|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
The DNC is going to spend a billion dollars on an ad campaign explaining that Trump sucks because he lied and didn't do all the horrible things he promised.
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
The one good thing is that no one is donating to the DNC anymore and only to local politicians so the chances for everyone to get the same garbage campaign strategies is a little less.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
axelord posted:They will win seats in the House but not enough to get a majority and lose seats in the Senate. "Um the Democrats actually GAINED seats so clearly this wasn't a loss  "I've never seen people so proud of silver medals when there are only two contestents.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Like the whole point of centrism was it was supposed to be the compromise we needed to make in order to win elections even though we knew it wasn't ideal. That's been shown to not work, but over the years centrism has become the real ideology of the party leaders so purists want to continue down that path despite all failures. I know that the argument is that because leftists don't compromise and vote dogmatically the plan doesn't work, but for some reason the people that are VERY concerned about being pragmatic in winning elections always want the leftists to vote based on the lesser of two evils despite not getting what they want (other than not enacting all the GOP policies) while not making the theoretical people that want centrist policies to compromise ever. Like why is it never "hmm we are going hard left this year and if you upper middle class Democrats don't vote for this candidate you are traitors responsible for the GOP winning"? Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
I have a vague memory of the 2008 Democratic primary but I can't seem to find anything on it to confirm if I'm remembering it correctly. It was during one of the earlier debates where a bunch of people were still in it. Afterwards, I THINK it was Edwards, threw together an attack ad on Hillary that basically just highlighted to amount of times she flipped to opposite opinions in that one debate based on the question asked. It jives with how she hilariously flipped on gay marriage from not wanting to offend social conservatives to always being an ally once the Log Cabin Republicans and the courts made her lack of support irrelevant but I don't want to bring it up if it's untrue. Does anyone else remember that happening? The Democrats really need to pay for her to take a three year vacation since talking to my Republican family members they still hate her with a passion even after her loss and she's not doing anyone any favors by reminding everyone she sucks so bad.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
It's weird how leftists are constantly told that their wishes are impossible but they should vote anyway for candidates that support things they oppose (and if the candidates lose they are worse than Republicans regardless of how many of them held their nose and came out) but centrists are never asked to capitulate ever. If centrist Democrats were as pragmatic as they claimed we should get Lenin McCommie on the ballot since surely they would all understand game theory and vote against the Republican leading to a landslide.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
That Hillary thought Trump was the easy mode candidate instead of JEB! is another mark against her ability to understand politics. A bunch of people underestimated Trump all along the process but I kinda expected the person who has been in the political system for over thirty years to have some intuition on what gets someone elected. Of course maybe Trump WAS the easiest to beat and any of those guys would have won, we have no way of knowing. To be somewhat fair she got screwed by our lovely electoral system but she went in knowing the rules. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Sep 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Hillary burning every bridge she can makes me at least somewhat hopeful that at least she specifically won't have as much pull over the Democratic party. I know there were some stories of her party friends getting really annoyed they were also getting thrown under the bus along with the Bernie, leftists, poor, etc that failed her after running her absurdly expensive campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:The amount of dumbasses like Peter Daou and Mark Penn and Podesta she surrounded herself with doesn't speak well to her management skills anyway. The Clintons have always surrounded themselves with incompetent yes men that have impressive resumes despite constantly being wrong. It's why I was super shocked that Mcauliffe turned out to be pretty decent despite me voting for him as a hate vote against the Cooch.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:He still managed to kneecap Hillary's campaign by letting it slip that, "Oh, she's TOTALLY onboard with TPP, she's just PRETENDING that she isn't to placate the Bernie Bros!" Which was one of the best examples of how terribly-run her campaign was. Holy God, what a shitshow. Haha yeah I imagine him saying that while holding a beer. For being run by a bunch of nerds feeding data into a computer, the entire campaign was such a disorganized mess.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
I thought Democratic fundraising was basically the same, just that money was going to candidates instead of people donating to the DNC which is now fantastically unpopular.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Yeah the DNC has no loving idea what they are doing so any money not going to them instead of actual candidates is good. Of course a national organization that was actually interested in winning elections would be preferable but it's pretty clear at this point that the DNC is a social club first and a political party second.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Yeah if this works as it's being reported that's pretty great.Majorian posted:She's good on the procedural poo poo and pulling cool House maneuvers, but she's terrible as a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. I think this is totally accurate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i like that bernie is ignoring hillary's jabs and whining about how she was wronged during the election and is instead focusing on helping people I'm late to this verrit thing but reading Peter Daou's twitter feed is like looking into an alternate dimension. It's all people complaining that Bernie obviously cost Hillary her win because he called her crooked, he is the real one dividing the party with his constant complaining about Clinton post election and didn't support her enough after the primary, leftists are the ones that can't get over the primary and keep rehashing it unlike them, Clinton critics are all either Russian bots or conservative, sexist racist Bernie bros, and that non-leftist Democrats have absolutely no voice in the party anymore. These people are so detached from reality it's a little scary and frankly they aren't that different from hardcore Trump people in terms of cultlike mentality. I wouldn't be surprised if we have another Hillary is 44 situation where a chunk of her supporters are so bitter that they go hard right and back the Republican in the next round when she is no longer the nominee. I'm glad Bernie's response to all this is to basically "this isn't worth my time there's more important things going on" since Clinton and her camp are pretty clearly willing to publicly burn ever bridge they can if it absolves them of any responsibility. The Clintons are absolutely toxic to politics both within and outside the Democratic party and need to be severed. Was there any other candidate that went on this sort of six month long blaming tour after losing, it just feels unprecedented. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Sep 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
Yeah I'm hoping that's the case as well. I remember some articles about people saying that she wasn't pleasing anyone when she added some establishment DNCers to the list of people who failed her. I'm not sure what's to be gained by keeping her around even if you are the most pragmatic centrist alive. If you want to make the case she's the best fundraiser around, money clearly isn't buying US elections so it's not worth it.Lightning Knight posted:Your grasp of the level of influence white supremacy has had on the history of United States economics, a nation built by slaves on the corpses of Native Americans, where we fought a devastating civil war just to end slavery in only the most technical sense and continue to this day to use and abuse black people, is frankly insulting. Your willingness to downplay the incredible inequality of the New Deal for minorities is hilarious - what is "redlining," again? Posting MLK quotes like they're the end of an argument while absolving white people for electing an orange rodeo clown on the promise of "gently caress minorities" is asinine. Yeah this exactly. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Sep 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
The best is that in Daou's less obviously idiotic tweets he has a bunch of dummies telling him how awesome he is. He also retweeted his wife saying how right he is.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Hillary: I UNDERSTAND THE COMEDY! HOW DO YOU DO, FELLOW KIDS? BLEEP BLOOP! This can't be real. It just can't.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I honestly don't know if it's actually in the book or not, but it's certainly true in spirit. I always thought that joke was her throwing the first thing she thought of out there based a thing she heard The Kids were into but obviously knew nothing about. If that quote is real then it means she either put work into it OR she felt the need to retroactively defend it by saying she had. Either way it's  and I just can't believe there's a person that out of touch. I just can't believe it so I need to see that confirmed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
How deep in the tank do you have to be to think Daou is doing Hillary any favors here?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
Remember also that May and her Tories basically see eye to eye with Trump on Muslim immigrants among other minorities they want to screw over so the idea that Obama and his crew are champions of the oppressed is laughable. Like I've said with Democrats social leftism will be trumped by economic conservatism every time. They are only supportive of equal rights once someone else has done the legwork or there is absolutely no cost. Seriously Obama was a not good and I'm sick of people making excuses for his waste of eight years that got us here. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
I think Hillary's fans are closer to Trump supporters than Obama's if you line them up against one another but yeah the cult of personality is pretty strong here and overrules any objective analysis of policy. It doesn't help that Obama was pretty good for the sort of people that set narratives for the country so they had no reason not to love him. I'd really love though that this is the nail in the casket of idiots that say Congress, Lieberman, or whoever in his cabinet was the cause for him not doing much progressive anything but I know that's not the case.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
One of the issues with Hillary is that if there hadn't been a concerted effort to paint Sander's fans as sexist and racist there wouldn't have been nearly as much bad blood after the primary. It's one thing to go after the opposing candidates which is the point of the primary, but there was a lot of messaging that supporting economic leftism inherently resulted in racism. That's not to say that they weren't racist or sexist Sanders supporters, which there definitely were, but the entire movement was painted with that brush and the mentality still exists today in her supporters. People are going to obviously take personal attacks personally and even then 90% of Sanders people went to Hillary in the general. There is literally no reason to attack people voting in your own primaries as it fosters deep divides within your own party. Getting rid of the Clintons isn't going to solve the big issues with the Democrats and their love of right wing policy, but it will hopefully result in less toxic elections where salting the earth is fine as long as you might get ahead. Hillary deciding that she needs to go after everyone from the leftists to Obama is probably a good thing since at least everyone has a common reason to quietly retire her from influence (I'm probably being too hopeful there).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Remember that May sees eye to eye with the Republican party on immigrants, LGBT people, and kicking the disabled off medical assistance so they die. She isn't some mythical conservative that is socially progressive. The fact that Obama felt it was cool to be buddies with her over Corbyn pretty much shows how they feel about social leftism the second they don't think someone is paying attention. "Socially liberal but fiscally conservative" is as much a lie as Compassionate Conservatism was.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Democratic uselessness is a little different than Republicans. Republicans run on the idea that all government sucks (ignore that we are the government  ). Democrats use the excuse that everything has to be done incredibly slowly, so slowly you may not even ever notice a difference. Expecting anything to get better quickly is childish and not serious. It's how they support the status quo while pretending they don't. This sort of super slow movement logic doesn't really apply to everything though so you can sort out pretty quickly what they actually support and what they don't.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
If I was Hillary Clinton I would take all my money and just vamoose to a tropical paradise, live off my wealth in my twilight years, and hang out with all the rich people I considers my peers. I wouldn't even need to be with Bill anymore if I didn't feel like it since who gives a poo poo about optics when you just bug out. It sounds a lot more fun than wasting time with this stupid tour.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Yeah Bernie, an independent with little national name recognition prior, doing as well as he did in the Democratic Primary should have been a canary that something was seriously wrong but instead they want to pretend they can yell at people enough to come vote out of obligation because the party leadership can never be wrong despite constant loses. The fact they still don't understand that the Democratic branding is mud is pretty bad. They KINDA get it when you see them make claims they can't support certain candidates because if people are reminded a Democrat is running they will vote against them but that's more of an excuse to ignore certain races. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Just remember that something like 80% of Dems like Sanders, and that Hillary's popularity has dropped further since she released this book and started talking. Almost nobody is buying this. It definitely feels like people are seeing this as a loser flailing desperately to save face more than anything else. I don't see why anyone would be in the tank for her anymore unless you are personally attached to her failed campaign in some way. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:See it's *~*~pragmatism~*~* A lot of those state seats were literally surrendered since the Democrats didn't feel the need to even run again the GOP. Even Hillary won districts in Virginia that had seats which were unopposed. That's "Pragmatism;" literally giving up and losing because why bother if you can't be 51% sure of a win?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Lmao If you ever get to the point where you think "voters failed the party" makes sense get the gently caress out of politics. Even if that was remotely true (which it certainly isn't, Hillary Clinton isn't entitled to be President because of her resume or how lovely her opponent she wanted to run against is), it's defeatism and has no solution to make future wins.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
Like I don't understand how in the tank you have to be to look at the bungling mess the Democrats have made of Republican opposition, even taking the inherent anti-Democratic systems of this country like the EC and Senate into consideration, and think "yeah these guys are totally playing to win and their strategy is working great." There's only so many excuses you can make before you have to realize that it's not about winning at all costs, it's about being devoted to a very specific ideology and pretending that is the only way despite all evidence to the contrary.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
"People deserve what they get for voting incorrectly, even if they themselves didn't vote for the bad candidate but live in areas where they are outnumbered or neither candidate cares about their interests" doesn't really speak to the compassionate nature of pragmatic politics. It reminds me of arguing with people here before 2016 in which they couldn't understand why you would do anything for younger Americans. Since they aren't going to vote for you in high enough numbers statistically in midterms they should be pragmatically ignored. The entire nature of that ideology is wait until people vote for you and then do what they want (maybe) which is so ludicrously backwards and it's clearly not working. At this point as Hillary is displaying, for many it's about punishing people that don't show sufficient faith in their betters rather than adapt to winning elections.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It was fuckin bizarre. Seriously. You say "Younger people are drowning in debt before they enter the job market, which alone should cause widespread outrage, and can't afford to start families because even if they get hired those jobs are horribly underpaid." and the response would be something like "if we do anything that implies we are going left we will lose out on our important Even if it was the Pragmatic thing to do (which it clearly wasn't) you are sacrificing your party's entire future because these people aren't going to suddenly start liking you when they turn 35 and are still hosed over by your lovely half backed compromises. Condiv posted:they had to compromise with blue dogs apparently Even Manchin is turning on this which makes Pelosi's comment even more stupid. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:maybe lieberman's win had something to do with the dems refusing to support lamont? Think on this the next time some poo poo says "Bernie isn't even a Democrat."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
The cynic in me feels they 100% knew the Republicans would sabotage everything but didn't really want to shake things up as much as the public wanted so it was safer to just walk into Republican land mines and claim they couldn't do better. Obama getting his SCOTUS seat stolen I think probably shocked them a bit since they still felt that bipartisanship was somehow a thing and they wouldn't go THAT far but they were idiots to believe that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
The real use of the filibuster is to give the majority party an excuse for why they can't fulfill their campaign promises despite having majority control. The fact that it is so easily circumvented when things really matter makes that pretty clear. The only people that give a poo poo about breaking out the nuclear option are political wonks and pundits, or people that don't want whatever is passing to pass. Notice how many people that thought that democracy was over when the Democrats used it with the ACA suddenly didn't care when it was used to steal a SCOTUS seat. There is literally no political cost to overriding the filibuster if you are using it for what your voters want and the Senate is so far up its own rear end it thinks people care about its dumb rules. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
The charitable excuse is that they were naive idiots. The less than charitable reasons are that they were either cowards and too terrified of any sort of resistance reflecting badly on them, were not actually interested in passing what they said they were and used the Republicans as a scapegoat, or were so committed to the process and institutions of government that they were willing to sacrifice their goals in order to follow the rules they knew the other side had no interest in. So the nicest way to explain the way the Democrats acted when they had majority control was they were hopelessly stupid and that's the type of people we are supposed to trust implicitly to protect us from maniacs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Yeah it's 100% clear that Hillary resents her most progressing platform in history and if she had been allowed to go scorched earth on Bernie while keeping her original vision she surely would have gotten all the upper middle class working professionals in the swing states.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
I'm actually curious if they are going to do another favorability poll on Hillary (since people seem to love doing those in contrast to Trump) since this tour seems like it's designed to piss off everyone that's not a die hard supporter and that book signing quote up thread seems like she's not even being very generous to them either.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:I'm beginning to think that centrists and centrist media are less neoliberal ideologues and more just run of the mill cover-your-rear end middle managers but with Ivy League credentials. I think this is accurate but they probably legitimately don't want their taxes to go up either.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
The same sort of person that works at a desk and thinks $15 an hour minimum wage is going to destroy every service industry is probably the same sort of person that feels any tax increase means they will get less money which is more important than anything else. Neither of those are going to affect them (unless they are like my friend that was working as a newspaper reporter for $10 an hour before she finally had enough).steinrokkan posted:So what, poor people don't want to die, that is a more legitimate concern. Yeah I agree I probably should have said "earnestly" instead of "legitimately" which was badly phrased on my part. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Sep 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 15:52
|
|