Warren Moon

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
8,656
Reputation
760
Daps
25,590
...so run the exact same campaign that Hillary ran in 2016? The collective amnesia about her campaign and its tactics is so maddening. The entire thrust was an attempt to pivot right and reach out to this mythical mass of moderate conservatives, and it fukking failed! Remember her campaign touting all the Republican endorsements? Remember her campaign touting all those NatSec/Blob Generals? There is no coalition of moderate conservatives who would vote for a Democrat in large enough droves to make any meaningful impact. It does not exist except in the addled minds of establishment Democrat marks and their MSM lackeys. Moderates lost the right to dictate what approach should be taken this go around. I really believe they would rather have Trump re-elected than a true progressive movement take hold. There's a psychological inability to come to terms with the fact that their ideology has been exposed as bankrupt. They want a mulligan.

Funny how the game goes. Can't go progressive in 2016 because Trump will win if Hillary doesn't get the nominee. Can't go progressive in 2020 because Trump will win reelection if a yet another moderate doesn't get the nominee. Can't change course in an emergency because it's too dangerous. Can't change course during normal times because things are going well enough. Somehow progressives are always being told next time.

Also, what exactly is Friedman advocating for here when he talks of "reunifying the country"? In what possibly cursed coalition could the people screaming "Send her back" and those fighting for universal healthcare coexist? What space do those people have in a just society? I love how his concept of a "sane" person is someone peddling the same dogshyt that brought us to this exact situation. Literally the definition of insanity.

I'm going for a walk.

We didn’t lose bc she didn’t appeal to progressives :dwillhuh:


Do u seriously in ur heart of hearts believe that there are as many progressives in the states we need to didn’t vote and could replace the moderates we lost :gucci:


Your heart is good and the strategy helps us win more in states where liberals are already winning.

How does it win u the states we lost? The goal is to win, right?:mjtf:
 

King Kreole

natural blondie like goku
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
15,703
Reputation
4,503
Daps
43,395
We didn’t lose bc she didn’t appeal to progressives :dwillhuh:
Why did she lose then? She was begging at the doors of fence-sitting centrists and "moderate Republicans" the whole election, but when the rodeo started they were nowhere to be found. They didn't turn up. Hillary lost because of depressed turnout, and not from the conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans. Those groups voted, just as they always do.

Do u seriously in ur heart of hearts believe that there are as many progressives in the states we need to didn’t vote and could replace the moderates we lost :gucci:
78,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin was the margin of victory. Yes, I do believe a progressive candidate could activate those numbers. And again, who are these moderates that will be lost? All these dipshyt conservative Never Trumpers threatening to boycott the Democratic candidate if they're not a centrist are bluffing like hell. One, they don't have the fukking numbers to swing any election. And two, if they're truly Never Trumpers, then why the fukk would we spend an iota of electoral strategy in their direction, they've already made their choice to not vote for Trump. There are far, far more people who are marginalized and alienated by the fakery of the political status quo that would vote for a progressive choice if given one. Juicing that turn out should be the strategy, not kissing the ass of some fukking bourgeoise freak.

The actual swing-voting coalition that made an impact - the Obama-Trump voters - were change voters, not moderates turned away by Hillary's centrist, moderation candidacy.

Your heart is good and the strategy helps us win more in states where liberals are already winning.

How does it win u the states we lost? The goal is to win, right?:mjtf:
The goal is absolutely to win. What we saw in 2016 is the way to win isn't moderation in a time of great turmoil and change. So luckily, progressivism is both morally righteous and electorally pragmatic. We don't have to compromise.
 

Warren Moon

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
8,656
Reputation
760
Daps
25,590
Why did she lose then? She was begging at the doors of fence-sitting centrists and "moderate Republicans" the whole election, but when the rodeo started they were nowhere to be found. They didn't turn up. Hillary lost because of depressed turnout, and not from the conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans. Those groups voted, just as they always do.


78,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin was the margin of victory. Yes, I do believe a progressive candidate could activate those numbers. And again, who are these moderates that will be lost? All these dipshyt conservative Never Trumpers threatening to boycott the Democratic candidate if they're not a centrist are bluffing like hell. One, they don't have the fukking numbers to swing any election. And two, if they're truly Never Trumpers, then why the fukk would we spend an iota of electoral strategy in their direction, they've already made their choice to not vote for Trump. There are far, far more people who are marginalized and alienated by the fakery of the political status quo that would vote for a progressive choice if given one. Juicing that turn out should be the strategy, not kissing the ass of some fukking bourgeoise freak.

The actual swing-voting coalition that made an impact - the Obama-Trump voters - were change voters, not moderates turned away by Hillary's centrist, moderation candidacy.


The goal is absolutely to win. What we saw in 2016 is the way to win isn't moderation in a time of great turmoil and change. So luckily, progressivism is both morally righteous and electorally pragmatic. We don't have to compromise.

Obama won the centrists, trump won the centrists.

For the past two decades this has been blueprint and no the swing voters were not moderates that hated the centrist views. U just made that up :russ:
 

dtownreppin214

l'immortale
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
56,019
Reputation
10,637
Daps
192,899
Reppin
Shags & Leathers
...so run the exact same campaign that Hillary ran in 2016? The collective amnesia about her campaign and its tactics is so maddening. The entire thrust was an attempt to pivot right and reach out to this mythical mass of moderate conservatives, and it fukking failed! Remember her campaign touting all the Republican endorsements? Remember her campaign touting all those NatSec/Blob Generals? There is no coalition of moderate conservatives who would vote for a Democrat in large enough droves to make any meaningful impact. It does not exist except in the addled minds of establishment Democrat marks and their MSM lackeys. Moderates lost the right to dictate what approach should be taken this go around. I really believe they would rather have Trump re-elected than a true progressive movement take hold. There's a psychological inability to come to terms with the fact that their ideology has been exposed as bankrupt. They want a mulligan.

Funny how the game goes. Can't go progressive in 2016 because Trump will win if Hillary doesn't get the nominee. Can't go progressive in 2020 because Trump will win reelection if a yet another moderate doesn't get the nominee. Can't change course in an emergency because it's too dangerous. Can't change course during normal times because things are going well enough. Somehow progressives are always being told next time.

Also, what exactly is Friedman advocating for here when he talks of "reunifying the country"? In what possibly cursed coalition could the people screaming "Send her back" and those fighting for universal healthcare coexist? What space do those people have in a just society? I love how his concept of a "sane" person is someone peddling the same dogshyt that brought us to this exact situation. Literally the definition of insanity.

I'm going for a walk.
i posted that to piss one of you off. thank you for that rant. :lolbron:

i dont know if these are veiled threats or what but republicans ashamed of trump seem intent on influencing the dem primaries.

that being said, the hillary slander is on called for. she was dealing with a media enamored with trump and a huge russian propaganda machine. if she ran the exact same flawed campaign again in 2020 i'd bet she win simply because more voters are engaged and social media giants are regulating their sites better.
 

JoogJoint

In my own league.
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
14,265
Reputation
1,641
Daps
40,408
Reppin
Outer Space
I didn’t assume anything. I put your post in the only context that makes sense. Otherwise, no one knows what the fukk you’re talking about throughout our entire exchange. I care about what you read or learned Twitter but a lot of you guys clearly aren’t that involved with actual organizers and the generic contrived shyt you say demonstrates it. Hillary Clinton was a superior version of every centrist running aside from Harris and Buttgieg—I guess. And she had people stay home. So bringing up the hypothetical scenario where a couple people stay home for Bernie is ridiculous without some actual numbers making it substantive.

Short version: you’re saying a lot of nothing respectfully.[/QUOTE]

Neither do I and if you don't want to read what I have to say and quote me correctly them stop addressing me and put me on ignore.:manny:

The last part is purely an opinion. :yeshrug:
 

King Kreole

natural blondie like goku
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
15,703
Reputation
4,503
Daps
43,395
Obama won the centrists, trump won the centrists.

For the past two decades this has been blueprint and no the swing voters were not moderates that hated the centrist views. U just made that up :russ:
:dahell:

These Never Trump "moderate Republicans" who are accusing the progressives of driving them away (Brett Stephens, Meghan McCain, etc) didn't vote for Obama, they voted for Romney and McCain. The Obama coalition wasn't focused on moderates, it was PoC, young voters, women, college-educated, and independents. These Never Trumpers are running game on the Democrats. They love to lionize Obama now because they want to stop the Democrats' leftward shift and hate the vulgarity of Trump (but crucially not his policies, which is why push come to shove they'll probably vote for him again), but while Obama was in office they were not in the pro-Obama coalition, they were the Republican establishment. Trump has evicted them, so now they're pitching their bullshyt to Democrats in an attempt to weasel their way back into power.

I think you may have misunderstood my post, I wasn't saying the swing voters were moderates, I was saying they were people voting for Trump because he was the Change candidate, just as they voted for Obama because he was the Change candidate. Neither Obama or Trump was the moderate candidate in their elections. People forget because of how he governed, but Obama's campaigned like a progressive, particularly in '08. Trying to run the same blueprint as the past 20 years is idiotic in a rapidly changing socio-economic environment, and will deliver the Democratic nominee a loss, just like Hillary.
 

King Kreole

natural blondie like goku
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
15,703
Reputation
4,503
Daps
43,395
i posted that to piss one of you off. thank you for that rant. :lolbron:

i dont know if these are veiled threats or what but republicans ashamed of trump seem intent on influencing the dem primaries.

that being said, the hillary slander is on called for. she was dealing with a media enamored with trump and a huge russian propaganda machine. if she ran the exact same flawed campaign again in 2020 i'd bet she win simply because more voters are engaged and social media giants are regulating their sites better.
Yeah these Never Trumpers are shameless grifters running the most obvious scam on the planet and Democratic leadership is eating it up. God help us.

I agree that Trump is a significantly weaker candidate in 2020 than he was in 2016, just due to the fact that he now has a record of doing establishment bullshyt after running as an outsider and his vaudevillian clown schtick running long past the curtain fell. He lost a lot of credibility with people willing to take a shot to change the system. So I don't think beating him will be a particularly difficult feat, but the most dangerous route is letting him reanimate the 2016 election by running another centrist moderate telling everyone we just need to return to the pre-Trump status quo. He would again be the vitality candidate in that election.

Hillary (narrowly) lost due to a confluence of factors, and if any one of them turned the other way she might have won, but the biggest factor imo was the fact that her ideology was hopelessly out of step with the times. That her response to Trump's "Make America Great Again" was "America is Already Great" is just the perfect encapsulation of how awful her campaign was. But as a betting man, I think most any Democrat can beat Trump in 2020. That's why it's imperative to choose the one would make the best President, "electability" be damned.
 

IceDragon

All Star
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
1,611
Reputation
360
Daps
4,338
I agree with one thing Beto said on the trail "a movement is going to beat Trump, not just any politician". Super safe establishment picks don't have a history of doing well against incumbents. I think we can't afford to screw this nomination up, especially by letting Never Trumpers decide for us. The same Never Trumpers will have that "R" besides their name the nanosecond Trump is out.
 
Top