|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
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. quote:
Why oh why didn't Nancy Pelosi paint a giant target on his back?
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
I'd usually defer to the candidate in terms of strategy but Thompson had never run a serious campaign before, right? This was the republican messaging when he won the nomination.quote:Yet again, Kansas Democrats nominate a Nancy Pelosi rubber stamp more concerned with obstruction, massive spending increases, retaining failed Obamacare, and weakening national security than serving the people of the Fourth District I agree that spending 20K would have been well worth it just to stop the whining, but it wouldn't have bought him seven points. He got 200K from small donors.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Your defense of the Democratic Party refusing to support a winnable seat is "if the Democratic Party tried to support its candidate it would only hurt them." I'm not sure this seat was actually winnable. Once the seat looked somewhat competitive the GOP started dropping money and charismatic white men on the race, and they've got more of both. It's entirely possible for the DNC to have the power to affect the outcomes of some races and not others, and one example of the latter does not mean that it's useless. Crowsbeak posted:Let's see if the Centrists here in anyway try to counter this. You know then engage in more personal attacks, fallowed by trying to downplay Berniecrats contributuions and turning Thompson into a bluedog. Thompson wouldn't have been a blue dog, but he ran a campaign that was pretty drat centrist. Healthcare is completely absent from his website other than for veterans and seniors, for instance. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
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... That's exactly what happened. The DNC gave 3k and phonebankers and the republicans drowned the race in money. The DNC giving more money just makes the strategy less efficient. Crowsbeak posted:Oh lol. Now because the GOP actually tried to win it the democrats had every right to do nothing. I just love the idiocy of sociopaths like you. Also LOL about the website again. NO ONE READS THE loving WEBSITE BESIDES YOU loving CENTRISTS. The secret internet that only centrist sociopaths can access, tell me more. Thompson didn't run on leftist healthcare. The closest I can find is hm defending the ACA. Here's his position on the minimum wage. quote:Wages are incredibly important in terms of ending the inequality problems that plague our country. I absolutely believe that minimum wage should be $15, but I also know that situations are different here in Kansas than they are in California or NYC, and that we can't just mandate that happening overnight
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:He got endorsed by Our Revolution, called for a $15 minimum wage, and said in an AMA (yeah, I know, but still) that he supports single payer, although he doesn't see it coming around the bend particularly soon. He may not be a full-on socialist or whatever, but he ran on a fairly populist platform in a very, very tough district, and did remarkably well. I don't think it's accurate to say he ran a centrist campaign. He called for a 15 dollar minimum wage at some unspecified time in the future because rural Kansas isn't the same as NYC and you can't change things overnight. I don't think he actually campaigned on 15. Similarly he supports single payer but didn't advocate any specific implementation and didn't campaign on the issue. Supporting 15 and single payer are the magic words he said to get out of state Bernie money that he put into his moderate campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The only reason JC isn't a massive hypocrite is that you need more self-awareness than he has, to be one of those. You think Hillary didn't run a progressive campaign because the progressive positions were on her website, but you think Thompson is a progressive because he said he supports single payer and 15 on a Reddit AMA and he won't even support them on his website or anywhere else.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Actually I think both Clinton and Thompson should have been more vocal about the parts of their platform that draw from progressive causes, and I don't think Thompson is super progressive just that he's not a conservative Democrat either. So it's just you here contradicting yourself. As usual. So you think Thompson ran a standard democratic campaign but that he totally would have won if he'd just been more progressive in his R+30 district? You're delusional. quote:I suppose I should also point out that if Thompson does an AMA where he talks about single payer and 15 that's a lot more believable than Hillary finally doing that after figuring out the winds are blowing at gale force in that direction within her party and the Sanders wing basically forcing her to. Then mostly ignoring those issues in the general. I should point it out, even though I know you've got a ready-made excuse prepared and you don't give a poo poo. The Sanders wing forced Thompson to state he supported 15 and single payer to get their money, and once he got it he ignored those issues in his campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, but Thompson doesn't have a 30-year record of supporting austerity or free trade, though. Baggage counts for a lot in politics. He campaigned on making trade agreements that made it easier for Kansans to export agricultural products. That's code for free trade agreements.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're making the incredibly unwise assumption that economic populism has nothing to offer in an R+30 district - particularly when most Dems haven't tried that strategy in quite a while anyway. Unless economic populism means standard moderate democrat policies, Thompson didn't run on it. quote:How did they "force" him to do that? That was a precondition to giving him money.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:There's a bit of a difference between that and NAFTA or TPP, wouldn't you agree? Not an important one, no. You know how NAFTA allowed midwestern farmers to sell corn and wheat to Mexico that put a bunch of Mexican farmers out of business? That's the trade policy he's advocating. He articulates it with the Trump "good deals" rhetoric. Kilroy posted:He came within 6% despite saying those progressive things in this R+30 district. You know I think you need to step up your excuse-making game - it's been really off lately. I guess now that centrists are safely in control of the party you don't think it's worth the effort anymore? He said those progressive things on Reddit but not to his electorate you dunce. quote:And where is this "oh Bernie Sanders put him in a choke hold that's why he said those things on Reddit for $900" coming from?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/books/shattered-charts-hillary-clintons-course-into-the-iceberg.html?_r=0 The more blame that is placed on the Clinton campaign for the loss, the less need the democrats will feel to make fundamental changes in policy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Counterpoint: The more blame that is placed on Clinton and her campaign for the loss, the more we can make third way clintonism absolutely toxic to touch in the future. (of course that will do little to stop Hillary from running again in 2020 but it could prevent her from winning the primary as people realize she's a born loser when it comes to presidential races) Third way Clintonism, whatever that might mean, does not proscribe how campaigns should be run. criticizing the campaign for not listening to Bill Clinton or not running a winning campaign like he did gives third way clintonists cover. It allows them to blame Hillary and Robby Mook rather than the ideas and policies at the heart of her candidacy. If you think that the Putin's Puppet focus is a convenient excuse for democrats to deny the need for authentic leftist policy, I can't understand how you could see focusing on the competence of the campaign any differently. It doesn't matter if Robby Mook hosed up the campaign or if Putin hacked it, either option implies the ideas themselves were not at fault.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I mean, it kind of highlights how incredibly out-of-touch she was, which is at the center of third-way Clintonism. Was Bill Clinton notoriously out of touch? It sounds like you're defining "Third way clintonism" to just mean anything you don't like about Clinton and then asserting that those features are somehow an inseparable part of the philosophy. Obviously no third way people are advocating running campaigns that are out of touch. Instead, focusing on how out of touch Hillary was just makes it easier for them to blame her and not the policies she advocated. They'll say she failed not because she was too much like bill (in terms of policy) but not enough like him (in terms of political competence).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You know the New Democrats and Third Wayism (which was larger than the Clinton's, they just gave it a local flavour) are actually coherent political philosophies, and pushed as such, and pushed by a rather clear central circle of individuals. Yes I am aware that third way democrats have a set of policy preferences. The point that you cut off is in bold. JeffersonClay posted:Third way Clintonism, whatever that might mean, does not proscribe how campaigns should be run. If the goal is to get third way democrats to realize their policies are responsible for Democrats losing elections, focusing on the disfunction of Hillary's campaign is counterproductive, because third way democrats don't advocate running inept campaigns. If the objection to the focus on Russian interference is that centrist democrats will blame Russia for the loss and not centrist policy, it seems like that objection is equally applicable to focusing on the incompetence of the Clinton campaign. centrists will blame her lovely campaign apparatus instead of the centrist policies the left thinks are ultimately responsible for the democratic party's decline. I dont understand how people can view the Russia investigation as a distraction while simultaneously gleefully discussing Hillary's campaign's non-policy failings. Both have the effect of exonerating centrist policies.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
I don't disagree with you. We could add Russian interference to that list, too. But some people think Russian interference is a distraction from the failures of centrist policy, and it seems like those people should think the same thing about the competence of Hillary's campaign. both issues allow the defenders of centrist policy to deflect blame, either by blaming putin or Mook instead of third way policies.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Ok thanks for the dumb leftist explanation but I was hoping for a smart one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
WampaLord posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
WampaLord posted: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. They really don't. Third way centrism doesn't suggest Robbie Mook listen to his computer algorithm over people on the ground. Nor does it proscribe misallocating campaign funds. Bill Clinton did not run inept campaigns, despite advocating third way policies. The Clinton campaign was inept therefore her policies were bad does not follow logically. Majorian posted:I don't think anyone is focusing on the competence of Hillary's campaign beyond snickering at it. No one here is saying, "Objective number 1 needs to be having a campaign that understands data better in 2020." Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren certainly aren't focusing on it; they're saying, "Objective number 1 is a return to economic populism." Yes, and my point is that focusing on the failures of the campaign's management, structure and implementation make it easier for centrist democrats to focus on "understand data better" than "economic populism". Just like Russia makes it easier for centrist democrats to focus on "he cheated" than "economic populism". JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Seriously, though, the feedback loop is exciting to watch. Hillary's policies don't excite people, so her sycophants tell her to campaign on anything but policy, so she actively avoids taking any progressive stances, so she continues to fail to inspire her base, so her sycophants tell her to double down on the empty platitudes harder, repeat for twelve months and we arrive at lost, broken creatures claiming that if only the Hillary campaign had been a little more racist with its empty platitudes they'd have won. I'm literally arguing that focusing on Robbie Mook's algorithm or wasting money in the LA media market makes it easier for centrists to ignore policy issues by focusing on the non-policy ineptitude of the campaign. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, but I can't see any reason why its any better to talk about Robbie Mook loving us over than Putin loving us over.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You know, the more I get exposed to internal party politics in real life, and the more I read from other people who have spent a lot of time in it, I am beginning to believe that running "bad campaigns" are actually, sincerely an ideological issue for a certain class of Democrat. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
WampaLord posted: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. Trump's campaign was also heavily triangulated, on healthcare, trade, and military interventionism he broke with Republican Party orthodoxy and presented a message designed to attract moderates and liberals.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Actually some people were saying they're the same thing, which they're not.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:Hillary Clinton was phenomenally inept at both, which ultimately cost her the election. Which part of this don't you understand? I can't see any reason why its any better to talk about Robbie Mook loving us over than Putin loving us over. Both diminish the argument that policy was the reason dems lost.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So in unrelated speculation, I'm looking forwards to when Labour's defeat in June allows the right wing of that party to regain control of it and stop the ascent of the left in the broader Anglophone world. If anyone thought the third way centrists had peacefully acquisced to a soft left compromise I think they're in for a rude shock in the next year or two Isn't the Corbynista position that his terrible favorability numbers are due to backstabbing centrists?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's a good position too I don't know much about Corbyn, or U.K. politics. It is curious that when centrists talk poo poo about a leftist party leader, that's unconscionable backstabbing. But when leftists talk poo poo about a centrist party leader, don't you dare suggest they owe the party their votes or try to stifle their dissent.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:this is the thread about democrats. please post in the uk thread if you wanna argue about corbyn, thanks. I am talking about the democrats. Corbyn wins leadership election. Some centrists poo poo the bed and tear into him, tanking his popularity. He was backstabbed. Clinton wins primary. Some leftists poo poo the bed and tear into her, hurting her popularity. Nothing to see here. Personally I think making GBS threads on your own party leaders is self-destructive whether from the left or the center but that's obviously not your position. Kilroy posted:Maybe there's a difference between a leftist candidate for the leadership winning on a wave of popular support, then being pilloried by establishment Blairites even to the detriment of their own drat party, and a Blairite winning the leadership as though it's their birthright and doing nothing for their constituency despite insisting they're owed the votes. I'm pretty sure the difference is that the Labor electorate that chose Corbyn is tiny compared to the Democrat electorate that chose Clinton. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Hillary Clinton was not a leader of the Democratic party. She was a hang-on do-nothing win-nothing loser. The only thing she led was her campaign staff into disaster. She won the primary dude, are you still in denial? She's not the leader now but she sure was 6 months ago.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's idiotic and you know it. Sanders' criticisms of Clinton were mild at most, and Trump would have made those same criticisms himself anyway. He was beating the right-wing economic populist drum long before the primaries even started. The labor backstabbers weren't making any arguments against Corbyn that the Tories hadn't already made. Suggesting a candidate is in thrall to Wall Street and cannot be trusted is not a mild criticism. quote:He's using "leader" to mean "someone who actually leads," not "someone who winds up in the position that should be leading." Ok then he's willfully misunderstanding how I was using the term leader. Corbyn and Clinton were both the person their party chose to become chief executive if they won the election.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
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. I don't have any problem with these statements. I have a problem with people who espouse them but also claim Corbyn has disasterous approval ratings because he was Backstabbed, which was Condiv's assertion. quote:It was a turn-of-phrase, intended to show you where Clinton failed as a leader. Apparently that went way over your head. It was a dumb reflexive response designed to obsfuscate the point.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted: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.. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
If you look at the empirical record of Corey booker's senate votes he's indistinguishable from Tammy Baldwin and Liz Warren. http://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Scalia and RBG on the Supreme Court ruled together on a lot of cases, but it doesn't make Scalia a progressive, it just means a lot of their job isn't strictly ideological. The source I provided measured both overall votes and votes on key progressive issues. Booker is 98% in the former and 96% on the latter. Joe Manchin is the 48th most progressive at 58%/71%, and Susan Collins is the 49th at 27%/38%. Booker has a very progressive voting record.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Gun control isn't a leftist/centrist thing, it's a white/nonwhite thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Hey JC going to answer if HRC was a traitor for being mean to Obama back in 08. I mean you seem to think that lefties were traitors for being mean to her in 16. I'd happily classify the PUMAs as traitors to the party. I don't begrudge Bernie for attacking Clinton during the primary. But he wasn't willing to walk it back afterwords. Like he was unwilling to say she could be trusted after the Primary, he'd just pivot to Trump is worse.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Maybe do a google search for gun control race poll and consider editing your post?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:This doesn't make gun control an intrinsically racial issue. I mean, unless you want to disarm minorities in the face of an increasingly militarized police. Support for gun control is significantly correlated with race. Latinos are by far the most supportive of gun control.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Sanders wouldn't have done poo poo, he would've been another Carter. But then again at least Carter won Carter was a fiscal conservative who stopped Ted Kennedy from passing UHC and guaranteed government employment. Bernie would have been like Corbyn.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
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? You voted for Gary Johnson in Pennsylvania.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 22:48
|
|