DEI policies defeated

[DeletedUser]

I still wonder how election woulda panned out if Dems had held a primary

even up to and including as late as, in the wake of Biden withdrawing

Came across this as I went back to check how "civil" everyone was being to you (LOL)....


This (as usual) is such a ridiculous over simplification.

If your point is that Biden should have announced he wasn't running 2.5 years into his term, then we ALL agree.

But when the panic set in and the change was made, it simply wasn't going to be possible to hold a suddenly planned nationwide primary.

How do you get ballots ready? Polling places ready? Vote counters ready? It's a logistical nightmare.

Answer: it's not possible.

They made the only choice they had. And it was still an OK choice.

Coming here to tell the board Dems (daily) that they didn't cater to YOU enough and the people you think they should have catered to enough, is a losing game for you. And the crowd who says "good job, good post" are mostly all banned or in timeout for a few more days. You're basically trying to take victory laps because Trump won. Think about the other people who are doing that around here and ask yourself why you're joining in. Even in a best case scenario what positive comes from it?

[MICHHAWK]

oushdale is a freethinker. since mlk day, freethinking has been very much discouraged.

[jfish26]

I still wonder how election woulda panned out if Dems had held a primary

even up to and including as late as, in the wake of Biden withdrawing

But when the panic set in and the change was made, it simply wasn't going to be possible to hold a suddenly planned nationwide primary.

How do you get ballots ready? Polling places ready? Vote counters ready? It's a logistical nightmare.

Answer: it's not possible.

They made the only choice they had. And it was still an OK choice.

Doesn't, you know, this merry-go-round of a conversation illustrate exactly why a snap primary would have been a horrible decision?

If we accept - for purposes of the conversation - that a meaningful number of voters declined to support Harris because of some sort of specific policy weakness...then what exactly would have resulted from having a play-in tournament?

[DeletedUser]

I still wonder how election woulda panned out if Dems had held a primary

even up to and including as late as, in the wake of Biden withdrawing

But when the panic set in and the change was made, it simply wasn't going to be possible to hold a suddenly planned nationwide primary.

How do you get ballots ready? Polling places ready? Vote counters ready? It's a logistical nightmare.

Answer: it's not possible.

They made the only choice they had. And it was still an OK choice.

Doesn't, you know, this merry-go-round of a conversation illustrate exactly why a snap primary would have been a horrible decision?

If we accept - for purposes of the conversation - that a meaningful number of voters declined to support Harris because of some sort of specific policy weakness...then what exactly would have resulted from having a play-in tournament?

Or a play in tournament with a higher probability of inconsistent and/or inaccurate results AFTER the 2020 "can we trust the count" bullshit.

It could have done additional harm.

It is not EASY to run a nationwide election. Hell, the everyday community members who run "local" elections would probably say even those aren't easy to run. Certainly not when unplanned/unexpected.

[BiggDick]

I still wonder how election woulda panned out if Dems had held a primary

even up to and including as late as, in the wake of Biden withdrawing

Came across this as I went back to check how "civil" everyone was being to you (LOL)....


This (as usual) is such a ridiculous over simplification.

If your point is that Biden should have announced he wasn't running 2.5 years into his term, then we ALL agree.

But when the panic set in and the change was made, it simply wasn't going to be possible to hold a suddenly planned nationwide primary.

How do you get ballots ready? Polling places ready? Vote counters ready? It's a logistical nightmare.

Answer: it's not possible.

They made the only choice they had. And it was still an OK choice.

Coming here to tell the board Dems (daily) that they didn't cater to YOU enough and the people you think they should have catered to enough, is a losing game for you. And the crowd who says "good job, good post" are mostly all banned or in timeout for a few more days. You're basically trying to take victory laps because Trump won. Think about the other people who are doing that around here and ask yourself why you're joining in. Even in a best case scenario what positive comes from it?

jeez, illy!

I honestly wastn' gonna bother responding, until I got to your bit about how you think I'm basically "trying to take victory laps because Trump won."

I assure you, that is not accurate! I'm as bummed as anyone that Trump won!

but Dems not catering to (enough voters) enough definitely is a "losing game" for me, and for all of us.

now yea, I do think certain posters really were being civil, to their credit.

[BiggDick]

and even if a "snap primary" would have been a horrible decision, I think an even more horrible decision was running a subpar candidate when "democracy" was on the line in this election.

The debate was June 27, when the overwhelming consensus was Biden was just too old to continue his campaign.

He didn't withdraw until July 21, almost a month later.

That in itself is a lot of time wasted, but that's beside the point.

I mean, yea hindsight is 20/20...but if it meant a better candidate with a better chance of beating Trump had come of it, don't you guys wish Dems had done that?!

[jfish26]

But when the panic set in and the change was made, it simply wasn't going to be possible to hold a suddenly planned nationwide primary.

How do you get ballots ready? Polling places ready? Vote counters ready? It's a logistical nightmare.

Answer: it's not possible.

They made the only choice they had. And it was still an OK choice.

Doesn't, you know, this merry-go-round of a conversation illustrate exactly why a snap primary would have been a horrible decision?

If we accept - for purposes of the conversation - that a meaningful number of voters declined to support Harris because of some sort of specific policy weakness...then what exactly would have resulted from having a play-in tournament?

Or a play in tournament with a higher probability of inconsistent and/or inaccurate results AFTER the 2020 "can we trust the count" bullshit.

It could have done additional harm.

It is not EASY to run a nationwide election. Hell, the everyday community members who run "local" elections would probably say even those aren't easy to run. Certainly not when unplanned/unexpected.

I hadn't even thought of that. But when you think about randy's fake tears over the anti-Biden "coup," it's not hard to imagine an argument being made (on, say, December 10) that well, actually the candidate who defeated Trump cheated to win the snap primary, and so...

[pdub]

oushdale is a freethinker. since mlk day, freethinking has been very much discouraged.

you are always free to freely think all about your free thoughts on a different website.

[MICHHAWK]

they all thought that one person was a tremendous candidate. how could the better party. with the better people. have been wrong.

[jfish26]

and even if a "snap primary" would have been a horrible decision, I think an even more horrible decision was running a subpar candidate when "democracy" was on the line in this election.

The debate was June 27, when the overwhelming consensus was Biden was just too old to continue his campaign.

He didn't withdraw until July 21, almost a month later.

That in itself is a lot of time wasted, but that's beside the point.

I mean, yea hindsight is 20/20...but if it meant a better candidate with a better chance of beating Trump had come of it, don't you guys wish Dems had done that?!

If you think Harris's Gaza policies cost her votes, you should think about what woulda happened if Harris had been knifed out of the spot in favor of...well, in favor of pretty much any other possibly-viable candidate. And that's just the intra-D political consequence - there would have been nearly-to-all-the-way-insurmountable legal and practical impediments to going outside of the ticket, specifically as to pledged delegates and campaign funds.

As I have said before, if tabbing Harris was a mistake, then it was a mistake that was made in 2020.

And I have a hard time, considering both the context and results of that election, concluding that Harris was a mistake in 2020.

I think the Dems made lots of errors in the 2024 cycle.

I do not think that popping Harris to the top of the ticket, after Biden stepped aside, was one of them.

[DeletedUser]

now yea, I do think certain posters really were being civil, to their credit.

LOL

Dude, you're so oblivious...

WTF is wrong with you?*

*Please, don't answer.

take it to reddit; you’re broken

Go fuck yourself.

ignorance and short-sightedness

painfully naive about domestic and world events, not to mention, someone so lacking in personal insight.

Just stop dude. Just stop.

I just don't think it's wise to keep doubling down on things that don't work



can’t make this shit up

This is a perfect instance where someone could say, "do your own research" and actually mean it.

No dude.
You walk it back because what you said isn't accurate.
That's why you walk it back.
...you bring this on yourself and then complain why people are angry at you..

Page after fucking page.....

Ousdahl decompensating. . .

I think you need to do some self reflection or get off the drugs.

[BiggDick]

illy, I am very cognizant of all that!

I agree that certain posters were NOT being civil! That's quite the compilation you put together tho - and it's not even including your mental health smack talk.

I just wanted to go for the more optimistic view that certain posters WERE, cuz if I say anything about other posters NOT being civil, I then get accused of playing the victim card.

[DeletedUser]

Insert: you walk it back quote

Insert: you can't make this up quote

[BiggDick]

If you think Harris's Gaza policies cost her votes, you should think about what woulda happened if Harris had been knifed out of the spot in favor of...well, in favor of pretty much any other possibly-viable candidate. And that's just the intra-D political consequence - there would have been nearly-to-all-the-way-insurmountable legal and practical impediments to going outside of the ticket, specifically as to pledged delegates and campaign funds.

As I have said before, if tabbing Harris was a mistake, then it was a mistake that was made in 2020.

And I have a hard time, considering both the context and results of that election, concluding that Harris was a mistake in 2020.

I think the Dems made lots of errors in the 2024 cycle.

I do not think that popping Harris to the top of the ticket, after Biden stepped aside, was one of them.

if we can think about "what woulda happened," then what woulda happened if Harris had been knifed out of the spot in favor of some candidate who won primaries with some platform that was not so hawkish on Gaza.

Without dissecting "mistake," I do not think that Harris was a particularly strong candidate in 2020, nor do I think she was in 24. I think that the 24 election results were less about the strength of the Dem ticket, and more just about Trump and how horribly he mismanaged covid in particular.

[jfish26]

If you think Harris's Gaza policies cost her votes, you should think about what woulda happened if Harris had been knifed out of the spot in favor of...well, in favor of pretty much any other possibly-viable candidate. And that's just the intra-D political consequence - there would have been nearly-to-all-the-way-insurmountable legal and practical impediments to going outside of the ticket, specifically as to pledged delegates and campaign funds.

As I have said before, if tabbing Harris was a mistake, then it was a mistake that was made in 2020.

And I have a hard time, considering both the context and results of that election, concluding that Harris was a mistake in 2020.

I think the Dems made lots of errors in the 2024 cycle.

I do not think that popping Harris to the top of the ticket, after Biden stepped aside, was one of them.

if we can think about "what woulda happened," then what woulda happened if Harris had been knifed out of the spot in favor of some candidate who won primaries with some platform that was not so hawkish on Gaza.

Then the Dems would have hemorrhaged Jewish and Black votes.

The real world sucks sometimes.

[BiggDick]

oushdale is a freethinker. since mlk day, freethinking has been very much discouraged.

you are always free to freely think all about your free thoughts on a different website.

yea, obviously.

Can I just say, I appreciate the varying perspectives this place affords.

While I have participated in pols discussions on other sites, it seems other sites are too prone to being echo chambers pretty quick.

Plus, I think there's something to be said for engaging posters who have known each other for years. But I also realize the other side of that coin is, now I've spent whatever social capital I had with those posters.

[BiggDick]

Then the Dems would have hemorrhaged Jewish and Black votes.

The real world sucks sometimes.

I dunno if "hemmoraged" applies, but dems did loose black votes.

and, I don't mean this in a way to marginalize Jewish votes, but, I kinda wonder what the math is here of whether maybe loosing some Jewish votes too (on the specific issue of Gaza) would have been worthwhile if it resulted in a net gain of Dem votes overall for the sake of beating Trump.

[DeletedUser]

You think Gaza is what lost the swing states?

Bizarre conclusion. What data are you basing this on? Gut feeling/eye test?

[twocoach]

oushdale is a freethinker. since mlk day, freethinking has been very much discouraged.

Free of logic, consistency and common sense is not the same as "free thinking".

[twocoach]

Then the Dems would have hemorrhaged Jewish and Black votes.

The real world sucks sometimes.

I dunno if "hemmoraged" applies, but dems did loose black votes.

and, I don't mean this in a way to marginalize Jewish votes, but, I kinda wonder what the math is here of whether maybe loosing some Jewish votes too (on the specific issue of Gaza) would have been worthwhile if it resulted in a net gain of Dem votes overall for the sake of beating Trump.

Did they really "lose" those votes or were those voters removed from the voting rolls via shady voter suppression efforts by certain states? Did they really "lose" those votes or did things like 31 polling locations in Atlanta being closed for a period of time due to bomb threats have a chilling result on black voter turnout?

https://sdvoice.info/trump-lost-vote-su ... e-numbers/

Here are key numbers:

4,776,706 voters were wrongly purged from voter rolls according to US Elections Assistance Commission data.
By August of 2024, for the first time since 1946, self-proclaimed “vigilante” voter-fraud hunters challenged the rights of 317,886 voters. The NAACP of Georgia estimates that by Election Day, the challenges exceeded 200,000 in Georgia alone.
No less than 2,121,000 mail-in ballots were disqualified for minor clerical errors (e.g. postage due).
At least 585,000 ballots cast in-precinct were also disqualified.
1,216,000 “provisional” ballots were rejected, not counted.
3.24 million new registrations were rejected or not entered on the rolls in time to vote.