|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
JeffersonClay posted:That's exactly what happened. The DNC gave 3k and phonebankers and the republicans drowned the race in money. The DNC giving more money just makes the strategy less efficient. I mean...I kind of think peak efficiency would have been represented by bleeding the Republicans in the district, AND also winning. So a little more money would have been wise, assuming that it would have made a difference. JeffersonClay posted:Thompson wouldn't have been a blue dog, but he ran a campaign that was pretty drat centrist. Healthcare is completely absent from his website other than for veterans and seniors, for instance. He got endorsed by Our Revolution, called for a $15 minimum wage, and said in an AMA (yeah, I know, but still) that he supports single payer, although he doesn't see it coming around the bend particularly soon. He may not be a full-on socialist or whatever, but he ran on a fairly populist platform in a very, very tough district, and did remarkably well. I don't think it's accurate to say he ran a centrist campaign. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Apr 12, 2017 |
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You think Hillary didn't run a progressive campaign because the progressive positions were on her website, but you think Thompson is a progressive because he said he supports single payer and 15 on a Reddit AMA and he won't even support them on his website or anywhere else. People don't believe Clinton ran a progressive campaign, because she spent most of her political career as a pro-austerity conservative Democrat, and only got dragged leftward kicking and screaming towards the end of the race. If she was ever a progressive, she was a very reluctant one. That's not something that inspires voters to turn out for her.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
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 problem is, a lot of third way Dems have made the pretty deliberate choice to ignore a major, vital part of that coalition, ie: the working class. I agree that all cylinders need to be firing for the Dems to win national elections, but you have to understand, it's not the Sanders wing of the party that's shutting other wings out, or refusing to let them hold the reins for a little bit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:You make distinction between Thompson and Hillary where there's none wrt policy even going as far down as promoting bipartisanship. Well, but Thompson doesn't have a 30-year record of supporting austerity or free trade, though. Baggage counts for a lot in politics.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
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. You're making the incredibly unwise assumption that economic populism has nothing to offer in an R+30 district - particularly when most Dems haven't tried that strategy in quite a while anyway. quote:
How did they "force" him to do that?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
axeil posted:I am just loving amazed that people are taking a 20 point swing from 2016 and somehow painting it as DEMOCRATS BAD. I don't know, personally. While it may not be replicable in all districts or states, I think it's a big sign that the Dems should run hard on economic populism, because even a little of it can go a long way. steinrokkan posted:Even Trumpists are now plurality pro single payer and other things, but we will still assume that you must triangulate the poo poo out of everything because that has been proven to work Yeah, well, the problem there is the "proven to work part," I'm afraid...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I'll guess CENTRISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, now, wait a moment here - the Sanders wing of the party is offering a strategy that has a chance of winning, when the current strategy has failed pretty dismally. And yet they're fighting to even be heard by centrists in the DNC. It doesn't seem to me like it's the Sanderistas that are being unreasonable here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:He campaigned on making trade agreements that made it easier for Kansans to export agricultural products. That's code for free trade agreements. There's a bit of a difference between that and NAFTA or TPP, wouldn't you agree?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Unless economic populism means standard moderate democrat policies Moderate Dems tend to not run on these proposals. Clinton only did, eventually, and in the least enthusiastic way possible, because Sanders forced her to the left.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:she is legit being real dumb bro Delve into that a bit, please. Explain to me why what she's saying is unreasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:"Please stop talking to rich allies and instead wave your hands to make america go Bernie's shad of blue" There's a big difference between someone expecting Perez to wave his hands and magically transform the political landscape, and expecting him to give even a modicum of support to this race. You do see that, right? Asking for a little more support shouldn't be deemed "expecting too much."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
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??? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:I think elizabeth warren is the best prson to tackle pissbaby  , although Franken would also be pretty good actually.Just as long as it's not Booker. It absolutely cannot be Booker.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I mean that's a tall order and you're relying on one candidate's charisma to carry it through. It does rely on some charisma, but here's the thing: it doesn't take that much charisma to pull this off. More than Hillary Clinton, but you don't need to be Barack Obama or 1992 Bill Clinton to do a convincing "I feel your pain." I do think it's a message that the DNC should adopt, and use it as one of the twin poles for their Big Tent party. (the other, of course, being social justice/antiracism/anti-sexism/anti-LGBTphobia, etc) The message of the Democratic Party needs to not just be social, or economic, justice. It needs to be justice, pure and simple. quote:"these people voted for these policies despite being face-hosed by them so obviously they want them for whatever reason" There are a lot of people in those states who didn't want what the Republicans are offering, who are going to suffer, though. Also, I'd contend that most Trump supporters in the Rust Belt weren't exactly "informed consumers," so to speak. Not a Step posted:Its gonna be Booker and you know it. They'll try to make it Booker. We need to do everything we can to stop them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:If someone chooses to suffere, how does me not stopping them make it my fault? This is...kind of a ghoulish viewpoint.  People deserve health care and a living wage not because they deserve it, but because these are human rights. The fact that a bunch of low-information voters whose quality of life has plummeted got bamboozled by a conman shouldn't strip them of those rights.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:We don't live in shouldland, as much as I hate having to quote everyone's dad. These people chose what they wanted in spite of all evidence Did they see the evidence? I mean, I keep seeing people assume that these were informed voters. A lot of them really aren't - particularly among those who swung the election to Trump. In fact, the biggest predictor for who would vote for Trump turned out to be education. SSNeoman posted:You're gonna have a hard time selling that second pole to the red base. Economic hardships and social issues are points that are linked together for them. Which one caused the other is a matter of debate, but so long as they are linked, they will not compromise. Like these people don't mind losing jobs. It sucks, but they accept it. They don't accept the idea that they lose their jobs to immigrants or other countries. I don't think we can win them over without compromising our stance on social justice and I don't think we should do that. But the Democrats managed to win these Rust Belt states in 2008 and 2012 without sacrificing their stance on social justice. Obama ran as someone who was supportive of the social safety net, and cast his two opponents as austerity-loving, pro-tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy ghouls. I don't see why the Democrats can't win over the same communities with the same message that worked before. You're treating these voters like they're Louie Gohmert supporters down in Tyler, Texas. But they're not - these are communities that have voted straight Dem since 1984, until now. Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Because it took an administration that took a state to its knees, probably in its worst shape it's been in recent history, and people still went and pulled the lever to keep the same party in power. So it's up to the Democrats to explain to them why it's Republicans' fault that the state is on its knees, and give them an alternative path. The Dems haven't been doing much of that in Kansas at all, for a good long while.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:The problem with cutting the South loose is the same it's always been, there are huge populations of minority people who live there and the majority wants to gently caress them over. If it wasn't for that, I'd be all for the State's Rights you get what you vote for train. And the same applies to the Rust Belt. A majority of people in those states made a bad choice with their votes, but there are a lot of minorities in those states. They deserve to be defended. The working class isn't just white people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:did you really just loving compare the letter from birningham jail to the rhetoric of people who crow about IDENTITY POLITICS? MLK didn't have much patience with centrists who didn't concern themselves with income inequality. Dude was pretty outspoken on economic justice.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:We're not talking about people who lack equal rights due to racism, we're talking about people who took the rights they had and hosed them. We're talking about people whose lives were ruined by free trade, deregulation, and the unraveling of the social safety net. They didn't face discrimination based on race, but they still were dealt some pretty terrible injustices. Some of that took place under Democratic administrations. One doesn't have to excuse their bad votes, to understand the role that third way Democrats played in alienating those voters.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:My monologue was how tired I was of these odious people. They willingly walk into the meat grinder. They willingly sell their rights if it means sticking to the party line and screwing over immigrants. They willingly walk into the gently caress barrel Do they? Or are they simply normal people who don't have the time, energy, or mental bandwidth to pay attention to politics? I think you're making a mistake in assuming that they are as aware of the odiousness of the Republican Party as you or I are.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Why should I have wasted my vote on abuela? Other candidates were more closely aligned with me and hillary told me to vote my conscience... To be fair, so did Ted Cruz.  (but given that you live in a deep red state that the Dems seem determined to ignore, I think you did the right thing)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Think of it this way - if political views were solely the result of someone being born with a "dumb and/or evil" gene you'd see people with such views uniformly distributed throughout the country, but instead we see more people with dumb views in more rural areas, which implies that a person's environment and upbringing contribute greatly to the views they end up having. Obviously on an individual level this isn't universal, but it's an obvious trend and I think it's a pretty dangerous mindset to just say "welp these people are just intrinsically more evil and dumb than I am." Again, education was the strongest predictor for how people voted in 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I don't agree with this. I don't want any GOP voter to get whats coming to them. I want them to improve their situation with higher taxes, spending on social programs, development, etc. The problem is, THEY DON'T WANT TO loving DO IT. When you try and rationally explain hy its a good idea, you get called a libtard or something else stupid. You're acting like there is some magic words we can use to make people see the world the way we want them to. It doesn't work like that. You're ignoring the fact that a significant number of them, particularly in swing states, voted D not so long ago. Clearly their opinions can be changed, if they are engaged in the right manner. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Yeah but then you get young liberals who move out for college and never go back because they're still dying hellholes at the end of the day Yeah, I'm not sure what the solution to that is. I do know, though, that the Dems shouldn't be losing Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Michigan. Centrists trying to handwave that away as "just the way political realignment goes" is really distasteful to me. These states aren't West Virginia or Kentucky. These are states that can still be won, fairly easily.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Where is this happening? Throughout the previous iteration of this thread. It's...just an unbelievably argument.Typo posted:the typical trump supporter is a white dude in an area with $50k-$70k median income but is surrounded by poverty and opoid addiction neighborhoods and is afraid they are next Well-put.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Condiv posted:then a lot of people who were pro-hillary on these forums weren't democrats. The pro-Hillary folks here weren't exactly representative of her voting base.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Upper East Side parasites don't post on here? Oh, they do, but I was referring more to working class folks, and particularly people of color. They didn't vote for Clinton just to make conservatives mad.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, they didn't. but there were a lot of those "vote for hillary to piss off republicans types" on here. it was frequently their first argument when you'd bring up that hillary wasn't really doing anything to fix anything Yeah, that was a really flippant and stupid argument on their part. Her pissing off Republicans is only good if it happens AFTER the election, not BEFORE. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Alright fine. Let's say for a moment that having to shut down schools isn't enough of a wake-up call because your culture is that strong. It's not that they don't hear the wakeup call; they don't know who to blame. They're constantly inundated with the lies Ytlaya alluded to: "It's NAFTA that killed your community! It's illegal immigrants! It's black people getting uppity and raising hell that broke down law and order! It's ISIS! It's Obamacare!" Then when someone comes by and actually seems to speak to those grievances that are actually legitimate (joblessness, drug epidemics, insufficient health coverage, etc), they perk up and listen. Particularly when that person is offering them explanations and solutions that are, in fact, too easy, simple, and/or reductive. And even then, they've at least learned to attribute some of this poo poo to Brownback, albeit too late in the game. e: quote:Alright fine. I'll extend you an olive branch since y'all seem to love the white yokels so much. If Kansas is not an outlier, then yeah. Dems should invest in hard red states to see if there's a response. If there isn't, give them two years to stew on their decision and see how much they like states rights. If there is, yay. The Dems need to start doing the legwork now if they want to succeed statewide in 2018 though. Majorian fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:State parties should be empowered, unless it's Virginia, in which case we should let Obama ex-staffers just parachute in their preferred candidate Uhhhhh...not sure you want to be using Virginia as an example, when their governor is Clinton's bff and '08 campaign chair. KomradeX posted:That's very true. Though enthusiasm for her among those groups did leave much to be desired. It certainly did. Even so, economic populists need to start thinking now about how they're going to win the primary in 2020. Gotta make sure they engage those minority communities as much as humanly possible. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The rest of the party isn't tho and they lined up just as hard Wait, which candidates are we talking about that got parachuted in?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Condiv posted:here's an op-ed piece from the guardian about how much of a waste the dems were in this most recent race: To underline how obvious it is that the DCCC needs to, you know, learn the right lessons from this, I would like to point out that noted ultra-radical-leftist Matt Yglesias is saying that the Dems really need to back a proper 50-state strategy: quote:the idea that national Democrats couldn’t do a single thing to help a long-shot candidate in a red district — advance him a fundraising email list, cut him a modest check, or route a little money his way through a quiet vehicle — is borderline absurd. The simple truth is the DCCC didn’t get involved in the race for the same reason that virtually nobody was paying attention to it — they didn’t think the race would be competitive. quote:[The DCCC mindset is] based on the premise that the top political operatives have very good judgment about which races are winnable, which candidates are strong, and which consulting and campaign teams are effective. This premise is critically important because no matter how strong the abstract case for targeting is, it only really makes sense to narrowcast if you can target effectively. quote:If your key asset is expertise at identifying winning candidates and helping them win elections, then a record of losing elections becomes a problem. Having lost power at all levels of politics, the strategic acumen of the Democratic Party’s leadership is bound to come into question. Let that sink in for a moment. Matthew loving Yglesias is on the "should have supported Thompson" train. When Yglesias is quicker on the uptake of a lesson from an election than the DCCC, or indeed, many posters in this thread, that's a problem. e: A related Vox piece that also gets it better than the DCCC: quote:The Democratic National Committee has long talked about the need to start competing early in every district, but those who control the purse strings are deploying a much more targeted approach. A DCCC spokesperson said the Kansas race showed “the great energy” animating the anti-Trump left, but wouldn’t detail exactly how it had changed the committee’s thinking for other races. Once again - if Vox writers are more clued-in on the implications of these special elections than the DCCC, that is a problem for the Democrats. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Apr 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
I mean, my God, from further down in the second article:quote:But the idea that the DCCC erred in largely skipping the Kansas race is still a controversial one among Democrats. In a widely circulated op-ed endorsed by the current communications director of the DCCC, former Hillary Clinton aide Christina Reynolds defended the committee’s decision not to invest in Kansas’s special election. This is why Clintonistas have such a bad rap in left-wing circles, folks: poo poo like the above. That is...loving beyond  quote:Left-wing critics have argued that this defense appears to undercut the purpose of giving to the DCCC. If Democrats in Washington can’t spend money on critical races in competitive seats because it will make their candidates politically toxic, then why does it take donors’ money in the first place? 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. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Apr 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:*Looks at thread title* Well, look - I get why you're apprehensive at that. But keep in mind, a lot of the anger at centrists Dems in this thread comes from, A, Clintonite dickishness during the election (and holy poo poo, there was a lot of Clintonite dickishness against leftists - just as much as from the Bernie-or-Bust types); and B, some real obtuseness from a lot of those same Clintonites after the election, which you can see pretty clearly in the previous iteration of this thread. Some folks here are just feeling some not-unjustified indignation, and some real frustration with the inertia that exists in the Democratic Party. Don't take it too personally, if at all possible - you seem to be arguing in good faith, and you're posting your thoughts intelligibly, and it's appreciated.  Kilroy posted:I don't know why you keep assuming that centrist apologists ITT are arguing in good faith Because I've been arguing with people here since 2004, and for a lot of that time, I was one of them: a dyed-in-the-wool centrist. And I was arguing in good faith through most of it. Majorian fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Apr 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 01:00
|
|