Author Topic: #HillarysLosers  (Read 1389 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ultimate Paragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8423
  • Gender: Male
  • Tougher than diamonds, stronger than steel
#HillarysLosers
« on: November 08, 2014, 11:08:43 am »
http://www.newsiosity.com/articles/politics/rand-paul-dubs-tuesday%E2%80%99s-democratic-slate-hillaryslosers

Quote
Just about every single candidate that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed lost on Tuesday. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has dubbed the slate “Hillary’s Losers” telling Breitbart News that she was the epic failure of the day.

The Clinton-hype is over according to Paul, a likely Republican candidate for president in 2016.

“Somebody should ask Hillary Democrats why they got wiped out tonight,” Paul told Breitbart News. “Clearly, Hillary is yesterday’s news.”

Most of the candidates Paul campaigned for won. The Republican senator has circulated a series of photos with the hashtag #HilarysLosers, which is starting to catch on Twitter.

I don’t think you should brag too loudly about being a member of the slightly less despised party (for the brief moment) of a despised government. 

Offline Yla

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
  • Gender: Male
Re: #HillarysLosers
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2014, 03:00:25 pm »
That is logic equivalent to: Your sports team lost against my sports team, ergo you suck.
That said, I've stopped trying to anticipate what people around here want a while ago, I've found it makes things smoother.
For I was an hungred, and ye told me to pull myself up by my bootstraps: I was thirsty, and ye demanded payment for the privilege of thine urine: I was a stranger, and ye deported me: naked, and ye arrested me for indecency.

Offline Random Dinosaur

  • Bisex Rex
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2682
  • Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus
Re: #HillarysLosers
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2014, 03:04:29 pm »
The real reason they're targeting Hillary Clinton with this is to discredit the Democratic front-runner for the 2016 election.
Quote from: The_Queen
I have more pleasant things to focus my attention, time, and resources on than Gamergate or the Gamergate thread, such as pouring hot sauce in my eyes, lemon juice enemas, and imagining being eaten alive by fire ants.

Offline Eiki-mun

  • der Löwe aus Mitternacht
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1416
  • Gender: Male
  • On the fields of Breitenfeld.
    • Main Personal Blog
Re: #HillarysLosers
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2014, 04:18:07 pm »
Republicans are apparently willing to stoop to grade-school tactics now. Well, not that they weren't before.
There is no plague more evil and vile to watch spread than the plague that is the Von Habsburg dynasty.

Offline ironbite

  • Overlord of all that is good in Iacon City
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10288
  • Gender: Male
  • Your True God
Re: #HillarysLosers
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2014, 04:31:01 pm »
She lost because Democrats in mid-terms don't get out to vote.

Ironbite-this honestly means nothing in 2016

Offline mythbuster43

  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
  • Gender: Male
    • Northwest View
Re: #HillarysLosers
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2014, 11:33:30 pm »
Ah yes, because as well all know  the 1994 republican wave completely killed the career of Bill Clinton. Oh, wait.

Offline Ironchew

  • Official Edgelord
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1888
  • Gender: Male
  • The calm, intellectual Trotsky-like Trotskyist
Re: #HillarysLosers
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2014, 11:59:22 pm »
I am not excited about the prospect of Clinton's nomination for the Democratic presidential candidate. Barring a completely unforeseen about-face where she transforms into a progressive, she's another corporatist Republican-lite Democrat. Obama had the advantage in 2012 of totally incompetent GOP front runners, but it looks like they're getting their act together for 2016 and I don't see a Republican-lite winning against the genuine article.

I'll vote in the primaries this time, but if Clinton wins the nomination I'm voting third party in the general election.
Consumption is not a politically combative act — refraining from consumption even less so.

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3530
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: #HillarysLosers
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2014, 01:04:09 am »
[...]I don't see a Republican-lite winning against the genuine article.

Interesting. Why?

In a strictly two-party system, a Republican-lite that gets past the primaries has a (theoretical) advantage over a "true" Democrat, in that it captures those votes which are to the right of a true Democrat but to the left of a Republican-lite. So the obvious risk of an R-lite is the left vote splitting with a third party, which requires a viable third-party leftist candidate. Is there one, or a strong expectation that one will show up in the next two years?
Σא

Online dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4867
Re: #HillarysLosers
« Reply #8 on: November 09, 2014, 01:12:18 am »
[...]I don't see a Republican-lite winning against the genuine article.

Interesting. Why?

In a strictly two-party system, a Republican-lite that gets past the primaries has a (theoretical) advantage over a "true" Democrat, in that it captures those votes which are to the right of a true Democrat but to the left of a Republican-lite. So the obvious risk of an R-lite is the left vote splitting with a third party, which requires a viable third-party leftist candidate. Is there one, or a strong expectation that one will show up in the next two years?

I think the real risk of a Republican-lite candidate is turning off voters who are too far left of said candidate.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3530
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: #HillarysLosers
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2014, 01:15:29 am »
Oh, right. Living in a mandatory voting system, I forget it's not zero-sum in America. I guess that's a possibility as well.
Σא

Online dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4867
Re: #HillarysLosers
« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2014, 01:19:03 am »
Oh, right. Living in a mandatory voting system, I forget it's not zero-sum in America. I guess that's a possibility as well.

Is there no way to mark a ballot in Argentinian elections so that it is invalid? (For instance, here I can simply put X next to two candidates for an office and my ballot is considered invalid but the final tally will still show it as having been cast.)
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3530
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: #HillarysLosers
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2014, 01:46:03 am »
You can both invalidate your vote and cast a valid vote for nobody (used to be a relevant distinction, but I think it isn't anymore). My mental model just rounds those off to "voting for the nth party candidate nobody", which is why I was thinking in zero-sum terms.

Not sure that makes sense. Should go to sleep.
Σא

Online dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4867
Re: #HillarysLosers
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2014, 02:53:16 am »
You can both invalidate your vote and cast a valid vote for nobody (used to be a relevant distinction, but I think it isn't anymore). My mental model just rounds those off to "voting for the nth party candidate nobody", which is why I was thinking in zero-sum terms.

Not sure that makes sense. Should go to sleep.

I think I get what you are saying. Anyway, that means that there is never a true two-party system, because voters unwilling to vote for either party can simply cast an invalid ballot/vote for nobody. So even with mandatory voting and only two candidates, people who can't bring themselves to vote for Republican or Republican-lite would vote for nobody, and there wouldn't be enough votes from those who want Republican-lite to allow that candidate to win.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline Ironchew

  • Official Edgelord
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1888
  • Gender: Male
  • The calm, intellectual Trotsky-like Trotskyist
Re: #HillarysLosers
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2014, 12:39:24 pm »
[...]I don't see a Republican-lite winning against the genuine article.

Interesting. Why?

In a strictly two-party system, a Republican-lite that gets past the primaries has a (theoretical) advantage over a "true" Democrat, in that it captures those votes which are to the right of a true Democrat but to the left of a Republican-lite.

Republicans are big on hating Democrats; the fact that Clinton is married to former president Clinton and played an influential role in his policymaking is not lost on them. If she plays Republican-lite as the Democratic presidential candidate, any potentially sympathetic voting bloc would dismiss her as a two-faced phony that belongs to the evil socialist librulls.

Meanwhile, progressives would have to ignore her voting record and corporatist ties to vote for her. Obama ran a good, if ultitmately duplicitous campaign in 2008 and got the progressive vote. If Clinton decides not to take that approach and instead plays the hawkish more-Republican-than-them card (which she did when running against Obama in 2008), the progressive base would be alienated and we may get a similar progressive turnout in 2016 as we normally get in the midterms. This would be devastating for any Democratic candidate and would basically hand the election to Republicans.

So the obvious risk of an R-lite is the left vote splitting with a third party, which requires a viable third-party leftist candidate. Is there one, or a strong expectation that one will show up in the next two years?

Personally, I am willing to endure handing Republicans a high-profile election if it means a significant chunk of voters abandon the Democrats for a third party. This is the sort of tactic that pushes the Democratic party platform to the left and it's something progressives desperately need in order to gain any sort of traction in policymaking.

As for viability, third parties won't be getting much money from the capitalist elite and they won't be getting much if any attention in the mainstream media. This always hurts the chances of an otherwise great candidate from the start and it's a big reason why we need to get money out of politics and why we need a more independent press.
Consumption is not a politically combative act — refraining from consumption even less so.

Offline Sigmaleph

  • Ungodlike
  • Administrator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3530
    • sigmaleph on tumblr
Re: #HillarysLosers
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2014, 02:02:10 pm »
You can both invalidate your vote and cast a valid vote for nobody (used to be a relevant distinction, but I think it isn't anymore). My mental model just rounds those off to "voting for the nth party candidate nobody", which is why I was thinking in zero-sum terms.

Not sure that makes sense. Should go to sleep.

I think I get what you are saying. Anyway, that means that there is never a true two-party system, because voters unwilling to vote for either party can simply cast an invalid ballot/vote for nobody.

Certainly true. I was thinking of "functionally" two party systems, where people technically have alternatives but they get so few votes they don't really affect the result either way. Why? No good reason other than that it's the simplest model.
Σא