Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

Speaking of shifting the blame, some people (well, at least one person anyway) are trying to blame the third party vote for the loss..

Which, I really don't agree with. For one, blaming it on third parties completely ignores everything else that went wrong. The third party vote is merely a symptom and a warning sign, had the Democrats or Clinton done things differently, then the Republicans would be the ones complaining about the third party vote.

Yep. I love that we're now into the "only if" stage of the election. If only Johnson voters in Florida had broke fifty fifty and Stien voters had all gone for Clinton. Well, next time maybe the Democrats should think about appealing to them? At the end of the day, we had an election and the election came up Trump.

[Reelya]

I feel like I'm being forced into a stereotypical Clinton-supporter position. It's kind of ironic to claim that you're being strawmanned, Reelya...

Well there's media perception of Dems + minorities, that's one issue.

And there's the fact they lose real actual support from minorities, that' sort of separate to the media perception issue.

You can't just blame the media if your core constituents aren't turning up to vote. They did in fact fail to do what campaigns are supposed to do in that case.

...why can't we? If there is no clear reason for "core constituents leaving" except "the media," then that's probably it. Did the Dems do not-perfectly? Sure. Are they at fault? no.

As for the "two separate facts" part: what the hell? The real actual loss of support is a direct result of bad PR, and that is a direct result of the fucking media.

How did I straw man you. You said statement, I disagreed with those statements. My inference of the meaning of your statements has also been fair (you haven't disavowed any of my inferences: you double-down on them, which proves I fairly inferred what you meant). If you think it makes you sound like a typical Clinton supporter, that's on you, not on me. I'm just reacting to what you say.

When PR is literally your entire job, and you're spending $100 of millions of dollars on it, if things go less than swimmingly, it is in fact the fault of your campaign strategy.

[Rolan7]

they were actively hostile to sanders in the primaries, paid people to start race riots at his rallies, and pretended to be impartial, while pouring resources on clinton.

did nothing wrong?  good grief.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/22/wikileaks-dumps-dnc-emails/

Drafting a speech in case the relatively obscure Independent guy loses?  They doubted Sanders!  CORRUPTION!
Daring to ask a potential President of the United States his religious beliefs?  That never would have come up in the general!  ATHEIST-SHAMING!
Considering calling out the Sanders campaign for being disorganized?  But then not doing so?  TOO LATE, GOTCHA!

And this is all Wikileaks, AKA completely unsubstantiated, but as usual let's just assume they're all true.  For reasons.
But yeah whatever keep piling it on

Honestly I wish I had supported Sanders, now, but at the time I didn't realize his supporters were holding the Democratic party at gunpoint.  It's like Dr Strangelove...  A nuke does nothing if you don't actually make the threat.  Heck Sanders *didn't* make the threat, this happened despite him.  He's a cool guy.

[wierd]

snopes feels they are genuine.

[Rolan7]

But even if they're 100% true, which let's go ahead and keep assuming, they're not actually bad.  That was my point.

[wierd]

Issues of dispute regarding the content of the leaks were legion. Unquestionably, the e-mails demonstrated that the DNC operated as an arm of the Hillary Clinton campaign, planting information in the media to flatter Clinton and damage opponent Bernie Sanders. The revelations were particularly damaging because the DNC was obligated to behave neutrally, and had repeatedly denied the demonstrated favor toward Clinton existed.

direct from snopes.

[Frumple]

Because FTFE isp. FTFE.

when the party expecting those votes does not represent those voters interests, and documentation proving that comes tto light, you blame the messenger?!

You know, weird, there were more interests involved than "elect sanders". Both for the folks that supported him and the ones that supported other people. The media fuckup is that they focused on basically one or two interests, in exclusion to just about everything else, and did their damnedest to push that monofocus onto the people they were marketing towards. You blame the messenger because they're the ones that somehow managed to push this narrative that because the DNC didn't suck bernie off even behind the scenes, where they have a long history of opposition with sanders and while he was pretty much screwing the party itself, they were ignoring everyone that supported him. Never mind he did get support from them while he was running, despite them having less than zero reason to actually throw that kind of support behind a hostile independent. Never mind that so far as actually enacted procedure goes, he was treated pretty much the exact same as clinton or any other candidate would be. Never mind that clinton actually did slide towards sanders on some things, and was already there with just about everything else. None of it matters. Behind the scenes communication matters more than actual action. All the other interests that were listened to instead of "elected sanders" didn't matter. That's how things rolled out.

[Reelya]

Honestly I wish I had supported Sanders, now, but at the time I didn't realize his supporters were holding the Democratic party at gunpoint. 

Huh, so now it's all Sander's supporters fault? It kind of feels like every possible person has been labeled as being behind Clinton's loss (GOP, Sanders, Media, DNC) except for the people who actually ran her campaign, who nobody apparently is listing as having any issues or making mistakes.

[wierd]

frumple:

so, when somebody gossips behind your back, it is a ok? only the words spoken in public matter?

[Reelya]

If the umpire in a sporting match was talking with one of the team captains like that about the other team, it would be a huge scandal. And that's just a game.

so, when somebody gossips behind your back, it is a ok? only the words spoken in public matter?

Unless it's something like "grab 'em by the pussy", in which case it's a big deal even if meant privately

[wierd]

Honestly I wish I had supported Sanders, now, but at the time I didn't realize his supporters were holding the Democratic party at gunpoint. 

Huh, so now it's all Sander's supporters fault? It kind of feels like every possible person has been labeled as being behind Clinton's loss (GOP, Sanders, Media, DNC) except for the people who actually ran her campaign, who nobody apparently is listing as having any issues or making mistakes.

i sure as hell am.  they did everything short of murder to make her the nominee, then just expected quid pro quo from voters.

[Rolan7]

frumple:

so, when somebody gossips behind your back, it is a ok? only the words spoken in public matter?

Uh, yeah?  That they actually and publicaly gave Sanders all the help he deserves, and then some, is what does matter.  Are you actually condemning them for not being happy about it in private?

Honestly I wish I had supported Sanders, now, but at the time I didn't realize his supporters were holding the Democratic party at gunpoint. 

Huh, so now it's all Sander's supporters fault? It kind of feels like every possible person has been labeled as being behind Clinton's loss (GOP, Sanders, Media, DNC) except for the people who actually ran her campaign, who nobody apparently is listing as having any issues or making mistakes.

Why yes I do believe my favored candidate ran a good campaign.
I apologize for my audacity, and for claiming that it was "all" the fault of Sander's supporters.  I have timetraveled back and unmade that part of my post, apparently.

[Shadowlord]

Because FTFE isp. FTFE.

Fixed That For Ewe?

[wierd]

rolan:

where are the emails calling for the staffers to dig up dirt on hillary? if it is as you say, a neutral tactic to hedge all bets, wheres the email scandal or fbi probe emails, or perhaps the leaders on her being questioned about voting yes to all the wars she claims to have not suppored? perhaps her historical position on gay marriage, even colbert called her on that one...

no, no such emails exist?

fancy that.

i would say you have difficulty with the concept of neutrality.

[Frumple]

Because FTFE isp. FTFE.

Fixed That For Ewe?

Fuck The Fourth Estate.

frumple:

so, when somebody gossips behind your back, it is a ok? only the words spoken in public matter?

Actions matter, wierd. Someone shit talking me by the water cooler doesn't mean they're going to sabotage the work project we're both working on. And if I've been screwing them for years it's probably pretty understandable!

Like, seriously. Do you not understand why there just maybe may have been some enmity between DNC staffers and sanders? That frustration behind more or less closed doors doesn't necessarily translate into anything except frustration behind closed doors? If someone actually managed to produce something that showed actual action, or something that was actually egregious for politics or office talk, I'd be pissed. If that happened, I missed it. I didn't miss a lot of people trying to blow fluff into fallout, but I missed that.

And yeah, ree, if it had actually been something that damning or disgusting, it would have mattered. That, it wasn't.