|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
DaveWoo posted:Yes, the Democrats are a waste, please continue to wallow in defeatism and apathy. You don't get to demand eternal loyalty and enthusiasm when you keep loving up. Typo posted:tbf the seat didn't look winnable just a week or two ago Most seats that are totally written off won't look very winnable, no. This doesn't mean that they aren't actually competitive.
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
The idea that you shouldn't campaign everywhere but only focus on where you can win is appealing to the centrist dem mindset because it's all about resource optimization and big data and poo poo, but if suffers from the small problem that the centrists are too goddamn stupid to tell what seats actually are competitive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Yeah, not spending a single dime towards your candidate's campaign is a good opening in eleven-dimensional chess.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
axeil posted:I am just loving amazed that people are taking a 20 point swing from 2016 in under 6 months and somehow painting it as DEMOCRATS BAD. This is spectacular news and points to a good chance of winning GA-6, MT-AL and SC-19 plus the state-level races in NJ and VA in the fall. There was almost no chance of winning a district that in a neutral environment is R-30 barring the Trump piss tape leaking. Why does everyone seem to be pissed instead of elated? Because hoping that the other side fucks up so bad that you win by default isn't a good strategy. Also because the people who run the Democratic party have learned absolutely nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
axeil posted:I dunno, 2006 worked pretty loving well for the Dems and it's looking like 2018 is going to be a repeat of that. 2006 worked pretty well because the 50-state strategy was sound, and this election indicates that Perez was bullshitting hard when he said he supported it. There's also every indication that the party leadership is falling back into its usual complacency, which bodes ill for 2018.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Even if 2018 is a wave and the dems take the house they are still going to lose most districts like Kansas 4. Dems are going to lose most deep-red districts? You don't say, what stunning insight. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't even try, as seen very recently.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
axeil posted:Yeah the Hillary campaign in general was just absurdly bad. I can see why you might want to stop down in a state you win in a wave if there's an important Senate or Governor's race there but Hillary's strategy of map expanding was anything but that. You win the Presidency with 270 EVs, you don't get bonus points for winning 400 EVs. Yeah, but my point goes double for Congressional races, since you're never going to win big as long as some bunch of Beltway hacks with their heads up their asses have control over where you'll even bother to run. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:If someone chooses to suffere, how does me not stopping them make it my fault? I'm sure that the 46% in Kansas who voted Dem yesterday and their compatriots in other traditionally red states will be super motivated to show up and vote D in the future when they get this kind of positive and uplifting message.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
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, and in the end there is nothing we can do to stop them. I'm not even sure what point you're making here other than to keep the moral high ground, and, well, look how great that turned out for democrats. 52,5% of the voters chose what they wanted. Meanwhile ~55000 voters went for the good option. Your insistence of abandoning those people along with the people you blame is not only ghoulish, but super loving dumb. What message do you think it sends to the rest of prospective dem voters in non-blue states?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Why are you still pretending that midwestern voters are some unreachable and inscrutable Other one day after it turned out that one of the reddest districts in the country actually was competitive?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Because it took an administration that took a state to its knees and people still went and pulled red. In an election that the national or state party didn't even bother to contest seriously. If 46% of the voters in KS04 can be reached it shows that no district is a lost cause, and your dumbshit attitude is literally the problem here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Why is the person who thinks that the Dems should write off everything south of the Mason-Dixon line trying to scold others for not voting D?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:She is right. Obama's "ground game" was infinitely better. Hillary was in charge. She had total freedom to pick her staff and sack them if she wanted to. The blame is entirely on her when she didn't take the necessary actions to improve her "ground game" or get her and her staff to make her case or any other fuckup of her campaign which, once again, she had full freedom to run as she pleased. She doesn't get to blame anybody else.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
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. lol, last time this came up you got super pissy and were ready and willing to throw every working class PoC under the bus because of some dumbshit argument about how 15 a hour would benefit white people too. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:You're all so empathetic to the poor rural gently caress who's factory that was mandated by god to give him a job is leaving while not giving a poo poo about an analogous situation where communities and families being displaced via gentrification and it's very deafening. If there's a primary challenger for Trump in 2020 they'll be running on a populist message, again, which will probably include a min wage increase as well, as it will disproportionately help the Republican base as that type of work continues to dry up and there will need to be something besides trying to blame free trade. Stop giving a poo poo about the republican base and actually target the votes you just assume will go to you. Your savior complex is leading you down some very dark paths, pal. Submarine Sandpaper posted:occasionally I like to remind this thread that PoC are the democratic base. You all get pissed off. Obviously not working class PoC, though. gently caress those people. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:The system that makes the demographic that works hardest yet has the least capital must not be directly addressed because economic justice is social justice. Yeah, gently caress those people if they want well-paying jobs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the left seems to have been pretty consistently opposed to the drug war for as long as I can recall. I don't see how the failure of society in general to give two shits about problems until white people start to suffer is something that should be put at the feet of the left.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Submarine is either trolling or trying to use abrasiveness and personal attacks to paper over that they're not even half as interested in helping PoC as they are in feeding their righteous indignation and smug sense of superiority. The effectronica strategy, if you will.Ytlaya posted:*This is also the main reason comparisons to the New Deal/Great Society aren't really valid. Back then (especially with the New Deal) a very large portion of leftists were quite explicitly racist and specifically wanted to exclude PoC from the benefits of leftist economic policy. I see this repeated often, and it still doesn't make sense. Back in the days of FDR and LBJ the working-class organizations that opposed racial equality were not leftist, they were centrist. The AFL-CIO accepte unions who excluded PoC, while the actual leftist working-class organizations such as the IWW were working to help PoC organize their workplaces and fought for racially integrated unions. So why exactly should history reflect badly on the left?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 10:34
|
|
|
Y'know, maybe it's just me, but I think that if your only strategy is to sit and wait until your opponent makes such a massive unforced error that you win by default, you might not be the world's finest strategist.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
axeil posted:I love that I've become this forum's boogy-man You haven't, it's just incredibly ghoulish when some finance dipshit tries to pontificate about how people who work harder and provide more good to society than them don't deserve nice things. Hence people are telling you to go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Sorry, that idea is far too radical for the folks in this thread. Accurate now that you're here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Hey, now, DaveWoo is a drat good poster, and I think he probably agrees with most folks here more than you realize. Unless no-content whining suddenly counts as goodposting I can't really agree with you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I am talking about the democrats. It's been explained to you before why this is a dumbshit comparison, so it's not surprising that you're trying to beat this particular dead horse a bit more. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:The arguments being made here ARE dumb. There isn't discourse here that leads to anything other than tankies getting mad that they don't have full communism now. When you find yourself on the same side of an argument as people like NewForumSoftware, maybe you should stop and think if you are on the right side. Yes, I too think that the Democratic Party is perfect in every way and that all criticism therefore is just them dumb lefties pining for full communism.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Yes, my post was stupid. But it was still very thread appropriate. You guys don't seem to mind stupid posts that much. Actually people are railing against the centrists because they're a bunch of incompetents who keep loving up yet still presume to demand respect, loyalty and absolute power ovet the party. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate. she was still far better than anything we've ever had next to Obama.  JeffersonClay posted:The only time I've made this comparison is right now in this thread, and the only objection to the comparison has been NFS' contention that Clinton wasn't really the democrats' leader. In case you're clueless the supposed "backstabbing" of Clinton consisted of a bunch of regular-rear end people criticising her on the internet whereas the backstabbing of Corbyn was carried out by Labour MP:s and high-level party officials up to and including his own deputy leader. You might have a case if the progressive caucus had suddenly denounced Hillary in the middle of the election campaign and her own campaign staff had leaked those emails, but since that has not been the case your comparison is off as all gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I don't think he calls himself a progressive. Also, I don't see the point of hanging a symbolic vote around his neck like it really mattered. If you don't think people like Cory Booker on on your side, it's no wonder you can't put a majority together. Instead of making GBS threads on him and those that support, you should see he votes with you 95% of the time and not try to push the ideologically impure from your ranks. Cory Booker ins't preventing you from achieving progressive legislative wins, so why focus on him instead of the R's that are actually the issue. For one party discipline is a thing and hence every party politician will likely end up with similar numbers. Second that 5% of times when you vote differently might actually be really loving important. Finally there's more to a politician than the way they vote. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I don;t think i can argue with this. if the DNC tries to run Hillary again for anything they deserve what they get. Well, it's becoming more and more obvious that the DNC and the democrat establishment in general are wither unwilling to or incapable of learning the necessary lessons from their eight-year losing streak. Hence it's very baffling that you storm into this thread and start lecturing people for the crimes of not wanting to double down on a failes strategy and not wanting to keep a bunch of incompetents in positions where they can keep loving up. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:But please, name a national ticket candidate of a major party that is been more progressive than Hillary other than Obama. I am not aware of one. This is a dumb question because evolving social mores make it nearly inevitable that Dem candidates will be more socially progressive as time goes on. But if you insist, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So you're contending that only party officials can betray their party? In any case Tulsi Gabbard never endorsed her and had no problem airing her reservations about voting for Clinton once she was the nominee. No, I'm contending that people joining Corbyn's first Shadow Cabinet with the intent of undermining him and subsequently leaking information like a goddamn busted sieve constitutes a backstab. I'm also contending that MP:s conspiring to unseat him at the earliest opportunity constitutes a backstab. Finally I'm contending that MP:s, party officials and major donors conspiring to rig the leadership election against him, up to and including trying to get him removed from the ballot by way of completely bullshit legal action, constitures a backstab. This is nothing like people openly criticizing a candidate during an election campaign. Like, you're super intent on pushing this comparison despite admitting that you don't know much about Corbyn or the internal Labour politics during his tenure, and it's making you look even dumber than usual.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Of course there is an ideological difference. that's the loving point. Ideological purity leads to dysfunction. Please explain to me how Cory Booker Is preventing progressive legislation. The difference between Booker and Sanders is TINY compared to the difference between Booker and Jeff Sessions. That ideological difference is GOOD because it means the party SHOULD be able to pull in centrists like myself, and more progressive left wing people to make a coalition, and thus win elections. The only issue here is that one of those groups has decided it makes more sense to purge the centrists than to win an election. Yeah, because they've proven themselves incompetent. Like, holy gently caress man, don't you see the  inherent in you railing against removing the people who have lost electon after election from their positions?Besides that, the centrist establishment Dems have spent at least thirty years at best ignoring and at worst actively trying to suppress the left wing of the party, so you really don't get to ride on any kind of high horse here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:So wanting safe imported drugs is a bad thing now, got it. Do you guys see centrist monsters under your bed? See, poo poo like this is why I have a hard time taking you seriously. You should at least try to be subtle when arguing in bad faith.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:This is rather telling. But wait, I thought that ideological purges is what the bad lefties want???
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:It is, but this is a loyalty purge. Totally different thing, see. Ah, naturally. As we all know the pragmatic and sensible thing to do is to swear eternal loyalty to the Clintons, unlike those naive leftists with their ~principles~
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:It's going to be funny if the centrists who are always going after us for wanting the party have some sort of purity will defend this. It's like we're in this weird pattern where a bunch of the remaining centrists turn up and start yelling about bad thing that the left wants or believes, and a while after that it inevitably turns out that their own Abuela both pioneered said bad thing and went much further with it than anybody ITT has ever advocated.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Okay so your problem is the very idea of speaking fees in general? Because this has always been the case, former Presidents are celebrities. Companies want them to give speeches, and they pay good money for that. They use movie stars for the same reasons. I'm sorry sir but you've got a terminal case of bad dem. frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:This reminds me of when Hill Folk were acting like it was ridiculous that people would think abuela getting paid to give private speeches to Goldman Sachs would influence her policy in any way 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ok let's say that for a moment that, like you and Justice John Roberts do, I loving this. It's really goddamn weird how the idea that you ought to avoid even the appearance of impropriety is a foreign concept to bad dems.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
The second most baffling thing about all this, just behind not getting why taking all that wall street cash looks bad, is the newfound insistence from the usual suspects that Obama suddenly became completely severed from all politics on January 20th.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
This is bizarre even for sheer contrarianism.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Where's that happening? Making money is a pretty normal human desire. Thank you for informing us of poo poo that's been comletely obvious since at least 2011.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Realtalk though, the idea that democrats can still take their base for granted has easily of skyrocketed to the dumbest take ITT. It's like bad dems are literally literally incapable of learning.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Wow, just look at all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in this thread over a single stupid loving speech. I don't think I've ever seen a group of people spend so much effort to justify their inaction and apathy. All that your ilk is doing here is pissing and moaning because people ITT think that their ostensible political representatives should be held accountable, which apparently is bad and equal to apathy for some reason. Like, I know that you just want to be contrarian, but come the gently caress on.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Ah yes. My political representative BHO. Yeah, at least according to Nancy Pelosi. DaveWoo posted:Agitation that doesn't go beyond whining about Dems on a message board = apathy giant_expanding_ironicat.gif
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
Some literal baddem.txt here. Former presidents apparently appear out of the ether and live in the political equivalent of a hermetically sealed bubble. Anybody who might be concerned by appearances of impropriety is an idiot who should be ignored even if they make up almost half the electorate. Giving a poo poo about incompetents running the party into the loving ground is dumb and also apathy. We can take everybody who disagrees for granted because they have no other choice. It's like we've fallen through a time portal half a year into the goddamn past. All that's missing is some hillman turning up and demanding the posting of a map.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 15:10
|
|