|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
I am just loving amazed that people are taking a 20 point swing from 2016 in under 6 months and somehow painting it as DEMOCRATS BAD. This is spectacular news and points to a good chance of winning GA-6, MT-AL and SC-19 plus the state-level races in NJ and VA in the fall. There was almost no chance of winning a district that in a neutral environment is R-30 barring the Trump piss tape leaking. Why does everyone seem to be pissed instead of elated? How the gently caress is that the conclusion you take? If the GOP were suddenly competitive in deep blue districts in cities they'd be dancing from the rooftops. Why the gently caress can't our side ever enjoy anything? axeil fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Apr 12, 2017 |
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't know, personally. While it may not be replicable in all districts or states, I think it's a big sign that the Dems should run hard on economic populism, because even a little of it can go a long way. Yeah I'd be curious to see how they run in MT-AL. The playbook from this race seems like it would port well over there. Honestly I don't give a gently caress what anyone believes so long as they vote for Pelosi for Speaker and to investigate Trump. We can have our ideological slap fight after we take back control of the government and are crafting policy. Now's the time for banding together to defeat the greater evil. edit: doggie!  
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Because hoping that the other side fucks up so bad that you win by default isn't a good strategy. Also because the people who run the Democratic party have learned absolutely nothing. I dunno, 2006 worked pretty loving well for the Dems and it's looking like 2018 is going to be a repeat of that. I mean poo poo, in 2010 the GOP had the biggest wave election ever on OBAMACARE BAD ALSO OBAMA SUCKS TOO. The only reason it didn't work in 2004 is because the Kerry campaign was Clinton-level stupid about how to operate. Maarek posted:Donald Trump is going to be a trash fire of a president and, like after George W Bush's trash fire presidency, everyone to the left of Joe Manchin recognizes this might be an opportunity to take back power and enact policies that could wildly shift political rhetoric and maybe even change society for the better. Some people are sad right now because they see signs that the Democratic party will (again) blow that opportunity or worse yet somehow manage to not even take back power because they offer desperate and angry people a pile of lukewarm bullshit that they don't care about (again). Local politics matter. FULL COMMUNISM NOW won't work in Kansas any more than "actually guns are good" will work in NYC. The Dems successfully took back Congress after the deflating 2004 election in part because they realized that a combo of BUSH BAD and "run with whatever policy works at the local level for you" would get them enough votes to do stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
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. Now in 2017 they managed to recruit for all but 17 House Delegate districts and at the state level are aggressively targeting 17 seats that the GOP hold where Hillary got the most votes. It's a combination of targeting winnable seats but also spreading out enough resources that if someone drops the ball you're not totally screwed. It also gives you a lot of upside potential in a wave election. I too was freaking the gently caress out after November but the country hasn't totally collapsed, the Dems seem to be learning their lessons and things have set up really nicely for the 2017 and 2018 elections. Sure, Trump is president, but only for the next 3 years and the dude is even worse at the job than we thought and is going to be unable to do anything due to his incompetence. Things are looking good. It's okay to be happy, people. Maarek posted:Thompson's platform was basically a bunch of local political gripes and some vaguely populist rhetoric, so it seems like he would have been a good candidate for them to throw some actual money at if this is their line of thinking. Agreed, I think the $20k should have been provided as it's peanuts and engenders good will. You want to encourage people to run and funding little things like this gives folks confidence that if they stick their neck out and run in a hopeless situation they won't be left high and dry. That said, it was a single mistake and hopefully now that people realize what happened it won't be made again. Now if they gently caress up in MT-AL and leave them high and dry, then yes I'll be pissed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Even if 2018 is a wave and the dems take the house they are still going to lose most districts like Kansas 4. Yeah. The Dems winning KS-4 implies they gain something hilarious like 125 seats. I mean, it'd be wonderful but it's actually an argument as for why you should target more "winnable" races. In a landslide nothing matters because you're going to win anyway. If it's close then winning those few extra marginal seats might be the difference between wins and losses. Kinda like how Trump's campaign team realized the only way they can win is somehow grabbing WI/MI/PA and campaigning to that effect while the Hillary team was doing vanity events in TX/GA/AZ when winning those states wouldn't do any good because once you win them you've already won the Presidency.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The lesson from 2016 is that the people who have been running the Democratic party for the past couple of decades never were the canny political operators they and their fanclub imagined them to be. In fact they generally were a bunch of idiots and hence ought to be replaced. Yeah the Hillary campaign in general was just absurdly bad. I can see why you might want to stop down in a state you win in a wave if there's an important Senate or Governor's race there but Hillary's strategy of map expanding was anything but that. You win the Presidency with 270 EVs, you don't get bonus points for winning 400 EVs. For the House and Senate it's a bit different as the larger your majority is the easier it is to rule so I'm far more sympathetic to funding extreme long-shots there because you never know when you'll get a Todd Aiken or Christine O'Donnell type as your candidate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:This is likely more of a garbage in, garbage out sort of thing. There is probably a lot of value in Ada - bear in mind this was supposed to be the next iteration of the data-driven campaign that put Obama in the WH - but if you're cherry-picking data and flat-out ignoring evidence that contradicts your narrative, then you're probably better off not using it at all. Yeah, I mean for all the poo poo Nate Silver got throughout the entirety of 2016 his model was the only publicly available model that wasn't Bill Mitchell's Halloween Mask Sales level of stupid to indicate there's a reasonable chance Trump might win. All Nate did was note "whole lot more poor white people than usual seem to like Trump" and went from there. Presumably the internal model the Clinton team had would have shown this but if there was a hesitancy to trust it or they were feeding it bad data...well that's on them. My bigger suspicion is that the people at the top of the campaign had no idea how to actually use data. I mean again we are talking about a candidate who's campaign 8 years earlier was run by a person who didn't understand how delegate selection worked. Her chief political advisor clicked on the world's most obvious phising email. Hillary and her inner circle being unable or unwilling to understand analytics and modeling wouldn't surprise me in the least. In other news, anyone here think Ossof gets to 50%+1 tomorrow? I'm holding out my hopes given the overperformance in CA and KS but I think even if he doesn't get it he's got a great shot at the runoff. Ardennes posted:There some element of social mobility in there somewhere, usually from baby-boomers who might have come from lower/middle class backgrounds and were able to enter professional careers/go to elite universities. Of course, now that is the "bare minimum" for their children and they have the money basically to make sure those kids never have to ever worry. Put yourself in their shoes though. If you were them, why the hell would you want to overturn the apple cart? You can get a lot of these people you're demonizing to support reform but you're never going to get them to agree that their very existence is an affront to decency. We poo poo on poor white folks voting against their economic interests all the time here but we're supposed to accept that well-off social liberals should want to guillotine themselves? Not all of us have as much self-hatred as the average goon does. axeil fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Ossoff will get 45 or 46% tomorrow and then lose the runoff by a hair or two. I'd be disappointed but still okay with this result because again this is district is horribly gerrymandered in favor of the GOP. Unfortunately people will melt the gently caress down over it and declare all hope pointless and everything poo poo instead of re-doubling their efforts. But I think he's going to win (the run-off that is).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Part of good leadership is knowing when to express unpopular opinions, if they are right, and it's also knowing when to step aside because you're not the right one to lead. It's not the "marching to the guillotine", it's putting the interests of the nation above your own Eh the reason I'm still one of those scary ~*centrist*~ boogeymen is because I'm more worried if we go for big sweeping reform all at once the country will literally fall into fascism. I mean, if the little incremental changes of Obamacare and actually regulating business/the environment caused this, what would happen if the status quo was attacked even more fiercely? I admit this is a position that comes from economic privilege and it has 0 appeal to someone who is getting poo poo on for minimum wage. At the same time, you can get people in my cohort to support lefty stuff like a $15 minimum (which I support) if the left drops the "and we will drink the blood of the bourgeois" crap. It's the unfortunate reality of politics. Us centrists don't have enough on our own and we agree with the leftists on most stuff but the rhetoric can get a bit extreme which makes the "fairly well off suburban white dude" demographic nervous, but at the same time the leftists are pissed (rightly) and want real change and find people like me arguing about rhetoric insulting. I dunno. I think it's helpful to understand where and why people think what they think and focus on common grounds. To that end let's just remember to be excellent to each other, impeach Donald Trump and have our ideological knife fight after the greater evil is destroyed. Kilroy posted:On the other hand Nate wrote that "Trump's Six Stages of Doom" article which was dumb as hell and ultimately humiliated him. So while he ended up being "right", or rather being wrong by less than most anyone else, I think it's more a case of him fudging his own data to give Trump an edge that having a solid methodology. Eh, I mean even going back to his PECOTA days he's always been a big advocate for baking more error into your model, especially on things where there just isn't a lot of history (like presidential elections). But yes, those articles look really, really dumb in retrospect.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:What we learned from Obamacare is that the enemies of expanding the social safety net will call even modest reforms radical, might as well go big or go home. There is no political benefit to restraint. Hm, perhaps in the end Mcmagic Was Right After All.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
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. I believe JC is referring to how people throw around terms like ~*neo-liberal*~ ~*centrist*~ ~*DLC*~ and *~third wayism*~ as a boogyman for anyone who doesn't believe in Full Communism Now in this forum.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol that centrists hate being called centrists well at least i'm not a loving tankie
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:
the status quo is loving awesome and i love it and i benefit from it. except we have a president and congress who want to roll it all back and that's pretty bad! Paradoxish posted:Maybe, but GlyphGryph is also correct that "Third Way" is a real political term and it's appropriate to use it to refer to Bill Clinton, at least. Using it to describe Hillary Clinton in 2016 or centrists in general is maybe more questionable. GlyphGryph posted:Well then that's a weird way to respond to someone who was using the words to refer to the actual ideology and associated approach rather than talking about any specific boogeyman. Both are very fair points and I agree that it was a weird way to respond. Sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:christ, the WaPo review is garbage She had to win all three of PA/WI/MI and even if she had thrown more resources at WI and MI and somehow wins a squeaker she still probably loses PA because she ignored places like Scranton, State College, Harrisburg, Erie, etc. and was pretty much getting the maximum vote she reasonably could expect out of Philly and Pittsburgh. GlyphGryph posted:It's important to remember that it might be awesome for you in particular but it's very much not awesome for a very large number of people, and even for those whom it is still good it was even before on track to look much worse (and inevitably so) in the forseeable future. Agreed, which is why I'm a Democrat so they can fix the inevitable flaws that arise in any system. Pure status quo and steady state forever is just as dumb as lighting everything on fire. Sadly, I think I'm the only incrementalist left in this forum at this point. If the polling is there though then I say the Dems should go for it. axeil fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:Well, yeah, she ignored the parts of PA most demographically similar to the parts of WI and MI that cost her those states. That's the point. Oh.  Carry on then...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Is inequality a feature or a flaw? Some people are better than others. Ideally that is borne out through talent although in the current system, starting conditions matter far too much. We should work to achieve a system where all who have talent are able to rise to the top, regardless of where they start. GlyphGryph posted:Yeah but it means whenever you say it like you did, in a sweeping way, you're gonna piss off people for whom it's not true. Which doesn't really matter on an internet forum unless you want a conversation that isn't full of pissed off people (and who wants that?), but was a bit more of a problem when Hillary did it, hahah. As a veteran of the Primary Wars, everything is more fun when people are madposting (oh god no that isn't true at all, can't we all just get along and laugh at trump and post Cool Articles?) GlyphGryph posted:But seriously someone tell me that someone, anyone, on the National level is offering support to Quist because I am working really hard at political reform locally and I am gonna seriously lose like a third of my volunteers if the national Dems don't do something to signify an ounce of solidarity with a Sanders Democrat sometime soon. I'm far more interested in the Dems being less of a waste moving forward than re-litigating Hillary's bad campaign. In my brief googling it seems like the usual players in Act Blue and DKos are supporting him. The race isn't until May so hopefully after GA-6 finishes its first round tomorrow all eyes turn there. If not though...then yeah that is hosed up. Dude has been leading in some polling and seems to have a platform that's well tailored for MT. I've always thought that MT a much richer target for Dems than the other states they're always trying to bring along (GA, AZ, TX) given its history of contrarianism and electing lots of Dems at the state level in the past. True, you only pick up 1 rep and it's only 3 EVs but it still has 2 Senate seats like every other state and it's dirt cheap to carpet the place in ads. Same thing with the Dakotas especially now that the bottom has fallen out of the oil shale market and there's a lot of folks there without jobs. axeil fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:So gently caress all people without "talent?" If you have no skills or abilities you should be taken care and shouldn't be allowed to starve but that's it. A base level of being taken care of, not luxury. You should not have the same standard of living as people who provide value to society. The good news is that most everyone has a comparative advantage at something and most people want to be productive members of society. If we work to eliminate how crucial your parents' starting wealth/race is more people will find success in areas they are good at. I will never endorse a system that provides the same standard of living to every single person, regardless of talent or ability. Or put more simply, I will never endorse a communist system because it misunderstands basic human nature. There will always be haves and have nots, the goal is to not have the "have nots" be "starve to death" and the "haves" be "own your own private army".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:Or, maybe... they're humans and deserving of living an existence worth living? I agree! That's why I said they'd be provided for. Being provided for means being reasonably comfortable and not worrying about immediately dying. It means having adequate shelter, food and healthcare. It does not mean a nice house, nice car, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Lol you are so loving gross dude How is saying "people don't have a right to a luxurious existence with no work" causing everyone to fall into their fainting couch? This is not controversial. All I'm saying is that if people for whatever reason don't want to provide resources for society (in the form of labor, capital), they should not be fed to the metaphorical wolves. But this is a tiny fraction of humanity because most people like contributing things to their society. readingatwork posted:I THINK what your advocating for is a system that goes from "nice" to "really nice" and just communicating it poorly. This is correct.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Let's compromise and establish a system where the "haves" can have up to three times as much wealth as the "have nots". That seems like a good inequality ratio, and a hard cap really helps guide their activity towards behaviour that benefits society as a whole since their tide can only rise by actually lifting all boats. (also, it creates an extremely fertile environment for entrepreneurship while effectively destroying the damage that can be done by oligarchs) Sounds good to me! Although there can probably be some debate about what the optimal multiplier level is. The current system of 100x the "have nots" is clearly way too in favor of the haves but before settling on 3x it'd be nice to have some research backing that up. Maybe looking at Gini coefficients and overall happiness indexes? Ideally you also want to reinforce the safety net so when people go the entrepreneur route and fail they aren't completely wiped out for the rest of their lives.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:this assumes JeffersonClay would like to talk about how Democrats should change their policy going forward Because as we all know when the Democrats ran on "Bush Bad" in 2006 they failed to take back the House and Senate and when the Republicans ran on "Obama Bad" in 2010 and 2014 they didn't make historic gains in the House. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:Shitothy Geitner Are you a 5 year old? The gently caress is this, Rivals.com? Ze Pollack posted:The alternative is the axeils of the world having to come to terms with the fact there's really nothing special about them. I love that I've become this forum's boogy-man 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Tell us some more about the proper disposition of the lesser peoples of the world, axeil, and the precise degree of suffering you would prefer be visited upon them for their crimes. I think everyone should be excellent to each other
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/855015900495458304 As eye roll inducing as the stereotypical stoner is, the Dems should run on this and run hard. Even the GOP is generally in favor of legalizing weed. Could help turn people out too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
What I don't get is you guys all hate Wall Street and Obama is taking money away from them. Shouldn't that be seen as a good thing so they can't eat babies or do whatever other delusional thing you people think Wall Street does with their money?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Not sure if self-parody or just incredibly stupid. I'm being serious. Everyone itt hates the nefarious bankers for I dunno, not all killing themselves and having more money than them and being ~*neo-liberals*~, so why isn't reducing their money by giving it to a former POTUS a Good Thing. Feldegast42 posted:God this whole conversation is really depressing. We can't even convince leftists to take a firm stand against money in politics anymore, even if its obvious that no good (electoral or otherwise) is going to come out of it. 2018 is going to be a bloodbath and I'm not sure that its going to be against the GOP. I mean he shouldn't do it because it pisses people off but I'm arguing that the people being pissed off shouldn't give a poo poo and should actually be happy since it means EVIL BANKERS have less money. But these people will literally never be happy as they just spend their time looking for reasons to get mad at the Big Bad Evil Dems so if it's not this, it'll be some other thing that justifies their complete inaction and whining on the sidelines. That said, it does seem to piss a lot of people off so just don't do it. axeil fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:My man, these people treat millions of dollars like a middle-class person treats 1 dollar bills. 20 mill is a drop in the ocean of money they have Gotcha, so if they paid Obama more, like a billion instead $400,000 it'd be okay. I agree, Obama should've totally held out for more money. Gotta extract all that surplus value. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:They wouldn't be spending the money if they didn't think it would result in a net gain in some way. Whether that be through political favors, showing current politicians there's a payout for staying loyal to corporate interests, or even it simply being that Obama's speech will provide value to the company in and of itself. This isn't some clever ruse to steal money from the nefarious bankers, they're making an investment in political capital. It can't just be a vanity "we got a cool speaker" thing? I doubt companies really think former athletes and hollywood stars are fountains of wisdom but they get to come and speak. I mean, we also have no idea what he's going to say. If his speech is "you guys need to help defend the ACA" is the speech now okay? Again, given how fractured the party is and how pissed people seem to get about finance I'm totally fine with advocating for him not to do the speech. Where it irritates me is that the group of people getting upset about this will just find something else tomorrow that proves the Democrats Are The Real Bad Guys. There's no pleasing them unless you meet 100% of their ridiculous criteria and then the minute you slip up even a little they'll abandon you en masse and stab you in the back. Fansy posted:
He's right though. In the aggregate things are getting better. The problem is there are some people for whom things are getting worse or not getting as better and they're lashing out. These people should be provided for, however the existence of these folks doesn't undermine his argument.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 16:44
|
|