Lenlo

The DNC in 2016

Recommended Posts

So... Anyone see Brazile's (DNC Head after Schultz) excerpt from her book? About Clinton? Cause I cant say I am surprised and honestly, as much as I don't like Trump, seeing how things have gone so far in his Presidency I am glad Hillary didn't win. Looks like Bernie was right, as we suspected. It was rigged against him from the start. Sure shes not all that innocent, but hey, ill take more fingers at HRC.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

Edited by Lenlo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... Anyone see Brazile's (DNC Head after Schultz) excerpt from her book? About Clinton? Cause I cant say I am surprised and honestly, as much as I don't like Trump, seeing how things have gone so far in his Presidency I am glad Hillary didn't win. Looks like Bernie was right, as we suspected. It was rigged against him from the start. Sure shes not all that innocent, but hey, ill take more fingers at HRC.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

I was gonna repost what I replied to my friends post until that last line.

 

But instead:

 

1.) if you have any belief of sound government, scientific thought, respect for institutional ideals or a progressive, forward thinking government (ie supported Bernie), there’s no way that you can say trump > Clinton.

 

2.) Bernie isn’t a Democrat, and when the agreement had been signed had only been a democrat for 2 months. This isn’t at all about Bernie, or really about Clinton.

 

Democrats, and liberals in general, rolled over and went home when Obama was elected. They didn’t vote, they didn’t campaign, they didn’t fund raise and they didn’t donate. The DNC was in shambles. Hillary has been quietly running a campaign since June 2008, and actively since March 2013. She had money, she had oragnization, she had momentum.

 

In August 2015, when the agreement was signed, Bernie was in the single digits, and podesta hadn’t heard of two-step verification.

 

Was the DNC “dishonest” in running an “open” primary when it wasn’t open? Sure, maybe, but -everyone- from June 2008 on, -knew- Hillary was going to be the nominee and -believed- she was going to win.

 

Sanders and his Bernie Bros and Dank Memes has 8 years to build a nation-wide political movement, electing Congressional and state reps, winning governorships and inserting themselves into the national dialog, but they didn’t.

 

There was no way of knowing, in August 2015, that Bernie would be a serious challenger, or that Podesta wouldn’t upgrade is email security, or that Trump would be nominsted, or that 2 weeks before the election the director of the FBI would release a bs letter - that he later admitted was BS- or that Trump would win.

 

In short, a lot of things went wrong for progressives in 2016, it wasn’t the fault, soley, of any party, but we all have hair spray and spray tan on our hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick note: I’m splitting the DNC stuff into a new thread as soon as I can, but I can’t on mobile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So... Anyone see Brazile's (DNC Head after Schultz) excerpt from her book? About Clinton? Cause I cant say I am surprised and honestly, as much as I don't like Trump, seeing how things have gone so far in his Presidency I am glad Hillary didn't win. Looks like Bernie was right, as we suspected. It was rigged against him from the start. Sure shes not all that innocent, but hey, ill take more fingers at HRC.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

I was gonna repost what I replied to my friends post until that last line.

 

But instead:

 

1.) if you have any belief of sound government, scientific thought, respect for institutional ideals or a progressive, forward thinking government (ie supported Bernie), there’s no way that you can say trump > Clinton.

 

2.) Bernie isn’t a Democrat, and when the agreement had been signed had only been a democrat for 2 months. This isn’t at all about Bernie, or really about Clinton.

 

Democrats, and liberals in general, rolled over and went home when Obama was elected. They didn’t vote, they didn’t campaign, they didn’t fund raise and they didn’t donate. The DNC was in shambles. Hillary has been quietly running a campaign since June 2008, and actively since March 2013. She had money, she had oragnization, she had momentum.

 

In August 2015, when the agreement was signed, Bernie was in the single digits, and podesta hadn’t heard of two-step verification.

 

Was the DNC “dishonest” in running an “open” primary when it wasn’t open? Sure, maybe, but -everyone- from June 2008 on, -knew- Hillary was going to be the nominee and -believed- she was going to win.

 

Sanders and his Bernie Bros and Dank Memes has 8 years to build a nation-wide political movement, electing Congressional and state reps, winning governorships and inserting themselves into the national dialog, but they didn’t.

 

There was no way of knowing, in August 2015, that Bernie would be a serious challenger, or that Podesta wouldn’t upgrade is email security, or that Trump would be nominsted, or that 2 weeks before the election the director of the FBI would release a bs letter - that he later admitted was BS- or that Trump would win.

 

In short, a lot of things went wrong for progressives in 2016, it wasn’t the fault, soley, of any party, but we all have hair spray and spray tan on our hands.

 

1) This isnt about Trump vs Hillary, I like all those things, this is about not wanting a woman who basically subverted the democratic process to get an advantage in an election years before it started. Its things like this that made alot of Bernie supporters not vote for her, because they wanted to teach the DNC in the most surest of terms that this is unacceptable. They believed that if the price for teaching the DNC and HRC a lesson was 4 years of Trump, that was acceptable. You may disagree with that, but we wanted our candidate and you and the DNC actively worked against him, even though he clearly had a better shot at beating the Republican front runner, Trump.

 

2) So him not being a Democrat makes it ok to subvert the law by funneling millions of dollars into a campaign, going around the donation limit? Makes it ok to basically choose a party candidate without even asking the voters? You say everyone already knew she was going to be the nominee in 2008 yet Bernie was doin a pretty damn good job of fighting her for that, inspite of the entire DNC being against him.

 

You say Bernie didnt build a movement, but people cared about him a hell of a lot more than Hillary. It doesnt matter wether or not he was a serious challenge, what matters is the DNC signed over their candidacy 2 years ahead of time.

 

As for why the election was lost, im pretty sure thats HRCs fault. She lost an election most anyone else could have won because of how she did things and who she was. I think most people agree on that. When you convince your entire party to foul up your only serious contender for the sake of a weak candidate, you screwed up. Its things like this that lost HRC the election. 

Edited by Lenlo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... Anyone see Brazile's (DNC Head after Schultz) excerpt from her book? About Clinton? Cause I cant say I am surprised and honestly, as much as I don't like Trump, seeing how things have gone so far in his Presidency I am glad Hillary didn't win. Looks like Bernie was right, as we suspected. It was rigged against him from the start. Sure shes not all that innocent, but hey, ill take more fingers at HRC.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

I used to have some minimal respect for Bernie and his followers.

I lost that when he chose to back Hillary Clinton for President and those of his followers that followed him (because he endorsed her) and continue to show him any respect.

 

Respect the ideals and values not the man.

 

Bernie sold out.

If Trump sells out on the Wall I'll disavow him just as quick as Paul Ryan or any other RINO.

 

The people who still idolize him are the sheepest of sheep IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So... Anyone see Brazile's (DNC Head after Schultz) excerpt from her book? About Clinton? Cause I cant say I am surprised and honestly, as much as I don't like Trump, seeing how things have gone so far in his Presidency I am glad Hillary didn't win. Looks like Bernie was right, as we suspected. It was rigged against him from the start. Sure shes not all that innocent, but hey, ill take more fingers at HRC.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

You say Bernie didnt build a movement, but people cared about him a hell of a lot more than Hillary. It doesnt matter wether or not he was a serious challenge, what matters is the DNC signed over their candidacy 2 years ahead of time.

 

He started building his movement in June 2015, two months before the document was signed (meaning that it wasn’t illegal), but more importantly, 6 years after the teaparty movement started.

 

As soon as that movement started people were asking “where’s the progressive counter movement?” We had occupy for a bit, and Warren, but the former was organized and the later wasn’t a movement. It’s not unheard of for unpopular Presidents (Obama wasn’t loved in 2012) to change the under ticket if there is overwhelming pressure from the base, but there was none.

 

There was no movement to speak of after Obama won. We had defeated Cheney (Bush, by proxy), had a democratic president and congress and WENT HOME.

 

There has been a slowly building republican uprising since Bushes immigration reform was scuttled in 2006, that movement got Panel, then the House, and a wave of state houses and governorships, then the senate.

 

The DNC was in shambles in 2015, through mismanagement, yes, but also because -no-one-cared-, no one participated in the democratic victory. Listen to Obama’s writings and that’s one of his biggest regrets is that he wasn’t able to transform a campaign into a movement.

 

I am at least, if not more, liberal than you on most issues, and good god did I want Bernie to win. I talked to people in Burlington right after his announcement and said “Yes, that would be awesome, but he’ll never win.”

 

You can’t build a nation wide movement in a year, especially when your challenging someone who has been campaigning for the last 8, if not her entire life.

 

You don’t like the DNC? Great! Good job! A lot of Republicans hated the RNC in 06 and 08, but in 10 they won elections without it, so that in 2012,14 and 16, it constantly was forced to get closer and closer to what people wanted.

 

Was 2016 your 2008? Are all the Bernie Bros going to come out in record numbers in 2018 and win back the House, and sweep state houses across the nation? Are they going to use those gains to redraw voting districts to keep their power, then win the Senate in 2020? Are they going to stall Trumps agenda on the federal level and implement their own a state level? Are they going to run a candidate in 2024 to own and embody the new progressive movement?

 

Because if they do, then I’m all in and I’ll gladly help.

 

If they just want to talk about how right they were, how wrong Hilary was and how evil the DNC is then I have no use for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So... Anyone see Brazile's (DNC Head after Schultz) excerpt from her book? About Clinton? Cause I cant say I am surprised and honestly, as much as I don't like Trump, seeing how things have gone so far in his Presidency I am glad Hillary didn't win. Looks like Bernie was right, as we suspected. It was rigged against him from the start. Sure shes not all that innocent, but hey, ill take more fingers at HRC.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

I used to have some minimal respect for Bernie and his followers.

I lost that when he chose to back Hillary Clinton for President and those of his followers that followed him (because he endorsed her) and continue to show him any respect.

 

Respect the ideals and values not the man.

 

Bernie sold out.

If Trump sells out on the Wall I'll disavow him just as quick as Paul Ryan or any other RINO.

 

The people who still idolize him are the sheepest of sheep IMO.

 

I disagree that he "sold out" but I understand where your coming from. I understand why he did it and disagree with him. I still find the man and his policies infinitely more likable than the rest of the Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So... Anyone see Brazile's (DNC Head after Schultz) excerpt from her book? About Clinton? Cause I cant say I am surprised and honestly, as much as I don't like Trump, seeing how things have gone so far in his Presidency I am glad Hillary didn't win. Looks like Bernie was right, as we suspected. It was rigged against him from the start. Sure shes not all that innocent, but hey, ill take more fingers at HRC.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

You say Bernie didnt build a movement, but people cared about him a hell of a lot more than Hillary. It doesnt matter wether or not he was a serious challenge, what matters is the DNC signed over their candidacy 2 years ahead of time.

 

He started building his movement in June 2015, two months before the document was signed (meaning that it wasn’t illegal), but more importantly, 6 years after the teaparty movement started.

 

As soon as that movement started people were asking “where’s the progressive counter movement?” We had occupy for a bit, and Warren, but the former was organized and the later wasn’t a movement. It’s not unheard of for unpopular Presidents (Obama wasn’t loved in 2012) to change the under ticket if there is overwhelming pressure from the base, but there was none.

 

There was no movement to speak of after Obama won. We had defeated Cheney (Bush, by proxy), had a democratic president and congress and WENT HOME.

 

There has been a slowly building republican uprising since Bushes immigration reform was scuttled in 2006, that movement got Panel, then the House, and a wave of state houses and governorships, then the senate.

 

The DNC was in shambles in 2015, through mismanagement, yes, but also because -no-one-cared-, no one participated in the democratic victory. Listen to Obama’s writings and that’s one of his biggest regrets is that he wasn’t able to transform a campaign into a movement.

 

I am at least, if not more, liberal than you on most issues, and good god did I want Bernie to win. I talked to people in Burlington right after his announcement and said “Yes, that would be awesome, but he’ll never win.”

 

You can’t build a nation wide movement in a year, especially when your challenging someone who has been campaigning for the last 8, if not her entire life.

 

You don’t like the DNC? Great! Good job! A lot of Republicans hated the RNC in 06 and 08, but in 10 they won elections without it, so that in 2012,14 and 16, it constantly was forced to get closer and closer to what people wanted.

 

Was 2016 your 2008? Are all the Bernie Bros going to come out in record numbers in 2018 and win back the House, and sweep state houses across the nation? Are they going to use those gains to redraw voting districts to keep their power, then win the Senate in 2020? Are they going to stall Trumps agenda on the federal level and implement their own a state level? Are they going to run a candidate in 2024 to own and embody the new progressive movement?

 

Because if they do, then I’m all in and I’ll gladly help.

 

If they just want to talk about how right they were, how wrong Hilary was and how evil the DNC is then I have no use for them.

 

The "He will never win" attitude was part of the problem. He had a shot, even with HRC's meddling, and he was the stronger candidate whether you like it or not. Fact of the matter is the DNC and HRC shot themselves in the foot, and there is no one to blame for their loss but themselves. Trump was not a difficult candidate to beat unless you were HRC, in my mind.

 

For building a nation wide movement, he did a good job. With the time and resources he had. He didnt have the entire DNC and all of its money, that was supposed to go to more than one candidate, backing him. He had a shot at winning if the DNC hadnt tacitly endorsed their weakest candidate. Just because you were doing something longer doesnt mean you did it better or were better.

 

As for being more liberal, your probably right. I have described myself as a moderate in general because I swing Left on some issues and Right on others.

Edited by Lenlo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So... Anyone see Brazile's (DNC Head after Schultz) excerpt from her book? About Clinton? Cause I cant say I am surprised and honestly, as much as I don't like Trump, seeing how things have gone so far in his Presidency I am glad Hillary didn't win. Looks like Bernie was right, as we suspected. It was rigged against him from the start. Sure shes not all that innocent, but hey, ill take more fingers at HRC.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

I used to have some minimal respect for Bernie and his followers.

I lost that when he chose to back Hillary Clinton for President and those of his followers that followed him (because he endorsed her) and continue to show him any respect.

 

Respect the ideals and values not the man.

 

Bernie sold out.

If Trump sells out on the Wall I'll disavow him just as quick as Paul Ryan or any other RINO.

 

The people who still idolize him are the sheepest of sheep IMO.

 

I disagree that he "sold out" but I understand where your coming from. I understand why he did it and disagree with him. I still find the man and his policies infinitely more likable than the rest of the Democrats.

 

How did he not sell out? He told us that Hillary was the Wall St candidate. He knew probably before anyone else that she rigged the Primaries.

You don't back someone like that and keep your integrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The "He will never win" attitude was part of the problem. He had a shot, even with HRC's meddling, and he was the stronger candidate whether you like it or not. Fact of the matter is the DNC and HRC shot themselves in the foot, and there is no one to blame for their loss but themselves. Trump was not a difficult candidate to beat unless you were HRC, in my mind.

 

 

For building a nation wide movement, he did a good job. With the time and resources he had. He didnt have the entire DNC and all of its money, that was supposed to go to more than one candidate, backing him. He had a shot at winning if the DNC hadnt tacitly endorsed their weakest candidate. Just because you were doing something longer doesnt mean you did it better or were better.

 

As for being more liberal, your probably right. I have described myself as a moderate in general because I swing Left on some issues and Right on others.

 

 

Even if I grant you that he could have won, would he have been able to enact legislation at all? Obama's second term was pretty much a wash because Republicans controlled congress. No major legislation has been based since the Fisccal Contro/Sequestration Act, and that only came after a shut down and a downgrading of US credit. 

 

If Bernie had won, legislatively, there would be no difference from if Clinton had won. Given how rabbidly conservatives hate Clinton, I couldn't really see her moving any legislation either, but both of these are dead ends.

 

The issue here isn't that Clinton had to, effectively, bail-out the DNC - the price for that bailout was the rather reasonable demand that she becomes the party's nominee. Would you have prefered that the agreement been made public in August 2015? That we had aired out 6 years of mismangament before and during the presidential campaign? Would you have rather it be made public that the DNC was massively indebt and needed rescuing? Would the Bernie bros and their small donations been able to bale out the DNC?

 

Such a public airing, in my opinion, would have shifted the political landscape from democratic-leaning to republican-leaning in a heart beat.

 

The issue is that the "every district" strategy started in 2006 by Dean - which worked to win back the house, senate and the presidency, had been abandonded. The DNC reveled in their victory sweeping the white house and congress, and making significant gains in states, but then ignored the strategy that got them there and focused one not scaring away, and winning over the wall street types - who were endebted to them for the response to the 2008 crash - instead of focusing on the people who brought them to power.

 

The issue is that the Obama movement floundered when it peeked and was unable to sustain momentum - mainly because progressives/liberals were forced into defending the response to the 2008 crash, while not scaring away the people they rescued. No one was able to, or still do this day, has been able to, from a liberal perceptive defend the response other than "the entire world-wide economic system would have crashed" - which means a lot to people who know how that works and what that means, but if you're unemployed or under employed, and have been for almost a decade now, that excuse rings hallow at best and is offensive at worst "what, so you rescued companies at no benifet to me, so that other people wouldn't suffer too?"

 

I totally get how, in that envoriment, both Trump's message and Bernie's message both are powerful and attractive. However, Trump wasn't the first one sound the trumpet, he jumped on the bandwagon, then took over the band. Bannon was no prophet either - he saw (basically in gamergate) - how powerful the combination of motivating new - young - voters and combining that with the rest of the tea party platform could win an election.

 

My point here is that if Bernie and progressives really want to change the system, to enact a "proper, liberal" response to the Great Recession, that they really should have started running candidates in 2010 with a progressive/liberal challenge to sitting Democrats (and republicans), in much the same way that the Tea Party did for Republicans.

 

My point going forward is that finger pointing serves no one, except, probably, for republicans who can use it to say "demcorats are corrupt/incompetant/untrustworthy/whatever." Progressives (and by extent Democrats) need to move past this, and focus on doing what we should have been doing since 2009.

 

We need to start recruiting and running canidates and building a modern progressive platform to respond to the post-great recession world. We need a progressive response to the (needed, in an anual check-up/tune up way), to the evolving world order - both militarily and finicially, a progressive response to globalism, a progressive response to immigration, and a progressive response to asymetrical threats...because to be perfectly honest, the progressive platform is really weak in those real areas.

 

We have good positions on civil rights, enviormentalism, criminal justice reform and healthcare, but that's pretty much it. The rest of the platform basically says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", when by looking at it imperically, a lot of institutions, orders, ideas and dogmas are broken and/or out of date and need fixing. 

 

Bernie bros are right that Clinton had no new answers, and that her policy, throughly thought out and progressive when compared to the republicans, was not new. There weren't any new answers, and Bernie, and his movement had, and have those answers, and that's great, and I love those answers, but if he really wanted that platform to be the one he ran on, and could have won on  last year then he needed to have started in long before June 2015.

 

But we're here now; there's no point in looking back, lets move forward and develop, discuss and run on those shared progressive ideals.

Edited by Tyzack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is simply that she circumvented the natural candidate process by effectively buying the nomination instead of earning it via the primary. Atleast Trump was voted into his spot.

 

The DNC lost peoples trust. You cant just move past that. They have to earn it back, or you will not get the millennial vote or many others. They need to earn back trust to see more low voter turnout. People will not just move past this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is simply that she circumvented the natural candidate process by effectively buying the nomination instead of earning it via the primary. Atleast Trump was voted into his spot.

 

The DNC lost peoples trust. You cant just move past that. They have to earn it back, or you will not get the millennial vote or many others. They need to earn back trust to see more low voter turnout. People will not just move past this. 

 

So you would have rather announced in the summer of 2015 that the DNC was horribly mismanaged and massively in debt? You really think that would've helped spur voter turn out for democrats?

Edited by Tyzack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The point is simply that she circumvented the natural candidate process by effectively buying the nomination instead of earning it via the primary. Atleast Trump was voted into his spot.

 

The DNC lost peoples trust. You cant just move past that. They have to earn it back, or you will not get the millennial vote or many others. They need to earn back trust to see more low voter turnout. People will not just move past this. 

 

So you would have rather announced in the summer of 2015 that the DNC was horribly mismanaged and massively in debt? You really think that would've helped spur voter turn out for democrats?

 

Schultz could have not retained a large staff, which caused them to go into debt, and lied to their officers avoiding the problem entirely. 

 

But yes, I would rather they own up to their mistake than undermine the democratic part of an election. Maybe then Schultz wouldnt have kept her job as long as she had. As it is, their plan to spur voter turnout clearly didnt work out. They should have known it would get out and should have known how it would look, damaging them even more. Whats worse visually, money troubles or evidence of favoritism and corruption?

Edited by Lenlo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the DNC had announced it's debt, the entire democratic side of the primaries would have fallen down, and not just for the president. The entire party structure; state, local, elections, governors, everyone who works with/relies on funding from the DNC would have been tanked.

 

Great job, you'll have canidates without party structures, and they'd lose, even worse than they did, up and down the ticket. But you'd be virtorous in saying "Well, they lost, but at least they were honest about their losing?"

 

Second, and this was mentioned a million times during the primaries, the primaries aren't "democratic elections" though they are sold that way; they are private(ish) groups deciding who they are going to support for an election. There would be nothing lllegal about a party simply anouncing that it wouldn't have primaries, or that it would consider primary votes as "non binding recomendations."

 

Punishing the DNC (and by association the progressive movement) because of, essentially, management dicisions when you're guy didn't win is short-sighted and selfish. I know a lot of progressives who have very valid arguments against the DNC for the reasons I spelled out earlier, and I support them because they believe in the cause and are working for a progressive government.

 

Essentially saying, if i can boil down your agrument "DNC management sucks, so i'm voting against them" would make just as much sense as cheering against, I dunno, cheering against the Chiefs, - even though they're your favourte team - just because you don't like what Andy Reed did in Philly, or because you think the Hunts (owners of the Cheifs) should have hired someone else.

 

Or something, that's not the best analogy, but whatever.

Edited by Tyzack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the price for that bailout was the rather reasonable demand that she becomes the party's nominee. "

 

 

Hmm, That's not a reasonable price, especially since the Paries nominee is not supposed to be chosen by the DNC but by Democratic party voters. Further, as a leading Democrat did not Hillary Clinton have an obligation to help the Party? Lastly, I think if you would have disclosed the sorry state of the DNC in 2015 Clinton could have seperated herself from the people responsible. Do you really think that the DNC's finances would have been an issue in the general election? Or should we say a bigger issue then the DNC throwing the election to Clinton in the primaries actually was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If the DNC had announced it's debt, the entire democratic side of the primaries would have fallen down, and not just for the president. The entire party structure; state, local, elections, governors, everyone who works with/relies on funding from the DNC would have been tanked."

 

That is ahistorical. The closest historical example we have is the Democratic Party after the 1972 election. It was close to having to declare bancruptcy. There was even a telethone to raise money to pay it's debts. It was made public and by the 1974 election the parties financial position had recovered and as I recall the Party did quite well in the 1974 elections (and would have done well even without Nixon's resignation). Moreover, exactly how much worse would the Democratic Party had done in 2016, they got slaughtered up and down the ticket. At worst they might have lost a couple of more seats in the House and maybe one in the Senate. Think that would have been a fair price to pay instead of having a large portion of its base distrust it.

 

 

"Punishing the DNC (and by association the progressive movement) because of, essentially, management dicisions when you're guy didn't win is short"

 

 

Secretly handing the election to a candidate is not a "management decision". It betrays the very idea of the democratic process. If you can not trust the party to be a nuetral arbiter why would you support it's nominees if they do not reflect your views?

Edited by CUBAREY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH, I’ve never understood why people get so up in arms about the primaries.

 

They’re like preseason football, I guess it’s fun, maybe, but it doesn’t really matter who’s on your team, or how they got there, in the fall; you’re going to cheer for them anyway.

Edited by Tyzack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH, I’ve never understood why people get so up in arms about the primaries.

 

They’re like preseason football, I guess it’s fun, maybe, but it doesn’t really matter who’s on your team, or how they got there, in the fall; you’re going to cheer for them anyway.

Because its the first step in picking our President?

 

Because of how televised and open it is, the party party primaries are basically the first round of picks for the Presidential Election. People care because they want the best candidate possible for president. If it wasnt so impossible to get a valid third party out there, maybe it wouldn't matter as much, but in a two party system people obviously like to choose their candidate.

 

Are people supposed to vote Democrat just because its a Democrat? Voting along party lines? Should they not vote based on policies and ideals? If you believe the former then sure the primaries mean nothing to you. If you believe the latter, like most people, then they mean alot because your picking who will move forward. I refuse to vote just because someone is blue.

 

I dont understand how you can apparently NOT care about the primaries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I dont understand how you can apparently NOT care about the primaries. 

 

 

Simple.

 

The issues which are most important to me:

Civil rights and criminal justice reform

Healthcare, and reproductive rights

Enviormentalism

Good governance.

Responsible government

Just tax burden.

 

NONE of those are issues which I would agree with Republicans on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So... Anyone see Brazile's (DNC Head after Schultz) excerpt from her book? About Clinton? Cause I cant say I am surprised and honestly, as much as I don't like Trump, seeing how things have gone so far in his Presidency I am glad Hillary didn't win. Looks like Bernie was right, as we suspected. It was rigged against him from the start. Sure shes not all that innocent, but hey, ill take more fingers at HRC.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

You say Bernie didnt build a movement, but people cared about him a hell of a lot more than Hillary. It doesnt matter wether or not he was a serious challenge, what matters is the DNC signed over their candidacy 2 years ahead of time.

 

He started building his movement in June 2015, two months before the document was signed (meaning that it wasn’t illegal), but more importantly, 6 years after the teaparty movement started.

 

As soon as that movement started people were asking “where’s the progressive counter movement?” We had occupy for a bit, and Warren, but the former was organized and the later wasn’t a movement. It’s not unheard of for unpopular Presidents (Obama wasn’t loved in 2012) to change the under ticket if there is overwhelming pressure from the base, but there was none.

 

There was no movement to speak of after Obama won. We had defeated Cheney (Bush, by proxy), had a democratic president and congress and WENT HOME.

 

There has been a slowly building republican uprising since Bushes immigration reform was scuttled in 2006, that movement got Panel, then the House, and a wave of state houses and governorships, then the senate.

 

The DNC was in shambles in 2015, through mismanagement, yes, but also because -no-one-cared-, no one participated in the democratic victory. Listen to Obama’s writings and that’s one of his biggest regrets is that he wasn’t able to transform a campaign into a movement.

 

I am at least, if not more, liberal than you on most issues, and good god did I want Bernie to win. I talked to people in Burlington right after his announcement and said “Yes, that would be awesome, but he’ll never win.”

 

You can’t build a nation wide movement in a year, especially when your challenging someone who has been campaigning for the last 8, if not her entire life.

 

You don’t like the DNC? Great! Good job! A lot of Republicans hated the RNC in 06 and 08, but in 10 they won elections without it, so that in 2012,14 and 16, it constantly was forced to get closer and closer to what people wanted.

 

Was 2016 your 2008? Are all the Bernie Bros going to come out in record numbers in 2018 and win back the House, and sweep state houses across the nation? Are they going to use those gains to redraw voting districts to keep their power, then win the Senate in 2020? Are they going to stall Trumps agenda on the federal level and implement their own a state level? Are they going to run a candidate in 2024 to own and embody the new progressive movement?

 

Because if they do, then I’m all in and I’ll gladly help.

 

If they just want to talk about how right they were, how wrong Hilary was and how evil the DNC is then I have no use for them.

 

The "He will never win" attitude was part of the problem. He had a shot, even with HRC's meddling, and he was the stronger candidate whether you like it or not. Fact of the matter is the DNC and HRC shot themselves in the foot, and there is no one to blame for their loss but themselves. Trump was not a difficult candidate to beat unless you were HRC, in my mind.

 

I don't know whether Ty addressed this or not but let me explain why you're probably wrong (we'll never know for sure, water under the bridge).

 

First of all I think you and many many people even those who weren't really Bernie fans underestimate the disdain that the name Socialism still has, even if it's in name only. I just read an article last night about how Millennials approve of Communism at a rate of like 50%. Ok, cool, great, whatever. Whether anyone likes it or not the last election was still dominated by Baby Boomers and while those dirt bags are just a bunch of hippie sell outs who drove our nation into the ground they still think that the WORD Socialism is a bad thing. If you present them a Socialist policy they'll like it but as soon as you explain it's Socialism they start hemming and hawwing even in places you might think are more Liberal. Literally only a handful of cities would be ok with Bernie but he would have had to fight for even a state you might have expected him to get like say Washington for example. And it's doubtful whether he could have won any state that is nominally Republican such as say I dunno Montana or whatever. Granted, he doesn't need Montana as long as he swings a few certain states but like you think he could have won Florida? Iowa? Ohio? I just don't think so. 

 

Secondly you also underestimate name recognition. Hillary Clinton has been known worldwide since the 90s. She strengthened many of the ties she made as First Lady when she became SoS under Obama, not to mention her time as Senator of New York. She has a global charity and her husband like it or not traveled the world basically selling their name and influence. On the other side of the coin we have Bernie Sanders who was unknown on even the National scene until 2015. Yeah people got caught up in some hype because even the Dems didn't really like Hillary on the whole but do you really think Bernie was the better candidate? Consider how many people vote based on what someone looks like or whether they got a nice quip in during a debate ("Because you'd be in jail.") and you really think Bernie is the basket the Dems, as in the party apparatus, wants to put all their eggs in? Someone who only joined their party because running as an independent is suicide? No, they wanted to go with the safer bet, the devil they knew. So many people voted for Hillary Clinton literally because they recognized her name don't you dare say otherwise. That is an extremely powerful thing and something Bernie did not have. Granted they went with the safe bet and they lost so hindsight dictates they should have taken the chance but let's see you put your life savings on red and spin the wheel and then we can talk about longshots vs safe bets.

 

As an aside, although related, you also underestimate Trump. It's ok, everyone did and many people continue to do so. If you really think Trump was so easy to beat why don't you tell that to Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, George Pataki, Rick Perry, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, Scott Walker, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and Hillary Clinton. I think they might have a different story to tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH, I’ve never understood why people get so up in arms about the primaries.

 

They’re like preseason football, I guess it’s fun, maybe, but it doesn’t really matter who’s on your team, or how they got there, in the fall; you’re going to cheer for them anyway.

Not true. I didn't vote for McCain or Romney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Secondly you also underestimate name recognition. Hillary Clinton has been known worldwide since the 90s. She strengthened many of the ties she made as First Lady when she became SoS under Obama, not to mention her time as Senator of New York. She has a global charity and her husband like it or not traveled the world basically selling their name and influence. On the other side of the coin we have Bernie Sanders who was unknown on even the National scene until 2015. Yeah people got caught up in some hype because even the Dems didn't really like Hillary on the whole but do you really think Bernie was the better candidate? Consider how many people vote based on what someone looks like or whether they got a nice quip in during a debate ("Because you'd be in jail.") and you really think Bernie is the basket the Dems, as in the party apparatus, wants to put all their eggs in? Someone who only joined their party because running as an independent is suicide? No, they wanted to go with the safer bet, the devil they knew. So many people voted for Hillary Clinton literally because they recognized her name don't you dare say otherwise. That is an extremely powerful thing and something Bernie did not have. Granted they went with the safe bet and they lost so hindsight dictates they should have taken the chance but let's see you put your life savings on red and spin the wheel and then we can talk about longshots vs safe bets.

 

 

Name recognition is a double edged sword. People know it, but do they like it? Overwhelmingly. No They did not.

Many Liberal and Conservative woman hated her, for sticking by her cheating husband. Many conservatives and liberals believe Hillary & Bill are crooked (White Water), and may have a long list of dead bodies. (They probably don't, mostly coincidence. They know a LOT of people, and chances are, some of them are going to die in odd ways that aren't there fault.)

Then you have Benghazi that conservatives have been hammering on TV and Social Media. 

 

IN that case, a no name is going to have less baggage then a known name. :wink:

 

 

As an aside, although related, you also underestimate Trump. It's ok, everyone did and many people continue to do so. If you really think Trump was so easy to beat why don't you tell that to Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, George Pataki, Rick Perry, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, Scott Walker, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and Hillary Clinton. I think they might have a different story to tell.

*Sigh* Too many people were afraid to ever cast a vote for 3rd party.. Everyone didn't want the other guy to win. Bernie didn't have the hate crowd that Hillary did, specially among his own party.

Johnson was our best hope of a moderate between Trump & Hillary. But people chicken out, and can't vote there convictions. They vote based on who they think will win.

 

Oh, and if Romney had run last year, I wouldn't be mad at all if he beat Hillary.

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll have to disagree I think. I believe having a bad reputation is better than having no reputation at all when it comes to politics.

It's easier to change someones mind and make them think you've changed than it is to have them take notice of you in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll have to disagree I think. I believe having a bad reputation is better than having no reputation at all when it comes to politics.

It's easier to change someones mind and make them think you've changed than it is to have them take notice of you in the first place.

That might be true for anyone other than HRC, who has had a smear campaign going against her since the 90s. I acknowledge that a number of people voted Hillary just from name recognition, but how many people voted AGAINST her for the exact same reason?

 

Also, I dont understand the hatred of Socialism. First, hes not a Socialist. Second, Social Security, Public Roads, Public Schools, and the US Army, are all Socialist policies. America doesn't understand what Socialism is.

 

Finally the only people on that list of who Trump beat of any note are Rubio, Clinton and maybe Cruz. No one really cared about the rest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now