centrist or whatever and it's the same poo poo the world over.
yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
I accept it's not a one to one comparison, but I also think it's not that relevant. Either you hold your coalition together in politics or you don't. If you shed 2-3 percent because someone doesn't like you while gaining that same amount from voters who like what you're up to, that's all baked into the cake, right? It still goes to whether you can win/govern.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
No, the argument is "expectations" is a bullshit artificial pundit circle jerk to begin with. It's a little surprising to see it given that much currency itt but at the end of the day maybe everyone's secretly a Very Serious Person. The guillotine thirsts.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Actually he got significantly more votes in the states that actually matter, you appear to be one of those uneducated persons that look at the overall popular vote in an EC system, which is a very dumb thing to do indeed. Be smarter! You describe his win as a technicality which is also very ignorant. You are smarter than this! It's literally how elections work in the US:, you do not vote for president. That isn't a technicality in any sense of the word whatsoever. It would be like saying the opposing team won on a technicality because they scored more baskets. It's literally the name of the game!!! This seems to be a very hard concept for some people here to understand, and I'm not sure why: the popular vote means literally nothing in the US, it tells you nothing, it is nothing, full stop. It does not mean "Hillary would have won" because, as any political science expert would tell you, voting strategies and patterns are inherently tired to the process. We do not know the outcome of a theoretical election that uses the PV because everything would have been different from day 1. Also popular vote outcome is the last refuge of Clinton apologists. I agree policy/popular will matters but come on, a big reason democrats get their rear end handed to them is inefficient vote distribution so you can't separate that fact from "democrats are a waste." If they had the same margins and the GOP voter distribution they'd look like gods. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:i would unironically be down to have 2020's election bar anyone who voted for Trump or Clinton in the last election from participating I also believe the franchise should extend only to those who I agree with but ironically.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:My arguement mostly is they actually did offer a platform of pretty good poo poo and the party at large is actually tackling the issues. Democrats are talking about climate, automation, healthcare etc. Their messengers suck. That's the issue. The problem wasn't the 2016 platform, it was no one believed it when it came out of candidates mouths. There are platforms and then there is campaigning. People only identify a candidate with one or two issues/messages. 2016 was a cluster because the message was "Trump bad" but nothing else was clearly articulated. The problem is coasting like that doesn't seem to work when it's done by the incumbent President's party. I think it probably can work for 2018 but there definitely needs to be a message for 2020 to go along with the presidential nominee. Single payer is obviously the way to go, morally and tactically. But if the plan is just for Trump to tweet his way to defeat that's an even worse plan than in 2016 because the way things are going people will just acclimate and stay home.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:He had to preface it that way because he made an incredibly intellectually dishonest argument argument. This is like a babby's first race discussion if any discussion about whether a candidate (any candidate) is speaking enough to the concerns of minority voters devolves into "are you calling candidate X (or his supporters) a RACIST?! The worst thing you can call someone in America?!!" Get this: admitting there's a way to do better outreach is a sign of strength, not weakness.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Where does the article call Sanders a racist? I don't think I read the same thing you did. The basic theme is 1) skepticism of his appeal to black voters which is related to 2) a messaging problem. The "are you calling us racist" card is an old conservative canard that is used to shut down any nuanced discussion, and it's a bad look on this thread of mostly white guys because people who aren't Internet White Dudes also want candidates who speak to their concerns. Having a cool platform is not enough. The message needs to connect.Majorian posted:If that were the theme of the article, and if it had more profound suggestions for Sanders than it does, I would agree. But that's not what the article is going for. The article is saying the same thing that conservative Democrats have been bleating for over a year: "Don't vote for Sanders; he won't win the black vote." Which is less than helpful. Well, they gave a solid example of him not being able to answer a question about race except on class grounds. He wouldn't have needed to change any part of his platform even to speak to the lady's concern.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
tell me more about your opinions on race discussions, Trump voter call me charliesteinrokkan posted:Right, I meant to replace "calling candidate x a racist" with "asking questions about a candidate based on empirically false premises, despite being well aware of said falsehoods" Well there is a huge difference between those two things, but what is empirically false? Nothing. It's a prediction that seems to mostly be about how he could do in the primaries based upon how he did in past primaries. Add in the subjective nature of what makes someone "a front runner" 3 yrs out and none of that is in empirical territory.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:- Why does Bernie Sanders have higher popularity among black people, women and black women than any other politician if he doesn't He now has high name recognition and no one running against him. Of course he will do better than a bunch of unknowns and someone (Clinton) who is now known as a loser. But we know for a fact he did not have higher popularity during the primary, and this article is focused on primaries. Cherry-picking data and spinning is easy. That's why every rear end in a top hat of every ideology with an opinion feels so great making predictions. Circumstances change. John McCain used to be the most popular politician in the US, hth. On the second question, speaking to someone's concerns is a matter of messaging. So don't sidestep a racial justice question with just saying it's a matter of class, to use the concrete example from the article.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:at least he didn't vote for a slaveowner Trump is not a slaveowner? I'm sure his companies have used plenty of slaves by your definition.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Oh no the Root snarked on Bernie.  fetch me my fainting couch.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Trump is not a slaveowner? I'm sure his companies have used plenty of slaves by your definition. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/exmbjm/i-confronted-donald-trump-in-dubai That didn't take long.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Majorian posted:So you're pretty much admitting that the article is indefensible, I take it? No I'm responding to joepinetree... who seems to say that some snarking amid the criticism is "just" like calling Bernie an unreconstructed racist. But hey, it's not like they called him a slaveowner. Though he did endorse and (I assume) vote for someone NFS is happy to say repeatedly, with no new content, owned slaves. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Jul 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Considering he posted a bunch of stuff against Corbyn (while also making the argument that Hillary/the dems actually had a good showing) and Where did I ever say Hillary did well? loving prove it. I'll wait. Regardless of whether Corbyn objectively "did well" (however we choose to define it) I'm p sure he supported people turning out for Labour MPs even though plenty of his MPs aren't his fans, instead of rage quitting or voting for loving UKIP. Because he understands coalition politics and is not a literal baby.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
NFS always ready with the zings about slaves. I will take a wild guess that none of his ancestors were US slaves and he's just loving being an internet white dude edgelord, but if that's the way he's playing it... Pls explain how the Trump organization has not used slave labor. PS: Realistically we all know Trump has personally used sex slaves too because duh. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Jul 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:- Hillary 2020 campaign slogan. "No see it was the good kind of slaves (foreigners)" -2017 internet "leftists"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I don't know if I'd call McCain "genocidal" but the modern day GOP is about as monster as you can get. The policies they pursue literally kill tens of thousands of people a year. I don't really know what to tell you, your example about your coworker you don't really like is a bad comparison. The Republican Party is so awful we must do everything in our power to register opposition except vote for their opponents. Also Trump never used slaves labor because neoliberals.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I would unironically be ok with Bernie Sanders being primaried by a more leftist dem But he endorsed a slave owner tho
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
Placeholder post to say something else about slave owners you guys so no one misses it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
Since a big part of this thread is immune to irony: the thread only talks about slaves when it's a convenient hobby horse. Of course if actual minorities were to come in and talk about their concerns let alone why they choose to vote rather than just whine on a podcast, suddenly a great mass of white dudes would have a lot of opinions about identity politics that they'd need to express.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Donald Trump didn't own slaves This is what you literally believe. So you mostly only want to talk about slavery if you're tying it to Clinton and not as a real issue you care about. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Jul 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Condiv is ignoring that NFS goes out of his way to declare that Trump definitely didn't own slaves and that any issues were just "labor disputes." Then brings up slaves as an issue he supposedly cares about every day. its an example of the thread lacking credibility.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Entirely unprompted.NewForumSoftware posted:And? My state is/went blue ya dingus. Why would I vote for a slave owner?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Entirely unprompted.NewForumSoftware posted:at least he didn't vote for a slaveowner Pro tip, the person who supposedly didn't vote for a slaveowner is an unapologetic Trump voter.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Condiv posted:dude, that's 30 pages back. and you started the slaveholder talk again while linking to a recent post that had nothing to do with that. it was unprompted Nope, someone who just yesterday threw out the slaves line for like the millionth time has no credibility to talk about slaves, given the Trump thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:I'm sorry, what is this? Jay Smooth?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 17:28
|
|