|
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 wonder how much the DNC spends on consultants in the typical month to craft idiotic tweets that people like JeffersonClay can partially digest and then regurgitate here. Probably more than $20K.
Kilroy fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Apr 12, 2017 |
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:6% when they did gently caress all and no one cares if the DNC spends money anywhere because most people don't follow political inside baseball like that - even special election voters. The seat was winnable. The idea that if the DNC started spending money there all of the GOP voters would suddenly remember that Pelosi exists (so they were right to do nothing) is probably the worst take on this for a bunch of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the bernie wing gave a token $900, which is being effectively absent i am totally surprised that a nascent wing of the party might not have much resources to distribute. i wonder if there's a larger organization that's devoted to a 50-state strategy that could provide a much larger donation to the tune of $20k? the state dems gave him the 3k evil weasel, he got nothing from the dnc https://twitter.com/samknight1/status/851990942718492672/photo/1
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
parallelodad posted:Didn't he get a bunch of money from Dailykos? Which "wing" do they represent? all democrats who suddenly realized the race was actually winnable the real fight is over what resources should have been allocated before it was clear this was actually competitive and both the bernie wing and the dnc basically thought the answer was "nominal". that answer was wrong, but it wasn't the evil centrists vs intelligent berniecrats debate that morons like crowsbeak so desperately want to have it be. nobody on the liberal side saw this coming, nobody thought something this deep red was really winnable until suddenly it was. if the DNC doesn't learn from this, I'll be right there criticizing them: after this there's no excuse not to funnel money to the Montana special election, for example, but it wasn't the DNC missing this, it was everyone
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:The thing that kills me about the refusal to even try here is that even if it's a pathetic failure, it gives you a testbed for your plans in 2018. You cannot buy an experimental platform like this: ridiculously pro-republican seat, ridiculously pro-republican state, phenomenally unpopular republicans above the seat in question, it's a perfect low-stakes way to try to answer the question "how can we best leverage this to our advantage." You send a signal to other would-be challengers in 2018 that the DCCC will have their backs, and you get a chance to iron out the bugs in your system as you try to do something none of the people involved have experience doing. that's true but the GA-6 election is coming up and the democrats are serious about that seat...so we'll see in around a week
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the state dems gave him the 3k evil weasel, he got nothing from the dnc the state dems were also the ones who turned down the $20k
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
My possibly bad take is that 2016 should have been the wake up call that they needed to seriously re-evaluate their election strategies especially after 2014 gave them some indication of how things were starting to turn but if this is what finally does it I'm fine with that. The fear I think a lot of people have is that if 2016's absolute disaster wasn't enough to sufficiently make the people in charge of the party care then will this do it? I REALLY hope it is since I want Democrats to win elections.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Radish posted:The idea that if the DNC started spending money there all of the GOP voters would suddenly remember that Pelosi exists (so they were right to do nothing) is probably the worst take on this for a bunch of reasons. Normally you say "the experiment was a failure" when something like that happens, but when you're a centrist shithead there's always a way to spin things so that you were right all along.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the state dems were also the ones who turned down the $20k ok, so you think the DNC should have contributed nothing? state parties are too cash poor in red states to bootstrap their own dem candidates. that's just a recipe for failure. the DNC should've supported this guy, just like how the republicans supported their guy
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:it wasn't the DNC missing this, it was everyone
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/851976615865331716 From the same geniuses who brought you: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:as you see by the copy of sun tzu's the art of war on my bookshelf... If only there was some term for this unheard-of "many-provinces-assault" stratagem. Could have sworn there was someone at the DNC who said something about it, can't quite put a name to the face.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
tekz posted:https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/851976615865331716 Lol that dude is apparently going back and deleting all those old tweets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Radish posted:Lol that dude is apparently going back and deleting all those old tweets. I wish someone would delete the leadership of the democratic party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:if the DNC doesn't learn from this, I'll be right there criticizing them No, you won't. Because they won't, yet you'll still show up to try to get in some sweet cheap dunks on leftists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Condiv posted:ok, so you think the DNC should have contributed nothing? state parties are too strapped in red states to bootstrap their own dem candidates. that's just a recipe for failure. the DNC should've supported this guy, just like how the republicans supported their guy i have said what i think the dnc should have done multiple times what i am posting there is a different thing I think: that you know nothing and are an idiot and all of your opinions are free from any consideration of facts, and that you should stop posting because you have nothing intelligent to say thompson was mad at the state democratic party, that's what all the fuss was about (something I didn't realize either, but i'm not the one drawing distinctions between the two) not the main democratic party. the main democratic party's job should be to ensure that the state parties have sufficient funding and support but to let them allocate resources as they see fit with their better understanding of their state. the dnc should have made sure the local dnc could give the guy $20k for the mailers (they could have either way, they had ~$220k, but i assume they wanted to reserve money for contesting more local elections which is a reasonable use of money when you've got such limited resources) ultimately there are a bunch of idiots, such as you, that want to turn this into some narrative of brilliant berniecrats who were squashed by the evil centrists of the dnc. that is a stupid opinion in general but in perticular here, where both the berniecrats and the dnc simply didn't consider it a wise use of resources because the important information - that this district was actually close - wasn't there. now, it is. the criticism i made, an intelligent and reasoned one, was that for federal elections $20k is a reasonable throwaway amount for long-shots and so it was a poor tactical decision to deny that. the decision that it was one hell of a longshot wasn't a poor decision: it was wrong, but many reasonable decisions end up being wrong. this shouldn't have been competitive, even given Trump and even given Brownback. that it is is a great loving sign and one that must be incorporated into future planning. but the idea it was evil centrists who didn't see it and berniecrats who did is objectively, provably false.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:If only there was some strategy to bleed an enemy of resources asymmetrically... some sort of technique by which you cause them enough problems in enough places with relatively low investment that they can't protect them all... some sort of "large-number-of-places" tactic... That's exactly what happened. The DNC gave 3k and phonebankers and the republicans drowned the race in money. The DNC giving more money just makes the strategy less efficient. Crowsbeak posted:Oh lol. Now because the GOP actually tried to win it the democrats had every right to do nothing. I just love the idiocy of sociopaths like you. Also LOL about the website again. NO ONE READS THE loving WEBSITE BESIDES YOU loving CENTRISTS. The secret internet that only centrist sociopaths can access, tell me more. Thompson didn't run on leftist healthcare. The closest I can find is hm defending the ACA. Here's his position on the minimum wage. quote:Wages are incredibly important in terms of ending the inequality problems that plague our country. I absolutely believe that minimum wage should be $15, but I also know that situations are different here in Kansas than they are in California or NYC, and that we can't just mandate that happening overnight
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yes, everyone including the RNC, but somehow the Republicans were able to turn it around on short notice and support their god-damned candidate while the Democrats sat on their fat asses because one of their highly-paid consultants told them they could say devoting resources to the race would have made it less competitive. ok. it's last week. you're in complete command of the dnc. you've found out the same instant that the RNC did that the race is actually competitive. what would you do? remember: the $20k request wasn't made last week. that was rejected well beforehand. so we're not discussing that, at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i have said what i think the dnc should have done multiple times you've confused the DNC and the state party so forgive me for asking you to clarify do you think perez should've done something different than what he did when said he was committing no resources to this race. also note that I have not once posted about berniecrats in this thread. you're the one that keeps talking about them. I'm complaining that perez is not following his purported 50-state strategy to our detriment. edit: well now i just posted about them. thanks for that lol Condiv fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:That's exactly what happened. The DNC gave 3k and phonebankers and the republicans drowned the race in money. The DNC giving more money just makes the strategy less efficient. I mean...I kind of think peak efficiency would have been represented by bleeding the Republicans in the district, AND also winning. So a little more money would have been wise, assuming that it would have made a difference. JeffersonClay posted:Thompson wouldn't have been a blue dog, but he ran a campaign that was pretty drat centrist. Healthcare is completely absent from his website other than for veterans and seniors, for instance. He got endorsed by Our Revolution, called for a $15 minimum wage, and said in an AMA (yeah, I know, but still) that he supports single payer, although he doesn't see it coming around the bend particularly soon. He may not be a full-on socialist or whatever, but he ran on a fairly populist platform in a very, very tough district, and did remarkably well. I don't think it's accurate to say he ran a centrist campaign. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
I can just imagine the meeting: : "hmmm, we kinda hosed up here. we kinda look like idiots." : "what if we just tell people that our help would have made things worse?" : "doesn't that kind of make us look even more toxic and incompetent?" : "nah most of our people won't put that together, and the ones that do will be yelled at by the rest" : "hmmm good point, well I'm going to leave early today can you fire up the twitter-mobile and get the word out to our pundits?" : *checks twitter stream* "actually I didn't need to this time, they've already started doing this one on their own" : "weird that's happening a lot more lately. well. cya"
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:ok. it's last week. you're in complete command of the dnc. you've found out the same instant that the RNC did that the race is actually competitive. what would you do? It should never have been rejected in the first place. Also  jc keeps up the website sperging so he can pretend that Thompson was a bluedog.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:That's exactly what happened. The DNC gave 3k and phonebankers and the republicans drowned the race in money. The DNC giving more money just makes the strategy less efficient. Provided that the Republicans are incapable of recognizing or reacting in any way to the DNC giving 20K to the race, and that the 20K will not in any way meaningfully impact his campaign, yes. Your need to believe any attempt by the Democratic party to advance its agenda must result in failure is distorting your read on this situation pretty badly, man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you've confused the DNC and the state party so forgive me for asking you to clarify I think Perez should have close enough relations with the state parties to make sure at least a token amount of funding - like the $20k - gets funded by the national party if it isn't able to be funded by the state party. I think that he should absolutely implement a full 50 state strategy and contest every single Republican district that can be contested. Money is still going to be limited so most of these long-shot people are going to be on their own beyond token funding until they demonstrate they're worth more investment, but $20k should be well within the amount for anyone who is running. I also think he's just gotten control of the DNC after a fairly contested DNC election and while everyone is shell-shocked from the 2016 election, so while I think it was a mistake not to have gotten the $20k, I consider it a reasonable mistake to have made provided it isn't made again. I think that he tunnel-visioned a little too hard on the Georgia race which is absolutely in line with the 50-state strategy - it's one that woundn't usually be contested at all - and missed the Kansas one. It was a mistake. It wasn't a big mistake - I don't believe the extra money would have made a difference, and I think that it isn't reasonable to assume that it was known it could be this close - but it was a mistake. Assuming it's learned from, and the Montana race is a good race to look at and see if it is, then great. But rebuilding these local parties isn't something you can just flip a switch on and have it be done. It's going to take sustained work by the DNC to be where we need to be in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:ok. it's last week. you're in complete command of the dnc. you've found out the same instant that the RNC did that the race is actually competitive. what would you do? Maybe you should quit trying to play n-dimensional chess and just play chess? It's easier and it's also the one that actually exists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think Perez should have close enough relations with the state parties to make sure at least a token amount of funding - like the $20k - gets funded by the national party if it isn't able to be funded by the state party. I think that he should absolutely implement a full 50 state strategy and contest every single Republican district that can be contested. Money is still going to be limited so most of these long-shot people are going to be on their own beyond token funding until they demonstrate they're worth more investment, but $20k should be well within the amount for anyone who is running. if perez was anywhere as competent as he claimed he was he would've been ready for this poo poo. 20k should be the minimum we give out to any candidate we field. we spent a billion on hillary's waste of a campaign, we refuse to stop taking megadonor bucks, so why not at least put it to some good use so the dems can actually fight back against trump? if perez learns his lesson and supports al the remaining races now it'll be forgiveable i guess, but as someone who's lived in red states all his life this kind of stings cause it says that dems aren't gonna try to rejuvenate dead dem parties like my state's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:What the hell are you talking about "was already rejected"? I'd go ahead and un-reject it first thing and give the man what he asked for. Then I'd see if there are any charismatic politicians who poll reasonably well in that area who can swing by for a day or two and help the guy out. Or, failing that, at least have them record a few robocalls. You know, basically what the GOP did when they figured out the seat was in jeopardy. I don't know if the DNC put in any money at the end as well, and if you have anything to support that he wanted DNC money at that point and didn't get it, then sure, lets discuss that but I have no reason to believe it's true. Plus the guy got $150k from Kos, and didn't lack for cash in the final days of the race: I do not know if more money at that point would have been helpful. As for charismatic politicians: national democrats are clearly not helpful: Thompson was explicitly trying to avoid even running against Trump. He ran against Brownback, and relied on people who hated Trump to make the connection anyway. He didn't want Obama coming in. He wanted the race to be as local as possible: I don't know who stumped on his behalf but his campaign would (presumably) be the one who knows who he wanted. He did not want, nor would it have been helpful, the sort of non-money assistance the RNC threw in. The RNC wanted to nationalize the race: you're voting for Republicans or you're voting for Democrats. He wanted to localize the race: you're voting for that Brownback-supporting idiot, or you're voting for me, a reasonable local guy who is running to represent the district, not national Democrats. And that's exactly the best strategy to take in these deep-red districts. Now, ironically, the only national politician I can think of that might have been helpful is Bernie. I don't knock him for not going there: I suspect he wasn't wanted because even a popular democrat would have reminded the voters that as much as they might like the guy, he was running as a democrat and democrats want to take your guns and abort your babies. But he certainly isn't under the control of the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Condiv posted:if perez was anywhere as competent as he claimed he was he would've been ready for this poo poo. 20k should be the minimum we give out to any candidate we field. we spent a billion on hillary's waste of a campaign, we refuse to stop taking megadonor bucks, so why not at least put it to some good use so the dems can actually fight back against trump? if perez learns his lesson and supports al the remaining races now it'll be forgiveable i guess, but as someone who's lived in red states all his life this kind of stings cause it says that dems aren't gonna try to rejuvenate dead dem parties like my state's. I do not know if the links between the national and the Kansas party are even good enough that the national DNC got a request for the $20k. That is absolutely the sort of thing that takes time. If the $20k request landed on his desk and he rejected it, it's definitely a bigger fuckup than if it never reached the national DNC. But getting the system there so the local parties ask for that help isn't instant. I understand your frustration, and while I love Obama allowing the local parties to atrophy after the 50 state plan was so successful in 2006 and 2008 was inexcusable. But I think it's silly to assume that because it isn't already fixed the lesson wasn't learned when there's a big race in a deep red district currently going on with heavy DNC support.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:He got endorsed by Our Revolution, called for a $15 minimum wage, and said in an AMA (yeah, I know, but still) that he supports single payer, although he doesn't see it coming around the bend particularly soon. He may not be a full-on socialist or whatever, but he ran on a fairly populist platform in a very, very tough district, and did remarkably well. I don't think it's accurate to say he ran a centrist campaign. He called for a 15 dollar minimum wage at some unspecified time in the future because rural Kansas isn't the same as NYC and you can't change things overnight. I don't think he actually campaigned on 15. Similarly he supports single payer but didn't advocate any specific implementation and didn't campaign on the issue. Supporting 15 and single payer are the magic words he said to get out of state Bernie money that he put into his moderate campaign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Oh lol now because he wasn't specific enough he is a blue dog. Love jefferson clay constantly trying to move the goalposts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Oh lol now because he wasn't specific enough he is a blue dog. he would have absolutely been the sort of conservative democrat you would be furious about once elected, because that's what you get if you want a democrat to have a chance in a deep red district and that's what he ran as
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I do not know if the links between the national and the Kansas party are even good enough that the national DNC got a request for the $20k. That is absolutely the sort of thing that takes time. If the $20k request landed on his desk and he rejected it, it's definitely a bigger fuckup than if it never reached the national DNC. But getting the system there so the local parties ask for that help isn't instant. https://ballotpedia.org/Jon_Ossoff it's kinda worrying that the only race the DNC actually seems to care about involves a ceo former congressional-aide. are the dems only gonna help the people they happen to meet in D.C.?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:good to have you back with more made up bullshit sorry that your best bro only thinks something is progressive if and only if it give him 40k for free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://ballotpedia.org/Jon_Ossoff That's the spirit! Find any excuse to complain!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Now, ironically, the only national politician I can think of that might have been helpful is Bernie. I don't knock him for not going there: I suspect he wasn't wanted because even a popular democrat would have reminded the voters that as much as they might like the guy, he was running as a democrat and democrats want to take your guns and abort your babies. But he certainly isn't under the control of the DNC. JeffersonClay posted:He called for a 15 dollar minimum wage at some unspecified time in the future because rural Kansas isn't the same as NYC and you can't change things overnight. I don't think he actually campaigned on 15. Similarly he supports single payer but didn't advocate any specific implementation and didn't campaign on the issue. Supporting 15 and single payer are the magic words he said to get out of state Bernie money that he put into his moderate campaign. The only reason JC isn't a massive hypocrite is that you need more self-awareness than he has, to be one of those.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't know if the DNC put in any money at the end as well, and if you have anything to support that he wanted DNC money at that point and didn't get it, then sure, lets discuss that but I have no reason to believe it's true. Plus the guy got $150k from Kos, and didn't lack for cash in the final days of the race: I do not know if more money at that point would have been helpful. It's ironic that when GOP governors like Brownback and Pense do a horrible job and crash their states economies into the ditch, their poll numbers go into the toilet and people really hate them... though not enough that they don't pretty much always win second terms...
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:he would have absolutely been the sort of conservative democrat you would be furious about once elected, because that's what you get if you want a democrat to have a chance in a deep red district and that's what he ran as (note that I reject the premise here, but if you don't and you're a centrist then it seems you have reason to be upset, unless you're the sort who sucks off the national party without question)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:That's the spirit! Find any excuse to complain! well, it's not like the other candidates were bad. or terrible longshots. but not one thought of support for them. meanwhile a former congressional aide gets 8.3m
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Democrats? Not fond of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:okay well then centrists should be angry then because the party pissed away another opportunity to elect another blue dog democrats that will vote with Republicans nearly as often as he votes with Democrats ah you so reject the entire notion of representation, good to know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 19:12
|
|