|
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:Chuck Schumer's tweet about how that race was indicative of the upcoming Democratic party strategy isn't going over well at all. they mobilized quickly last week to defend it, in a way that would have been ineffective and/or counterproductive for democrats neither party saw this election being close
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:13 |
|
|
KomradeX posted:This is just the logical end point of criticizing Clinton made you responsible for Trump winning. no, just no stupid criticism from idiots idiots find this extremely offensive, for some reason, but such is life, the path to majorities is not indulging these idiots
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:The thing that kills me about the refusal to even try here is that even if it's a pathetic failure, it gives you a testbed for your plans in 2018. You cannot buy an experimental platform like this: ridiculously pro-republican seat, ridiculously pro-republican state, phenomenally unpopular republicans above the seat in question, it's a perfect low-stakes way to try to answer the question "how can we best leverage this to our advantage." You send a signal to other would-be challengers in 2018 that the DCCC will have their backs, and you get a chance to iron out the bugs in your system as you try to do something none of the people involved i, too, have never heard of georgia-04
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you really think it's stupid for the dems to try to win winnable seats? no, I think it was dumb of them not to toss the $20k the guy asked for, it is worth taking very low-cost fliers if for no other reason than to build goodwill i just have little patience for the people who now that they know this election wound up being close think this was always some close election that the DNC should have gone all-in on: it is one of the most securely Republican seats in the country (top third, which is saying a lot). it is a minor error, not a major one: it is very likely that no amount of investment was going to get all the way to a win, but the small amounts asked for would have been worth it to generate goodwill however it is notable that the bernie wing didn't campaign or donate any serious amount of money either: it just was completely off everyone's radar: RNC, DNC, berniecrats, tea partiers, everyone. democrats are competing hard in GA-04 which is the race that was looked at as the best shot to start winning back the house despite it being a deep red seat that usually wouldn't be competitive, so the lesson everyone is whining about has gotten through: compete in hostile territory. it just didn't get through that everywhere is now on the board, not just places that are reasonable in a 10-15% swing which would be an enormous Republican wipeout already. people whining that true liberals knew but the DNC didnt are flatly wrong and so it's not an excuse to relitigate those dumb issues the other problem is the DNC knows that its polling is off: it was very off in 2016 and they're currently trying to work out how to fix it, so even polling that showed it close (if it existed) might reasonably have been ignored as just more of the same problem until the RNC flipped out as well
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Thompson was pretty clearly trying to thread the needle between Anti-Brownback and a really conservative district. He didn't have any positions that were left of the democratic mainstream, at least not on his website. His campaign actively downplayed his affiliation with the Democratic Party. It's not clear that the Democratic Party dumping a bunch of money on him would have helped his chances rather than bursting the illusion of independentness his campaign was trying to create. Yeah, but he was the one who asked for the $20k so presumably he believed it was worth having. But he definitely didn't want the sort of bigwig response the Republicans mounted.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i agree with you on the first part, but disagree with you on the second.this was a major error. the dems need to build trust after they lost a poo poo ton of it after 2016. and this makes people lose trust in them because they gave $0. They endorsed him. They then gave him $900. The DNC endorsed him as well, endorsements aren't spending resources to help elect him.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Rangpur posted:I'd be more sympathetic to the DNC's viewpoint if it looked like they had any loving clue which districts are winnable. Fair is fair, I wouldn't have expected a race in Kansas to be close either. Then again, I also don't have the logistics and data analysis they're supposed to have perfected. Which is kind of the takeaway in all this: if Perez doesn't have a good answer for how they missed it, and what they plan to do to avoid missing opportunities in the future, then the DNC--and by extension, the rest of us--are proper hosed. the DNC is currently aware its polling is poo poo because it was poo poo in 2016, and polling hasn't ever been very good for special elections in the first place because its so hard to predict turnout however with this datapoint and (hopefully) the GA-04 datapoint, they now have a much better idea that every district is winnable, even one of the most solidly republican districts in the country, so to take the flier next time: if someone wants to compete, give them at least some token money he shouldn't have gotten, like, a few million, but $20k for even the longest shot of long shots seems worth it given the apparent evidence that there's a massive backlash against Republicans building
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so you're saying the bernie wing was infinitely more supportive of him than the DNC was. despite tom perez promising to fight for every zip code. the DNC found the money for extremely expensive wasteful ads in 2016, the least they can do is throw a campaign like this $20k to try to help him win here's a hint: anytime you, a moron, think that you can rephrase something anyone else says, stop because you can't what i was saying is what i said, not your moronic interpretation of it
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:don't pretend the bernie wing was absent if you know they weren't. the bernie wing gave a token $900, which is being effectively absent but if you want to be a moron, the DNC gave $3k on March 13th but you don't see anyone saying that was important
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:If only there was some strategy to bleed an enemy of resources asymmetrically... some sort of technique by which you cause them enough problems in enough places with relatively low investment that they can't protect them all... some sort of "large-number-of-places" tactic... as you see by the copy of sun tzu's the art of war on my bookshelf...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
parallelodad posted:Didn't he get a bunch of money from Dailykos? Which "wing" do they represent? all democrats who suddenly realized the race was actually winnable the real fight is over what resources should have been allocated before it was clear this was actually competitive and both the bernie wing and the dnc basically thought the answer was "nominal". that answer was wrong, but it wasn't the evil centrists vs intelligent berniecrats debate that morons like crowsbeak so desperately want to have it be. nobody on the liberal side saw this coming, nobody thought something this deep red was really winnable until suddenly it was. if the DNC doesn't learn from this, I'll be right there criticizing them: after this there's no excuse not to funnel money to the Montana special election, for example, but it wasn't the DNC missing this, it was everyone
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the state dems gave him the 3k evil weasel, he got nothing from the dnc the state dems were also the ones who turned down the $20k
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:ok, so you think the DNC should have contributed nothing? state parties are too strapped in red states to bootstrap their own dem candidates. that's just a recipe for failure. the DNC should've supported this guy, just like how the republicans supported their guy i have said what i think the dnc should have done multiple times what i am posting there is a different thing I think: that you know nothing and are an idiot and all of your opinions are free from any consideration of facts, and that you should stop posting because you have nothing intelligent to say thompson was mad at the state democratic party, that's what all the fuss was about (something I didn't realize either, but i'm not the one drawing distinctions between the two) not the main democratic party. the main democratic party's job should be to ensure that the state parties have sufficient funding and support but to let them allocate resources as they see fit with their better understanding of their state. the dnc should have made sure the local dnc could give the guy $20k for the mailers (they could have either way, they had ~$220k, but i assume they wanted to reserve money for contesting more local elections which is a reasonable use of money when you've got such limited resources) ultimately there are a bunch of idiots, such as you, that want to turn this into some narrative of brilliant berniecrats who were squashed by the evil centrists of the dnc. that is a stupid opinion in general but in perticular here, where both the berniecrats and the dnc simply didn't consider it a wise use of resources because the important information - that this district was actually close - wasn't there. now, it is. the criticism i made, an intelligent and reasoned one, was that for federal elections $20k is a reasonable throwaway amount for long-shots and so it was a poor tactical decision to deny that. the decision that it was one hell of a longshot wasn't a poor decision: it was wrong, but many reasonable decisions end up being wrong. this shouldn't have been competitive, even given Trump and even given Brownback. that it is is a great loving sign and one that must be incorporated into future planning. but the idea it was evil centrists who didn't see it and berniecrats who did is objectively, provably false.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yes, everyone including the RNC, but somehow the Republicans were able to turn it around on short notice and support their god-damned candidate while the Democrats sat on their fat asses because one of their highly-paid consultants told them they could say devoting resources to the race would have made it less competitive. ok. it's last week. you're in complete command of the dnc. you've found out the same instant that the RNC did that the race is actually competitive. what would you do? remember: the $20k request wasn't made last week. that was rejected well beforehand. so we're not discussing that, at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you've confused the DNC and the state party so forgive me for asking you to clarify I think Perez should have close enough relations with the state parties to make sure at least a token amount of funding - like the $20k - gets funded by the national party if it isn't able to be funded by the state party. I think that he should absolutely implement a full 50 state strategy and contest every single Republican district that can be contested. Money is still going to be limited so most of these long-shot people are going to be on their own beyond token funding until they demonstrate they're worth more investment, but $20k should be well within the amount for anyone who is running. I also think he's just gotten control of the DNC after a fairly contested DNC election and while everyone is shell-shocked from the 2016 election, so while I think it was a mistake not to have gotten the $20k, I consider it a reasonable mistake to have made provided it isn't made again. I think that he tunnel-visioned a little too hard on the Georgia race which is absolutely in line with the 50-state strategy - it's one that woundn't usually be contested at all - and missed the Kansas one. It was a mistake. It wasn't a big mistake - I don't believe the extra money would have made a difference, and I think that it isn't reasonable to assume that it was known it could be this close - but it was a mistake. Assuming it's learned from, and the Montana race is a good race to look at and see if it is, then great. But rebuilding these local parties isn't something you can just flip a switch on and have it be done. It's going to take sustained work by the DNC to be where we need to be in 2018.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:What the hell are you talking about "was already rejected"? I'd go ahead and un-reject it first thing and give the man what he asked for. Then I'd see if there are any charismatic politicians who poll reasonably well in that area who can swing by for a day or two and help the guy out. Or, failing that, at least have them record a few robocalls. You know, basically what the GOP did when they figured out the seat was in jeopardy. I don't know if the DNC put in any money at the end as well, and if you have anything to support that he wanted DNC money at that point and didn't get it, then sure, lets discuss that but I have no reason to believe it's true. Plus the guy got $150k from Kos, and didn't lack for cash in the final days of the race: I do not know if more money at that point would have been helpful. As for charismatic politicians: national democrats are clearly not helpful: Thompson was explicitly trying to avoid even running against Trump. He ran against Brownback, and relied on people who hated Trump to make the connection anyway. He didn't want Obama coming in. He wanted the race to be as local as possible: I don't know who stumped on his behalf but his campaign would (presumably) be the one who knows who he wanted. He did not want, nor would it have been helpful, the sort of non-money assistance the RNC threw in. The RNC wanted to nationalize the race: you're voting for Republicans or you're voting for Democrats. He wanted to localize the race: you're voting for that Brownback-supporting idiot, or you're voting for me, a reasonable local guy who is running to represent the district, not national Democrats. And that's exactly the best strategy to take in these deep-red districts. Now, ironically, the only national politician I can think of that might have been helpful is Bernie. I don't knock him for not going there: I suspect he wasn't wanted because even a popular democrat would have reminded the voters that as much as they might like the guy, he was running as a democrat and democrats want to take your guns and abort your babies. But he certainly isn't under the control of the DNC.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Condiv posted:if perez was anywhere as competent as he claimed he was he would've been ready for this poo poo. 20k should be the minimum we give out to any candidate we field. we spent a billion on hillary's waste of a campaign, we refuse to stop taking megadonor bucks, so why not at least put it to some good use so the dems can actually fight back against trump? if perez learns his lesson and supports al the remaining races now it'll be forgiveable i guess, but as someone who's lived in red states all his life this kind of stings cause it says that dems aren't gonna try to rejuvenate dead dem parties like my state's. I do not know if the links between the national and the Kansas party are even good enough that the national DNC got a request for the $20k. That is absolutely the sort of thing that takes time. If the $20k request landed on his desk and he rejected it, it's definitely a bigger fuckup than if it never reached the national DNC. But getting the system there so the local parties ask for that help isn't instant. I understand your frustration, and while I love Obama allowing the local parties to atrophy after the 50 state plan was so successful in 2006 and 2008 was inexcusable. But I think it's silly to assume that because it isn't already fixed the lesson wasn't learned when there's a big race in a deep red district currently going on with heavy DNC support.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Oh lol now because he wasn't specific enough he is a blue dog. he would have absolutely been the sort of conservative democrat you would be furious about once elected, because that's what you get if you want a democrat to have a chance in a deep red district and that's what he ran as
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://ballotpedia.org/Jon_Ossoff They care about that race because although it's usually R+20, Trump won it very narrowly (something like +2.5), so there's never been a concern that it's out of reach and a waste of resources. They need to be able to win seats like this to get the majority: it's competitive and has been known to be competitive the entire race, so you pour in the resources you'd expect to see in a competitive race. It would be inexcusable to only be tossing in small amounts of resources given that they already know its vulnerable. If the Kansas seat had similar early indications it was competitive, then they'd have been putting those resources in there as well the entire race.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Sanders is a Democrat is all but name. He even gets funding from the DSCC. If he's not "under their control" that's most likely because the centrists take every opportunity to poo poo on him and his allies and lock them out of the party. Maybe they should cut that poo poo out? ok at this point you don't even know what you're arguing, you're just being a dumb baby
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Yes, look at how increasing radicalization has hurt the Republican party in the last 8 years. 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? hmm. sounds like the plan for the democrats, a majority party concentrated in urban areas that wants to do things when it controls government, to enact.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so it's just a coincidence that the only guy currently recieving support from the DNC worked as an aide for 7 years to both lewis and johnson? cause there are other dems in that race too, but he's the only one getting massive amounts from the DNC I have no idea how they picked which democrat to support, but it is absolutely the right decision to pick only one given how the special election (a jungle primary) works. If you want to tell me one of the other ones running is a better pick and why, I'm interested. If there was a separate primary and the DNC spent resources to intervene there I'd consider that a waste in almost all circumstances, but since it's a jungle primary (a) they need to make sure a Democrat is one of the top-two and (b) they desperately want to win it outright by getting 50% instead of going to a second election while the Republicans are fractured. Both make it the right thing to do to pick the strongest candidate and put all of the DNC's backing behind them. If the DNC picked a weaker candidate in this election because of DNC ties, that's bad, but I've seen nothing to that effect. Plus, that he worked as an aide to Lewis is a pretty big plus in my book. I have no idea who Johnson is because I know little to nothing about Georgia politics or politicians but I'm going to go with the guy Lewis endorsed in most circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so people who are rich enough to rub elbows with the dems get the funding floodgates to open. everyone else can hang. dems are for rich people only do you even have any idea what you're arguing at this point, because i sure don't
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Maarek posted: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. see, this is a stupid post like even under the most crazy of conspiracy beliefs, it's a really, really stupid post lets imagine the dnc has no interest in policy. they don't care. they just want to get all those sweet centrist kickbacks how do you get those? you get those by having a majority, so all the lobbyists have to bribe you. so your hypothetical dnc still wants thompson to win, they just thought he has no chance so why bother i mean this is what i mean when i say that you are an idiot. it's not just that you have idiotic beliefs that contradict facts. its that your idiotic beliefs aren't even remotely consistent because the actual belief you have is just that all bad things are caused by ~evil centrists~
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why is ossof funded to his hearts content while thompson wasn't given $20k? the only reason i can think of is cause the dems are nepotistic as hell and will only fund campaigns of people who've spent years chumming around with the establishment. only the idle rich can waste so much time making the connections the dems apparently require you to have to get any support from them, so the party is for the rich. i already answered this question, gave you a very easy to understand answer, that you quoted and typed a response to if you can't think of an answer when i literally gave one to you, you quoted it, but now it has exited your head i can't help you i mean it's one thing if you disagree with the reason i gave but you didn't even do that, you have now completely forgotten it even existed
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:too bad centrists aren't interested in such a thing. they're more interested in telling us to vote for them and then ignoring us the rest of the time. it's not a coalition if one side is completely ignored liberals get listened to. idiots don't.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Condiv posted:they wanted him to win so bad, they sent a grand total of $0 in aid. already responded to this too
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yeah, you said some bs about they only wanted to run one test run and they weren't sure thompson could win, but oh they sure wish he could, and that they just happened to choose GA, with the candidate they were familiar with as the testing grounds to throw 8.3 million dollars at. that doesn't explain a lot though, cause 8.3m is a lot and thompson wanted a fraction of that and was told no by perez. yeah none of this is true, you are an idiot go quote my post and try to respond to it, not your diseased memory of what it said
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The left has been trying that for about thirty years or more. Turns out that an alliance with nihilists isn't worth much. see this is what i don't get sure, assume the dnc has no ideology other than power for power's sake how on earth does that lead you to "the dnc doesn't want to win an election that would get them closer to power"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Condiv posted:nah, you're obviously more interested in calling people idiots than making arguments. that's been about 90% of your responses to me, so forgive me if i don't waste the effort sifting through that to find the few specks of actual content in your posts i gave comprehensive answers to your arguments that treated you like an adult, you ignored them and have now chosen to pretend they don't exist, so i'm just going to call you a moron rather than repeat putting in effort to explain why you're wrong again when all you can muster are to repeat the same stupid things i already debunked, but with less detail
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
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 You know what the single most effective thing in moving American discourse left on healthcare was? Obamacare. Because of Obamacare passing, even Republicans who secretly want to go back to the bad old days must give lip service to the idea that the government should secure heath care for everyone. Republicans attack Obamacare from the left. They argue that it has deductions that are too high and coverage that's too small. All true! But the effect has been what sunk the AHCA: that now it is accepted, by Republicans and Democrats alike, that it is the job of the government to secure good health care to everyone. Trying to go back to the old days had a whole 17% support and that was only about halfway back. So for all of the damage it did to the Democratic party in 2010 and 2014, it got done what it set out to do. Getting compromise legislation passed worked. It still requires more work, but it worked.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you've been calling me and other people in this thread a moron since shortly after you got in. perhaps that is because you keep saying monumentally stupid things???????? here is the post debunking your "why Georgia?" argument: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3816838&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4#post471295404
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
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. A big difference that people tend to forget is that Bush only tried to privatize social security after 2004. That was a big, big deal people have forgotten and that did a number on Republican support because, like the AHCA, it was so unpopular it never even got a vote. Kerry wasn't able to run on that. Plus, you know, the whole covering up molesting pages thing in Congress, that didn't help Republicans either and was post-2004.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Delve into that a bit, please. Explain to me why what she's saying is unreasonable. Well for starters, "stop playing with non-dem Bernie" seems like a dumb tactical suggestion.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I agree with this but that doesn't mean the ACA was handled well in 2009. It wasn't. They started negotiating from the GOP side of the field and that made the law worse and harder to defend. I won't dispute that had it actually been further left it would have been better and more popular. Where I diverge is generally if it could have passed. I view most of the problematic concessions as forced by the need to get all 60 Democrats in the Senate on board, not attempts to get GOP votes. We're just not really going to ever have a chance to find out if those Democratic senators could have been pushed a little bit farther with popular pressure or if that would have backfired so there's not really a good way we can resolve that dispute. The answer in the future, of course, is to blow up the filibuster rather than getting Democratic votes 51-60.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:except it doesn't answer the most important question of my post. why did they sink that much resources into one race and claim they were cash strapped for thompson? as i said, 20K should be a starter amount for any of our candidates at his level. why could ossof not take 8.1m, and quist and thompson get 100k each from the dnc? They should sink those resources into Georgia because it's winnable. That's why it's getting $8m. Any analysis of those two races would say Georgia's the one that should get the lion's share of the money. I agree they should have sunk $20k into Kansas, and I've said that a lot. But the national DNC didn't say they were cash-strapped, the local DNC did. I have not seen the facts to know if the request got from the Kansas DNC to the national DNC: either way is bad, but fixable and doesn't indicate to me that they hate the idea of winning in Kansas but that they undervalue the usefulness of unproven long-shot candidates and they have poor links between the state and national parties that is already a priority to fix. So you ask what the reason is: the reason is (a) the DNC undervalued the cost/benefit of throwing $20k at what was (at the time) a very long-shot candidate and/or (b) the national DNC didn't even get the request. Neither is good. Both need to be fixed. But both are easily understandable reasons that make much more sense than the DNC just hates Thompson because he's not as well connected. I also don't know that the $8m is from the DNC as opposed to the total amount of money Ossof raised. Obviously it's very different if most of that $8m is private donations, not DNC money.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
axeil posted:In more heartening news, look at what's going on down-ballot in VA. In the 2015 election the Dems fielded candidates in about half the districts, just barely enough to win a majority if somehow all their people won. They of course lost horribly and only took 33 seats out of 100 member chamber. Yeah, this is much more important than worrying about money right now: the Democrats need to be fielding candidates everywhere. There's going to be more long-shots that might pan out but they only pan out if you've got a guy in the race when the Republican starts explaining his views on rape. From there, they can get the money and allocate the money but they're doing better on candidate recruitment and the Thompson getting close in a R+30 is going to be really, really helpful there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Condiv posted:this is why i'm angry. you say it's ok and they learned their lesson this time, i say they should've learned this lesson after trump's election. hopefully they actually learned something and fund quist. otherwise i hope you'll be there howling for blood with me. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you see it as two separate messages, i see it as one. we have to fight. hillary did not fight hard enough in vital states and lost them. the DNC did not do the bare minimum in this election and they barely lost. dems have been running for a long time. running from their own platform, running from their own policies, and running from red states. i and a lot of other red state dems are tired of being told by the party that we don't matter. we want the dems to fight for us for once 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. That's not relevant to 2018, but you keep saying black is white and it's just not.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:13 |
|
|
Condiv posted:it's kind of a problem that dems only put up a proper fight when they feel appropriately threatened. especially since they've shown themselves to be blind to their actual situation. maybe they need to realize they're effectively blind right now and fight hard for every race instead It is a problem that you keep saying black is white and refusing to realize it's not. The claims you're making about what happened with Trump's election about lessons Democrats should have learned about where to campaign are flatly wrong. Full stop. You're trying to avoid admitting it was a really loving stupid thing to say by saying different things. The lessons of what states to compete in from 2016 are wrong. I don't even know what you mean by "dems only put up a proper fight when they feel appropriately threatened" and I don't care, it's a statement you're just throwing out to avoid admitting you were wrong. Whatever you mean by it is probably wrong, but I don't care because it has become immensely clear you have no connection to reality. I have repeatedly said that the Democrats need to learn the lesson from this race and put effort into the Montana race and that there's no excuse for failing to do so now that they have the Kansas example. Again, you don't read. I don't know why you think it should be in a post about another subject. Majorian posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:58
|
|