|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Chuck Schumer's tweet about how that race was indicative of the upcoming Democratic party strategy isn't going over well at all. And yeah "we didn't know about it until last week" is a terrible excuse when the Republicans mobilized quickly to defend it.
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:they mobilized quickly last week to defend it, in a way that would have been ineffective and/or counterproductive for democrats Even if they didn't end up winning, I think putting in some money to show active support would have at least meant something and added credibility to their claims they are going to be pushing hard in 2018 and 2020. It may have been a total waste in terms of winning that specific seat but in a special election where they don't have to worry about allocating funds to other areas as much as a regular election it would have bought some good will at a small cost. As it is it just reminds a lot of people of other elections they have lost through apathy (such as a lot of Virginia state elections in 2016 where Hillary won districts they didn't even bother to run candidates in) which isn't the kind of impression they can't afford to be making when they are really struggling as a party. 6-7% is far enough that probably some more last minute support wouldn't have flipped it, but it's also close enough that you can see it as another failure of the party to predict and support possible wins. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Yeah I think the mistake was not giving him the $20 grand. It would have met what the candidate himself thought was appropriate, proved they supported long shot but possible races (which I think they are really going to need), and isn't really that much to just blow on the off chance that it tips the election. Going all in on a quixotic dream would have been bad as well since it is Kansas and it was a long shot. The Democrats are having a big problem with trust right now and this was a chance to build some for not much capital and they really blew it.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:6% when they did gently caress all and no one cares if the DNC spends money anywhere because most people don't follow political inside baseball like that - even special election voters. The seat was winnable. The idea that if the DNC started spending money there all of the GOP voters would suddenly remember that Pelosi exists (so they were right to do nothing) is probably the worst take on this for a bunch of reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
My possibly bad take is that 2016 should have been the wake up call that they needed to seriously re-evaluate their election strategies especially after 2014 gave them some indication of how things were starting to turn but if this is what finally does it I'm fine with that. The fear I think a lot of people have is that if 2016's absolute disaster wasn't enough to sufficiently make the people in charge of the party care then will this do it? I REALLY hope it is since I want Democrats to win elections.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
tekz posted:https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/851976615865331716 Lol that dude is apparently going back and deleting all those old tweets.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Typo posted:the typical trump supporter is a white dude in an area with $50k-$70k median income but is surrounded by poverty and opoid addiction neighborhoods and is afraid they are next That or sees them on TV all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:There's a way to make progressive policies attractive to flyover country without having to go 'i'm a republican but i guess fags can marry or something (once we have determined it has become popular enough to not be seen as a political liability) Fixed
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 14:15
|
|
' like we get from most (D) "centrists"
|
..eh not worth it
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Haha apparently the DNC and DCCC really want to tell Ossof to gently caress off and refuse to support him too? They have to save all that money to push a billion dollars on Booker's 2020 campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2013/08/01/obama-defends-larry-summers-against-attacks-liberal-media "GODDAMN LIBERAL MEDIA" - President Obama.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Holy poo poo. That's a new one, for me at least. God drat. Like that's evil for a Republican. The fact that Obama kept defending this guy really paints a negative portrait of him.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:St. Abuela If true this is really sad. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:this article and its comments are just awful "We keep losing elections what we need is less people voting for us!" Like even if you hate the idea of economic leftism like these guys seem to I just don't understand what their possible strategy is to getting into power to enact their goals. Maybe they are going back to the idiotic well of telling leftists they aren't needed and then blaming leftists for not voting. That will work this time for sure.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:From a reply: I wonder if she and Romney ever met up.  I'm not really sure which is worse: being anti-Vietnam war protests because you are so disconnected that you think it's actually a good thing for America or because you think it will embarrass your college. I guess the modern Democrat's obsession with appearance over actual substance goes back pretty far. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ok let's say that for a moment that, like you and Justice John Roberts do, I Yeah like there's always the response of "ugh the leftists and their purity tests..." but the reality is that the Democrats are at a really bad point and need every vote they can get. They are effectively shut out of government and have large unfavorability in general, not just leftists, so the attitude that they don't have to worry about voters is really stupid. It's also not just the leftists, regular people really don't like Wall Street very much and see the idea of politicians cozying up to them is distasteful. The Republicans can get away with it better because they aren't the party that is supposed to be on the side of the workers. When Hillary is giving GS speeches (and being secretive) she loses any credibility she has that she's going to be an ally of the workers those people are screwing. When Obama gives a speech to them less than a hundred days after leaving office in which during his tenure he actively protected them it looks kinda odd (I don't think Obama let them off for the promise of a future 400 grand but the optics are potentially bad). Obama doesn't have to worry about getting elected again, but as a "standard bearer" for the party that is still influencing the DNC what he does still matters and influences the perception of the party. A $400,000 gig isn't something Obama has to do either. He already has enough money for the rest of his life. I could maybe understand if he really needed the money but the whole idea that he should get every buck he can starts to sound similar to the rich people running up the score that Democrats normally talk bad about. Honestly this probably won't really matter since Obama himself is still very popular, especially when his replacement is so obviously awful but it's something that the Democrats really need to think about when they don't have the luxury of sitting back and letting voters decide that both parties are not worth voting for. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
The last time people said what are you going to do vote Republican about it, Donald Trump got elected. This almost certainly isn't going to matter much unless Obama really makes a habit out of it but it's certainly not a good look. Personally I find any politician getting $400,000 speaking gigs to be gross so I'd have no problem if they stopped doing that altogether. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
I love in D.C and I still can't believe none of the local hipster restaurants serve a Nothingburger.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Delicious cake.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Obama is also able to pull off dumb jokes and stuff while Hillary comes off mega awkward whenever she tries to be funny or connect with the kids at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Shutting down debate on if something SHOULD be done because it's ok by the rules is really irritating. It reminds me of the police threads where a young guy would get shot after being dragged out of his car after flashing his high beams at a cop and the debate would shift to "well see flashing your high beams is not actually legal so the end result where the cop shoots this 20 year old on side of the road is totally reasonable." Like some people just don't understand that people are mad at the rules that allow this to happen rather than that the rules were broken in some way.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
This is what has me worried the most. If they don't even care about winning elections, even pragmatism can't save us because the goal isn't to get elected. You can see this when people complain about obvious blunders and the instinct is to either say that it doesn't matter, is "all part of the plan and you shouldn't question your betters," or try and deflect to the Republicans. It definitely feels there is a powerful faction of Democrats that actively don't care about losing elections as long as they remain in power within the party. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 18:30 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
The somewhat good news is Obama->Trump voters have a good chance of flipping again since they are the types of people that vote against the guy in charge when their lives continue to suck. The bad news is that they will flip again when President Not Trump continues with bad policy that doesn't actually help anyone more than treading water as cost of living continues to increase and wages stagnate and the next guy after Trump might be smart enough not to step on a rake every time he tries to implement evil policy. Democrats can't see past the next election (if they can even see THAT) which is a huge problem and it's very evident when you have people saying that nothing needs to change because Trump will be so unpopular anyone can win against him and no mention of what happens after that.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Democrats have been trying to shame people into voting for them for two decades. It's never going to work out as a strategy. People will vote Democratic out of fear but an insignificant amount are going to hear "you are a traitor and the real problem if you vote third party" and switch over. The people voting third party are typically already pissed off enough at the Democrats they are making the effort to vote against them so being assholes in their direction isn't going to change their opinion and probably solidifies their choice.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 12:30 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
Yeah like regardless of what you feel about third party voters, yelling at them and calling them names and saying they are responsible for Bush/Trump/whoever clearly isn't a winning strategy and needs to stop. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:06 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i don't think it was stupid or spiteful for me to vote 3rd party in a safe-red state. maybe if there had been some momentum towards the dems in this state, but there wasn't any, especially for clinton I was complaining about this years ago that even if young people don't statistically vote, earning their trust by appealing to their interests will result in them being reliable voters when they are older. It might MAYBE even get them to vote now since it's possible young people don't vote because none of the ancient people in either party really gives a poo poo about their problems. I kept getting told that was a waste of time since they don't vote right now. Democrats are unable to plan for the future in terms of voter outreach and it's a real problem especially since their short term strategy isn't even working. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:09 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
Personally I think the effective way to let parties know is to vote strongly in the primary then rally behind the winner but gently caress it we can't even do that because it's too damaging to the fragile rear end centrist Democratic candidates to even run against them now once the party has decided preemptively who's the winner. Like Hillary Clinton and her supporters gave a poo poo about how damaged Bernie would have been (just like how rough they were against Obama) if he had somehow won.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
The absolutely lovely SCOTUS verdict and Gore's recount strategy had a lot more to do with 2000 than Nader, who siphoned off voters from both parties. More Democrats crossed the aisle to vote for Bush in Florida than that, which is doubly as damaging as simply throwing away your vote, so maybe people should be madder at the actual "traitors" than people whose votes they feel they are owed. "Third party voters" are just an excuse as to why a party continues to lose elections. If it's coming down to the meager amount of votes a candidate like Stein takes away maybe you hosed up regardless. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 18:29 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
This article makes the case that if you applied national break down of "who would you vote for in a two party race?" then yes Gore gets the win from Nader's voters however if you look at individual state polls it's much, much closer and not enough to definitively say that he could overcome 500 votes. I can't find the 2000 CNN state exit poll he is referring to though so maybe he's full of it. It also requires right leaning third party candidates to not be running since they took possible votes from Bush. Regardless the point isn't that Nader voters made a totally rational decision and they got the option they wanted (most certainly did not and I'm sure would have voted for Gore if they could take it back; I'm curious if the same could be said for the people that crossed the aisle if they really got what they wanted from Bush as Democrats), it's that Democrats shouldn't be focusing on a tiny fraction of voters they think they can shame into supporting them because of an election sixteen years ago. 2000 is pretty irrelevant in 2016 since even if there was a lesson to be learned by the general public, it's much more difficult to lecture a nebulous bunch of people that want to vote third party that they shouldn't than it is to have candidates become more appealing to voters.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:this is a dumb argument to be making when we know that conservative Democrats exist today (and it's a big complaint even!), and they did so in greater numbers in the past! Conservative Democrats are certainly a thing but there's no way any of them could have predicted what was going to happen during Bush's term and voted accordingly. Gore being an unappealing candidate probably had more to do with them flipping than wanting a Mideast quagmire for instance.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Not really, the likelihood that a candidate less hated than Clinton could have eked out a win on a Obama's-third-term-but-even-less-popular platform, with another 4 years of an obstructionist congress, unable to pass anything but the social security and medicare cuts you want, while the Democrats continue to bleed support and lose state-level races, is not exactly an auspicious sign for your ideology. Yeah I don't really see alternate universe President Hillary doing much more than kicking the can down the road four years since the obstruction would have continued and we'd just be in the same place as we are now if not worse (although a much better SCOTUS would have protected us from it a little; even if they continues to block Hillary's nominations it would be preferable to what we ended up with). The DNC would have considered a narrow victory against Trump an endorsement instead of the terrifying message that they squeezed out a victory based on the loathsomeness of their opponent and everything is fine. This country is in a really, really bad spot right now since a large amount of the population is driven entirely by hatred of the other to their own detriment and the terrible system we set up 200 years ago is falling apart at the seams under it's own undemocratic nature. It's really depressing. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:01 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
Typo posted:you would have a beer with him so he's the best candidate Barney Gumble/Norm Peterson 2020
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
That's going to be interesting to watch.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:"Stop being so mean to Abuelita! Wait, no, never mind, now stop being mean to comedians I like! Talk about politicians - just not Abuelita! Yeah it didn't go over great. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/us/politics/hillary-clinton-is-not-my-abuela-critics-say.html
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 16:10
|
|
"
|
Kilroy posted:IIRC Clinton won among poorer voters just not at the margins you usually expect a Democrat to do so. Yes this is the case. It's irritating since you see the attitude that she was betrayed by the poor even though as a group they voted for her stronger than other income demographics and Trump is just as bad for everyone who isn't mega rich. It's not like the middle class should get some kind of free pass like they are voting in their own interests.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:On the other hand, Dems are looking to grind the Senate to a virtual halt: I'm hoping this is effective since gumming up the works does a pretty good job of screwing the administrations goals and as we've learned most voters probably don't care about weird Senate protocol enough to blame them for holding things up anymore t han they could be blamed for doing nothing by Republican media.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You'll have to give JeffersonClay some time, he's in the Trump thread extolling the wonders of sweatshops, and the virtues of job creators for benevolently bestowing the gift of slave labor upon the benighted dusky-skinned peoples of the earth. Bwah??
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
Sometimes I guess the merciful and sensible liberal thing to do is allow illegally constructed buildings to catch fire killing the workers inside since the alternative is starving to death.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
It's a little creepy the attitude saying that people concerned with economic leftism are racist are being trotted out again to explain why sweat shops in foreign countries being run to benefit billionaires in first world nations are in fact a good thing and being against that exploitation is again the Real Racism.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:40 on May 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 16:36
|
|