Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Last 2016 Election Thread You'll Ever Wear

17475777980100

Posts

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    The parts of the post based on feelings was about how that was about how you're making baseless assumptions about how we feel. By throwing that out you're basically showing that not only are you fine with making those assumptions, you don't give a fuck when we tell you that those assumptions are wrong. I mean, you're belittling me for correcting you about an assertion that you brought up.
    The problem with this assertion is that you, in that post, went on to make a number of unsupported assertions about how I feel. So if we're going to have that discussion we all need to scrape back down to ground level and start over, because these assumptions have us talking about caricatures of each other rather than anything real.
    So the only way he would have had an impact would be to depress turnout as a whole, but Clinton outperformed those you are painting as vulnerable in this construction anyway

    Well, yes. Of course. Here's a simple example: Let's say there is a small state with 8 Clinton Democrats, 2 Bernie Democrats, and 9 Republicans. Bernie attacks Clinton, and his supporters choose not to show up on election day. The actual voters are thus 8 Clinton Democrats and 9 Republicans--Trump wins the state. Downballot, some hard left Berniecrat is running for senate against a moderate Republican. One of the Clinton Democrats decides to cross ballot, and the Republican wins 10-7.

    That's of course an oversimplification; in real life, the 2 Bernie Democrats might identify as progressive or Dem-leaning independents, while perhaps the Clinton Democrats who switched downticket might actually identify as a moderate independent. But add in a bit more shades of voters and the point still applies. If Bernie's people decided to stay home, then it wouldn't be surprising at all to see Clinton outperform downticket Berniecrats. It also wouldn't be surprising to see those downticket Berniecrats outperform Clinton if Bernie's people decided to vote Trump instead of staying at home. There are many mechanisms at play, each of the hundred thirty odd million voters does things a bit different, and it's not as simple as that gotcha you're trying to make.
    because there's no data that says he did

    Well, you're getting into kind of non-falsifiable territory here. There are definitely some non-zero number of people who identify as Democrat or typically vote Democrat, and decided not to vote for Clinton because of Bernie. Some of them even liked her before the primary and then changed their minds. We can see effects, actual polling numbers, showing Clinton's favorability ratings drop throughout the primary, even among Democrats. That's sure as hell not good! So it certainly happened, it's just a matter of numbers. We can't really prove anything (I'm not aware of any polls explicitly asking people if they were planning on voting for Hillary until Bernie, and even if there were the numbers would be too low to be useful and the question relies too much on self-reflection to be useful). But it's silly to say that Bernie is a saint just because the evidence he had a detrimental impact is circumstantial.

    I mean, it's easy to shift the goalposts and say "No, that didn't happen" or "Okay maybe it happened a little but it was only a few people who had their voice magnified by the internet" until suddenly a candidate loses by a small margin. Bernie doesn't need to have shifted things by twenty percent to have damaged Democratic candidates.
    This whole assertion is, again, built on supposition and "might have been"s. And, again, I'm not saying that Sanders is a saint. My contention the whole time has been that the primary is the place we have these arguments as a party, as has been the refrain around here for ages until this cycle. Contentious primaries tell us where we are as a party, and impact our representation. That is a good thing. The fight that was had during this primary, and is still playing out within the party, has been coming for a very long time. This is why I chafe at Sanders being the focal point for the ire over it, because he just happened to be in the right/wrong place at the wrong/right time to end up riding a wave from it. Sanders has some qualities that make him attractive to people who are otherwise disaffected by Democratic party politics, but he's definitely not the person most of us would have chosen as our avatar. He was just the one saying the things we wanted our candidate saying during the primary.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    The idea that someone who is insanely popular within a population is simultaneously dividing that population is frankly ridiculous.

    What? If you're turning a portion of the population against someone who the population prefers overall, then you're clearly dividing it.

    Like, I'm baffled at how you could possibly make any kind of assertion to the contrary. That's literally what dividing means.

    No? It's not. Sanders isn't currently turning anyone against anything. And, again, there's limited data at best to imply that this happened during the campaign itself. The people he "turned against" Clinton were very unlikely to have previously been her strong supporters.

    The word you're looking for, instead of "divisive", is "disruptive". Sanders has proven significantly disruptive within the party, specifically to the perception of the power structures of the party. This is not the same thing as dividing the party against itself unless you view those power structures as sacrosanct.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    The parts of the post based on feelings was about how that was about how you're making baseless assumptions about how we feel. By throwing that out you're basically showing that not only are you fine with making those assumptions, you don't give a fuck when we tell you that those assumptions are wrong. I mean, you're belittling me for correcting you about an assertion that you brought up.
    The problem with this assertion is that you, in that post, went on to make a number of unsupported assertions about how I feel. So if we're going to have that discussion we all need to scrape back down to ground level and start over, because these assumptions have us talking about caricatures of each other rather than anything real.
    So the only way he would have had an impact would be to depress turnout as a whole, but Clinton outperformed those you are painting as vulnerable in this construction anyway

    Well, yes. Of course. Here's a simple example: Let's say there is a small state with 8 Clinton Democrats, 2 Bernie Democrats, and 9 Republicans. Bernie attacks Clinton, and his supporters choose not to show up on election day. The actual voters are thus 8 Clinton Democrats and 9 Republicans--Trump wins the state. Downballot, some hard left Berniecrat is running for senate against a moderate Republican. One of the Clinton Democrats decides to cross ballot, and the Republican wins 10-7.

    That's of course an oversimplification; in real life, the 2 Bernie Democrats might identify as progressive or Dem-leaning independents, while perhaps the Clinton Democrats who switched downticket might actually identify as a moderate independent. But add in a bit more shades of voters and the point still applies. If Bernie's people decided to stay home, then it wouldn't be surprising at all to see Clinton outperform downticket Berniecrats. It also wouldn't be surprising to see those downticket Berniecrats outperform Clinton if Bernie's people decided to vote Trump instead of staying at home. There are many mechanisms at play, each of the hundred thirty odd million voters does things a bit different, and it's not as simple as that gotcha you're trying to make.
    because there's no data that says he did

    Well, you're getting into kind of non-falsifiable territory here. There are definitely some non-zero number of people who identify as Democrat or typically vote Democrat, and decided not to vote for Clinton because of Bernie. Some of them even liked her before the primary and then changed their minds. We can see effects, actual polling numbers, showing Clinton's favorability ratings drop throughout the primary, even among Democrats. That's sure as hell not good! So it certainly happened, it's just a matter of numbers. We can't really prove anything (I'm not aware of any polls explicitly asking people if they were planning on voting for Hillary until Bernie, and even if there were the numbers would be too low to be useful and the question relies too much on self-reflection to be useful). But it's silly to say that Bernie is a saint just because the evidence he had a detrimental impact is circumstantial.

    I mean, it's easy to shift the goalposts and say "No, that didn't happen" or "Okay maybe it happened a little but it was only a few people who had their voice magnified by the internet" until suddenly a candidate loses by a small margin. Bernie doesn't need to have shifted things by twenty percent to have damaged Democratic candidates.
    This whole assertion is, again, built on supposition and "might have been"s. And, again, I'm not saying that Sanders is a saint. My contention the whole time has been that the primary is the place we have these arguments as a party, as has been the refrain around here for ages until this cycle. Contentious primaries tell us where we are as a party, and impact our representation. That is a good thing. The fight that was had during this primary, and is still playing out within the party, has been coming for a very long time. This is why I chafe at Sanders being the focal point for the ire over it, because he just happened to be in the right/wrong place at the wrong/right time to end up riding a wave from it. Sanders has some qualities that make him attractive to people who are otherwise disaffected by Democratic party politics, but he's definitely not the person most of us would have chosen as our avatar. He was just the one saying the things we wanted our candidate saying during the primary.

    The only couple of times in my last few posts where I made any kind of comments about your feelings was in direct response to things you explicitly said. When I said "...as much as you want to be able to just say that this is old news...", it was in response to you saying "Look, we've been through this." When I said "it's easy to shift the goalposts and say ... 'Okay maybe it happened a little but it was only a few people who had their voice magnified by the internet' ...", it was in response to you saying "Which is to say that both are vanishingly small but have their voices amplified by the internet."

    So, no. No real assumptions there, just rephrasing things you explicitly said.

    And then you go right back to trying to strawman us again, with the exact same sorts of assertions that you were making with the chair election, that you think we're mad that Sanders(/Ellison) had a voice. We're not. We're perfectly happy with contentious primaries. I would prefer that dissenting voices and a few opposing viewpoints are present, so that the party as a whole has a chance to have a discussion instead of having it decided beforehand. I supported Bernie when he first announced his candidacy. That has literally nothing to do with why we don't like him. It has everything to do with the fact that he and his campaign were and are making personal rather than policy attacks. If he wants to say something like her healthcare plans or free college plans don't go far enough, that's cool! It's great to have that discussion! On the other hand, if he wants to say that "I don't believe that [Clinton] is qualified", if he wants to attack Perez without actually pointing to anything specific outside of being "establishment", that is where we start getting angry.

    ArdolHarry Dresden
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    I had a snarky reply partially written, but I don't think that's a useful way of handling any of this so I deleted it. I'm not here trying to score points, after all.

    I had stayed out of this thread for so long because I have no desire to relitigate the primaries which is, essentially, the purpose of this thread at this point. The quality of my life is not improved by going round and round about the behavior of various parties during the primary, or ruminating on the potential-but-unsupported models of effect they may have had on turnout in various places. I'm really, truly done with this fight, because it is less than pointless now. Hell, it was pointless by September at the latest.

    So I apologize to any I may have offended, or whose blood pressure I may have raised to primary-contention levels.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    MrMister
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Pants, the problem is that you insist on seeing everything through the Clinton v Sanders lens. That perspective makes it very hard to discuss things that are actually happening with you, because it keeps dragging you backward.

    As to your other point, liberal and progressive are not the same thing in the context of the democratic party. Regardless of how much some members of the liberal wing would love everyone to think so right now.

    We're talking about the election, and we are all pretty agreed on the whole Trump vs Clinton thing. So we're going to talk about Clinton vs Bernie.

    Fine. But talking about what's happening now in the same terms ignores a ton of things that aren't the stupid personality-based conflcts around those two factions.

    Trying to boil down the happenings in the Democratic party into Bernie vs Hillary is so reductive as to be completely worthless. And only serves to perpetuate the stupid conflict that everyone seems to want to pay lip service to ending without actually taking any of the steps to do so themselves.
    Sigh.

    I'm not making this up. Its the central point of contention at every state party election. Its coming up constantly. The entire point is the Bernie faction shouldn't be boiling it down to that, but are.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    Solomaxwell6Ardol
  • Bobkins FlymoBobkins Flymo Fantastic Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited March 21
    The election had a wide spectrum of smaller issues that cost Clinton the election, from her own campaign's blunders to weakening of the VRA.

    Acting like all election talk boils down to Bernie fucking Sanders is hilariously myopic.

    Bobkins Flymo on
    U9Syuit.png
    MatevwanderingFakefauxFrankiedarlingjoshofalltradesenlightenedbumKraintshrykeNobodyShortyShadowenBlackDragon480Mr Ray
  • FakefauxFakefaux Humbaba My friend, we have reduced the forest to a wasteland, how shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?Registered User regular
    The election had a wide spectrum of smaller issues that cost Clinton the election, from her own campaign's blunders to weakening of the VRA.

    Acting like all election talk boils down to Bernie fucking Sanders is hilariously myopic.

    It'd be more hilarious if so many liberals didn't seem to buy into that view, or similarly myopic views that pin the Clinton campaign's failure wholly on outside forces. If we don't learn from what happened we are going to be in for an extra rough time over the next four to eight years. Yet it feels like there's a faction within the Democratic Party dedicated to standing athwart progress, yelling Stop.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I think even if we hate each other's guts, we ultimately agree that what matters most is pouring money into state legislative victories in 2020 and earning our fair share of redistricting rights

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • FakefauxFakefaux Humbaba My friend, we have reduced the forest to a wasteland, how shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I think even if we hate each other's guts, we ultimately agree that what matters most is pouring money into state legislative victories in 2020 and earning our fair share of redistricting rights

    The problem, of course, is that the things the factions hate each other over are also the things they think will determine the party's success in future elections. With so much at stake neither side has any incentive to back down, because in their mind if the other side gets its way then the Democratic Party will be steamrolled again.

    Commander Zoom
  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited March 21
    So It Goes on
    Yet if the remark wasn’t sexist in intent, it still suggests a troubling vision of politics as a contest in domination.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    The election had a wide spectrum of smaller issues that cost Clinton the election, from her own campaign's blunders to weakening of the VRA.

    Acting like all election talk boils down to Bernie fucking Sanders is hilariously myopic.

    What I love about this statement is that it's a total Rorschach moment, because it applies to both the Bernie and Hillary voters.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    shryke
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular

    Wisniewski is running a gubernatorial primary campaign that is basically based on destroying the mainstream party and that he is a Sanders die hard.

    I get about three emails from his campaign a week and 2 of the 3 will name drop Bernie at minimum.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • MrMisterMrMister If you shoot an arrow, and it goes real high--hooray for youRegistered User regular
    edited March 21
    PantsB wrote: »
    He lost a primary by 20% when people exercised their democratic rights within the party

    "One man, one vote, once," I guess. You had your chance in 2016, guys, you're done now.

    There have always been ideological factions within larger party structures. Blue dog democrats, progressive caucus, third way democrats, new deal democrats, (eugh) "reagan" Democrats, etc. These labels exist for the same reason that parties themselves exist: to facilitate coordination between likeminded lawmakers and to communicate a brand to the voters who choose those lawmakers. There's nothing wrong with someone running and describing themselves as progressive, or a blue dog, or third way, or whatever. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone running in a state or local race by saying "you liked Bernie? I'm a Berniecrat!" That's one of the quickest ways to connect with voters, a pitch they'll be able to immediately process in light of the recent past. A lot of politicians perceiving that there's an untapped potential there and then jumping on the train is one of the ways that parties re-orient themselves to reflect new developments in the voting population.

    There is a special irony here, given that the Bernie crowd were routinely accused during the election of being too focused on "the big chair." This was said to indicate romanticism, idiocy, and laziness. It was a failure of political and personal morality to only pay attention to the sexy top of the ticket races, instead of the real work of building a viable movement. A viable movement, as opposed to a circle jerk of unserious narcissists, would focus on taking offices down the ticket. But then now we discover when, after the election, Bernie spinoff organizations, political supporters, and newcomers styling themselves in his mould have in fact gone on to run for just those downticket races--for party officers and party chairs, city councils, mayorships, statehouses, and so on--this is... also perfidy?

    I'll take a hard pass on... well, pretty much all of this.

    MrMister on
    FakefauxApothe0sisskyknytjoshofalltradesenlightenedbumNobodyKraintchocoboliciousCaedwyrYamiB.override367BertezBertezShortyElkiEddyCaptain Marcus
  • FakefauxFakefaux Humbaba My friend, we have reduced the forest to a wasteland, how shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »

    Wisniewski is running a gubernatorial primary campaign that is basically based on destroying the mainstream party and that he is a Sanders die hard.

    I get about three emails from his campaign a week and 2 of the 3 will name drop Bernie at minimum.

    So, what, because the guy's pro Bernie he's lying?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    He lost a primary by 20% when people exercised their democratic rights within the party

    "One man, one vote, once," I guess. You had your chance in 2016, guys, you're done now.

    There have always been ideological factions within larger party structures. Blue dog democrats, progressive caucus, third way democrats, new deal democrats, (eugh) "reagan" Democrats, etc. These labels exist for the same reason that parties themselves exist: to facilitate coordination between likeminded lawmakers and to communicate a brand to the voters who choose those lawmakers. There's nothing wrong with someone running and describing themselves as progressive, or a blue dog, or third way, or whatever. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone running in a state or local race by saying "you liked Bernie? I'm a Berniecrat!" That's one of the quickest ways to connect with voters, a quick pitch they'll be able to process and connect to the recent past. A lot of politicians perceiving that there's an untapped potential there and then jumping on the train is one of the ways that parties re-orient themselves to reflect new developments in the voting population.

    There is a special irony here, given that the Bernie crowd were routinely accused during the election of being too focused on "the big chair." This was said to indicate romanticism, idiocy, and laziness. It was a failure of political and personal morality to only pay attention to the sexy top of the ticket races, instead of the real work of building a viable movement. A viable movement, as opposed to a circle jerk of unserious narcissists, would focus on taking offices down the ticket. But then now we discover when, after the election, Bernie spinoff organizations, political supporters, and newcomers styling themselves in his mould have in fact gone on to run for just those downticket races--for party officers and party chairs, city councils, mayorships, statehouses, and so on--this is... also perfidy?

    I'll take a hard pass on... well, pretty much all of this.

    I agree with most of this but Reagan Democrats weren't Democrats anymore. They were/are Republicans.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    shryke
  • FakefauxFakefaux Humbaba My friend, we have reduced the forest to a wasteland, how shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    He lost a primary by 20% when people exercised their democratic rights within the party

    "One man, one vote, once," I guess. You had your chance in 2016, guys, you're done now.

    There have always been ideological factions within larger party structures. Blue dog democrats, progressive caucus, third way democrats, new deal democrats, (eugh) "reagan" Democrats, etc. These labels exist for the same reason that parties themselves exist: to facilitate coordination between likeminded lawmakers and to communicate a brand to the voters who choose those lawmakers. There's nothing wrong with someone running and describing themselves as progressive, or a blue dog, or third way, or whatever. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone running in a state or local race by saying "you liked Bernie? I'm a Berniecrat!" That's one of the quickest ways to connect with voters, a quick pitch they'll be able to process and connect to the recent past. A lot of politicians perceiving that there's an untapped potential there and then jumping on the train is one of the ways that parties re-orient themselves to reflect new developments in the voting population.

    There is a special irony here, given that the Bernie crowd were routinely accused during the election of being too focused on "the big chair." This was said to indicate romanticism, idiocy, and laziness. It was a failure of political and personal morality to only pay attention to the sexy top of the ticket races, instead of the real work of building a viable movement. A viable movement, as opposed to a circle jerk of unserious narcissists, would focus on taking offices down the ticket. But then now we discover when, after the election, Bernie spinoff organizations, political supporters, and newcomers styling themselves in his mould have in fact gone on to run for just those downticket races--for party officers and party chairs, city councils, mayorships, statehouses, and so on--this is... also perfidy?

    I'll take a hard pass on... well, pretty much all of this.

    I agree with most of this but Reagan Democrats weren't Democrats anymore. They were/are Republicans.

    Startin' to think the same applies to the New Democrats.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    He lost a primary by 20% when people exercised their democratic rights within the party

    "One man, one vote, once," I guess. You had your chance in 2016, guys, you're done now.

    There have always been ideological factions within larger party structures. Blue dog democrats, progressive caucus, third way democrats, new deal democrats, (eugh) "reagan" Democrats, etc. These labels exist for the same reason that parties themselves exist: to facilitate coordination between likeminded lawmakers and to communicate a brand to the voters who choose those lawmakers. There's nothing wrong with someone running and describing themselves as progressive, or a blue dog, or third way, or whatever. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone running in a state or local race by saying "you liked Bernie? I'm a Berniecrat!" That's one of the quickest ways to connect with voters, a quick pitch they'll be able to process and connect to the recent past. A lot of politicians perceiving that there's an untapped potential there and then jumping on the train is one of the ways that parties re-orient themselves to reflect new developments in the voting population.

    There is a special irony here, given that the Bernie crowd were routinely accused during the election of being too focused on "the big chair." This was said to indicate romanticism, idiocy, and laziness. It was a failure of political and personal morality to only pay attention to the sexy top of the ticket races, instead of the real work of building a viable movement. A viable movement, as opposed to a circle jerk of unserious narcissists, would focus on taking offices down the ticket. But then now we discover when, after the election, Bernie spinoff organizations, political supporters, and newcomers styling themselves in his mould have in fact gone on to run for just those downticket races--for party officers and party chairs, city councils, mayorships, statehouses, and so on--this is... also perfidy?

    I'll take a hard pass on... well, pretty much all of this.

    I agree with most of this but Reagan Democrats weren't Democrats anymore. They were/are Republicans.

    Startin' to think the same applies to the New Democrats.

    New Democrats still vote for Democrats is the difference.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • FakefauxFakefaux Humbaba My friend, we have reduced the forest to a wasteland, how shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?Registered User regular
    edited March 21
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    He lost a primary by 20% when people exercised their democratic rights within the party

    "One man, one vote, once," I guess. You had your chance in 2016, guys, you're done now.

    There have always been ideological factions within larger party structures. Blue dog democrats, progressive caucus, third way democrats, new deal democrats, (eugh) "reagan" Democrats, etc. These labels exist for the same reason that parties themselves exist: to facilitate coordination between likeminded lawmakers and to communicate a brand to the voters who choose those lawmakers. There's nothing wrong with someone running and describing themselves as progressive, or a blue dog, or third way, or whatever. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone running in a state or local race by saying "you liked Bernie? I'm a Berniecrat!" That's one of the quickest ways to connect with voters, a quick pitch they'll be able to process and connect to the recent past. A lot of politicians perceiving that there's an untapped potential there and then jumping on the train is one of the ways that parties re-orient themselves to reflect new developments in the voting population.

    There is a special irony here, given that the Bernie crowd were routinely accused during the election of being too focused on "the big chair." This was said to indicate romanticism, idiocy, and laziness. It was a failure of political and personal morality to only pay attention to the sexy top of the ticket races, instead of the real work of building a viable movement. A viable movement, as opposed to a circle jerk of unserious narcissists, would focus on taking offices down the ticket. But then now we discover when, after the election, Bernie spinoff organizations, political supporters, and newcomers styling themselves in his mould have in fact gone on to run for just those downticket races--for party officers and party chairs, city councils, mayorships, statehouses, and so on--this is... also perfidy?

    I'll take a hard pass on... well, pretty much all of this.

    I agree with most of this but Reagan Democrats weren't Democrats anymore. They were/are Republicans.

    Startin' to think the same applies to the New Democrats.

    New Democrats still vote for Democrats is the difference.

    They vote for Democrats who, like the Blue Dog Democrats, don't necessarily vote for what are theoretically the Party's goals. Or, if they don't have a candidate like that, perhaps they just don't vote. And some, I suspect, do indeed vote Republican when they find it the more palatable option.

    Fakefaux on
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »

    Wisniewski is running a gubernatorial primary campaign that is basically based on destroying the mainstream party and that he is a Sanders die hard.

    I get about three emails from his campaign a week and 2 of the 3 will name drop Bernie at minimum.

    So, what, because the guy's pro Bernie he's lying?

    It certainly means he has an incentive to embellish his story to make his battle with the "establishment" sound however he prefers.

    Dumb Hero wrote: »
    "Okay, you take 2d4 damage from the ogre's dick impaling your 2inch anus"
    Satan! Look here!
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    He lost a primary by 20% when people exercised their democratic rights within the party

    "One man, one vote, once," I guess. You had your chance in 2016, guys, you're done now.

    There have always been ideological factions within larger party structures. Blue dog democrats, progressive caucus, third way democrats, new deal democrats, (eugh) "reagan" Democrats, etc. These labels exist for the same reason that parties themselves exist: to facilitate coordination between likeminded lawmakers and to communicate a brand to the voters who choose those lawmakers. There's nothing wrong with someone running and describing themselves as progressive, or a blue dog, or third way, or whatever. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone running in a state or local race by saying "you liked Bernie? I'm a Berniecrat!" That's one of the quickest ways to connect with voters, a quick pitch they'll be able to process and connect to the recent past. A lot of politicians perceiving that there's an untapped potential there and then jumping on the train is one of the ways that parties re-orient themselves to reflect new developments in the voting population.

    There is a special irony here, given that the Bernie crowd were routinely accused during the election of being too focused on "the big chair." This was said to indicate romanticism, idiocy, and laziness. It was a failure of political and personal morality to only pay attention to the sexy top of the ticket races, instead of the real work of building a viable movement. A viable movement, as opposed to a circle jerk of unserious narcissists, would focus on taking offices down the ticket. But then now we discover when, after the election, Bernie spinoff organizations, political supporters, and newcomers styling themselves in his mould have in fact gone on to run for just those downticket races--for party officers and party chairs, city councils, mayorships, statehouses, and so on--this is... also perfidy?

    I'll take a hard pass on... well, pretty much all of this.

    I agree with most of this but Reagan Democrats weren't Democrats anymore. They were/are Republicans.

    Startin' to think the same applies to the New Democrats.

    New Democrats still vote for Democrats is the difference.

    They vote for Democrats who, like the Blue Dog Democrats, don't necessarily vote for what are theoretically the Party's goals. Or, if they don't have a candidate like that, perhaps they just don't vote. And some, I suspect, do indeed vote Republican when they find it the more palatable option.

    What evidence is there of this?

  • FakefauxFakefaux Humbaba My friend, we have reduced the forest to a wasteland, how shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »

    Wisniewski is running a gubernatorial primary campaign that is basically based on destroying the mainstream party and that he is a Sanders die hard.

    I get about three emails from his campaign a week and 2 of the 3 will name drop Bernie at minimum.

    So, what, because the guy's pro Bernie he's lying?

    It certainly means he has an incentive to embellish his story to make his battle with the "establishment" sound however he prefers.

    Do you have any reason to believe this is the case? Because it sure sounds like you're saying "hey, this guy is Pro-Bernie guy/anti-establishment therefore he cannot be speaking in good faith" without engaging with the possibly validity of his claims.

  • FakefauxFakefaux Humbaba My friend, we have reduced the forest to a wasteland, how shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    He lost a primary by 20% when people exercised their democratic rights within the party

    "One man, one vote, once," I guess. You had your chance in 2016, guys, you're done now.

    There have always been ideological factions within larger party structures. Blue dog democrats, progressive caucus, third way democrats, new deal democrats, (eugh) "reagan" Democrats, etc. These labels exist for the same reason that parties themselves exist: to facilitate coordination between likeminded lawmakers and to communicate a brand to the voters who choose those lawmakers. There's nothing wrong with someone running and describing themselves as progressive, or a blue dog, or third way, or whatever. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone running in a state or local race by saying "you liked Bernie? I'm a Berniecrat!" That's one of the quickest ways to connect with voters, a quick pitch they'll be able to process and connect to the recent past. A lot of politicians perceiving that there's an untapped potential there and then jumping on the train is one of the ways that parties re-orient themselves to reflect new developments in the voting population.

    There is a special irony here, given that the Bernie crowd were routinely accused during the election of being too focused on "the big chair." This was said to indicate romanticism, idiocy, and laziness. It was a failure of political and personal morality to only pay attention to the sexy top of the ticket races, instead of the real work of building a viable movement. A viable movement, as opposed to a circle jerk of unserious narcissists, would focus on taking offices down the ticket. But then now we discover when, after the election, Bernie spinoff organizations, political supporters, and newcomers styling themselves in his mould have in fact gone on to run for just those downticket races--for party officers and party chairs, city councils, mayorships, statehouses, and so on--this is... also perfidy?

    I'll take a hard pass on... well, pretty much all of this.

    I agree with most of this but Reagan Democrats weren't Democrats anymore. They were/are Republicans.

    Startin' to think the same applies to the New Democrats.

    New Democrats still vote for Democrats is the difference.

    They vote for Democrats who, like the Blue Dog Democrats, don't necessarily vote for what are theoretically the Party's goals. Or, if they don't have a candidate like that, perhaps they just don't vote. And some, I suspect, do indeed vote Republican when they find it the more palatable option.

    What evidence is there of this?

    The voting habits of more centrist, upper-income Democrats, the type who would have once predominantly identified as "New Democrats" (back when that phrase was more of a thing) are no secret.

  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »

    Wisniewski is running a gubernatorial primary campaign that is basically based on destroying the mainstream party and that he is a Sanders die hard.

    I get about three emails from his campaign a week and 2 of the 3 will name drop Bernie at minimum.

    So, what, because the guy's pro Bernie he's lying?

    More that I'm providing context that the guy is launching a larger political career based on an identity of being a Bernie outcast and honestly not too much else. People tend to weigh others words differently when they know someone has something to gain from you believing them.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    SiskaMarathon
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    He lost a primary by 20% when people exercised their democratic rights within the party

    "One man, one vote, once," I guess. You had your chance in 2016, guys, you're done now.

    There have always been ideological factions within larger party structures. Blue dog democrats, progressive caucus, third way democrats, new deal democrats, (eugh) "reagan" Democrats, etc. These labels exist for the same reason that parties themselves exist: to facilitate coordination between likeminded lawmakers and to communicate a brand to the voters who choose those lawmakers. There's nothing wrong with someone running and describing themselves as progressive, or a blue dog, or third way, or whatever. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone running in a state or local race by saying "you liked Bernie? I'm a Berniecrat!" That's one of the quickest ways to connect with voters, a quick pitch they'll be able to process and connect to the recent past. A lot of politicians perceiving that there's an untapped potential there and then jumping on the train is one of the ways that parties re-orient themselves to reflect new developments in the voting population.

    There is a special irony here, given that the Bernie crowd were routinely accused during the election of being too focused on "the big chair." This was said to indicate romanticism, idiocy, and laziness. It was a failure of political and personal morality to only pay attention to the sexy top of the ticket races, instead of the real work of building a viable movement. A viable movement, as opposed to a circle jerk of unserious narcissists, would focus on taking offices down the ticket. But then now we discover when, after the election, Bernie spinoff organizations, political supporters, and newcomers styling themselves in his mould have in fact gone on to run for just those downticket races--for party officers and party chairs, city councils, mayorships, statehouses, and so on--this is... also perfidy?

    I'll take a hard pass on... well, pretty much all of this.

    I agree with most of this but Reagan Democrats weren't Democrats anymore. They were/are Republicans.

    Startin' to think the same applies to the New Democrats.

    New Democrats still vote for Democrats is the difference.

    They vote for Democrats who, like the Blue Dog Democrats, don't necessarily vote for what are theoretically the Party's goals. Or, if they don't have a candidate like that, perhaps they just don't vote. And some, I suspect, do indeed vote Republican when they find it the more palatable option.

    What evidence is there of this?

    The voting habits of more centrist, upper-income Democrats, the type who would have once predominantly identified as "New Democrats" (back when that phrase was more of a thing) are no secret.

    The people your article talks about aren't the same as that New Democrats by any definition I've seen nor does your article support your assertion that they will go GOP.

  • FakefauxFakefaux Humbaba My friend, we have reduced the forest to a wasteland, how shall we answer Enlil in Nippur?Registered User regular
    RedTide wrote: »
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »

    Wisniewski is running a gubernatorial primary campaign that is basically based on destroying the mainstream party and that he is a Sanders die hard.

    I get about three emails from his campaign a week and 2 of the 3 will name drop Bernie at minimum.

    So, what, because the guy's pro Bernie he's lying?

    More that I'm providing context that the guy is launching a larger political career based on an identity of being a Bernie outcast and honestly not too much else. People tend to weigh others words differently when they know someone has something to gain from you believing them.

    Shouldn't we be weighing the validity of his claims more than his potential bias? Sure, he might have an ideological goal in saying what he's saying, but he's talking about public events that can be verified in the case of the John Currie stuff.

  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    edited March 21
    The election had a wide spectrum of smaller issues that cost Clinton the election, from her own campaign's blunders to weakening of the VRA.

    Acting like all election talk boils down to Bernie fucking Sanders is hilariously myopic.

    Literally nobody is saying that.

    Saying that Sanders was an issue and is still an issue is not saying that he is or was the only issue.
    MrMister wrote: »
    You had your chance in 2016, guys, you're done now.

    So, just to clarify: you believe that people should be elected not by the will of the people, or by the views of the party at large, but based on who's won or lost presidential elections?

    The last four times Dems have won presidential elections, the Dems have been closer to Hillary on the spectrum than Sanders. The last time Dems nominated a Sanders type Democrat led to a 300+ electoral vote loss. The real answer is that there's a lot more at hand than just the ideology of the candidate. Clinton had flaws that didn't relate to her ideology. If she had messaged better in the midwest or spent more energy building up a campaign in the region or if she had never gotten a private email server or this or that, she could've won with the exact same platform and ideas as the ones she actually has. A progressive Dem (like Hillary) can win or lose. A moderate Dem can win or lose. A social democrat Democrat (like Bernie) can win or lose. It's pretty silly to totally write off the democratic process because of one election.

    Solomaxwell6 on
    Harry Dresdendurandal4532
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    edited March 21
    Clinton's server was an innocuous issue ginned up to ratfuck her. If she hadn't had a private server it would have been something else.

    Unrelated:

    The centrist/liberal divide is lopsided. Centrists don't disagree with progressive ideology by and large, they just wish progressives would show up and vote. Progressives are the ones who reject the establishment without building a workable replacement.

    Ie I don't care if you call yourself a Berniecrat so long as you also call yourself a Democrat (and support accordingly). The problem is that many of them are, I dunno, Berndependents.

    Astaereth on
    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    ArdolCommander ZoomFencingsaxHarry DresdenMahnmutLoisLaneMartini_PhilosopherSolomaxwell6kimeShadowhopeMegaMekThawmusKamarMvrck
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 21
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    He lost a primary by 20% when people exercised their democratic rights within the party

    "One man, one vote, once," I guess. You had your chance in 2016, guys, you're done now.

    There have always been ideological factions within larger party structures. Blue dog democrats, progressive caucus, third way democrats, new deal democrats, (eugh) "reagan" Democrats, etc. These labels exist for the same reason that parties themselves exist: to facilitate coordination between likeminded lawmakers and to communicate a brand to the voters who choose those lawmakers. There's nothing wrong with someone running and describing themselves as progressive, or a blue dog, or third way, or whatever. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone running in a state or local race by saying "you liked Bernie? I'm a Berniecrat!" That's one of the quickest ways to connect with voters, a quick pitch they'll be able to process and connect to the recent past. A lot of politicians perceiving that there's an untapped potential there and then jumping on the train is one of the ways that parties re-orient themselves to reflect new developments in the voting population.

    There is a special irony here, given that the Bernie crowd were routinely accused during the election of being too focused on "the big chair." This was said to indicate romanticism, idiocy, and laziness. It was a failure of political and personal morality to only pay attention to the sexy top of the ticket races, instead of the real work of building a viable movement. A viable movement, as opposed to a circle jerk of unserious narcissists, would focus on taking offices down the ticket. But then now we discover when, after the election, Bernie spinoff organizations, political supporters, and newcomers styling themselves in his mould have in fact gone on to run for just those downticket races--for party officers and party chairs, city councils, mayorships, statehouses, and so on--this is... also perfidy?

    I'll take a hard pass on... well, pretty much all of this.

    I agree with most of this but Reagan Democrats weren't Democrats anymore. They were/are Republicans.

    Startin' to think the same applies to the New Democrats.

    New Democrats still vote for Democrats is the difference.

    They vote for Democrats who, like the Blue Dog Democrats, don't necessarily vote for what are theoretically the Party's goals. Or, if they don't have a candidate like that, perhaps they just don't vote. And some, I suspect, do indeed vote Republican when they find it the more palatable option.

    What evidence is there of this?

    The voting habits of more centrist, upper-income Democrats, the type who would have once predominantly identified as "New Democrats" (back when that phrase was more of a thing) are no secret.

    Here's the thing - if you were talking about the 90's centrists I might have agreed with you, but that wing has slowly moved and absorbed liberal views so much that by '16 Hillary was barely distinguishable from a traditional progressive. So much so it was debatable in what camp she was in, that alone is a huge win for us with how far left the centrists have moved. This is a big win for us.

    I can't see someone like Elisabeth Warren endorsing someone that conservative.

    Nowadays the Republican-lite wing is the Blue Dogs/conservative Democrats/Joe Liebermann clones, not the moderates.

    Keep in mind none of these guys got near the presidential nomination in either '08 or '16 primaries.

    Harry Dresden on
    ShadowhopeMvrck
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    RedTide wrote: »

    Wisniewski is running a gubernatorial primary campaign that is basically based on destroying the mainstream party and that he is a Sanders die hard.

    I get about three emails from his campaign a week and 2 of the 3 will name drop Bernie at minimum.

    So, what, because the guy's pro Bernie he's lying?

    It certainly means he has an incentive to embellish his story to make his battle with the "establishment" sound however he prefers.

    Do you have any reason to believe this is the case? Because it sure sounds like you're saying "hey, this guy is Pro-Bernie guy/anti-establishment therefore he cannot be speaking in good faith" without engaging with the possibly validity of his claims.

    Well, considering that in this thread alone we've had claims that the DNC worked against Sanders, and that Hillary said in a debate that she didn't need the help of Sanders supporters to win. I don't think it's unfair to say that sometimes the truth of a situation can get manipulated slightly, maybe not even intentionally, by someone's own bias.

    Dumb Hero wrote: »
    "Okay, you take 2d4 damage from the ogre's dick impaling your 2inch anus"
    Satan! Look here!
    Fencingsaxshryke
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    The election had a wide spectrum of smaller issues that cost Clinton the election, from her own campaign's blunders to weakening of the VRA.

    Acting like all election talk boils down to Bernie fucking Sanders is hilariously myopic.

    I don't think anyone is claiming that. If its directed at me, I'm talking about the ongoing state party elections that are mirroring the DNC chair election in that they are being treated as a relitigation of the Democratic primary. That kind of factionalism is bad for the party and was one of a number of factors (smaller than the added appeal of overt racism from Trump for instance) that led to the outcome that occurred.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    SleepSolomaxwell6Ardol
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited March 21
    I think some of you are forgetting that no matter who became the nominee, the Republicans in a few key states had a major role in certain peoples ability to vote. Sanders or Clinton, it may not have mattered. At least, as far as Wisconsin's vote is concerned.

    http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/wisconsin-had-second-worst-presidential-election-turnout-decline-since/article_a5706969-46be-5321-ba12-a431d34a0e6d.html
    Wisconsin's voter turnout in the November presidential election ranked fifth in the nation, the state's worst showing in 20 years, and declined the second-most from 2012, according to a new report by Nonprofit VOTE and the U.S. Elections Project.

    The report doesn't mention the potential effect of Wisconsin's voter ID requirement, but in an interview report author George Pillsbury noted Wisconsin and Mississippi, which introduced a voter ID requirement in 2014, had the biggest decline in turnout since the previous presidential election, even as national turnout increased.

    "I think that says something," Pillsbury said. "When you’re among the two states with the biggest drop in voter turnout, there’s something behind that."

    Veevee on
    steam_sig.png
    shrykeMartini_Philosopher
  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    Veevee wrote: »
    I think some of you are forgetting that no matter who became the nominee, the Republicans in a few key states had a major role in certain peoples ability to vote. Sanders or Clinton, it may not have mattered. At least, as far as Wisconsin's vote is concerned.

    Nobody is forgetting that. As multiple of us have already said on this page, we mention Bernie as a problem, not the problem.

    IncenjucarLoisLaneCommander ZoomHarry DresdenkimeSleep
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Dems being afraid of Larry Hogan was popular was dumb the minute Trump got elected. Went from up 16 on generic Dem to up 4. He's totally beatable. And it should have been Perez.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • OptyOpty Registered User regular
    edited March 22
    PantsB wrote: »
    The election had a wide spectrum of smaller issues that cost Clinton the election, from her own campaign's blunders to weakening of the VRA.

    Acting like all election talk boils down to Bernie fucking Sanders is hilariously myopic.

    I don't think anyone is claiming that. If its directed at me, I'm talking about the ongoing state party elections that are mirroring the DNC chair election in that they are being treated as a relitigation of the Democratic primary. That kind of factionalism is bad for the party and was one of a number of factors (smaller than the added appeal of overt racism from Trump for instance) that led to the outcome that occurred.

    Also the Sanders shit gets brought up because it's basically the only point in contention anymore. Everyone reasonable here has already talked about the myriad of small cuts that led to Clinton's loss: the ratfucking around Benghazi, the ratfucking around her emails, the systematic misogyny that makes a woman with three decades of experience less qualified than a man with none, people's perceptions of her being completely divorced from reality, the lack of the assumption that she'd be good for race relations that Obama got for being black leading her to have to be more explicit about those positions and alienating people because of it, her focusing on running up the score rather than shoring up the base, her foes taking things she said out of context so they could attack her for them, her foes treating her husband's decisions while he was President as hers, her foes treating her husband's infidelity not only as if it were her fault but as a means to validate Trump's acts of sexual harassment/molestation, her husband's gaffes during the general that led to fodder for Trump to use against her, her failure to instill hope towards something better, her mistake referring to a subset of Trump voters as deplorable, her failure to get her policies across regardless of how badly the media treated her, her negative ads being more memorable/common than her positive ones, her opponent being prioritized by every media outfit and getting billions in free advertising, her failure to properly respond to Comey's last minute bullshit and minimize the damage, the loss of the VRA and the subsequent Democrat-targeted disenfranchisement through voter ID and other means, and anything else I can't think of offhand.

    What remains that isn't so cut-and-dry is mostly Sanders related. Did Sanders' bullshit hurt her and if so, how much? How at-fault is Sanders for lighting the match that ignited the house full of natural gas that was the Democratic party? If Sanders hadn't run and it was O'Malley vs Clinton, Biden vs Clinton, or even Clinton unopposed, would that have made for a more unified party and a stronger lean into the general? What if Sanders had won, would he have stood a chance against Trump? How believable was Sanders as a Clinton surrogate when he'd spent at least a month shitting on her in ways that were impossible to take back? How many Sanders supporters rejected the party based on the DNC hacks being misrepresented by both him and the media? How many Sanders supporters rejected him as well as the party when he tried to shift to supporting Clinton months too late? How many Sanders supporters were only there for the populism and how many of those switched to Trump when Sanders lost? How much did Clinton and the DNC's platform shifting to incorporate the more leftwards parts Sanders's platform in a magnanimous display of allowing the loser to dictate terms help or hurt with not only his supporters, but her supporters? How much did the multiple electors who were Sanders die-hards and expressly said they would never vote for Clinton hurt her when Trump had only one case of such dissention? What does Sanders switching from Independent to Democrat and back mean when it comes to what he says about the party and how he tries to mobilize people? How is his behavior since the election helping the party? How did he affect the DNC elections and what does that mean for the party? And so on.

    Opty on
    MarathonSmrtnikSolomaxwell6Harry Dresdenkime
  • I N V I C T U SI N V I C T U S Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Here's the thing - if you were talking about the 90's centrists I might have agreed with you, but that wing has slowly moved and absorbed liberal views so much that by '16 Hillary was barely distinguishable from a traditional progressive. So much so it was debatable in what camp she was in, that alone is a huge win for us with how far left the centrists have moved. This is a big win for us.

    I can't see someone like Elisabeth Warren endorsing someone that conservative.

    Nowadays the Republican-lite wing is the Blue Dogs/conservative Democrats/Joe Liebermann clones, not the moderates.

    Keep in mind none of these guys got near the presidential nomination in either '08 or '16 primaries.

    It seems to me that "progressive" is now indicative of a desire for full socialist economic principles without means-testing and an outspoken desire to limit the growth and consolidation of corporate power, while "centrist" points toward Democrats that generally swing the right way in terms of identity politics but have much less of a desire to embrace socialist principles and generally look to promote a form of compassionate capitalism. How do you understand the terms?

    BY THE HOARY FUCKING HOSTS!
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Here's the thing - if you were talking about the 90's centrists I might have agreed with you, but that wing has slowly moved and absorbed liberal views so much that by '16 Hillary was barely distinguishable from a traditional progressive. So much so it was debatable in what camp she was in, that alone is a huge win for us with how far left the centrists have moved. This is a big win for us.

    I can't see someone like Elisabeth Warren endorsing someone that conservative.

    Nowadays the Republican-lite wing is the Blue Dogs/conservative Democrats/Joe Liebermann clones, not the moderates.

    Keep in mind none of these guys got near the presidential nomination in either '08 or '16 primaries.

    It seems to me that "progressive" is now indicative of a desire for full socialist economic principles without means-testing and an outspoken desire to limit the growth and consolidation of corporate power, while "centrist" points toward Democrats that generally swing the right way in terms of identity politics but have much less of a desire to embrace socialist principles and generally look to promote a form of compassionate capitalism. How do you understand the terms?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition

    See, I've always assumed a big thing with progressivism is that we engage in identity politics, due to how important they are in the social fabric (Feminism, racism, pro-LGBT etc). It's not simply socialism or the economy will solve all ills for those causes, as Bernie subscribes to.

    It's not just terms, it's the needle has moved leftward for the centrists and yet some people act like this never happened. Hillary did not run as a typical centrist from the 90's era. It's like her campaign has become a rorschach test for the left, and they're blind to the changes she actually made since the 90's.

    Add to this the irritating pattern of anyone who was liberal that signed on with Hillary being called a traitor and neoliberal, not here but elsewhere.

    EddyIncenjucarAngelHedgieFencingsax
  • JoeUserJoeUser Registered User regular
    Joe Biden with a bit of soul searching

    Biden: I regret not running for president
    Former Vice President Joe Biden late Friday night said he regretted not running for the presidency, predicting if he had secured the Democratic nomination he could have won against Donald Trump.

    "I had planned on running for president and although it would have been a very difficult primary, I think I could have won,” he said. “Maybe not, I don’t know.”

    "I was fairly confident that if I had become the Democratic nominee, I would have had a good chance to be president," Biden continued.

    PSN: JoeUser80 Steam
    Commander ZoomTryCatcherMatev
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    That counterfactual would decisively answer the sexism on the left question, since Joe is less liberal than Hillary in most respects.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    LoisLaneCouscousshrykeSo It GoesDoodmannOneAngryPossumMegaMekMatev
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    That counterfactual would decisively answer the sexism on the left question, since Joe is less liberal than Hillary in most respects.

    He's more believable tho. A large issue with Hiliary is that she is perceived as someone carried by the currents, willing to give lip service to anything she feels is going to benefit her. I think the term we use here is "evolving", but most are not so charitable.

    Biden wouldn't have faced that issue.

    I know for me, I kinda rolled my eyes when she adapted parts of Bernies platform, as it was never her platform I had a problem with: she just wasn't convincing as a standard bearer for those things. "Do what is easy and politically expedient" doesn't inspire confidence.

    NobodyElendilKraintMatev
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    That counterfactual would decisively answer the sexism on the left question, since Joe is less liberal than Hillary in most respects.

    He's more believable tho. A large issue with Hiliary is that she is perceived as someone carried by the currents, willing to give lip service to anything she feels is going to benefit her. I think the term we use here is "evolving", but most are not so charitable.

    Biden wouldn't have faced that issue.

    I know for me, I kinda rolled my eyes when she adapted parts of Bernies platform, as it was never her platform I had a problem with: she just wasn't convincing as a standard bearer for those things. "Do what is easy and politically expedient" doesn't inspire confidence.

    ...you should think real hard about why she has less credibility.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    kimeCouscousCommander ZoomPantsBLoisLaneShadowhopeshrykeArdolSo It GoesHarry DresdenDoodmannAngelHedgieiTunesIsEvilMuddypawsMegaMekSleepsyndalisKamarSurfpossum
This discussion has been closed.