|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Radish posted:Like the story here should be "Democrats almost take a heavily leaned Republican seat, let's get motivated for 2018" but instead it's now "Democrats fumble and ignore a seat they could have won" because they wanted to save $20k for some nebulous future race which is bad optics for a party that is struggling to win elections in every part of the US government. Why do you think they would spend money to help elect someone like Thompson, who might be a hostile force inside the Democratic party if elected? You've already seen the party line from the True Blue crowd in this thread: the REAL race is in the rich suburbs of GA 6 where a gentleman who thinks 'wasteful spending is a bipartisan issue' is running for office.
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Yes, look at how increasing radicalization has hurt the Republican party in the last 8 years.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:they control the government due to flaws in the american system allowing a minority party to take control of the government if its a rural party but still can't get a drat thing done? This is a good point. If it was some sort of broader movement you'd expect them to also control most of the state governments, too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:do you even have any idea what you're arguing at this point, because i sure don't The political landscape is pretty confusing but keep at it buddy, you'll understand it eventually.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
The problem with Thompson wasn't that he was some far left radical, because he seemed to be a pretty bog standard populist, it was that he was outside of the power structure of the DNC and the point of the campaign funds are to recruit people they want, not necessarily help Democrats win in races.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:see, this is a stupid post You think that the Republican party (which completely controls the state governments of 60% of the US population) is a minority party. Who gives a poo poo what you think is stupid?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
When I used to read evilweasel's D&D posts back in the day I would think "I wish he would just talk like a human being instead of a robotic lawyer" and I guess a monkey's paw somewhere closed because his normal personality is a thousand times worse.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
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. Donald Trump is going to be a trash fire of a president and, like after George W Bush's trash fire presidency, everyone to the left of Joe Manchin recognizes this might be an opportunity to take back power and enact policies that could wildly shift political rhetoric and maybe even change society for the better. Some people are sad right now because they see signs that the Democratic party will (again) blow that opportunity or worse yet somehow manage to not even take back power because they offer desperate and angry people a pile of lukewarm bullshit that they don't care about (again).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
axeil posted:Local politics matter. FULL COMMUNISM NOW won't work in Kansas any more than "actually guns are good" will work in NYC. The Dems successfully took back Congress after the deflating 2004 election in part because they realized that a combo of BUSH BAD and "run with whatever policy works at the local level for you" would get them enough votes to do stuff. Thompson's platform was basically a bunch of local political gripes and some vaguely populist rhetoric, so it seems like he would have been a good candidate for them to throw some actual money at if this is their line of thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The Democrats had more than just "Bush Bad" to run on in 2006 - there was a strong push, from the White House and Republicans in Congress, to privatize social security, as well as an increasingly unpopular war and some very, very unpopular advisers running that war. The Republicans, likewise, had the ACA to run against in 2010. The Kool Aid drinkers seem to have no concept of how bad the current Democratic party is. It's in danger of becoming a blocking coalition that doesn't set its sights much higher than palliative care for the idea that government can be a positive influence in an American's life. The 2008 economic collapse gave them an opportunity to not just slow down the decline but offer up an alternative, but it ended with milquetoast finance reforms and a healthcare plan that's not going to be able to deal with costs in the long term. Hell, the ACA only really became popular when the GOP offered up their own Mad Max alternative. The Democrats ran their Bush Bad candidate in 2004 and the Republicans had their Obama Bad candidate in 2012. Funny enough we already had someone run for office trying out the Trump Bad strategy, but that won't stop the Democrats from doing it again. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:the "strong push" lasted from january to may, 2005. And it was national news that even normally disengaged people were concerned/angry about, which is the point.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:sure, but Congress had bailed the year before because they realized they had to get reelected Well, this is good news for the Dems in 2020 once we've invaded Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Portugal or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Walking down the path of "lesser of two evils" only leads one way, to evil. As far as I know "better than the other guys" has been the Democrat's messaging since Obama won in 08. He seems to be the only centrist who recognizes you can't run as a centrist because nobody likes centrists. Hillary Clinton celebrated it and got owned by a spray tan factory. After 2008 the party became convinced that 'the Obama coalition' would guarantee their future success instead of realizing that Obama was a hall of fame level political talent. I think this (and his own natural cautiousness) helps explain why they set the cruise control after 2010.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:So, do these people sidestep the fact that minorities have disproportionately higher rates of extreme poverty and single parentage situations which would be disproportionately improved over that of whites by increasing the minimum wage out of malice, or ignorance? They don't want to pay more money in taxes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Taking a glance at income and net worth broken down by race is all it takes to understand what a load of bullshit the "Would stopping Wall Street end racism???" concern troll is. It's just rhetoric cooked up by 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative' types who are against the policies but don't want to openly say it and prefer to use other people as human shields.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
I think you guys are taking the wrong path here. When these people insist that a guy who goes on TV to scold the President for denouncing private equity vultures is firmly part of the Democratic fold you should agree with them. Kissing the rear end of every hedge fund and working hard to privatize education are not fringe positions in the Democratic party, it's pretty much in their DNA.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Hence the hostility, because to us it appears that you are clinging very strongly to an ideological principle that is hopelessly counterproductive to the Democratic Party's goals in both the short and long term. You are a STEM guy in the top 33% of income in America and are exactly the kind of voter that the modern Democratic party targets. Of course you see nothing wrong with the current direction of the party, it's been catering to people like you as it hemorrhaged legislative seats across the country. Hence the hostility.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America, not necessarily the most popular politician among the Democratic primary electorate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
I know some people are convinced that Clinton won the primary by cheating, but that's not true at all. While they definitely stacked the deck as much as they could, at the end of the day Hillary was/is massively popular among registered Democrats and those are the people who vote in a primary. The problem was that she was much less popular with everyone else, while her primary opponent was more universally liked or at least tolerated. During times of polarization the primaries aren't necessarily competitions that reward the most electable candidate, something people on this forum understood (and gleefully mocked) for the last 8 years.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:"But the cheating didn't matter" is about the weakest defense for cheating I can imagine. Where in life does that show up other than the Democratic Primary. Buddy, I'm not defending the cheating. I'm saying she would have won even without the cheating, because she was Queen of the Democrats in a competition that was largely decided by people who love the Democratic party. His biggest advantage was among younger people, who are less likely to be registered for closed primaries and just less likely to vote in a political primary to begin with. She also whooped him with more affluent voters in the northeast, and I don't have to tell you how hard it is to get poor(er) people to vote in a normal election, much less a primary one. You are right, though, the rules really obviously do not apply to the elites in any facet of our society.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:She wouldn't have won if the Democratic party had a spine and actually responded to someone openly cheating I think she would have won even if the DNC hadn't done a single one of those things. It was a primary election where 30 million of the eligible voters most inclined to like the Democratic party picked between a fixture of said party and a guy who isn't really even part of it. It was Her Turn and nothing was going to stop the nomination. The problem always was that there were another hundred million people who would get to vote in the national election who don't drink the blue kool aid. NewForumSoftware posted:Removing her from the primary, since it was clear Bernie would have had a much better chance in the general. The modern primary system came about to prevent the party bosses from just picking who the nominee would be, though. If the DNC in 2016 could just crown someone it wouldn't have been Bernard Sanders
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
I think it's worth understanding that the primary electorate doesn't necessarily have the same interests as the voting public in general.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Scrapping the primary system and returning to appointing nominees would lead to more Hillary Clintons, not fewer of them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Carter was at odds with his party and Bernard would have been too, just for polar opposite reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
I'm all for pointless bullshit but why would you speculate on who would win an election in the bizarro world where the DNC unilaterally killed the campaign of a Clinton? That's so far out from reality nothing that follows it makes any sense at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Trying to imagine being such a blind partisan that I spent X number of minutes of my finite existence explaining to people why Graft Is Good, Actually like I write for Vox magazine.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
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. This is legitimately the funniest thing I've seen on these forums in a long time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Osoff is going to lose in the runoff because why vote for Diet Republican when you can have the real deal. This is something 'pragmatists' can never wrap their heads around, for some reason. I understand why the party wants to run guys like Osoff, but if you are a normal person who wants to see Democrats get elected then supporting Panera McAusterity is just plain stupid.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:It's loving GA-06 you gaseous gibbon. Either GA-06 was a winnable race that the party was correct to throw millions of dollars into through their Panera Bread Strategy or it was a massive boondoggle and the money would have been better spent somewhere else.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 17:43
|
|