|
Rockopolis posted:If you're going to win anyway, why cheat? I mean, it's pointless and makes you look desperate. Why leave anything to chance? HRC thought that she was going to walk her way to the nomination in 2008 and some unknown half-black guy came out of the blue and slowly took it away from her. Just because my odds are good does not mean I am not going to foresake any opportunity to make them better. This does make me more sympathetic to Sanders supporters who have an axe to grind with the party. The DNC would be best off dissolving and reforming under a new name with a stricter, more transparent set of procedural guidelines. It is ridiculous that the party could let itself get so tied to one particular member like that (and especially one with as bad a track record of choosing people to trust as the Clintons). Kokoro Wish posted:So since the TV news media don't seem to want to cover it all that much, TYT Politics have a series of videos covering the Donna Brazile article out and breaking it down for their audience: It looks like it came up on CNN, though?
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:Biden might have pulled it out, but it would have been still close because honestly, I think Biden is actually neither a good candidate or politician. My feelings have been changing about this election. At the time, I thought it should have been a slam dunk, but I've found that: (1) Americans love a rebellious outsider narrative; (2) Americans don't appreciate leadership being tricky; and (3) the Clintons have, by their own actions and by the distortions of others, are viewed by people of all ideological stripes as dishonest, political survivors. HRC was a candidate of unique strengths that could have led to some cool policies, but she also had very unique and major flaws. It had been so long since the 90s that people like me forgot the deep, almost-pheromone level dislike she could inspire and that was the best thing that could have happened for Trump. It's easier said than done, but the Democrats really need to nominate someone new and more natural in front of the camera and in front of audiences. It means more than any kind of position whether we like it or not.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Boy, if only we asked the most popular politician in America what we should be doing... Are you talking about the Bernie? Because the poll I looked at that said that seemed pretty dubious to me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Remember that Bernie only became the politician with the highest favorables in the country because they stopped polling on Kasich after the election. His were also high for pretty much the same reason: no one on either side attacking him, and even people firmly on the opposing side of the aisle lionizing him as a "so much better than the one you picked" wedge. And Hillary Clinton has supposedly been the most admired woman in America multiple times. https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-rated-admired-woman-twenty-times/ It changes when she runs for something, though...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:I'm not really looking askance at Northam's chances or anything because Virginia seems like the kind of state that would look at all of his rear end in a top hat bullshit and go 'yeah that's what I call Governor material' without a second thought. How much aid was DFA giving to him? Are they a big force? This is really not the kind of thing you want to have when a race is tightening and it's all down to turnout. Can you really take all the #resist crowd for granted? I'd still vote for Northam, but I got a queasy feeling about things are going to end up next Tuesday.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Not a loving clue. You'd have to ask Your Boy Fancy about that kind of thing and I don't know if the guy posting in D&D every day about turnout efforts and the importance of said turnout is too hot on talking about an organization withdrawing turnout support. They're still helping other candidates, so maybe it's still okay? Then again, how many people go out to the ballot specifically to vote for a Lieutenant Governor or an assemblyman?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:If a candidate sends a signal to racists and isn't punished for it, instead receiving support anyway, what is the mechanism for removing racists from the gov again? Well, if the other candidate is more consistently racist and wins, the usual lesson almost everyone takes from this is “well, I guess we can’t count on more ideological liberals. We have to be more racist.” You can rag on evangelicals all you want for voting for people like Trump and Hastert, but those voters are getting what they want because they hold their nose and vote. What have they gotten in return? Control of the White House for 12 of the past 22 years. Control of the House for 18 out of the last 22 years and most of the presidential terms since 1980. They have had a long-lasting majority block of justices in the Supreme Court to support their anti-abortion crusade and many years in control of the Justice Department to prioritize what discrimnation, if any, gets punished. I’ve found that you get more accountability when you can point out that “you have this because of me” rather than saying “you would have had this if I showed up.”
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Harrow posted:I don't think anyone in this thread is going to argue that the Democrats are doing the right thing right now. All we're saying is that the alternative to voting for Democrats right now is ceding even more power to the GOP, and a lot of us don't think that's worth it for the vague hope that either the Democrats are going to magically reconfigure themselves into a leftist party, or that they'll crumble and be replaced by one, especially given the real world horrors that would happen in the mean time. I agree. I don’t like what Northam just did and it shows a lack of good political instincts, but I don’t see how Virginia under Gillespie for the next 4 years helps anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Part of me wants to nominate the kind of candidate that people like poopinmymouth want (which means ignoring what we have assumed about what makes a winning candidate). If the person wins, that’d be awesome. If they lose, at least we’d know what works, right? More data for the data set would be the silver lining. That assumes that people wouldn’t just chalk failures up to the system being “rigged,” which might be a terrible assumption to make. Brony Car fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Nov 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
How many states have a Working Families Party-like option in the US? That’s how I have been trying to show where I want mainstream Democrats to go during elections.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:We have 40 years of "centrist" triangulation data. The dems have decided that if labor and equality voters don't automatically donate their votes theyre traitors to the cause, ironically. Because they seem to think the cause is don't disrupt Martha's Vineyard. Why do you think triangulation happened in the first place, though? Why was the Clinton style popular? Why did Carter and McGovern and Mondale all get blown out? I agree that we have to move beyond the old Dick Morris way of thinking, but triangulation happened because of how Americans were thinking and voting and that’s always going to have to be taken into account when deciding on a new direction and making it a successful one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Condiv posted:remember when a recently elected, lesser-evil democrat did exactly that? whoops This is a bad example. West Virginia’s party situation and voter make-up is not the same as what you find in Virginia. West Virginia as a whole is way more conservative and Democrats are solidly in the minority there. Also, Justice was a Republican before 2015 and switched since he could not run as a Republican against Bill Cole and he ran as a first time “outsider”. Northam, for all his faults, is not the same kind of politician and not beholden to the same kind of pressures. He has more to lose by displeasing his own party. He’s not going to switch or turn into a mainstream Republican and he’s limited to one term anyway so a party switch would be pretty meaningless.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:you've forced the millions of detached nonvoters to glance at a ballot “Awesome! I can vote for Kid Rock!”
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Is Sunday not a good day to be doing phone banking? I'm working through a virtual phone bank and I'm not getting any answers. Maybe I should just set aside some time for early tomorrow evening?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Wasn’t Howard Dean broadly successful as chair? Dean helped contribute to the successes in 2006 and 2008. Ever since, the DNC seems to have departed from the long term 50 state strategy and got more and more invested in the special electoral map tricks that backfired so spectacularly in 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Any updates on the NYC mayor election, or NJ's governor election? De Blasio is walking his way to another mayoral term. People aren't really happy about him, but he's not in danger.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
EDIT: I misremembered some articles I had read previously about the DNC. Ignore this.
Brony Car fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Nov 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That doesn't make too much sense because DWS became DNC chair after the 2010 midterms. Tim Kaine was the one who replaced Dean in 2009. I've been scrambling a bit to find an article backing it up and it turns out I was very wrong. Sorry. https://www.snopes.com/tim-kaine-dnc-deal/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I mean Bernie raised $240 million, how much money do we need? I think a big reason why the Tea Party was as successful as it was came from having Fox News and talk radio and even local television commentators tell a lot of voters exactly what they wanted to hear about how the world was going and what the solutions were. It was not just a group of politicians coming out of nowhere with a message that spontaneously spread like wildfire. You had a whole media apparatus with billions of dollars spent by Murdoch and the Sinclair Broadcast Group repeating the same bits of folky wisdom, stereotypes, soundbites and supposedly rebellious "political incorrectness" so that voters would be open to the message the Tea Party candidates were giving. They're overhearing it at work on the radio. They're hearing the messaging when they're watching local news. They're reading it in the newspapers. They're hearing it during Sunday services. I don't think most American voters like believing that they're "into politics" or otherwise very political. They believe they're just trying to make it day-by-day and they're the reasonable, creamy middle between crazy extremes. The appeal of most conservatism, including the Tea Party, is that most people think they're just applying common sense to running a government instead of over-complicating or over-politicizing everything the way that liberals are. You had billions of donor dollars feeding commercials and editorials and news coverage over the years that has basically shaped the beliefs of many states in our country. And that's also ignoring the megachurches in our nation and how they can misuse their tax-exempt dollars too. So... I'm thinking we need at least 4 more Soros-style villains 10 years to get some sexy news sites and channels and indoctrinate some real party-style discipline in the left. A lot of the Right's messaging and voting consistency comes from sources that aren't overtly political and the left had not replicated that at all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Really, I guess it shows just how bad Hillary was to lose considering any other idiot can apparently beat Republicans with ease. Or maybe... Hillary died for our sins.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Filipino Freakout posted:He really really would be more happy at home with the Republicans, I seriously can't understand. Just lol "we should be the party of business" what the gently caress does that mean. Well, first, it's probably a lot harder to be the big man in the room when a whole bunch of other rich people are there. Also, he might be... socially liberal. Rich people are human and imperfect, like the rest of us. They put their pants on one leg at a time, sometimes with the help of a servant.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The Dem establishment has absolutely no idea about who is electable and who isn't, though. This is the absolute truth. Who looked at John Kerry and thought that he could win? It's like none of these people learned the basic laws of respect and charisma in high school. Or maybe my high school was different from other people's but the earnest nerd ALWAYS LOST.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Christ. Does anyone not in their jurisdictions have any means of pressuring people like Schumer or Perez? Do you mean "Pelosi" instead of "Perez?" Are you a big donor or a union leader or someone with authority in party circles? The issue with Schumer is that New Yorkers like him. If you picked out a not-so-consistent Manhattan Democrat and asked him what kind of senator he'd like, Chuck Schumer probably checks all the boxes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Mukaikubo posted:Quick question: I live in a congressional district with a 'moderate/centrist' democrat (NY 26th, Brian Higgins). Anyone know a good place to hunt for people running to primary him from the left I can donate/volunteer to? Is Brian Higgins that bad?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
For someone who seems to know the right thing to do, she seems to have spent very little time actually executing it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Democrats are trying to mobilize opposition to the Republican tax plan, but nobody seems to care all that much. I wonder how much of this is coming from a complacent feeling that the GOP will tear itself apart over this anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It seems to be a hasty reaction to realizing that suburban voters in VA helped carry the state and extrapolating that to the entire country: So do you think the party response needs to be more explicitly about the working class as opposed to the middle class? If they had said “working class” instead of suburbia, that would have provoked more protests and calls? My reading of that Slate article is that the general level of voter outrage is lower because Tax Policy changes are hard to explain easily and the proposals aren’t quite set yet. The Democrats are trying to get people riled up, but unless the GOP really walks into a trap by trying to mess with health care through tax code changes, we might not see the mind of outrage that it should get. It’s too bad they can’t set up a calculator telling people how much more they’ll have to pay under the new plan. That’s probably how you get people really involved.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:VA happened and their interpretation of that was not "oh wow, healthcare and social justice are important to people" it was apparently "look! look! The suburbs are important!" One can argue that until the GOP moves forward and gets rid of the insurance mandate, they can’t bash the tax reform proposals directly on health care grounds. And framing tax policy as a clear social justice issue is easier said than done. That kind of goes to various people’s points about who votes for Democrats now, but the “bash the 1%” approach does get you into some tricky territory with both college educated voters and donors.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:you know how you assumed "west virginians are not receptive to left-wing messaging" was a statement without any evidence backing it? The reasons they were not part of the Confederacy are pretty complicated and it’s not because they believed in racial equality. Edit: A lot of it was economically-driven. Even now, I’d like to see what parts of left wing messaging would appeal to the majority of West Virginia voters and how happy posters in this thread would be about what it would take to win in that state. Brony Car fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Run on a platform of increased road access, direct economic stimulus, hiring more workers for public works projects and the building of new infrastructure like clean energy, responsible conservation of nature reserves while preserving access to hunting for individuals, and higher-quality healthcare and better wages, subsidized childcare, etc. Focus on things that they will like, and try and sidestep questions about LGBT people or racial minorities as best you can. That sounds like Hillary Clinton to me. That’s like every reasonable Democrat centrist message from the past 20 years. Sadly, I think you lose everyone at “clean energy.”
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Some of yall must be posting from Earth Prime because I haven't seen a mainstream Democrat in this dimension support jobs programs or public works projects in my lifetime. I've only read about it in books. See p. 7 of the 2016 Democrat Party Platform about infrastructure investment, for example. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf Or 2008 (you can Ctrl+F for “rebuilding infrastructure”): http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78283 It was even mentioned in the 1988 platform: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29609 But if you’re thinking about bringing back the WPA from the New Deal era, then I guess you’re right, but it’s not like the Democrats haven’t pushed the idea of job creation through physical infrastructure investment in recent years. In recent years, Obama got derailed in pushing it forward after losing Congress and the fallout from Obamacare. I felt highway revitalization got mentioned a lot, but it was DOA due to GOP resistance. Maybe the Dems need to say it more often and in a different way or something like that? “New roads. New bridges.” Maybe “infrastructure” is too abstract of a word.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:If memory serves funding for signage saying "This port/road/bridge financed by American Recovery Act" was cut from the 2009 bill, meaning that infrastructure projects financed by the 2009 Stimulus often weren't advertised overtly in the way that New Deal projects were. New Albany, Indiana recently had a bunch of pissed off Chuds when the council renamed a new stretch of road Barack Obama Way in honor of the new industrial park built with those funds. Politicians somehow couldn’t find enough money to give themselves credit for likeable real property projects? That’s amateur hour. Iron Twinkie posted:I mean the same year of the 2016 platform was penned the same year water protectors were being brutalized in Standing Rock with the Democratic nominee disappearing up her own rear end in a top hat with "well both sides" and the sitting Democratic President was trying to ram through the TPP. How the gently caress am I supposed to take a policy paper seriously when it directly conflicts with what they actually loving do? I side with the Standing Rock protestors, but technically they were fighting against a job-creating infrastructure project that was popular with a lot of working class voters in the area...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
The Atlantic just put out an article about the tension between the union supporting and the ecological drives within the Democratic Party. It ties in pretty nicely to recent discussions: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/there-is-no-democratic-plan-to-fight-climate-change/543981/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:The bill is already running into problems that didn't exist as recent as yesterday. Like what? McCain just jumped onboard.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I just want a democratic, progressive candidate with enough charisma to go viral on their own without an ad campaign boosting them. We need a candidate who can generate their own publicity. I know he's Republican deep down, but it's obvious that the Democrats need to nominate KANYE WEST.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:At least he would care about black people. Unity ticket with LGBT darling and registered Republican Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
I think the "Pocahontas" moniker and the backstory behind it is going to be way more effective than any of us want to admit. It not only signals to racists on where to stand, but it's also helps paint her as inauthentic, which is apparently the worst thing a person can be when they run for office.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Is Sanders really going to run again? I like what he can bring to the table in terms of issues and policy, but I don’t actually like him as a general election candidate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Is there a general consensus on why Gen-X seems to run more conservative? I get why baby boomers vote the way they do, but Gen X doing the same thing is puzzling. Is this the legacy of growing up under Reagan?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:People do seem to get more conservative as they get older. It'll happen to the millennials, too. I'm Gen X and I remember lots of concerned articles about how radically left-wing we all were and how we were transforming the political environment to the left. Boomers, even more so - the hippies terrified the gently caress out of their parents because they thought they were communists. Did you see a bunch of posts contradicting me on that point you made about people getting more conservative as they get older?  I’m on the younger edge of Gen-X and my memory kind of differs from yours. I remember a lot of coverage on how Young Republican numbers were growing and how apathetic and apolitical a lot of us were. I also remember some agnst-ridden screeds on how prominent Baby Boomers selling out to become Yuppies basically discredited social activism (and made it look like a lame poseur pursuit) for our entire generation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 18:19
|
|