|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
evilweasel posted:if the DNC doesn't learn from this, I'll be right there criticizing them No, you won't. Because they won't, yet you'll still show up to try to get in some sweet cheap dunks on leftists.
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't think policy has anything to do with why the Dems are in the situation they are in right now. I have no idea how you changed from a Cassandra pre-election to an idiot post-election, but it's been a hell of a thing to witness.  That dog would be listened to by the donor class.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THIS loving SICK DUBSTEP WUB BRAH Yo, poo poo like this doesn't help the discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Precisely. And by running in those circles for long enough, it affects their worldview and humanizes the people running the financial sector for those politicians. Dems like the Clintons aren't ideologically committed to neoliberalism, nor do they seem to be in it just for the money (if they were, they wouldn't have gone into politics in the first place). It's simply the pond they swim in. That doesn't automatically make them bad people or anything; it just makes them a lot more out-of-touch than they would be if they swam in other ponds. Majorian, it's okay, you can just hate them, you don't have to constantly white knight them by claiming this bullshit. Just say they're out of touch idiots, which is perfectly true. You're like the definition of the bleeding heart liberal who doesn't want to offend anyone. Majorian posted:Yeah, but still, it's good to remember that Obama was a law professor too. So it's not so limited that one can't build a connection with the people on the ground. Obama smoked weed like the common people but didn't even bother to deschedule it, so I don't really think he had a "connection with people" he was just good at being charismatic and faking it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Jesus Christ, dude, you are whiny. Remember when I said put me on ignore if you don't like my posting? I wasn't joking. Sigh. I don't hate your posting. Never mind, you're literally incapable of getting my point.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/328405-clinton-campaign-plagued-by-bickering I loving can't wait for the Game Change book about her campaign, it must have been a dumpster fire internally. What a loving terrible human being. Like, there's no need to be an rear end in a top hat in that scenario, they're literally trying to help you win. Realize that you're stressed out, ask for a break, don't loving snap at your staffers.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:unless misogyny means "being a terrible politician and person" i think you may have confused yourself a bit Don't feed the troll.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Kilroy posted: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. I would also like to point out that pre-election, we were all whooping it up at symptoms of Trump's campaign looking this way.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
axeil posted:Some people are better than others. Ideally that is borne out through talent although in the current system, starting conditions matter far too much. We should work to achieve a system where all who have talent are able to rise to the top, regardless of where they start. So gently caress all people without "talent?" You're literally advocating for a haves and have nots society, which I guess makes sense given your love for banks and finance.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
axeil posted:How is saying "people don't have a right to a luxurious existence with no work" causing everyone to fall into their fainting couch? This is not controversial. Axeil what if we implemented this system but finance people were part of the "basic" group because we figured out they don't provide resources for society? Still cool with it?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:No, alleviating the suffering of PoC is what the democrats should be working towards. White people already have the system so heavily stacked in their favor that if they're unable to use the resources that have been explicitly given to them and withheld from others for relocation/retraining and a bias in the private sector charity, they can indeed go gently caress themselves. People ITT, for some stupid reason, think 15$ an hr will alleviate these problems without explicitly addressing them. It's OK that you are not altruistic but use it as a banner to feel smug, the complete and utter refusal to acknowledge that there is an "other" in this country is sickening and why the Bernout left will fail in the next 2-8 years. People don't think $15/hour will solve everything, but it would help a fuckload of poor people, so let's do it and then we can work on the next thing to help more people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:"Wait and eventually we will help you." Are there no minorities who would be helped by a minimum wage increase? Also, we can work on more than one thing at a time. Campaigns are rarely run on just one issue.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Ok thanks for the dumb leftist explanation but I was hoping for a smart one. Part of the competence of her campaign being bad is the way she failed to advocate for leftist policy in an honest and believable manner. They are not separate issues and it's not a way to deflect blame for her policies, it's showing exactly how those policies came from a very bad and broken way of political thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It doesn't do you any favors to conflate bad policy with bad campaign strategy, though. I agree that policy advocacy is part of campaign strategy, but Robbie Mook listening to his computer algorithm instead of activists doesn't have anything to do with policy advocacy. Staffing a campaign with yes men doesn't have anything to do with policy advocacy. Misallocating campaign resources and ignoring important geographic and demographic groups doesn't have anything to do with policy advocacy. The more important those issues are in explaining the loss, the less important "failure to advocate for leftist policy in an honest and believable manner" becomes. But all of those mistakes come from the same place, which is a failure to understand what the electorate wants, which all ties back to having poo poo policies.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Triangulation worked for bill. The defenders of third way policies or triangulation will point to Robbie Mook as evidence that Hillary was just doing it wrong. Triangulation worked for Bill because we were a loving different country twenty five years ago. The Hillary campaign should have realized when Michigan happened that it was a different country now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
It's amazing, people are finally dying to vote D and the Democratic party is doing it's best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It was a criticism that Clinton left herself incredibly open to, and you're deluded if you think Trump wouldn't have made the same criticisms of Clinton if Sanders hadn't. He called her "Crooked Hillary" constantly. E: VVV No one in here is a "tankie" you loving moron. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I don't think that that form of welfare liberalism goes anywhere near far enough in combatting income inequality. Surely you must realize that we're not going to get to what you consider acceptable without getting there through gradual steps, though?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Focusing on individual votes is the definition of missing the forest for the trees. Who cares how any one individual voted? To win elections you focus on groups of people. So stop giving a gently caress about if any one goon voted for this or that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It's honestly quite incredible that not even losing as bad as you can possibly lose has shaken these people out of their goddamn out of touch bubble. Thanks to the stupid popular vote, a lot of them haven't actually processed the fact that they lost yet. VitalSigns posted:Obama and Hillary are already millionaires from book deals: do they need a payday from Wall Street too? What is the upside, I cannot think of any. Zero. None, at all. Yea, like WTF does Obama need an extra $400k for?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:He's not a politician anymore. Oh, so all that work he's planning on doing with redistricting, that's not politics?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Anybody who wants to have obama speak is going to need to pay that much, and he certainly needs the money if he intends to spend his time post-presidency affecting political change, which is his stated intention. Expand on this thought, please.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Obama says he intends to spend his post presidency fighting voter suppression. Money will help him do that. He can make a lot of money by being paid to give speeches. The more he can charge, the better. It looks like his price will be 400K. I assumed he was planning on raising money to do this the normal way, by asking for donations to a political organization, not funding it himself personally.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The optics are bad because people are dumb and think Wall Street is some giant nefarious octopus instead of a bunch of corporations in competition with one another with varying sizes and degrees of nefariousness and culpability for the financial crisis. You are the densest motherfucker alive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:spends it on rims This is the second time you've made this racist remark about what he would do with the money. Got any more thoughts to share about black people and rims?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Did Obama spend a ton of his net worth during his term and is now broke? Like, he was a millionaire before being President, and as President you basically spend 0 of your own money, so why does he need some cash now? Did he blow through his entire nest egg in the 3 months since leaving the job?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This level of intellectual and moral laziness is a good case for why Bernie or Busters need to be put in reeducation camps. No wonder you guys come out with gems like "speaking has no use-value" and "raising minimum wage will end police brutality". Feel free to quote anyone saying either of these things in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Looking forward to the apologetics for this. That's not saying ""raising minimum wage will end police brutality" but thanks for playing. I look forward to your next vacation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Those are the opinions you chose to defend. I can't help that you're a loving moron. No, Brainiac, we don't all automatically agree with whatever Twitter hot take you've posted.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
You keep using quotation marks and then you make up your own paranoid interpretation of what people have said in the quotation marks. Stop doing that. Stop putting words in poster's mouths.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Condiv posted:what are you talking about? I honestly can't parse the meaning he's trying to imply with that post.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This post is great irony. By far the most condescending posters in this thread have been the people attacking leftists and defending Democrats/Clinton. Whoever described them as smugly wrong nailed it. They're so loving sure of themselves despite the massive losses they suffered.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
If your ultimate plan for victory against capitalism is "kill them all" I think that's a pretty loving dumb plan.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Harassing people about their individual votes is loving pointless. Even 2000 was decided by thousands of votes, literally 1 vote doesn't matter. It's a worse waste of time than re-litigating the primary. Like, I voted for Hillary in FL, I cancelled out his vote and he cancelled out mine, who loving cares.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:And you voted for Trump in Florida. It doesn't matter. Stop obsessing over individual votes.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
Condiv posted:problem is that none of the people against disputed its worth as a desegregation measure. in fact, they said desegregation is something that needs to happen, they just don't understand why they have to "shoulder the burden of school integration" Keep in mind this was the same Sam Bee who was praising Hillary for her work in going undercover to bust schools that weren't integrating. The hypocrisy is staggering.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
tsa posted:Like no joke, incrementalism sounds like a raw deal until you realize what the alternative is: America is not Venezuela. Incrementalism is a loving awful philosophy.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The public knew exactly what he was saying, and they voted for it in 1992. Bill won 43% of the popular vote. Not exactly a sweeping mandate.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I like how leftists alternate between "Obama and Clinton won sweeping mandates because they promised true leftism to the people and consequently failed them" and "actually Obama and Clinton did poorly because they didn't do enough for leftists". Feel free to quote me "alternating" between my points.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It is in an election where a third party gets 19% of the vote. And he still won 370 electoral votes. And again, everybody knew Clinton was a third way triangulator in 1996 and he won 379 electoral votes with 49% of the vote, despite Perot winning 8%. They were both sweeping mandates. 57% of the electorate wanted a different President.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 03:35
|
|