The Democratic Party of the USA

[Ohwell]

3 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Oh Well,

 

Despite my entirely not agreeing with Senator Sanders, I DID vote him in my state primary because I thought he was FAR more worthy with more initiative and gumption than the one foisted upon the  us due to the sentimental attachments.  However; for the sake of our nation and world I did my duty while literally holding my nose to vote for Senator Clinton in the Presidential election. I  hope that clarifies things.

I understand.  I did the same thing, Sanders in the primary and did the nose-holding thingy and voted for Clinton in the general election.  I expected her to win; however, my thought process was that, in the event that she lost, I at least did my part and it wouldn't be on my conscience.  

[MulletorHater]

6 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

His district is right in the middle of that rust belt, so I guess it's hardly surprising that he wants to be accommodating to them. But lying to them about their jobs coming back, as everyone is, does them no favours. It will just hurt more, with each year when those promises don't come true. 

Tell them the truth. They need to retrain, and the government will do whatever it can to bring new employment to the area (unless it's a Republican government, in which case, they only help themselves). But the jobs they want simply do not exist any more. If they can't handle that, and vote him out of office because they want to keep living in a fantasy world, then fuck 'em.

Senator McCain told Youngstown, Ohio voters in 2008 that he didn't think NAFTA was a 4-letter word.  When asked how he planned to save American jobs, he actually told the truth.  He said he couldn't look them in the eye and tell them that the steel mills were coming back.  He also said that in the end, people would be better off through retraining and education programs in technology.

His message wasn't well received then.  It's grossly irresponsible for anyone to promise the return of jobs without mentioning retraining.  It seems to me also that a jobs bill should include a way for people to be paid while they're being trained for new jobs in new technologies.

[DollEyes]

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 8:33 PM, Ohwell said:

I read the Eichenwald article, and I'm pretty certain that Sanders and his people would have been prepared for the Republican onslaught.  I believe he would have survived it, just as Trump survived his scandals.  In that regard, that's where I think they were both similar because they had enough enthusiastic people to vote for them, despite the bad news and scandals, and I think that Bernie would have had more of those enthusiastic voters than Trump.  

So to sum up, I still think that Bernie would have kicked Trump's ass, but I also recognize that arguing about this is truly a moot point now because Hillary fucked up and Trump won.  Game over.

Not necessarily. Hillary probably had the same opposition research about Sanders that the Republicans did, but she chose not to use it because Sanders wasn't the nominee; otoh, knowing Trump, his temperament, the company he keeps, his fan base and his/their allergic reaction to sanity, if Sanders was the nominee, chances are Trump not only wouldn't have shown such restraint, he would have crushed Sanders and thought nothing of it. 

 

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 6:11 PM, Jordan27 said:

The Democrat Party is in huge trouble.... 

 As long as liberals keep on with their nonsensical racist charges, they are never going to get anywhere. 

I'm not racist, no one in my family is racist, none of my friends are and never saw any at any of the Republican events I've been to.  What is racist is accusing people of being racist who aren't.  Plus, I despise racism.

I did see racism during the campaign.  The BLM chanting let's burn white cops like bacon.  Didn't see a lot of liberals complaining about that.

But, I'm going to help you out and tell you our real complaint...

We didn't like Obama because he was a liberal.  We didn't like Hillary because she was a liberal. 

We don't like the Dem Party because they espouse liberal policies.

WE DON'T LIKE LIBERALISM. 

...so ends the lesson.

I respectfully disagree. For one thing, while I agree that the Democratic party is in trouble, the Republican party has problems of its own. True, they may be the majority for now, but that also means that when things go wrong, which they inevitably will, it's on them.   As for racism, it's true there are a few extremists in Black Lives Matter, but the vast majority I've seen have been respectful and peaceful. Trump campaigned and won-the Electoral College, anyway-based on exploiting peoples' fears and scapegoating innocent people based on their color and/or their religion because of them and it has gotten even worse since the election, with numerous reports about Muslim women having their hijabs ripped off, Black students being taunted with racist hate speech and Latino children being bullied by their White classmates with "Build that wall!", to literally name a few, but I don't see any of the so-called "non-racist" Republicans complaining too much, if at all, about those incidents, except for Trump's lukewarm response on 60 Minutes: "Don't do it," which was neither constructive, comforting nor Presidential. That some of Trump's supporters voted for President Obama at least once makes their ignorance even worse. 

  Because Trump's campaign/ Electoral victory has not only encouraged hate, it's weaponized it, it's no wonder that people of all ages are literally taking to the streets because of it.  I say, to quote NJ senator Cory Booker, "Thank God for the protesters." Not the idiots who are vandalizing property; I'm talking about the vast majority who are peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.  Because of Trump, his rhetoric and his minions, these people are legitimately scared for their families, their freedom and their lives.  If it wasn't for the constant hate-mongering of Trump and his ilk pandering to the lowest common denominator, these people probably wouldn't be protesting in the first place. The Democrats may have their faults, but the Republicans need to clean their own house before they criticize ours. 

Edited November 21, 2016 by DollEyes

[potatoradio]

I have a question for any Greens, Independents or Bernie supporters here - what are your thoughts for moving forward? The Dems didn't win and there are many reasons for that. Can we revolutionize and still unite under one party? Are you more concerned with long term progressive progress or short term elections? I've thought about attending a local Green party meeting to hear what they have to say, as well as the Democratic party meeting. I'm hoping to start understanding whether we all view the election outcome as a disaster and where there are opportunities to build bridges to strengthen our resistance and preserve common long term goals. 

I ask sincerely - maybe I'm asking the wrong questions (and feel free to tell me that), but I appreciate anyone who has thoughts to share. 

[Blergh]

One thing that DESPERATELY needs to be learned is regardless of whom the Presidential nominee is, to NEVER ignore the Senatorial, Representative, Gubernatorial or state representative races or candidates again. Putting all eggs in one basket just scrambles things.

[slf]

On 11/14/2016 at 0:24 AM, shok said:

Sanders is 75 yrs old and Warren is 67. They are hardly the future of the party and Sanders couldn't even muster up enough votes to win the primary - he wasn't going to win the general. Plus they have no support from the various minority groups in the country that are the heart of the Democratic party. Sanders' campaign rallies were as white as Trump's.

Thank you for bringing this up because in the wake of Trump's win people have been pushing this idea that Bernie could've won. Which is blatantly false given that he couldn't even win the nomination. The man couldn't get voters to vote for him in the primaries but he could've gotten them to vote him president? Really? There's a very specific profile that most Sanders supporters fall into; as you point out, his campaign rallies were extraordinarily white given he's a liberal. He really failed to connect with anyone who wasn't white and under the age of 25, and while he did well with young white women he didn't do well with women overall. But also a lot of people just got a read on him; he's as calculated as Clinton but hasn't done the work. As someone (I forget who) once pointed out, even if you set aside that he voted for many of the same bills his supporters attacked HRC for such as the crime bill (which internal WH memos show she fought behind closed doors), he never tried to gather support behind him when Democrats actually had a chance to pass major legislation to make that legislation as liberal as possible. He wasn't willing to compromise and become associated with flawed bills. It was more important to his carefully crafted image as a purist to simply pass up the opportunity to work and negotiate and change things and then just blast the resulting bills as corrupt.

Anyone elected has to work. They have to compromise. You can't just go in an upend the system, fix it all in one go, and to suggest otherwise is naive to the point of stupidity. Bernie does not have the know-how or institutional support to even get that kind of legislation passed, and to a degree that's his choice. However it's also an issue of some of his campaign promises being ludicrous, such as saying by the end of his first term the US would no longer have more people in prison than any other country in the world. ...Um, no. He wouldn't have the power to do that. Fed prisons have less than 15% of the prison population and the GOP pretty much owns most state governments and there are few if any Republicans who would be willing to support his policies. What's worse is, he knows he couldn't do it. Just as he know his tax plans would not be capable of paying for the things he said they would. Sanders isn't stupid. He's very aware that he promised his supporters things he could never begin to make good on.

Bernie couldn't get it done and honestly didn't even really try. (To say nothing of how he went after HRC for relying on superdelegates but he relied on the caucus system which are undemocratic as hell. Then he very suddenly wanted the superdelegates, after all. He called Obama "weak" and said he deserved to be "primaried", ffs.) 

Confederate insurgency was HRC's concern and she was right. Sanders is and was all about the plutocracy, like most of his supporters (again, largely white voters who, despite being liberals, often sneer at the idea that racism was the main decider in this election because they believe, like Sanders, that poverty is the root of white racism which is itself an inherently racist idea). And that factored into who he attracted hugely. He lost most of the primaries because he failed to attract black voters, hispanic voters, asian voters, Muslim voters, older voters who've seen this shit before, etc. They saw the writing on the wall and knew HRC was aiming at the right enemy and knew that there was no way in hell libs were going to take the House or Senate so it was never going to be about enacting major progressive legislation, it was going to be about hunkering down and fighting a war against the GOP to protect Obama's achievements and advancements and making advancements where we could. HRC can handle the grind, Bernie Sanders can't and has consistently shown he's not willing to try.

[Ohwell]

In spite of all the negative stuff said about Sanders in the above post, and all the positive stuff said about Clinton--she lost.  There will be no "grind" for her to handle, at least not as POTUS.  

Could Sanders have lost the general election if he'd won the nomination?  Possibly.

One thing we know for sure is that Clinton definitely lost.

[slf]

1 hour ago, Ohwell said:

Could Sanders have lost the general election if he'd won the nomination?  Possibly.

One thing we know for sure is that Clinton definitely lost.

Absolutely, she lost the presidential election. And Sanders couldn't make it that far.

There's a quote from MLK that I've been thinking about a lot lately that I just wanted to share:

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

[Ohwell]

So who, if anyone, is that quote referring to in the present day?  Hillary?

[slf]

7 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

So who, if anyone, is that quote referring to in the present day?  Hillary?

Politicians on the left, from HRC to Sanders. But mostly that quote has been in my mind due to everything I've been hearing ordinary citizens say. Dismissing the role race played in this election, dismissing why candidates like Sanders couldn't secure the votes of minorities, dismissing the history that fed voters support of Trump and his heinous policies. The overwhelming focus on economics, treating it as the be all end all when there's so much more at stake. Even now people are insisting that HRC should have tried harder for blue collar whites; prioritizing them at the expense of everyone else, as usual.

It's just got me thinking, is all.

[Ceindreadh]

2 hours ago, Ohwell said:

In spite of all the negative stuff said about Sanders in the above post, and all the positive stuff said about Clinton--she lost.  There will be no "grind" for her to handle, at least not as POTUS.  

Could Sanders have lost the general election if he'd won the nomination?  Possibly.

One thing we know for sure is that Clinton definitely lost.

The biggest loser in all of this is the USA. 

[MulletorHater]

18 hours ago, potatoradio said:

I have a question for any Greens, Independents or Bernie supporters here - what are your thoughts for moving forward? The Dems didn't win and there are many reasons for that. Can we revolutionize and still unite under one party? Are you more concerned with long term progressive progress or short term elections? I've thought about attending a local Green party meeting to hear what they have to say, as well as the Democratic party meeting. I'm hoping to start understanding whether we all view the election outcome as a disaster and where there are opportunities to build bridges to strengthen our resistance and preserve common long term goals. 

I ask sincerely - maybe I'm asking the wrong questions (and feel free to tell me that), but I appreciate anyone who has thoughts to share. 

Please see my suggestions upthread.  As an Independent who was feeling the Bern for a while, Hillary ultimately earned my vote.  There definitely was no nose holding when I proudly voted early for the first woman president.

But to answer your questions, the party has to do a better job of educating voters that they MUST get off their detached asses and vote in midterm elections.  I have friends who were poll workers in Maryland in 2014 and every last one of them expressed how disappointed they were with the dismal turnout at their respective polling places.  

Stop relying so much on polls dammit!  Because President Obama's approval rating was low and based on Nate Silver's predictions, the party elders abandoned a president who was still popular with the base.  The Democrats ran from their own platform and principles and ran as Republican-lite.  Why run as a Diet Coke when voters can either simply vote for the real thing or just abstain?  As we painfully saw in this election cycle, the polls aren't the be all and end all of everything.  Some candidates didn't even want to be seen with the president or even acknowledge they actually voted for him.  What kind of message did that send to the base?  Why should they come out and vote for your weak asses when you are too chickenshit to stand up for the leader of your party?  Nor did it help that President Clinton (and Hillary) didn't hesitate to throw Obama under the bus when he perceived that Hillary's interests would be negatively impacted, i.e. the rocky start to sign up people for the ACA.  It was a shitty thing to do and resonated with voters.

In other words, to paraphrase Deval Patrick, the party needs to grow a fucking backbone!  And the party needs to be more effective in getting its message out there and stop rolling over when criticized.  Go back and look at FDR's speeches; he had no problem calling out the GOP and " welcome[d] their hate."

[NextIteration]

On 11/13/2016 at 8:31 AM, stormy said:

I live in Minneapolis although not in Keith Ellison's district.  As much as I love and admire him I really think the chair of the DNC is a full time job. The whole thing went down the crapper when Debbie Wasserman Schultz took over.

There is former mayor R.T. Rybak (who is currently the vice chair of the DNC) or former governor Deval Patrick or soon to be former congressman Steve Isreal or former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney or soon to be former Secretary of Housing Julian Castro.

I sure wish that DWS would have been ousted in August of 2015 at the DNC convention here in Minneapolis and R.T. Rybak elevated to DNC chair.  DWS should have been gone after the disastrous 2014 mid-terms.  Deval Patrick's wife won't let him run for POTUS, she's terrified of something horrible happening.  I'm in Ellison's district and I wish he'd run for House Minority leader and not DNC chair - he's already co-chair of the Progressive Caucus.

On 11/13/2016 at 7:23 PM, FuriousStyles said:

2008 was supposed to be her turn but that young, inspirational senator from Illinois got in the way.

Obama was actually the Establishment pick, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer were all in for Obama from the start, even if it was behind closed doors.

On 11/14/2016 at 1:40 AM, ruby24 said:

Everyone should donate something to that Dem in Louisiana. A 51-49 Senate is the first action we can take.

Done.

On 11/14/2016 at 4:32 PM, NewDigs said:

Keith Ellison  has thrown his hat into the DNC-chair ring.

That might raise some Republican bp's.

Good!

See my comment above.

On 11/15/2016 at 3:30 PM, sistermagpie said:

 I’ve heard many say that the word “racist” has no meaning for them now because the Left uses it so often, but I honestly think the reason it has no meaning isn’t because the Left uses it so much, it’s because they don’t actually mind being racist. Once they flipped the script and came up with reasons for why Democrats are really racist (social safety nets “train” minorities to live off the government instead of working!) and sexist (giving a woman the right to choose means you don’t respect her biological superiority as a person who can give birth!) they were happy to use them against others while also talking about how Jim Crowe wasn’t so bad etc.

It's a well established GOP/Conservative meme.

On 11/16/2016 at 6:49 PM, Duke Silver said:

**I'm not a Democrat, am a registered Independent**

I just watched Congressman Tim Ryan from Ohio being interviewed by Chris Matthews.  Apparently, Ryan is mulling over running against Nancy Pelosi as House Minority Leader (he seems to have been the chief engineer behind getting that vote delayed; was supposed to be held Thurs, Nov 17).

Anyway, his "platform" is clearly focused on trying to re-acquire Obama voters who voted for Trump (he didn't say it that way, but that is necessarily what he meant).  ****I continue to think it's a huge (yuuuuuge!) mistake for the Dems to wast time on that demographic.****

He even explicitly said that demographic should not be expected to re-train for jobs.  Is he fucking serious?  He's actually using Trump's talking point that he seriously thinks old economy jobs (that have been disappearing for 2+ decades) will be magically brought back????  I sincerely hope Democrats don't think this is the way to go.  I have many more thoughts/arguments about this, but this just isn't the place for it.  A college buddy (an unapologetic Liberal, heh) & I are organizing monthly dinner parties, the focus of which will be fund-raising for a handful or organizations.  I'm sure he & I will be debating this ad nauseum, LOL.

Amen.

On 11/16/2016 at 7:06 PM, NewDigs said:

I don't know anything about Jaime Harrison but he sounded energized on whichever the heck channel I had the teevee on earlier.

How much time and energy does Ellison need? Or have? Do we need him in the House full-time ?

This is who should be the next DNC Chair if not R.T. Rybak.

Tulsi Gabbard has loose ties to a cult, if you think Hillary is a corporatist you wouldn't really like Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren is less than a year younger than Hillary and was once a Republican that flipped a few houses and Bernie and Joe are far too old to run.  Klobuchar, Duckworth and McCaskill are way too mushy middle so if Hillary wasn't liberal enough for you...

We need do deepen and widen the Democratic bench from dog catcher to the U.S. Senate - I highly recommend donating to Emily's List - and Bernie's Revolution.  And get a zapper for all the millennials you know and force their asses to the polls every election, they after all, have the most to loose.

[33kaitykaity]

13 hours ago, slf said:

Absolutely, she lost the presidential election. And Sanders couldn't make it that far.

If HRC had not actively gathered all of the super-delegates to her campaign really, really early and had not had the active support of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the not-impartial DNC, Bernie would have won.  Bernie only bowed out because we all found out that the Indictment Fairy was officially a no-show.  

I'm in Oregon, so I voted quite a while ago.  And I hesitated and gave slightly more attention to voting for the Cheetos Jesus than he warranted before marking the ballot for her.  I had argued for Bernie, but once Bernie dropped out and endorsed HRC, I went that way as well.

Before Election Day, I couldn't stand to listen to Jimmy Dore.  I was addicted to Msnbc.  Now I can only stand to watch Lawrence and Jimmy is the voice for my inchoate rage at the infinite stupidity, hubris, and arrogance of the HRC campaign.   What happened to HRC's vaunted ground game/GOTV operation?  Why didn't she display some humility to the progressive left and go with Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown instead of "Mr. Brings Nothing," centrist Tim Kaine?  

Michael Moore warned early that Drumpf could win this thing.  He was right.  

Quote

 

"Yes, on November 8, you Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, all the Blows get to go and blow up the whole goddamn system because it's your right. Trump's election is going to be the biggest fuck ever recorded in human history and it will feel good."

[more at link]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/michael-moore-trumps-election-will-be-biggest-fuck-you-ever-recorded-human-history

 

 

Video at below link of MM's July 20,2016 appearance on Real Time where MM states, "I’m sorry to be the buzzkill here so early on, but I think Trump is gonna win."

http://www.salon.com/2016/07/21/i_think_trump_is_gonna_win_michael_moore_tells_bill_maher_that_dems_need_top_stop_laughing_at_the_rnc_circus/

[fireice13]

I'm actually starting to think that Hillary losing is the best thing that could've happened for the Democrats and hopefully in the long term, the country. If she had won, Democrats would have ignored the split in the party for another 4 years and we would have been killed in the midterms and probably in the 2020 election. The 2020 election is extremely important because it's also a census year.

If the Democrats can get their act together and focus on local and state elections (because I don't think we'll make many gains in the midterms due to gerrymandering and difficult Senate seats to defend) they can get a slate of people ready to challenge at the state level and federal in 2020. The ultimate goal for that election is not just taking back federal power, but taking back state legislatures as well due to the census. 

It seems like the Clinton campaign ignored people on the ground in the upper Midwest who started sounding the alarm about the winds shifting. The DNC needs to make sure that the people who know their states are getting what they need to re-take them. It really needs to be a local effort with support from the national party and not the national party dictating to the local parties.

[slf]

7 hours ago, 33kaitykaity said:

If HRC had not actively gathered all of the super-delegates to her campaign really, really early and had not had the active support of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the not-impartial DNC, Bernie would have won. 

To quote Kilgore:

"If that shocks you, it may be because you are under the misapprehension that the DNC is composed of highly professional operatives sworn to neutrality in contested nomination contests. Truth is, the DNC doesn’t have a lot to do with the nomination contest (hence the endless complaints about one thing it did control, the debate schedule), and isn’t any more neutral than any other assemblage of political junkies with pasts and futures that are intimately connected to the fates of politicians like Hillary Clinton.”

Political parties are built on loyalty and alliances, and it's not really the DNC's job to bend over backwards to accommodate an independent who jumped onto the Democrat's bandwagon because he wanted access to their resources (among other things). Bernie supporters can act like it was all rigged against them but it wasn't, I've read the emails. The complaints against HRC amount to "she played the game", and so did Sanders. She just did it better. For example, as you pointed out, she gathered the superdelegates to her early on instead of stupidly blasting them then backtracking and making a play for them as Sanders did. He botched that and looked like a hypocrite at the same time.

[Danny Franks]

5 hours ago, fireice13 said:

I'm actually starting to think that Hillary losing is the best thing that could've happened for the Democrats and hopefully in the long term, the country. If she had won, Democrats would have ignored the split in the party for another 4 years and we would have been killed in the midterms and probably in the 2020 election. The 2020 election is extremely important because it's also a census year.

If the Democrats can get their act together and focus on local and state elections (because I don't think we'll make many gains in the midterms due to gerrymandering and difficult Senate seats to defend) they can get a slate of people ready to challenge at the state level and federal in 2020. The ultimate goal for that election is not just taking back federal power, but taking back state legislatures as well due to the census. 

It seems like the Clinton campaign ignored people on the ground in the upper Midwest who started sounding the alarm about the winds shifting. The DNC needs to make sure that the people who know their states are getting what they need to re-take them. It really needs to be a local effort with support from the national party and not the national party dictating to the local parties.

Yes. They need to be looking to win at every level, to put strong candidates forward, to engage as many demographics as they can and simply get people invested in the Democratic Party.

First up is that Senate seat in Louisiana. They should be playing off the terror of Trump's win to bring out the people of New Orleans in their droves. It might not be winnable, but they should wear themselves out trying. Then, the gubernatorial and state elections in New Jersey and Virginia next year. Both states should be firmly in play for the Democrats. And after that, there are the midterms. In the meantime, every school board election and special district election in the country should be given attention.

Win from the ground up, root out Republicans at all levels. That's the only way the Democrats can undo the damage that the Republican Party is doing to the USA.

[potatoradio]

The HRC campaign did some early ads here in MN that I didn't understand why they dropped. HRC talked about local companies that moved their headquarters overseas and how she would make them accountable for keeping those jobs here. I don't know why the campaign stopped doing that. I thought those were some the exact messages we needed to hear - not just blue collar workers, but white collar ones, too. 

I'm trying to think of ways our local Dem and Green party could unite around community outreach and education so that people understand that this isn't a binary issue. We are not going to have a second coming of the industrial revolution and giant corporations have quashed small businesses. We need to get real, not alarmist, but real about this. 

When the marriage amendment failed here in 2012, it was defeated because many institutions - churches, community ed groups, and corporations/businesses - came together for discussions and it became pretty clear that Minnesotans didn't want to oppress people they knew and neither did the institutions they supported. 

I think people need to understand not only that Democrats/progressives oppose Trump not because of his...well, we all know his bullshit...but why we oppose it and what we can do better on a specific issue like jobs for mining country and farms. Stress how we can protect their ability to earn a living and show exactly why the Trump policies fail. 

Edited November 21, 2016 by potatoradio

[NextIteration]

2 hours ago, potatoradio said:

The HRC campaign did some early ads here in MN that I didn't understand why they dropped. HRC talked about local companies that moved their headquarters overseas and how she would make them accountable for keeping those jobs here. I don't know why the campaign stopped doing that. I thought those were some the exact messages we needed to hear - not just blue collar workers, but white collar ones, too.

It was her primary campaign Johnson Controls ad:

I was actually a little offended that she didn't do one against Medtronic - but, Minnesota was never going to to Hillary in the primaries, I think she thought she had a shot against Sanders in Wisconsin.

But you're right, she probably should have found a big company in every state that had received tax breaks and turned around and inverted and pounding it all through the primary and the general.

eta: guess who was seen at tRump Tower this morning?

Edited November 21, 2016 by NextIteration

[33kaitykaity]

1 hour ago, slf said:

The complaints against HRC amount to "she played the game", and so did Sanders. She just did it better. For example, as you pointed out, she gathered the superdelegates to her early on instead of stupidly blasting them then backtracking and making a play for them as Sanders did. He botched that and looked like a hypocrite at the same time.

I voted against Ron Wyden this time around because Oregon went big for Bernie, yet as a superdelegate Wyden supported HRC.  If that's just "the game," then the game is rigged and it needs some bleaching.  

[slf]

21 minutes ago, 33kaitykaity said:

I voted against Ron Wyden this time around because Oregon went big for Bernie, yet as a superdelegate Wyden supported HRC.  If that's just "the game," then the game is rigged and it needs some bleaching.  

Superdelegates aren't my favorite thing as they are allowed to vote as the wish, pretty much. But he knew that when he decided to run as a Democrat and he courted superdelegates in states that favored HRC, as I recall. Had he won them would that have been a problem? He lost in most primaries; he was heavily dependent on caucuses, which are undemocratic as hell. Neither he nor his supporters had a problem with that, either.

I would point out, she won the majority of pledged delegates (more than Obama, if I recall correctly), which is why the superdelegates voted for her. They give their votes to whomever wins the majority of votes from Democrats. If we did away with superdelegates, she still would have won.

He wasn't owed the nom and he couldn't win it. If he couldn't win the party nomination he couldn't win the presidency.

Edited November 21, 2016 by slf

[NextIteration]

@slf it was never close in the primaries, not after March 15th anyways.  The media just wanted a horse race, and they rode that fucker all the way to a tRump Administration.

[stormy]

I hope Tulsi Gabbard joins the dark side.  I just don't see her as a team DNC player.

I hope the people in her district give her the boot.

Edited November 21, 2016 by stormy

[NextIteration]

1 hour ago, stormy said:

I hope Tulsi Gabbard joins the dark side.  I just don't see her as a team DNC player.

I hope the people in her district give her the boot.

Maybe tRump is reaching out to her for LGBTQIAA outreach.

I kid of course - I think her invitation is more of a slap against progressives than anything.  And should he choose her as UN Ambassador - and she accepts - her true colors are there for all to see.

[Duke Silver]

I know very little about her, but my impression was she is a DINO.

[NextIteration]

Tulsi Gabbard is openly anti-gay and now openly hawkish after she played Democrats as being the opposite in her support for Sanders.

All these folks present one side to the public and another when it comes to their personal ambition.

[Duke Silver]

http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/11/21/13698604/democrats-race-white-outreach?utm_campaign=germanrlopez&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Quote

But among people of color, there’s a worry that more outreach to white working-class voters could effectively throw people of color under the bus. Not only has this happened before, but there’s a plausible, if cynical, political calculation behind it: Even if Democrats do neglect people of color, it’s not like people of color will have anywhere else to go, especially if the only realistic alternative is the political party led by Trump.

[choclatechip45]

I hate the super delegate process because I feel like the average voter does not understand it (not directed at anyone just a generalization). I wish they would get rid of it. With that being said Sanders knew the process beforehand and did not have a good strategy.

Tulsi Gabbard I hope they don't give her the slap on the wrist like they did with Lieberman (I am from his hometown and have run into him a lot over the years but he pissed me off in '08).

[NextIteration]

Tulsi Gabbard was represented as a champion of the left, she never was.

She deserves a slap from every twoo progressive, but won't get it because Sanders.  The hypocrisy is malignant.  She's anti-equal marriage rights.  But who cares, she supported Bernie.

Edited November 21, 2016 by NextIteration

[NextIteration]

I need a safe space for a primal scream....

FUCK YOU uneducated low info purposely stupid idiots that were always going to vote against their own personal economic self interest voting for despicable  ass hats, I'd like to include all of the special snowflakes that wanted Clinton to personally touch them and explain her policies...

You're as fucking ignorant as your enemies, once again.  Please - go forth and multiply and see how that works out for you.

[33kaitykaity]

Quote

OPINION -- Wikileaks Proves Primary Was Rigged: DNC Undermined Democracy

20,000 freshly leaked emails reveal resentful disdain toward Sanders, as party favored Clinton long before any votes were cast

On July 25, the Democratic National Convention will begin in Philadelphia, Pa. To commemorate the event and its embrace of corrupt politician Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, Wikileaks is releasing thousands of DNC/Clinton emails.

In its recent leak of 20,000 DNC emails from January 2015 to May 2016, DNC staff discuss how to deal with Bernie Sanders’ popularity as a challenge to Clinton’s candidacy. Instead of treating Sanders as a viable candidate for the Democratic ticket, the DNC worked against him and his campaign to ensure Clinton received the nomination.

One email from DNC Deputy Communications Director Eric Walker to several DNC staffers cites two news articles showing Sanders leading in Rhode Island and the limited number of polling locations in the state: “If she outperforms this polling, the Bernie camp will go nuts and allege misconduct. They’ll probably complain regardless, actually.”

Instead of treating Sanders with impartiality, the DNC exhibits resentful disdain toward him and the thousands of disenfranchised voters he could have brought into the party.

http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/

[more at link]

 

Quote

Bernie Sanders’ campaign is withdrawing its lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee that alleged the party organization wrongly revoked the campaign’s access to its voter data file.  In its statement on Friday announcing the withdrawal, Sanders’ campaign also strongly maintained that it never deliberately stole information.

“The Sanders campaign never ‘stole’ any voter file data; the Sanders campaign never ‘exported’ any unauthorized voter file data; and the Sanders campaign certainly never had access to the Clinton campaign’s ‘strategic road map,’ the Sanders campaign said.  The campaign initially filed the lawsuit in December after a controversy late last year in which Sanders staffers improperly accessed information from Hillary Clinton’s data file after a firewall between the campaigns’ information was inadvertently dropped.  The DNC quickly punished Sanders by cutting off his campaign’s access to its own voter file information. The move incensed Sanders’ camp, which accused the DNC of flagrantly favoring Clinton.

Sanders sued for negligence and breach of contract. His campaign sought $75,000 in damages from the DNC for temporarily freezing the data access.  The Sanders campaign statement on Friday went on to say that an independent investigation vindicated the campaign in the matter.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-dnc-lawsuit-campaign-222659

[more at link]

The DNC did much more for Hillary than just scheduling the debates in such a way as to limit Bernie's exposure to the most number of people possible.  The DNC wrongly revoked the the Sanders campaign’s access to the DNC voter data file..  The Sanders campaign had to sue the DNC to get that data.  I call that Wasserman Schultz and the DNC firmly placing their thumb on the scale in favor of HRC.  

And these don't even begin to cover the fraud that the HRC campaign committed at the Nevada Democratic Convention and Jon Ralston's role in propagating the vile, hateful lie that chairs were thrown and the Bernie people were violent.  

http://usuncut.com/politics/nevada-reporter-chair-throwing/

[Danny Franks]

From what I read of Tulsi Gabbard, her views were initially formed by her very conservative father, and the consensus amongst most Democrats was that she has changed those views as she has matured and learned more about the issues. And even if she still doesn't like gay marriage or abortion on a personal level, she doesn't think it's government's place to legislate against them? I honestly don't see what's wrong with that.

Obama himself said he wasn't a supporter of gay marriage until he spoke to his kids and listened to what they had to say on the subject. They helped him understand the youthful, more open-minded approach to these issues that the country will have to adopt. 

All I got from that article posted was that the LGBTQ caucus and Gabbard's office both handled the situation quite badly.

But this is where Democrats are going to shoot themselves in the foot. Repeatedly. Just like Labour in the UK, looking for some sort of ideological 'purity test' to establish whether someone is progressive enough is going to put them on a hiding to nothing. Fighting amongst themselves and ousting people and trying to wrench control from one group or another while the Republicans are happily dismantling the country? It's sheer lunacy. It's something that I have been tearing my hair out about in the UK. Corbyn wins the leadership, his MPs try undermine him. No one knows if it's because he's genuinely useless as a leader or if it's because they all hate his political views. And nothing is getting done, because neither side is listening to the other. If they go down this path, the Democrats are as dead as Labour. Do not do it. They cannot be a monolithic, one view party. They have to be a broad but progressive spectrum.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Danny Franks

[potatoradio]

Agree 100%, @Danny Franks

Interesting article from Ezra Klein - Dems, winning the popular vote is what the thugs want you to forget. Don't let them. Live your truth: the majority of the country wants your platform.

[MulletorHater]

19 hours ago, NextIteration said:

I need a safe space for a primal scream....

FUCK YOU uneducated low info purposely stupid idiots that were always going to vote against their own personal economic self interest voting for despicable  ass hats, I'd like to include all of the special snowflakes that wanted Clinton to personally touch them and explain her policies...

You're as fucking ignorant as your enemies, once again.  Please - go forth and multiply and see how that works out for you.

That felt good, didn't it?  I find myself doing that sometimes followed by a big WOOSAH...and taking deep breaths.

I have a special you-know-what to the Christian soldiers who stayed home because "Jesus wasn't on the ballot."

Don't get me started on the guys I read about in yesterday's NYT at a barbershop in Wisconsin who didn't vote and are proud of it.  As one of them said, he voted for Trump to protest Hillary because--wait for it--it was Bill's policies that made him spend 20 years in jail.  I couldn't read any further because I nearly blacked out in rage.  Evidently, the words "stop and frisk nationwide" didn't enter the equation.

[shok]

On 11/21/2016 at 1:52 PM, choclatechip45 said:

I hate the super delegate process because I feel like the average voter does not understand it (not directed at anyone just a generalization). I wish they would get rid of it. With that being said Sanders knew the process beforehand and did not have a good strategy.

 

The Republicans were sure wishing that they had a super delegate system for their primaries. The country would have been spared from the orange buffoon who managed to win. Most Democrats who, as did Hillary, had worked for the Democratic Party up and down the ballot for many years were glad they had it too even if they didn't ultimately have to use it.

[choclatechip45]

21 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

From what I read of Tulsi Gabbard, her views were initially formed by her very conservative father, and the consensus amongst most Democrats was that she has changed those views as she has matured and learned more about the issues. And even if she still doesn't like gay marriage or abortion on a personal level, she doesn't think it's government's place to legislate against them? I honestly don't see what's wrong with that.

Obama himself said he wasn't a supporter of gay marriage until he spoke to his kids and listened to what they had to say on the subject. They helped him understand the youthful, more open-minded approach to these issues that the country will have to adopt. 

All I got from that article posted was that the LGBTQ caucus and Gabbard's office both handled the situation quite badly.

But this is where Democrats are going to shoot themselves in the foot. Repeatedly. Just like Labour in the UK, looking for some sort of ideological 'purity test' to establish whether someone is progressive enough is going to put them on a hiding to nothing. Fighting amongst themselves and ousting people and trying to wrench control from one group or another while the Republicans are happily dismantling the country? It's sheer lunacy. It's something that I have been tearing my hair out about in the UK. Corbyn wins the leadership, his MPs try undermine him. No one knows if it's because he's genuinely useless as a leader or if it's because they all hate his political views. And nothing is getting done, because neither side is listening to the other. If they go down this path, the Democrats are as dead as Labour. Do not do it. They cannot be a monolithic, one view party. They have to be a broad but progressive spectrum.

Even though Obama was publicly against it. It came out in '96 from some questionnaire he filled out that he was for it. I know my gay friends didn't really care if Obama was for it or against it after he sought to repeal don't ask don't tell and Defense of Marriage act. One of my friends said his actions meant more to her than his words. Plus I think Axelrod said Obama was against it because his campaign advisors told him. 

I agree with you Gabbard's office handled it badly. I don't have an issue with Tim Kaine's abortion stance.  I think if you give a good explanation on why you change your stance it should be fine. I really liked how Tim Ryan explained why he is pro choice even if it was a ploy I though it was well thought out.

[slf]

On 11/22/2016 at 0:00 AM, 33kaitykaity said:

The DNC did much more for Hillary than just scheduling the debates in such a way as to limit Bernie's exposure to the most number of people possible.  The DNC wrongly revoked the the Sanders campaign’s access to the DNC voter data file..  The Sanders campaign had to sue the DNC to get that data.  I call that Wasserman Schultz and the DNC firmly placing their thumb on the scale in favor of HRC.  

And these don't even begin to cover the fraud that the HRC campaign committed at the Nevada Democratic Convention and Jon Ralston's role in propagating the vile, hateful lie that chairs were thrown and the Bernie people were violent.  

http://usuncut.com/politics/nevada-reporter-chair-throwing/

Sorry, since you didn't quote or mention me in your reply I didn't receive any notification that you had. I think it's likely stretching things to suggest the debates were scheduled to screw Sanders, given that the schedule was released in early May, just two or so weeks after he announced his presidency and long before he proved himself a challenger. Both Clinton and Sanders requested more debates and were given them. The debate schedule should've been more extensive, Schultz well and truly shit the bed and had been for years. But there's nothing to suggest that was an attempt to derail Bernie Sanders who, as a socialist, was considered a long-shot by many in the DNC.

W/r/t the breach, I haven't been able to find the independent investigation report that Sanders cites as vindicating him, fyi. So here's what I know, and what is recognized as fact by all parties: On Dec 16th, NGP VAN was tweaking its system and accidentally "created a situation in which the campaigns could see each others' information but only the Sanders campaign accessed data that was proprietary." Nothing important seemed to have been downloaded or copied, despite DWS's bitter insistence, however NGP VAN confirmed that the Sanders staffers performed searches for clients' scores (summary info). HRC's staffers did not exploit the dropped firewall at any time to access Sanders campaign data.

Sanders staffer, Uretsky, who was in charge of the other three staffers who along with him looked at the info made some really stupid claims, alternately that they were just trying to assess how available the Sanders campaign info was to others and then that they were trying to generate proof that such a breach was even possible. Uretsky was fired by the campaign. 

On either the 17th or 18th, the DNC denied Sanders' campaign access to voter lists. (The lists belong to the DNC and they basically rent it out to national and state campaigns.) On the 18th Sanders filed suit against the DNC. At almost midnight that night it was announced the Sanders campaign and the DNC had reached an agreement. His campaign's access was restored on the 19th. So at most he was locked out two days; if that did serious damage to his campaign then they were in worse straits than he or his supporters will admit.

I'd be curious to know what the reaction would've been if Clinton's campaign had been caught exploiting the lapse to access information from the Sanders campaign.

I understand why he and and his supporters don't want to consider what he did an attempted hostile takeover of the Democratic party, but that's exactly what it was. Sanders publicly and bluntly admitted he was running as a Dem only to gain access to money and for media exposure. He did nothing, nothing, to aid down-ballot candidates. He basically always kept the pot, there was no downfunding. (Which begs the question who exactly did he expect to help him enact his revolutionary policies if elected president? Republicans? Surely not the cash-strapped Dems he refused to help after using their party to make money.) He relied on caucuses, lost most primaries, couldn't win pledged delegates and tried to court superdelegates in the end (which, had he succeeded, would have given him the party nomination without having won most of the votes). Any real attempts at undermining Sanders' campaign occurred late into the primary, long after HRC was too far ahead of Sanders for him to catch up. It was pushback. What did he think was going to happen?

Edited November 23, 2016 by slf

[stormy]

Reports are that the White House (although President Obama says he's neutral) aren't backing Keith Ellison for DNC chair.  There are several reasons including the fact that it would be a part time job for him and he once praised Louis Farrakhan. 

I'm with them.  I want the new DNC chair to be at it full time.

[33kaitykaity]

3 hours ago, slf said:

Sorry, since you didn't quote or mention me in your reply I didn't receive any notification that you had. I think it's likely stretching things to suggest the debates were scheduled to screw Sanders, given that the schedule was released in early May, just two or so weeks after he announced his presidency and long before he proved himself a challenger. Both Clinton and Sanders requested more debates and were given them. The debate schedule should've been more extensive, Schultz well and truly shit the bed and had been for years. But there's nothing to suggest that was an attempt to derail Bernie Sanders who, as a socialist, was considered a long-shot by many in the DNC.

W/r/t the breach, I haven't been able to find the independent investigation report that Sanders cites as vindicating him, fyi. So here's what I know, and what is recognized as fact by all parties: On Dec 16th, NGP VAN was tweaking its system and accidentally "created a situation in which the campaigns could see each others' information but only the Sanders campaign accessed data that was proprietary." Nothing important seemed to have been downloaded or copied, despite DWS's bitter insistence, however NGP VAN confirmed that the Sanders staffers performed searches for clients' scores (summary info). HRC's staffers did not exploit the dropped firewall at any time to access Sanders campaign data.

Sanders staffer, Uretsky, who was in charge of the other three staffers who along with him looked at the info made some really stupid claims, alternately that they were just trying to assess how available the Sanders campaign info was to others and then that they were trying to generate proof that such a breach was even possible. Uretsky was fired by the campaign. 

On either the 17th or 18th, the DNC denied Sanders' campaign access to voter lists. (The lists belong to the DNC and they basically rent it out to national and state campaigns.) On the 18th Sanders filed suit against the DNC. At almost midnight that night it was announced the Sanders campaign and the DNC had reached an agreement. His campaign's access was restored on the 19th. So at most he was locked out two days; if that did serious damage to his campaign then they were in worse straits than he or his supporters will admit.

I'd be curious to know what the reaction would've been if Clinton's campaign had been caught exploiting the lapse to access information from the Sanders campaign.

I understand why he and and his supporters don't want to consider what he did an attempted hostile takeover of the Democratic party, but that's exactly what it was. Sanders publicly and bluntly admitted he was running as a Dem only to gain access to money and for media exposure. He did nothing, nothing, to aid down-ballot candidates. He basically always kept the pot, there was no downfunding. (Which begs the question who exactly did he expect to help him enact his revolutionary policies if elected president? Republicans? Surely not the cash-strapped Dems he refused to help after using their party to make money.) He relied on caucuses, lost most primaries, couldn't win pledged delegates and tried to court superdelegates in the end (which, had he succeeded, would have given him the party nomination without having won most of the votes). Any real attempts at undermining Sanders' campaign occurred late into the primary, long after HRC was too far ahead of Sanders for him to catch up. It was pushback. What did he think was going to happen?

Facts can be awfully inconvenient sometimes.  

Quote

 

During the primary battle, Sanders and his supporters accused both the party and Wasserman Schultz of putting their thumb on the scale for Clinton and these emails may indicate support for those allegations.

Sanders called for Wasserman Schultz to step down, and in an April 24 email she received with an article detailing Sanders talking about the DNC being unfair to his campaign, the chairwoman responded, “Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do.”

After the Nevada Democratic Convention, where things got out-of-hand over a delegate fight, Wasserman Schultz called Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver a “damn liar.” In another instance, she referred to him as an “a--," according to the emails.

The DNC did not respond to requests for comment. The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told ABC News he was reviewing the documents.

The leak exploded on social media with Sanders supporters expressing anger and frustration that the emails appeared to suggest the party was colluding with the Clinton campaign and plotting against the senator. Some even called on Sanders to revoke his endorsement of the presumptive Democratic nominee.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/emails-released-wikileaks-show-dnc-aid-hillary-clinton/story?id=40815253

[more at link]

 

The DNC was in the can for Hillary from day one.  This was why Wasserman Schultz had to resign once this inside baseball stuff became more widely known.

[slf]

What facts, @33kaitykaity? Schultz is an asshole who said a lot of screwy things and deserved to get tossed. No denying that.  But other than that, no, there was no major plot to undo Sanders. As Kurt Eichenwald pointed out:

"The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very little power. It is composed of the chair and vice chair of the Democratic parties of each state, along with over 200 members elected by Democrats. What it does is fundraise, organize the Democratic National Convention and put together the party platform. It handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the party’s nominee is selected. This was why then-President Richard Nixon reacted with incredulity when he heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in at the DNC offices at the Watergate; he couldn’t figure out what information anyone would want out of such a toothless organization."

As he goes on to point out, eight is the number of debates held on '04 and '08; increasing them up to nine made that the most number of debates held by the DNC in 30 years. There was no rigging there. There was an attempt by Sanders and his supporters to create a scandal by crafting this bizarre conspiracy theory that the debate schedule was limited to drag down the One True Savior. There were also 13 forums which combined with the debates is 22, 14 of which were for Sanders and Clinton only. Per K.E.: "Compare that with 2008: there were 17 debates and forums with between six and eight candidates; only six with two candidates, less than half the number in 2016. This was a big deal why?"

Eichenwald's really good at breaking this down, so I'll quote him again:

"The next conspiracy theory embraced by Bernie-or-Busters was that the DNC-sponsored debates were all held on nights no one would watch. Two took place on a Saturday, two on Sunday, three on a Thursday, one on a Tuesday and one on a Wednesday. In 2008, the DNC scheduled two on a Monday (one was canceled), and one each on a Sunday, Wednesday, Tuesday and Thursday. Not including any of the 2016 forums, there were 72 million viewers for the DNC-sponsored debates, almost the same amount—75 million viewers—as there were for every debate in 2008, including those sponsored by other organizations. And those Saturday debates, which Sanders fans howled no one would watch, were the third- and fifth-most watched debates (one of them was 3 percent away from being the fourth-most watched).

In other words, the argument that the DNC rigged the debates is, by any rational analysis, garbage. For those who still believe it, hats made of tin foil are available on Amazon.

Next, the infamous hack of DNC emails that “proved” the organization had its thumb on the scale for Clinton. Perhaps nothing has been more frustrating for people in the politics business to address, because the conspiracy is based on ignorance.

Almost every email that set off the “rigged” accusations was from May 2016. (One was in late April; I’ll address that below.) Even in the most ridiculous of dream worlds, Sanders could not have possibly won the nomination after May 3—at that point, he needed 984 more pledged delegates, but there were only 933 available in the remaining contests. And political pros could tell by the delegate math that the race was over on April 19, since a victory would require him to win almost every single delegate after that, something no rational person could believe.  

Sanders voters proclaimed that superdelegates, elected officials and party regulars who controlled thousands of votes, could flip their support and instead vote for the candidate with the fewest votes. In other words, they wanted the party to overthrow the will of the majority of voters. That Sanders fans were wishing for an establishment overthrow of the electorate more common in banana republics or dictatorships is obscene. (One side note: Sanders supporters also made a big deal out of the fact that many of the superdelegates had expressed support for Clinton early in the campaign. They did the same thing in 2008, then switched to Obama when he won the most pledged delegates. Same thing would have happened with Sanders if he had persuaded more people to vote for him.)

This is important because it shows Sanders supporters were tricked into believing a false narrative. Once only one candidate can win the nomination, of course the DNC gets to work on that person’s behalf. Of course emails from that time would reflect support for the person who would clearly be the nominee. And given that their jobs are to elect Democrats, of course DNC officials were annoyed that Sanders would not tell his followers he could not possibly be the nominee. Battling for the sake of battling gave his supporters a false belief that they could still win—something that added to their increasingly embittered feelings.

According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And that’s what happened—just a couple of days before Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandists—working through an array of Twitter accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the dates of the most controversial emails—May 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21—were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the “primaries were rigged” narrative. (Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didn’t change the outcome.) Two other emails—one from April 24 and May 1—were statements of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, “So much for a traditional presumptive nominee.” Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didn’t know what the DNC’s job actually was—which he didn’t, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.

Bottom line: The “scandalous” DNC emails were hacked by people working with the Kremlin, then misrepresented online by Russian propagandists to gullible fools who never checked the dates of the documents. And the media, which in the flurry of breathless stories about the emails would occasionally mention that they were all dated after any rational person knew the nomination was Clinton’s, fed into the misinformation.

In the real world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his losses piled up."

You're not inconveniencing me with facts, you're giving me conspiracy theories. 

Edited November 23, 2016 by slf

[kokapetl]

Honestly, when Hillary, with 15 years on the political stage, lost the 2008 nomination to a relatively unknown black guy, the party should have noticed and written her off. 

[slf]

Quote

Honestly, when Hillary, with 15 years on the political stage, lost the 2008 nomination to a relatively unknown black guy, the party should have noticed and written her off. 

Why, @Kokapetl?

Edited November 23, 2016 by slf

[kokapetl]

7 minutes ago, slf said:

Why, @Kokapetl?

She had plenty of publicity and resources in 2008, yet she lost the nomination. The 2016 thing was throwing good money after bad. 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Kokapetl

[slf]

1 minute ago, Kokapetl said:

She had plenty of publicity and resources in 2008, yet she lost. The 2016 thing was throwing good money after bad. 

Okay, well. Obama wasn't just "an unknown black guy." He's an intelligent, well-educated, charismatic politician who was respected by veteran politicians and who was able to energize young voters, black voters, etc., in a way no one had in decades. He ran the exact right campaign at the exact right time.

HRC was the only liberal candidate that could take on the Republicans, at a time when we already knew they'd take the House and the Senate. Her popular vote is unprecedented. It took generating false scandals, including hacks by a foreign power, and voter suppression to do real damage to her campaign. 

[kokapetl]

38 minutes ago, slf said:

Okay, well. Obama wasn't just "an unknown black guy." He's an intelligent, well-educated, charismatic politician who was respected by veteran politicians and who was able to energize young voters, black voters, etc., in a way no one had in decades. He ran the exact right campaign at the exact right time.

HRC was the only liberal candidate that could take on the Republicans, at a time when we already knew they'd take the House and the Senate. Her popular vote is unprecedented. It took generating false scandals, including hacks by a foreign power, and voter suppression to do real damage to her campaign. 

As a non American, I can't say I find her liberal at all, and by American standards isn't she more of a centrist. Liberals don't lurve Netanyahu.

The party should be pragmatic. Politicians with gigantic amounts of baggage, gained unfairly or not, make poor future prospects. Why was 2008's stale Democratic first runner up basically the default choice in 2016?  Because she started sporting a weird new smile like Malibu Stacey got a new hat? Is there absolutely no cultivation going on?

Having charisma is clearly a key part of being elected president. Reagan had it, her husband had it, Obama had it, the short fingered vulgarian and mail order bride aficionado has it, but Hillary does not. 

[slf]

14 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

As a non American, I can't say I find her liberal at all, and by American standards isn't she more of a centrist. Liberals don't lurve Netanyahu.

The party should be pragmatic. Politicians with gigantic amounts of baggage, gained unfairly or not, make poor future prospects. Why was 2008's stale Democratic first runner up basically the default choice in 2016?  Because she started sporting a weird new smile like Malibu Stacey got a new hat? Is there absolutely no cultivation going on?

Having charisma is clearly a key part of being elected president. Reagan had it, her husband had it, Obama had it, the short fingered vulgarian and mail order bride aficionado has it, but Hillary does not. 

True, she's a centrist. I should have said she was the only Democrat who could've taken on the Republicans.

I don't like the idea of dumping capable people because the Republicans are going to slander them. The Republicans are looking at a dwindling voter base in coming years; this is the exact kind of shit they're going to be doing from now on. And while charisma is valuable it isn't everything. As you say, Trump has it.

We couldn't win with anyone else. Sanders couldn't get the party nom. Warren isn't very charismatic, cool, doesn't have an impressive career, doesn't have support among poc voters, etc.. Biden might be the cool meme guy that young millennials love but he was also a major figure in the crime and drug wars of the 90s in a way HRC never was. He wrote the damn crime bill. Older poc voters wouldn't necessarily be so quick to forget that and he's seriously put his foot in his mouth from time to time. There's a reason he backed out of running.

Losing isn't always a question of what you did wrong.

[kokapetl]

14 minutes ago, slf said:

True, she's a centrist. I should have said she was the only Democrat who could've taken on the Republicans.

I don't like the idea of dumping capable people because the Republicans are going to slander them. The Republicans are looking at a dwindling voter base in coming years; this is the exact kind of shit they're going to be doing from now on. And while charisma is valuable it isn't everything. As you say, Trump has it.

We couldn't win with anyone else. Sanders couldn't get the party nom. Warren isn't very charismatic, cool, doesn't have an impressive career, doesn't have support among poc voters, etc.. Biden might be the cool meme guy that young millennials love but he was also a major figure in the crime and drug wars of the 90s in a way HRC never was. He wrote the damn crime bill. Older poc voters wouldn't necessarily be so quick to forget that and he's seriously put his foot in his mouth from time to time. There's a reason he backed out of running.

Losing isn't always a question of what you did wrong.

Would POC really have gone for Trump? It's not fair, but Biden would have been the lesser of two evils. Plus he had charisma.

Midwesterners aren't Southerner level wastes of time for the Democratic Party, so what explains Hillary's loss? I sincerely doubt many truly expect Trump to actually bring back those lost jobs, but what was Hillary's approach in the rust belt?

2008

2012

2016

[slf]

Just now, Kokapetl said:

Would POC really have gone for Trump? It's not fair, but Biden would have been the lesser of two evils. Plus he had charisma.

What? HRC was seen by many as the lesser of two evils but here we are, and plenty of poc didn't vote (just as many whites didn't). HRC has a better relationship with older voters, especially older black voters, than Biden does. There's no reason to think Biden would have done any better with Asians/Hispanics/Indigenous voters, either.

Quote

I sincerely doubt many truly expect Trump to actually bring back those lost jobs, but what was Hillary's approach in the rust belt?

You're mistaken. Many of the people who voted for Trump actually do think he'll bring those jobs back, while forcing companies like Apple to "bring back" to the US the "high paying" jobs they give to foreigners. HRC's approach was honesty. They don't want to hear those jobs aren't coming back, that they need to train for new/different jobs. And racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia were huge factors in his election and the Midwest is exactly as bad as the South in that regard.

[dougfir]

Democrats won the most votes in the election. They should act like it.

[windsprints]

Quote

Having charisma is clearly a key part of being elected president. Reagan had it, her husband had it, Obama had it, the short fingered vulgarian and mail order bride aficionado has it, but Hillary does not

I guess I am proof that what people find charismatic is subjective.  I saw zero charisma in Trump. There are people I do not like that I can see why other people would find them appealing/charismatic but he's not one of them. I saw a scowling, nasty, inarticulate man who didn't appear competent or particularly intelligent.  I do agree that Hillary doesn't exude charisma herself but she does appear sane, intelligent and able to speak in complete sentences.