- Joined
- Dec 6, 2015
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
What is my faction?
I think that much is fairly obvious.
What is my faction?
I think that much is fairly obvious.
And what is it?
The votes were there for Hillary, if not the enthusiasm. The fundamental problem is that corporate Democrats also need to appeal to independents, the largest and growing chunk of the electorate, and not just command the rational albeit grudging support of us Berniecrats for lack of a better alternative; something we demonstrably do in spades, but which your faction clearly struggles with incessantly (while ironically claiming we would never fly with said independents due to our 'extremist' positions).
Seriously. I chose #1 because I'm not waking up at 3am wondering if Rachel Maddow is legally married to her girlfriend or I have a glacier or desert in my backyard. :roll:It's no secret that the Democratic Party is in bad shape these days. The Republicans control all of Washington, the majority of the governorship's, and the majority of the state legislators.
There are basically two different schools of thought as to where the Democrats should go ideologically to start winning again.
1. They should move solidly to the left and the kind of liberal populism ideas that Bernie Saunders advocated. This is the big progressive ideas model of promoting things like single payer healthcare, debt free college tuition, a living wage, and so on.
Or
2. They should move back to the old Third Way - New Democrats Centrist / Center - Left ideology championed by groups like the DLC and the Progressive Policy Institute in the nineties. Basically, the Bill Clinton model (absent the womanizing of course). This the progressive incrementalism model of promoting things like SCHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program), Welfare Reform, Moving to Opportunity, and so on.
So basically do you think the Democrats should move further to the left or closer to the center? This isn't a question of candidates but rather of ideas / ideology.
I don't know what that means. You think some corporation is paying me to think what I do?
What was that energy and activism directed toward last November? Not Hillary, fine. But where? Single-payer was annihilated in Colorado, Vermont's executive branch has flipped to red (as the state is about to kick off one of the most ambitious health reforms in the country), pharmaceutical price controls were pretty handily defeated in California, Bernie is still just the ranking member of the Budget Committee instead of its chairman, and so on.
If the premise is that this faction had the power to prevent what's happening now and what's about to happen and simply chose not to (to make a statement!), then I don't understand why those folks think they're owed some thank-you or respect from the rest of us.
I do not for one minute believe that Donald Trump has or likely will "destroy liberalism" or "political correctness".So Donald "Hillary would make a good president" Trump is the new heroic right wing figure that single handily destroyed liberalism and "political correctness"? Oh man, maybe he IS the "ONE".
....
Continued...
Continued...
Continued... (jeez this 5000 character limit is short, lol)
Yeah, it's highly annoying, I really wish they'd increase it to 10,000.
Continued...
Continued from above...
The Myths Democrats Swallowed That Cost Them the Presidential Election
Please focus carefully on the very first point. Especially this sentence: 'Almost every email that set off the “rigged” accusations was from May 2016.'
Also, just for the record:
I remember reading this back in November when it was making it's rounds among the die-hard Clinton supporters on Facebook and Twitter, but I've only read through it carefully just now, and it's pretty amazing. Not to let this go on too long, but:
1.) Several journalists believe that he's lying about "having exclusive access" to Republican dossiers. The predominant reason being that he wasn't reporting anything new or seeing anything that hadn't been reported before by the mainstream media. In fact, this reporter has a history oflyingstretching the truth. The opposition research that this reporter said was collected by Republicans? It wasn't, it was either Hillary's or the mainstream media, as one can verify for themselves if you trace back the original reports, as this reporter did. So, uh, yeah, all of it had been in the openly discussed, and none of them actually became serious stories during the primary. Perhaps this might have changed during the general election, but that's a hard case to make considering the guy who run literally was caught on camera saying "I grab them by the *****" is the same person who won; so having old ties to Sandanistas hardly seems like a campaign-sinking issue, relatively speaking. What seemed to matter a lot this election? Whether or not the working class believed you were going to help them.
2.) The author's second "myth" is brazenly dishonest, and he is purposefully misleading his audience. To highlight the most important instance, he argues that the DNC-emails don't matter, because:
"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."
However, just in the next paragraph, when arguing that the the superdelegate counting was a "myth":
"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"
That is unbelievable. Let me unpack the math for you:
1.) Claim: The DNC didn't actually conspire against Bernie, because Bernie couldn't have won in May.
2.) Why couldn't Bernie couldn't have won in May? Because he needed ~980 pledged delegates out of ~930 remaining pledged delegates.
3.) Problem: the final pledged delegates difference between Bernie (~1800) and Hillary (~2200) was 400. At the end of the race.
4.) Oh wait, you mean if you look at the pledged delegates, Bernie only needed to gain 200 more, and he would have had the popular vote? Wait, how does that square with him needing ~980 of the pledged delegates to win back even in May?
5.) It's because this "journalist" is arguing that because Hillary Clinton had a 300 point lead, plus 600 superdelegates, it was "mathematically impossible" for him to win.
6.) But don't forget, you need a "tin foil hat" if you have the audacity to complain about people counting super-delegates, which was literally crucial to the entire argument in the previous paragraph on why Sanders wasn't cheated in May.
7.) But don't worry, the superdelegates would have flipped if Bernie had won 200 more delegates in May.
8.) But also don't forget that he couldn't have won anyways, because superdelegates, and it's okay to conspire against him.
This is just pure, unadulterated doublethink.
Jesus Henry Christ you three wear me out sometimes with your Hillary vs. Bernie confrontations. I would like to join in, but not sure where so I just quoted every (at least I think) post I saw in it. It seems to me the best candidate to unite the Hillaryites and Berners would be Elizabeth Warren. She's between Hillary (to her left) and Bernie (slightly right) and exudes a rather sane "moderate-left" vibe with a hint of fired up populism. But, I think one thing that would be a good idea is making sure Trump doesn't get a second term. I, for one, think he will be so ineffably unpopular by 2020 that it won't matter much. But, just in case Bernie is too old, I think Elizabeth Warren would be the ideal challenger, and her ability to get crowds fired-up and appeal to blue collar whites would be the final nail in the coffin. Can't see any logical reason for the progressives and neoliberals to be divided over Elizabeth Warren (unless - god forbid - Hillary runs again).
Also, just for the record:
I remember reading this back in November when it was making it's rounds among the die-hard Clinton supporters on Facebook and Twitter, but I've only read through it carefully just now, and it's pretty amazing. Not to let this go on too long, but:
1.) Several journalists believe that he's lying about "having exclusive access" to Republican dossiers. The predominant reason being that he wasn't reporting anything new or seeing anything that hadn't been reported before by the mainstream media. In fact, this reporter has a history oflyingstretching the truth. The opposition research that this reporter said was collected by Republicans? It wasn't, it was either Hillary's or the mainstream media, as one can verify for themselves if you trace back the original reports, as this reporter did. So, uh, yeah, all of it had been in the openly discussed, and none of them actually became serious stories during the primary. Perhaps this might have changed during the general election, but that's a hard case to make considering the guy who run literally was caught on camera saying "I grab them by the *****" is the same person who won; so having old ties to Sandanistas hardly seems like a campaign-sinking issue, relatively speaking. What seemed to matter a lot this election? Whether or not the working class believed you were going to help them.
2.) The author's second "myth" is brazenly dishonest, and he is purposefully misleading his audience. To highlight the most important instance, he argues that the DNC-emails don't matter, because:
"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."
However, just in the next paragraph, when arguing that the the superdelegate counting was a "myth":
"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"
That is unbelievable. Let me unpack the math for you:
1.) Claim: The DNC didn't actually conspire against Bernie, because Bernie couldn't have won in May.
2.) Why couldn't Bernie couldn't have won in May? Because he needed ~980 pledged delegates out of ~930 remaining pledged delegates.
3.) Problem: the final pledged delegates difference between Bernie (~1800) and Hillary (~2200) was 400. At the end of the race.
4.) Oh wait, you mean if you look at the pledged delegates, Bernie only needed to gain 200 more, and he would have had the popular vote? Wait, how does that square with him needing ~980 of the pledged delegates to win back even in May?
5.) It's because this "journalist" is arguing that because Hillary Clinton had a 300 point lead, plus 600 superdelegates, it was "mathematically impossible" for him to win.
6.) But don't forget, you need a "tin foil hat" if you have the audacity to complain about people counting super-delegates, which was literally crucial to the entire argument in the previous paragraph on why Sanders wasn't cheated in May.
7.) But don't worry, the superdelegates would have flipped if Bernie had won 200 more delegates in May.
8.) But also don't forget that he couldn't have won anyways, because superdelegates, and it's okay to conspire against him.
This is just pure, unadulterated doublethink.
Dude, if you don't like what we say then don't read it. Not a difficult concept.
I tentatively agree that Elizabeth Warren might make a good choice in 2020. However, (1) she has repeatedly said that she doesn't want to run, so she'd have to change her mind; (2) she's no spring chicken; and (3) she's a woman.
I never said that. And Elizabeth Warren would unquestionably be a great candidate for President.
Also, just for the record:
I remember reading this back in November when it was making it's rounds among the die-hard Clinton supporters on Facebook and Twitter, but I've only read through it carefully just now, and it's pretty amazing. Not to let this go on too long, but:
1.) Several journalists believe that he's lying about "having exclusive access" to Republican dossiers. The predominant reason being that he wasn't reporting anything new or seeing anything that hadn't been reported before by the mainstream media. In fact, this reporter has a history oflyingstretching the truth. The opposition research that this reporter said was collected by Republicans? It wasn't, it was either Hillary's or the mainstream media, as one can verify for themselves if you trace back the original reports, as this reporter did. So, uh, yeah, all of it had been in the openly discussed, and none of them actually became serious stories during the primary. Perhaps this might have changed during the general election, but that's a hard case to make considering the guy who run literally was caught on camera saying "I grab them by the *****" is the same person who won; so having old ties to Sandanistas hardly seems like a campaign-sinking issue, relatively speaking. What seemed to matter a lot this election? Whether or not the working class believed you were going to help them.
1.) Claim: The DNC didn't actually conspire against Bernie, because Bernie couldn't have won in May.
2.) Why couldn't Bernie couldn't have won in May? Because he needed ~980 pledged delegates out of ~930 remaining pledged delegates.
3.) Problem: the final pledged delegates difference between Bernie (~1800) and Hillary (~2200) was 400. At the end of the race.
4.) Oh wait, you mean if you look at the pledged delegates, Bernie only needed to gain 200 more, and he would have had the popular vote? Wait, how does that square with him needing ~980 of the pledged delegates to win back even in May?
5.) It's because this "journalist" is arguing that because Hillary Clinton had a 300 point lead, plus 600 superdelegates, it was "mathematically impossible" for him to win.
6.) But don't forget, you need a "tin foil hat" if you have the audacity to complain about people counting super-delegates, which was literally crucial to the entire argument in the previous paragraph on why Sanders wasn't cheated in May.
7.) But don't worry, the superdelegates would have flipped if Bernie had won 200 more delegates in May.
8.) But also don't forget that he couldn't have won anyways, because superdelegates, and it's okay to conspire against him.
This is just pure, unadulterated doublethink.
I think the primary demonstrated that she's more than willing to put her party before her apparent principles
I know a lot of people didn't like her sitting out the primaries, but it's leagues more honorable than those that actively worked to undermine Bernie because they put their party loyalty above common ****ing sense (giving us President Trump).
I addressed that:
Wouldn't you rather go with a guaranteed victory by an unaligned progressive populist (Elizabeth Warren) over the Corporate Wing that demonstrably and loudly bellowed through both word and action its intent to destroy Bernie Sanders and the progressives as opposed to an improbable gamble on Tulsi Gabbard, who is almost certain to lose to those very same saboteurs?
So you have done more investigative journalism than Kurt Eichenwald has? You know more than he has? By all means, then, how did you uncover all your findings, and what is the proof that they are right?
Put it this way: I'd vote for Tulsi in the primaries, but I wouldn't be upset over Elizabeth.
If you have reservations about Warren, remember that Wall St. told HRC that they would pull support from HRC if she chose Warren as VP. We all wish she would've endorsed Bernie to give him the edge in MA but, it didn't happen. So, in election season 2020, don't forget that news story from '16, Wall St. reminded HRC who called the shots and warned her not to pick Warren as VP. By virtue of that, we want Warren in a position of power because she will shift the power away from Wall St. and onto the Middle and Working Class. I still hope Bernie runs 2020 but I would support and campaign for Warren if she was the nominee.
I'm excited about 2020. I don't think I've ever been exited for an election before (Except briefly during the Dem primaries), but...holy********...
I'm excited about 2020. I don't think I've ever been exited for an election before (Except briefly during the Dem primaries), but...holy********...
dailykos is doing excellent work on state legislatures, the absolute key in 2018 and 2020 elections to control both sets of remaps in 2021, along with 36 of 50 governors in 2018, 27 GOP.
I'm sorry that I unloaded on you about the 2016 election. I've been beyond frustrated with the DNC since the 2010 disaster gave GOPs their current power when Kaine was the DNC chief. REDMAP and Chris Jankowski explain how the GOP did it.
It was like yesterday for me when I was 19 in 1973 and McGovern had just been destroyed by the GOP. It's like I'm reliving this nightmare all over again except on a far higher order of magnitude .
If you have reservations about Warren, remember that Wall St. told HRC that they would pull support from HRC if she chose Warren as VP. We all wish she would've endorsed Bernie to give him the edge in MA but, it didn't happen. So, in election season 2020, don't forget that news story from '16, Wall St. reminded HRC who called the shots and warned her not to pick Warren as VP. By virtue of that, we want Warren in a position of power because she will shift the power away from Wall St. and onto the Middle and Working Class. I still hope Bernie runs 2020 but I would support and campaign for Warren if she was the nominee.