|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Condiv posted:so, red states that can be taken are what? +2 D? +10 +15 R. Any higher and it's a gamble. +20 is a gamble. +30 is a waste. You will now respond to me with the usual point you made already, but you have the gift of hindsight on this. Two weeks ago you would have been screaming at Dems for being idiots in investing in the KAnsas election.
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That is a lie, and you know it. People have been arguing very consistently and passionately for a disciplined utilization of the 50 state strategy since before the presidential election. Oh it's a lie? That's news to me. I can name three people who would be in histrionics if the DNC ever announced that. I actually remember people being in histrionics about it back during the presidential election. 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. Now how much do I hate MLK by posting that?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
No, I'll get slapped by mods for importing drama, and rightfully so. Find em yourself if it concerns you so much. I'll even give you a date: a month after the election in the post-election thread. They were all pissed at Hillary for campaigning and buying ad space in Texas despite the fact that the state is actually pretty politically balanced and it could have worked.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:The "50 State Strategy" does not mean running one lovely candidate( hire only the people who win elections poo poo thats brilliant thread over man OP seems to have chilled out so guess we're gonna listen to stuff like The Beach Boys instead of Bullet for my Valentine. Wise choice.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 19:25
|
|
) in all fifty states forums poster SSNeoman, it means recruiting and supporting local candidates who have got a shot at winning seats in those states.
|
Sloppy Milkshake posted:lol look at this self own by a middle schooler He started with blaztin' Bizket so we went a long way. Maybe guys Maybe there is hope after all 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
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. Hey you actually swayed my mind on this. Dems should see if there is indeed that sort of support in other states by throwing money into those races. I'm just not nailing them to a cross because of Kansas. I'm sorry but if you're so blind to not connect schools closing with the government then there's no helping you. This is a sticking point for me. It's like seeing people say "man I sure hate getting lead poisoning, but poo poo I sure love the guy who says dumping stuff into rivers is cool!" If they don't learn from Kansas, I'll stand right by you. Maybe away from the OP though, he just rediscovered Skrillex.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Jesus, asking people to learn is not nailing them on a cross. Even if the tone is hostile. *Looks at thread title* *looks at OP and defense of third paties* *looks at centrsitsCENTRISTSCENTRISTS!!! posts* ah-huh. well okay, if you say so.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted: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. It's fine. I just find it absurd how much the word is being thrown around, like a left version of globalist. The long and short of it is we need to see the DNC's next move. Montana has the next special election up right?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Condiv posted:if they're gonna take it, yes they should spend it effectively. you're right that i hate them taking dirty money. i hate them taking dirty money and then not helping candidates even more Oh man I loving loved Green Day too!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 10:05
|
|
|
Voting for third parties isn't voting. Majorian posted:I've said it before and I'll say it again: the left would be wise to co-opt Obama. Turn him into the left-wing version of Reagan. Agreed. People here really give too much of a poo poo about his agenda. Who loving cares? Nobody remembers Reagan's agenda, they just have warm fuzzy feelings whenever they think of him. We should do the dsame to Obama, especially since he's charismatic enough to pull it off. I sincerely doubt he'll tar his legacy by trying to set the record straight. Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:What? In America we have a first-past-the-post system for voting. At this point it has essentially reached its end points, we only have two parties that really matter. Last election we saw an almost complete ruination of the green party and I expect the libertarians will follow suit in the next few elections. If you voted for this out of morality or whatever the gently caress, your vote didn't matter. If Greens didn't reach the amount of votes needed to get funding, your tiny little piss puddle of a party certainly won't. You might as well burned your ballet for all the good it did. Voting republican in a democrat state and vice versa on the other hand is a good way to show the opposing party that there is support for them there. poo poo, looking at the election results now, Kansas actually did that. Well well. Maybe there's hope for them yet. If your party cannot cohesively get together and get 5% of the popular vote, it's time to either give it up, or take a serious reconstruction of the party and the way you broadcast your message. You won't get funding, but at least it's a start. Or try to change the electoral system. At least NFS finally admits he voted third party to feel good about himself. That's more than what I get out of other third party voters.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Finally admits? When have I ever denied it? In the same post: quote:Why not go with your conscience at that point has always been my argument. You're not voting with your conscience, you're voting because it makes you feel good. If you did vote with your conscience you'd make a choice based on the voting system. Voting for third party with your conscience is disingenuous crap people tell themselves as an post-hoc justification.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Okay, now we just need to see some follow-through.Majorian posted:Sure, that's mostly what I meant. I don't particularly care what's in Obama's heart, as long as he's constructive in his role going forward, and lets the left at least pretend that they and he are on the same page. If his wing of the party wants to try to play a moderating role behind-the-scenes, that's fine - I'll take that above them just aligning themselves outright with the Clintons, Blue Dogs, etc. As you say, shutting out the Clinton loyalists in the DNC for good needs to be objective number 1. Agree with the first bit, sorta don't have a horse in his race on the second bit. Really who gives a gently caress what Obama wants? So long as he's willing to be a symbol of what a president should be, it doesn't matter what his personal policies were. You think any Joe Sixpack Republican remembers that Reagan was for gun laws? We should do the same for Obama, he even played the part of the good president who respected the system and his opponents. He even paid for it in political power. We don't even need to create a narrative, it's basically true. Dude's charming, charismatic and genuinely loved the country.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Why would I burn a ballet? makes the nutcracker that much more exciting im not fixing the typo btw NewForumSoftware posted:What if these are the same thing? Then you're an rear end in a top hat. And that's fine. But own it. There's no morality involved when you knowingly voting third party just to feel good, you're doing it out of selfish reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Third party voters have already heard every argument against third party voting as a concept. They are generally stubborn people. If you feel you need their vote, you have to answer their actual concerns about your candidate and you need to do better than lesser of two evils. For the most part though, I think you are better off trying to appeal to people who are sympathetic to your candidate already but not motivated to get out and vote. I don't disagree. I just hate how smug and sanctimonious they sound. Gz bro, you did the equivalent of sitting with your thumb up your rear end during the election. Nothing to be proud of. Mister Facetious posted:You're confusing conscience (a personal moral decision process) with a partisan societal expectation to accept the status quo of a failed system. Sociopolitical expectation, not partisan. And I'm not confusing the two, the third party voters are. Cry for change of the system, poo poo I'll even support you. But when it comes time to elect people, and this failed system is still in use, not using it correctly is foolish. Not using it correctly while knowing the correct way to use it, is malicious. And again, that's fine. But own it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Nothing to be proud of voting for Hillary or Trump either. You gonna do a happy dance because you elected someone who voted for a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people to find imaginary WMD because that clever W tricked her into it?  If Trump lines up with your politics, and you truly agree with his policies, yeah whatever. I'm not gonna hold it over you. Same thing with Hillary. If you wanted Bernie but voted for Jill Stein well then you're either a moron or selfish. Mister Facetious posted:If you don't vote against the system there's no incentive for it to change. Hint: Doing this on election day does nothing. It doesn't matter if you're poor or otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Don't move goal posts you two. The topic was about whether or not it makes sense to vote third party. The DNC election is a separate subject.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
We were talking about the Presedential election, not the DNC or its bugbears. If you want to switch to that, then say so, but don't just go "third party voting isn't dumb because I think the DNC is corrupt therefore you see MORALLY I am justified, drat the consequences and the political landscape"NewForumSoftware posted:Now please splurge about voter mandates and how much it would have mattered if Hillary Clinton had the 50,000 votes de la riva got in California Sure, easy. "More votes to show support for DNC and locking the landscape left, especially since California being a safe Dem state is only a recent phenomenon, and telling Republicans to  "
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Ironically, votes for de la riva are effectively this. Same with Stein, even though she's an idiot. People don't even know who La Riva is. You don't have a voice when you vote third party. You become part of the group that follows the other independent weirdos like that guy who wants to become president so he can own a cheetah. Now is it a large voice when you vote for one of the two major parties? No, but at least it's a voice, and you don't get lumped into the category of "0.01% (I)"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol that you believe people are incapable of identifying votes of those parties as left wing. let me guess, nobody has any idea that libertarians exist either, even though they got 4% of the popular vote this election Ah and finally you decide to bring up a legitimate point! Yes, libertarians did indeed get a good deal of cover this election, though I will argue that's due to how unpopular both of the main parties' candidates were and less because people liked the platform. I do not forsee this happening in the next election, unless we have a similar scenario, though that is only delaying the inevitable. They are also grossly incompetent and under-prepared, lest we forget the primaries being tallied by way of Excell from the year 2000 on a CRT, which will also hurt their efforts. Still, there is historical precedent now for their message so I suppose if their politics align with yours, yeah go for it. I don't think you should because lol libertarians, but I'm not you. FuriousxGeorge posted:If the only thing your voice can say is, "I support Hillary Clinton," or "I support Donald Trump," then it turns out most people are fine not having a voice. far from most. those people are well in the minority. sucks to be them I guess. Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol if you don't think the DNC will try to shove a poo poo sandwich down everyone's mouth in 2020. We're not even done with special elections. Settle down.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:You sweet summer child, such naivety warms my heart I said that if the DNC didn't learn from Kansas I'd change my mind and agree with the OP. Settle down.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:If “Did Not Vote” Had Been A Candidate In The 2016 US Presidential Election, It Would Have Won By a Landslide Now do it for 2012, 2008, 2004 and 2000. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/ Voter turnout has been low for the past couple of decades. This has nothing to do with Trump or Hillary, though admittedly the two made the situation slightly worse. Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Apr 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Well yeah. This problem did not begin with Hillary or Trump. So why bring up the point? Especially in a discussion about the effectiveness for voting third party?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:No, not necessarily. The message is "gently caress Republicans and also the Clintons". You can still fight for a political alternative Pretty words. Whatcha got on that front?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:And yet, somehow, some way... Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders persuaded me to vote for them. Weird. drat dude. drat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I can't wait for Chelsea's candidacy gee I loving wonder 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Personally I think private prisons are a major distraction from the actual problems with our criminal justice system. I'd rather a candidate who supports private prisons than one that refuses to say marijuana should be legal. Ideally we could have someone who supported legalization and opposed private prisons. If one can imagine such a person. Waa-ha-ha-ha-ooow dude. VitalSigns posted:Accepting campaign contributions from a private prison company and then awarding it a huge state contract? It's fascinating to see the blindspots people have in this thread. Gary Johnson protected prisons from human rights abuses but hillary took money from banks so it's a wash.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:The elections of 2000 and 2016 show that the correct way of using the system is not "nominate a compromised candidate". People are morons. News at 11.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I can't fault people for not following through on a grim obligation when they have better things to do. And now they can enjoy the gradual disintegration of the social safety net, schools and important government functions. Hopefully they will also be the first to be smashed in the face by their decision too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The same disintegration of the social safety net that you describe didn't exactly slow down all that much under Democratic presidents...like, a little bit, but not that much. Not to the point where people who don't routinely pay close attention to politics would notice. You're placing a lot of blame on some pretty disadvantaged people, as opposed to the party leaders that have failed them rather dismally. Why, exactly, should they know to place the blame for the failure of the social safety net on the Republicans, as opposed to both parties equally? Just because Hillary Clinton's website said so? I'm starting to think perhaps you are too optimistic that these people would understand economic populism since apparently everything else is beyond them. Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Especially since they have now decided that being pro life is bad and hes an ardent pro life dude. oh word? http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Tim_Kaine_Abortion.htm
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that's the stance mello is taking now too So what's the problem?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/congressional-scorecard#/VA/450/ 100% rating from PP. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/288952-pro-abortion-rights-group-give-kaine-nod-of-approval NARAL approved of him in 2016. You're talking out of your rear end or are actively living in the past.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Did you not bother to read the post? He explicitly states Kaine moderated his anti-choice views in recent years. Living in the past it is. You're talking about poo poo that was solved a decade ago. Seriously look at my previous link, he made those decisions back in 2008. That poo poo happened so long ago that groups like PP and NARAL no longer care. There is no conspiracy to use abortion as a wedge issue come on.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
There's a reason I ignore Crowsbeak, dude. That said, yeah Sanders really stepped in it: https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/103098/heath-mello/2/abortion#.WQAfiYjyuUk Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
I was talking about Kaine. Mello is a different story
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://twitter.com/JStein_Vox/status/856827515364683776/photo/1?ref_src=tw "when he himself is made of carbon"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
Condiv posted:how is the complaint that obama is making noise about money in politics the day he takes a big fat check from wall street disingenuous? then again, i dunno why i'm bothering to ask you since you always deflect with nonsense when someone criticizes a centrist in this thread Okay let's try a different tactic. Explain to me how it's hypocritical for Obama to accept 400k from Wall Street while also making a point about the corrupting effects of money in politics. Especially since this is past his presidency. This is technically your claim so burden of proof is on you. Next, why does this apparently retroactively taint his presidency? As per your post: Condiv posted:i guess obama didn't get anything done cause he really didn't want to get anything done. republicans were just an excuse What should he have done instead? Turn down fleecing some CEO out of 400k? Why? Party purity?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
Take a break from this thread, Stein. You don't even get simple forum jokes anymore. The point of the quip is that it's a trite and pointless criticism used to tear down a person or idea. As in "isn't it hypocritical to talk about reducing carbon when you yourself are made of carbon?" and the answer to that question is "no it's loving not, idiot" Same thing here, no it's not hypocritical to fleece money from dumbshit banks to talk about the corrupting power of money in politics. Unless you guys have proof that this money was used to fun anti-DNC activities, then all you're doing is the same leftist firing squad I've been mocking since this thread began. And I know you guys don't have this evidence because this was the same tract they used to discredit Hillary and her speeches, and it was equally without merit. That's why Republican attacks using that rhetoric was just verbal finger-pointing. And you all ate that poo poo up. You are regurgitating right wing talking points ffs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 08:50
|
|