|
Mooseontheloose posted:The only real kinda kernel truth here, for me personally, is that Hillary Clinton was ostensibly punished for doing her job correctly from people who were nascent into the national level politics. If you don't like her or her policies, fine but to come in and tell her that all her hard work made her unqualified for the job is a tough pill to swallow. She worked hard to have relationships with people in the party, she played the game, and then people decided that the rules are dumb and she was awful by playing by the rules. Going by this answer I'm guessing you've probably spent some time thinking about this next one. What value is there in working hard to have relationships with people in the party and playing the game when that approach has, to all appearances, resulted in an historically low number of offices held by Democrats at both the state and federal levels, the most prominent of which is now held by someone nascent at any level of politics, who has worked hard to alienate people within his party and to emphatically not play the game? Are the professional campaign workers in the party just writing this off to the reactionary cycle we've found ourselves in where we shift from GOP back to Dem and vice versa every Presidential cycle, or are they reexamining some of their approaches to things?
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 10:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:However, I don't think people realized how hard it is to get to a high level in politics without some game playing. I know I don't understand the difficulties of getting to a high level in politics, could you explain some of the nuts and bolts of what goes on there?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
You shitlords are loving awful.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2018 12:52
|
|