Warren Lynch Shitpost General - TRUE and HONEST (former) John Flynt for Congress campaign worker

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
After like 80 attempts to have a reasonable discussion, you're still regarding me as a broad generalization.
I explain the nuance of why I think Brianna is a D+ running against two F's? Must be a smokescreen for my deep personal grudge against Lynch.
I say lol fine lets call it a grudge and move on to more interesting discussions? I must be full of hate, and symbolic of all progressives, who are shitheads and fuckheads.
It's been pretty well established that I'm not going to join in 100% hate of Brianna. And that we can still share stories of her shocking madness. So let's move on. Don't make this boring.

stets said:
Fagan is running in a race that's unwinnable and damaging her own party with her outbursts in Texas, a state that's tough for dems even in a what is shaping up as a good cycle for democrats. I can assure you that Republicans love her and are cheering her on. You really have a problem grasping that loud, obnoxious, and unlikable people are great for the opposition because it paints their entire group as loud, obnoxious, and unlikable.
Click to expand...
Funny how she won the primary then if she's so obnoxious and unlikeable :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kroster said:
Warren your Facebook page says that you went to a boarding prep school, another private school in Boston, and Hingham High School. Surely you know how people with money talk. Brianna has never fooled anyone into thinking that she's upper class. She might have more money than you, but you have much more class than her.

Didn't she have a thread a while ago about how she doesn't understand class in Boston politics? It's coming together now. She thought that driving a flashy car would open doors because people would think she was the right kind of person to give money to. That's probably how it works in tech startups and the more money you seem to have the more likely you'll get funding. But class in Boston politics isn't complicated to anyone who spends a few minutes looking around.
Click to expand...

I think she's pretty clueless on everything but she did grow up rich. I don't think it's a stretch that she is a little better socially with rich people as she's never had to converse with the poor in her entire life.

Although I would pay to watch a camera crew follow her around campaigning door-to-door in a trailer park.
 
Richard Stabone said:
I think she's pretty clueless on everything but she did grow up rich. I don't think it's a stretch that she is a little better socially with rich people as she's never had to converse with the poor in her entire life.

Although I would pay to watch a camera crew follow her around campaigning door-to-door in a trailer park.
Click to expand...

John grew up clinically insane and nouveau riche in Mississippi; he dresses like a homeless drag queen; he looks and moves like a drug-addled praying mantis. The idea that this freak show can interact with and be accepted by old-money New Englanders is one of Warren's little fictions based solely on the fact that a gang of Cabbots and Lodges has yet to beat John to death with a trace chain.
 
Dr. Merkwurdichliebe said:
The idea that this freak show can interact with and be accepted by old-money New Englanders is one of Warren's little fictions based solely on the fact that a gang of Cabbots and Lodges has yet to beat John to death with a trace chain.
Click to expand...
WASPs prefer 7 irons if I'm remembering my Kennedy family history correctly.
 
Richard Stabone said:
I think she's pretty clueless on everything but she did grow up rich. I don't think it's a stretch that she is a little better socially with rich people as she's never had to converse with the poor in her entire life.

Although I would pay to watch a camera crew follow her around campaigning door-to-door in a trailer park.
Click to expand...
None of those social graces they imprint on you in the south nor the famous “southern charm” stuck with Brianna.

In every interview she has mush-mouth, she doesn’t have any wit that southern women have....because she wasn’t raised as a woman but instead was a socially awkward, weird man up until 10 years ago.
 
AprilRains said:
Yeah, all three Texas Democrats who vote in primaries voted for her.
Get out of your fucking bubble.
Click to expand...
She was more well liked than both her Democrat opponent and the Republican challenger. I don't give her good odds against the incumbent Republican but she beat 2 other people and got about 13,800 votes, beating Will Fisher (D) and Veronica Birkenstock (R) in vote totals.
Must be doing SOMETHING right :)
 
W person cow said:
She was more well liked than both her Democrat opponent and the Republican challenger. I don't give her good odds against the incumbent Republican but she beat 2 other people and got about 13,800 votes, beating Will Fisher (D) and Veronica Birkenstock (R) in vote totals.
Must be doing SOMETHING right :)
Click to expand...

Warren, George Carlin once said he'd be doing what people do on election day, but when he was finished masturbating, he'd have something to show for it.

I don't doubt there were some genuine votes for Wu, at least one fool had to make that choice.

It more likely, however, they tossed their votes in Wu's direction because they knew Wu wasn't going to win but since they don't expect their votes to matter, why vote for the obvious winner?
 
W person cow said:
She was more well liked than both her Democrat opponent and the Republican challenger. I don't give her good odds against the incumbent Republican but she beat 2 other people and got about 13,800 votes, beating Will Fisher (D) and Veronica Birkenstock (R) in vote totals.
Must be doing SOMETHING right :)
Click to expand...
No, she's just doing something less wrong than the other two losers.

But by all means, proceed this way. Use this candidate and Ocasio-Cortez as your templates for success. I'm sure that will work out brilliantly.
 
GethN7 said:
Warren, George Carlin once said he'd be doing what people do on election day, but when he was finished masturbating, he'd have something to show for it.

I don't doubt there were some genuine votes for Wu, at least one fool had to make that choice.

It more likely, however, they tossed their votes in Wu's direction because they knew Wu wasn't going to win but since they don't expect their votes to matter, why vote for the obvious winner?
Click to expand...
Lol do you mean Linsey Fagan? Wu's primary has not happened yet, it's next week :)

AprilRains said:
No, she's just doing something less wrong than the other two losers.
But by all means, proceed this way. Use this candidate and Ocasio-Cortez as your templates for success. I'm sure that will work out brilliantly.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I will! 525 radical progressives with primary wins so far this year, 71 federal! I bet 1/5th of them win the General and we still end up dominating. The Virginia/Pennsylvania model seems to be working to me! I could be wrong though, I guess we'll see!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
W person cow said:
Lol do you mean Linsey Fagan? Wu's primary has not happened yet, it's next week :)
Click to expand...

My mistake.

Regardless, my point stands. You appear to have a lot of faith in lost cause candidates, and frankly, and I refer to someone I'm sure you could historically respect here, we aren't talking about William Jennings Bryan level lost causes, where there actually was enough fire to justify the expected smoke. We are talking about bottom tier dregs of voter choices you like to back because you agree with their politics or what you perceive as their politics, not because of any objective political chits they have collected that would make them popular with voters.

Bernie Sanders, for example, he had a decent shot at getting people to care before Clinton cut him off at the knees, and you have to admit Trump was objectively honest enough to realize that and try to win over Bernie voters by adopting or appear to adopt Bernie's positions in order to strength his pull at the polls.

What I'm basically saying is you come across as being a blind faith believer in people you like, as opposed to their actual chances at victory from where I'm sitting.
 
Kosher Dill said:
How many people currently in federal office do you consider radical progressives?
Click to expand...
13. Plus 71 potential new ones. In the Senate I only count Jeff Merkley and Bernie.
In the House, the "main 7" in my book
-Pramila Jayapal
-Ro Khanna
-Jamie Raskin
-Tulsi Gabbard
-Raul Grijalva
-Nanette Barragan
-Keith Ellison
Plus a few more moderate "semi radical" ones
-Marcy Kaptur
-Peter Welch
-Collin Peterson
-Rick Nolan (retiring)

GethN7 said:
My mistake.

Regardless, my point stands. You appear to have a lot of faith in lost cause candidates, and frankly, and I refer to someone I'm sure you could historically respect here, we aren't talking about William Jennings Bryan level lost causes, where there actually was enough fire to justify the expected smoke. We are talking about bottom tier dregs of voter choices you like to back because you agree with their politics or what you perceive as their politics, not because of any objective political chits they have collected that would make them popular with voters.

Bernie Sanders, for example, he had a decent shot at getting people to care before Clinton cut him off at the knees, and you have to admit Trump was objectively honest enough to realize that and try to win over Bernie voters by adopting or appear to adopt Bernie's positions in order to strength his pull at the polls.

What I'm basically saying is you come across as being a blind faith believer in people you like, as opposed to their actual chances at victory from where I'm sitting.
Click to expand...
I have been tracking races very carefully.
Local Berniecrats endorsements only have a 20% win rate, it's true
But DSA, 25%
Justice Dems, 30%
Bernie personal endorsements about 40%
Our Revolution endorsements about 45%
Working Families Party endorsements about 60%
PCCC endorsements about 75%
I cheer on all the above candidates. But I agree that some are more likely to win than others. When progressive campaigns are done *right* they have very good chances. But I also cheer on the upstarts, because they can learn and become more viable by experience.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
W person cow said:
I have been tracking races very carefully.
Local Berniecrats endorsements only have a 20% win rate, it's true
But DSA, 25%
Justice Dems, 30%
Bernie personal endorsements about 40%
Our Revolution endorsements about 45%
Working Families Party endorsements about 60%
PCCC endorsements about 75%
I cheer on all the above candidates. But I agree that some are more likely to win than others. When progressive campaigns are done *right* they have very good chances. But I also cheer on the upstarts, because they can learn and become more viable by experience.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough, I can't disagree with your contention if they don't try they can't gain the experience to win later.
 
AprilRains said:
Are those primary wins or general election wins?
Click to expand...
Those are primary wins. Maybe 80% in deep red districts where Bernie's economic message resonates most. Another 15% deep blue and 5% swing. Therefore I expect only about 15-25% of those remaining to win the General since y'know, deep red is deep red. But so what, that's 50-125 more Democrats, slightly increasing their number, and 75-125 Berniecrats, VASTLY increasing THEIR number, which is at the moment pretty small. About 250 state level and only 13 federal. So even such a small win is big to us :)
This strategy worked in Virginia last year in such an epic way that the State Legislature went from 34-66 to 49-51, ending a Republican supermajority for the first time in actually like 70(?) years? Since Johnson. It was crazy. The moderate dems win some of their carefully calculated swing districts, and we win a few of the deep red ones while stealing deep blue districts from them at the same time. They hate it but it seems to work :)

oops i meant 75-125 more dems that first time there not 50-175. Give me non cow access to edits!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
W person cow said:
Those are primary wins. Maybe 80% in deep red districts where Bernie's economic message resonates most. Another 15% deep blue and 5% swing. Therefore I expect only about 15-25% of those remaining to win the General since y'know, deep red is deep red. But so what, that's 50-125 more Democrats, slightly increasing their number, and 75-125 Berniecrats, VASTLY increasing THEIR number, which is at the moment pretty small. About 250 state level and only 13 federal. So even such a small win is big to us :)
This strategy worked in Virginia last year in such an epic way that the State Legislature went from 34-66 to 49-51, ending a Republican supermajority for the first time in actually like 70(?) years? Since Johnson. It was crazy. The moderate dems win some of their carefully calculated swing districts, and we win a few of the deep red ones while stealing deep blue districts from them at the same time. They hate it but it seems to work :)
Click to expand...

The other interpretation of this data is that all your "Berniecrats" are winning where there's no competition, because there's absolutely no chance of anyone with a D next to their name winning the general.

I mean, literally Hitler could put his name up against Stephen Lynch in Wu's district and he'd win the nomination by default.
 
Norvic said:
The other interpretation of this data is that all your "Berniecrats" are winning where there's no competition, because there's absolutely no chance of anyone with a D next to their name winning the general.
Click to expand...
Yeah you'll hear that oversimplification from pundits a lot. But that's because it's a scattershot strategy, the opposite of Hillary's "targeted supervoters" deal. For example in Virginia last year we ran in 80 races and won 8. Whereas moderate Dems ran in 20 races and won 7. Who did "better"? Who cares? Overall 15 races were flipped in one year, and it changed the face of Virginia.
 
Norvic said:
The other interpretation of this data is that all your "Berniecrats" are winning where there's no competition, because there's absolutely no chance of anyone with a D next to their name winning the general.

I mean, literally Hitler could put his name up against Stephen Lynch in Wu's district and he'd win the nomination by default.
Click to expand...
I kind of would pay good money to watch Warren sweat a bit in that voting booth who's name to check.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom