Where do you think the Democratic Party needs to go ideologically?

Surrealistik said:

I suspect you're equally frustrated then by the DNC's ongoing self-destructive insistence on continuing with its failing trajectory?



Yes, Wall Street wrung its hands over her, but actions speak louder than words, and she is certainly far from the ideal in light of her actions in the primaries; I lost a lot of respect for Warren when her refusal to step in on his behalf out of either cowardice, personal ambition or party loyalty cost Bernie Massachusetts. The best case scenario is that she failed to endorse him because she was angling for a seat at the table to influence Clinton towards more progressive ends; if that's the case, her actions are more forgivable, but I unfortunately can't read the senator's mind or peer into her soul. As things stand, Tulsi is the better candidate in my view, but again, I would not be upset at Warren as nominee unlike the way I was upset at Clinton taking it, resulting in predictable disaster.

Click to expand...

I hear you brother on Tulsi Gabbard. She exudes benevolence and kindness, and I would vote for in the primary, and campaign as hard as I campaigned for Bernie, but, I don't think Perez would ever allow her to become the nominee, even if she got more votes than anyone else in the primary by winning CA, NY, DC, and the moon.

FieldTheorist said:

This is a transparently lazy response. Even if we assume that Kurt Eichenwald is a brilliant journalist, it doesn't make his assertions above reproach; especially when one can verify (as I linked you to multiple sources, if you want the evidence presented, then follow the text that's highlighted in blue) that his claims are factually incorrect or using internally self-contradicting reasoning. In fact, in the latter example, you only need very basic reasoning skills to see that the internal logic of his arguments are at best deceptive, at worst complete propaganda.

Click to expand...

You went on this long tangent about how the primary was rigged. I get it. You've made up your mind that you absolutely must be right, and that Eichenwald and I absolutely must be wrong. You demonstrate that by giving no deference to any evidence I provide, but instead cherry-picking that which only supports your position. Note, BTW, that I am dare not going to commit the arrogant blunder that you did of assuming that Eichenwald and I are anywhere near equals when it comes to compiling information and critically examining it; I merely equate the two of us in the sense that he and I would agree with the claim that there exists no significant evidence to suggest that the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged.

Furthermore, your assessment also clashes with that of another skilled journalist, this one who draws his conclusions heavily based on numbers: Nate Silver. He also knows that Hillary rightfully won the nomination. What Silver understood and the Bernie-or-Busters don't is that on Super Tuesday, Hillary ran up the score and never looked back. In fact, by that measure, Hillary didn't get hurt one iota by the shallacking in the March 26 caucuses, because her team had already planned for that. She never needed those delegates. By the time all those emails from May started coming out, Hillary had all but locked up the nomination.

Here's the thing, though. Part of the divide that lingers within the Democratic base is that, IMO, Hillary spoke to our minds, while Bernie spoke to our hearts. (Incidentally, Donald spoke to our fears.) So that's going to be the question going forward toward 2020: Will we try to get behind a candidate who can fire up the crowds, even if they don't have a lot of substance in their talks? Or will we try to get behind a policy wonk that isn't so charismatic? Guess we'll find out.

Phys251 said:

You went on this long tangent about how the primary was rigged. I get it. You've made up your mind that you absolutely must be right, and that Eichenwald and I absolutely must be wrong. You demonstrate that by giving no deference to any evidence I provide, but instead cherry-picking that which only supports your position. Note, BTW, that I am dare not going to commit the arrogant blunder that you did of assuming that Eichenwald and I are anywhere near equals when it comes to compiling information and critically examining it; I merely equate the two of us in the sense that he and I would agree with the claim that there exists no significant evidence to suggest that the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged.

Furthermore, your assessment also clashes with that of another skilled journalist, this one who draws his conclusions heavily based on numbers: Nate Silver. He also knows that Hillary rightfully won the nomination. What Silver understood and the Bernie-or-Busters don't is that on Super Tuesday, Hillary ran up the score and never looked back. In fact, by that measure, Hillary didn't get hurt one iota by the shallacking in the March 26 caucuses, because her team had already planned for that. She never needed those delegates. By the time all those emails from May started coming out, Hillary had all but locked up the nomination.

Click to expand...

Yes, a week into June, per the Nate Silver writing, things were largely decided. May however, was a different matter entirely, and the race wasn't called or callable. Even if it was, it doesn't excuse the obvious bias demonstrated against Bernie, and the blatant contempt those members of the Dem leadership featured for him, nevermind things like the debate scheduling, who again were rightly sacked for their illicit alignment with Clinton they constantly lied about. Again, there can be no question that 'rigging', as in manipulation of the primary outcomes by the DNC, occurred; it was painfully clear and evident, no matter how much you try to marginalize their role or impact.

Here's the thing, though. Part of the divide that lingers within the Democratic base is that, IMO, Hillary spoke to our minds, while Bernie spoke to our hearts. (Incidentally, Donald spoke to our fears.) So that's going to be the question going forward toward 2020: Will we try to get behind a candidate who can fire up the crowds, even if they don't have a lot of substance in their talks? Or will we try to get behind a policy wonk that isn't so charismatic? Guess we'll find out.

Click to expand...

I love the ridiculous presumption of this. Hillary spoke to neither (especially given how much she emphasized identity politics over policy... the most appealing points of which she cribbed off Sanders); Bernie spoke to both. Further, I don't see why these two things have to be mutually exclusive.

Surrealistik said:

Yes, a week into June, per the Nate Silver's writing, things were largely decided. May however, was a different matter entirely, and the race wasn't called or callable. Even if it was, it doesn't excuse the obvious bias demonstrated against Bernie, and the blatant contempt those members of the Dem leadership demonstrated for him, who again were rightly sacked for their illicit alignment with Clinton they constantly lied about. Again, there can be no question that 'rigging', as in manipulation of the primary outcomes by the DNC, occurred; it was painfully clear and evident, no matter how much you try to marginalize their role or impact.

Click to expand...

The primary was over well before June. Well before. People who understand how things were correctly predicting the outcome as early as the middle of March. But you're engaging in a CT here, and I know from past experience that people who give into CTs cannot be swayed by any amount of reason to the contrary.

I love the ridiculous presumption of this. Hillary spoke to neither (especially given how much she emphasized identity politics over policy); Bernie spoke to both. Further, I don't see why these two things have to be mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

Then you didn't listen to a word she said. Because you're flat-out wrong about the first highlighted comment. Bernie riled up the crowds better, yes, but he was out of Hillary's league when it came to a sheer command of policies, situations, and political environments. Too bad if that doesn't fit your personal narrative. And the second outs you as a someone who is willing to throw POC under the bus in order to support his own personal agenda. You can't be a real progressive and do that.

Phys251 said:

The primary was over well before June. Well before. People who understand how things were correctly predicting the outcome as early as the middle of March. But you're engaging in a CT here, and I know from past experience that people who give into CTs cannot be swayed by any amount of reason to the contrary.

Click to expand...

Clearly it wasn't. Fundamentally, that's like your opinion man. Clinton was clearly advantaged, but the primary wasn't nearly over. That said, you can repeat your likewise erroneous opinion that the idea of primary manipulation is CT until you're blue in the face despite clear evidence of bias and manipulation among senior Dem leadership, including when the primary wasn't even called by a single news organization (moreover ignoring the fact that even if it was, it doesn't obviate the nature and implication of their communications, or that they were fired for their actions); that certainly won't make it reality.

Then you didn't listen to a word she said. Because you're flat-out wrong about the first highlighted comment. Bernie riled up the crowds better, yes, but he was out of Hillary's league when it came to a sheer command of policies, situations, and political environments. Too bad if that doesn't fit your personal narrative. And the second outs you as a someone who is willing to throw POC under the bus in order to support his own personal agenda. You can't be a real progressive and do that.

Click to expand...

Oh I certainly did; there was some good policy; most was cribbed from Bernie, but nonetheless. What she chose to emphasize in the end, was most certainly Trump smears and ID politics, and I agree, Bernie certainly was out of Hillary's league with regards to those things, having been in politics longer and been in general a more productive politician as amendment king with demonstrably better judgement.

Second, stating correctly that a disproportionate emphasis on ID politics was toxic to Hillary's campaign isn't throwing PoC under the bus (again, attacking/insinuating Bernie supporters as racists/sexists; classic Clintonite dribble); rather it's making a factual observation that she was hitting on the wrong campaigning points when the zeitgeist and electoral interest was totally in another direction as her loss of the so-called blue wall made painfully clear.

Surrealistik said:

Clearly it wasn't. Fundamentally, that's like your opinion man. Clinton was clearly advantaged, but the primary wasn't nearly over. That said, you can repeat your likewise erroneous opinion that the idea of primary manipulation is CT until you're blue in the face despite clear evidence of bias and manipulation among senior Dem leadership, including when the primary wasn't even called by a single news organization (moreover ignoring the fact that even if it was, it doesn't obviate the nature and implication of their communications, or that they were fired for their actions); that certainly won't make it reality.

Click to expand...

Yo, man, that's like not just my opinion, man, it's, like, the facts, dude!

Check out Nate Silver's delegate tracker. I was following that thing from very early on, and I can assure you, never did they readjust the thing. See that big lead she built up aaallllll the way back in March? Yeah. That's why she won. When Berners try to dismiss that fact, they come across as being whiny, pure and simple. You lost the primary, you got beat, and instead of whining and pointing fingers like the SCROTUS, you (plural) need to look within yourselves to determine what you could have done better. It is is your burden to sell us. Not the other way around. Tell me, how long has it been since we've had a truly progressive president, and how does the country compare then to now?

Oh I certainly did; there was some good policy; most was cribbed from Bernie, but nonetheless. What she chose to emphasize in the end, was most certainly Trump smears and ID politics, and I agree, Bernie certainly was out of Hillary's league with regards to those things, having been in politics longer and been in general a more productive politician as amendment king with demonstrably better judgement.

Click to expand...

Ha! She has been talking detailed policies for decades. That's why so many people feared her. Unfortunately, some of these forces colluded together to take down Hillary in November. (The outright proof for this statement has not yet emerged, but I am a man who likes to hedge his bets.)

Second, stating correctly that a disproportionate emphasis on ID politics was toxic to Hillary's campaign isn't throwing PoC under the bus (again, attacking/insinuating Bernie supporters as racists/sexists; classic Clintonite dribble); rather it's making a factual observation that she was hitting on the wrong campaigning points when the zeitgeist and electoral interest was totally in another direction as her loss of the so-called blue wall made painfully clear.

Click to expand...

Wrong. There were plenty of circumstances where the losing bet was liberal populism and the winning bet was "identity politics," which is just code for white liberalism. For instance, North Carolina, which went for Trump yet elected a Democratic governor who made part of his campaign to oppose the Republican governor's anti-trans* bathroom hate law. Also, Russ Feingold, the Democratic candidate for Wisconsin Senate: He ran a more populist campaign than Hillary did. Guess what: He lost Wisconsin by a bigger margin than Hillary did. And single-payer was decisively defeated in Colorado, which is now a blue state. Etc. Yes I'm sure that a few counterexamples exist, but these represent a start. Left-wing populism is not yet as popular as its followers seem to think.

You guys have the passion; of that there is no question. But whether you have the numbers at the ballot box is the bigger issue.

Phys251 said:

Yo, man, that's like not just my opinion, man, it's, like, the facts, dude!

Check out Nate Silver's delegate tracker. I was following that thing from very early on, and I can assure you, never did they readjust the thing. See that big lead she built up aaallllll the way back in March? Yeah. That's why she won. When Berners try to dismiss that fact, they come across as being whiny, pure and simple. You lost the primary, you got beat, and instead of whining and pointing fingers like the SCROTUS, you (plural) need to look within yourselves to determine what you could have done better. It is is your burden to sell us. Not the other way around. Tell me, how long has it been since we've had a truly progressive president, and how does the country compare then to now?

Click to expand...

Actually yes, specifically the claim that the race was fundamentally over by May is absolutely a matter of your opinion. It was neither de jure, nor de facto.

Further, as I have repeatedly stated in the past, I'm not saying that she specifically won because of DNC manipulation of the process; what I _am_ saying is that such manipulation existed; that the leadership of the DNC did strive to advantage her, to skew the process and held a consistently pro-Hillary bias in stark contradiction both to the DNC's internal rules, and their own repeated denials. Even without rigging it's possible, perhaps even likely that she would have won; that doesn't obviate the fact that this manipulation occurred.

Ha! She has been talking detailed policies for decades. That's why so many people feared her. Unfortunately, some of these forces colluded together to take down Hillary in November. (The outright proof for this statement has not yet emerged, but I am a man who likes to hedge his bets.)

Click to expand...

She lost for a number of reasons. Poor messaging was among them.

Wrong. There were plenty of circumstances where the losing bet was liberal populism and the winning bet was "identity politics," which is just code for white liberalism. For instance, North Carolina, which went for Trump yet elected a Democratic governor who made part of his campaign to oppose the Republican governor's anti-trans* bathroom hate law. Also, Russ Feingold, the Democratic candidate for Wisconsin Senate: He ran a more populist campaign than Hillary did. Guess what: He lost Wisconsin by a bigger margin than Hillary did. And single-payer was decisively defeated in Colorado, which is now a blue state. Etc. Yes I'm sure that a few counterexamples exist, but these represent a start. Left-wing populism is not yet as popular as its followers seem to think.

Click to expand...

Right, speaking of a start, let's go based on the polling data, and opinion polls among the general population which conclusively show that Bernie and his ideas are and remain immensely popular. Bernie himself is currently the most popular politician in the country. Moreover we're speaking of the general specifically, where the indicators and post-mortem clearly demonstrated the value of liberal populism; Clinton's terrible messaging cost her.

You guys have the passion; of that there is no question. But whether you have the numbers at the ballot box is the bigger issue.

Click to expand...

Our immense popularity with independents suggests we do.


But enough of this; talk is cheap. There's a reason we founded the Justice Democrats; to take back the party and save it from the Clintonite third way born losers who refuse to give up power when they clearly have no business wielding it after getting utterly savaged and domineered by the GOP at virtually every level of governance while they fielded the most unpopular presidential candidate of all time.

We will primary you; and we will destroy you.

Surrealistik said:

Actually yes, specifically the claim that the race was fundamentally over by May is absolutely a matter of your opinion. It was neither de jure, nor de facto.

Click to expand...

That is a bald-faced lie and destroys what little credibility you had left. Because now you're not arguing against opinions or ideas: You're arguing against math. Pure, hard, math. And if you want to bury your position even more deeply, go ahead and keep arguing against math.

Further, as I have repeatedly stated in the past, I'm not saying that she specifically won because of DNC manipulation of the process; what I _am_ saying is that such manipulation existed; that the leadership of the DNC did strive to advantage her, to skew the process and held a consistently pro-Hillary bias in stark contradiction both to the DNC's internal rules, and their own repeated denials. Even without rigging it's possible, perhaps even likely that she would have won; that doesn't obviate the fact that this manipulation occurred.

Click to expand...

Obviously there is no evidence that will sway you from your blind faith in this CT. That's what people who fall for CTs do.

She lost for a number of reasons. Poor messaging was among them.

Click to expand...

We have assessed those and begun the process of moving on. You guys have not. You guys are still whining about the primaries. Get over it and move on already.

Right, speaking of a start, let's go based on the polling data, and opinion polls among the general population which conclusively show that Bernie and his ideas are and remain immensely popular. Bernie himself is currently the most popular politician in the country. Moreover we're speaking of the general specifically, where the indicators and post-mortem clearly demonstrated the value of liberal populism; Clinton's terrible messaging cost her.

Our immense popularity with independents suggests we do.

Click to expand...

Bernie never faced a serious political challenge. Ever. BTW, I find it fascinating that the same Donald Trump, who is all but confirmed to have colluded with the Kremlin to influence the discourse of the election, talked in remarkably deferential tones towards Bernie Sanders and his supporters late in the primary. Doesn't that strike you as just a little...coincidental? Doesn't his encouraging Sanders to stay in the primary sound a little...coincidental?

But enough of this; talk is cheap. There's a reason we founded the Justice Democrats; to take back the party and save it from the Clintonite third way born losers who refuse to give up power when they clearly have no business wielding it after getting utterly savaged and domineered by the GOP at virtually every level of governance while they fielded the most unpopular presidential candidate of all time.

We will primary you; and we will destroy you.

Click to expand...

Oooooooh, I'm skeeered! :roll:

Unless of course you mean primary challenging any Congressperson that's to the left of Karl Marx. In which case I'll start to wonder if you guys aren't secretly supporting the Republicans. And I am dead serious about that comment.

Phys251 said:

Oooooooh, I'm skeeered! :roll:

Click to expand...

You should be.

Ignore.

Surrealistik said:

You should be.

Ignore.

Click to expand...

Let me give you six numbers:

22,748, 31,072.
10,704, 51,463.
44,292, 49,941.

The three rows represent Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania respectively. The first column represents the margin of defeat for Clinton. The second? Jill Stein voters. People who "didn't like Clinton" or thought that "both parties are the same" or some other ****, etc. And that's not counting a single Gary Johnson vote. All other factors being equal, had nearly every Stein voter switched their vote to Clinton last November, we would not be dealing with President Donald Trump. That's twice in the last five elections that the Green party wrecked a presidential election. That is as irrefutable and uncontroversial of a fact as is that we breathe oxygen and the Earth is round. There's literally nothing to debate there other than the quantifier, "all other factors being equal." Which, they weren't.

The election loss was a perfect storm of a number of forces that collided in just the right way. We had the Bernie-or-Busters (see above for the proof). We had a Democratic challenger who acted like a spoiled brat even after Clinton had outright clinched enough delegates to win the nomination. We had a sensationalist media who was absolutely obsessed with Clinton's emails. We had a whole swath of the country who gave into racial angst that the Muslims and the Hispanic immigrants are somehow taking over. And that's just some of the problems, not even beginning to get into all the policy issues. How we get out of this in 2020, I will not claim to have all the answers. But I can assure you of this, continuing your petty accusations and willful refusal to accept the slightest bit of responsibility is not how you do it. We won the primary. We lost the general election. These are facts, and they're not up for discussion, no matter how badly you insist to the contrary. Learn to compromise, as we do the same with you, or learn to have the Republican party continue to dominate this nation for the forseeable future.

Phys251 said:

Let me give you six numbers:

22,748, 31,072.
10,704, 51,463.
44,292, 49,941.

The three rows represent Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania respectively. The first column represents the margin of defeat for Clinton. The second? Jill Stein voters. People who "didn't like Clinton" or thought that "both parties are the same" or some other ****, etc. And that's not counting a single Gary Johnson vote. All other factors being equal, had nearly every Stein voter switched their vote to Clinton last November, we would not be dealing with President Donald Trump. That's twice in the last five elections that the Green party wrecked a presidential election. That is as irrefutable and uncontroversial of a fact as is that we breathe oxygen and the Earth is round. There's literally nothing to debate there other than the quantifier, "all other factors being equal." Which, they weren't.

The election loss was a perfect storm of a number of forces that collided in just the right way. We had the Bernie-or-Busters (see above for the proof). We had a Democratic challenger who acted like a spoiled brat even after Clinton had outright clinched enough delegates to win the nomination. We had a sensationalist media who was absolutely obsessed with Clinton's emails. We had a whole swath of the country who gave into racial angst that the Muslims and the Hispanic immigrants are somehow taking over. And that's just some of the problems, not even beginning to get into all the policy issues. How we get out of this in 2020, I will not claim to have all the answers. But I can assure you of this, continuing your petty accusations and willful refusal to accept the slightest bit of responsibility is not how you do it. We won the primary. We lost the general election. These are facts, and they're not up for discussion, no matter how badly you insist to the contrary. Learn to compromise, as we do the same with you, or learn to have the Republican party continue to dominate this nation for the forseeable future.

Click to expand...

Apparently I still get quote notifications from people I have on my ignore list. I debated about whether to respond, but I figure I may as well leave it at this before I cease replying completely:

This discussion, like fundamentally every other discussion I've had with you isn't going anywhere. You're talking in circles while you wholly refuse to acknowledge the very real flaws in messaging and campaigning that were responsible for Clinton's horrid turnout and her loss to a PT Barnum cheeto baboon. Even this very quote demonstrates as much; discussing such things with you is evidently and clearly a totally hopeless endeavour. If you want to point fingers at the tiny minority of Bernie supporters that sat out the election without acknowledging the existent and real failures of Clinton and her team there can be no progress. If you refuse to acknowledge, as you do, the fact that failure to compromise and share power and policy is largely on the establishment Dems who have systemically frozen out progressives from every single position of high office in the DNC, while Perez gave us all of 2 of 30 advisory council positions, even as they bray on constantly about unity and reconciliation, having the gall to effectively demand votation without representation for half (or more) of the party, there can be no progress.

In general, I'm sick of your persisting, shameless disingenuity, the likes of which are rivaled only by some of Trump's worst supporters, and am just absolutely done with you. As stated, talk is cheap, and, beyond this, I've got nothing more to say to a diehard Clinton partisan like yourself. We cannot and will not reconcile; there will be no mutual understanding or mending of fences because you've consciously chosen to make that impossible. People like you are exactly why it's necessary we destroy your kind in the Dem primaries, and we will. Those who identify as the establishment, as among the neoliberals who usurped the party in the 90s and moved us away from the tradition of FDR, are long overdue for the historical dustbin. We hope to see you off there sooner rather than later.

Phys251 said:

You went on this long tangent about how the primary was rigged. I get it. You've made up your mind that you absolutely must be right, and that Eichenwald and I absolutely must be wrong. You demonstrate that by giving no deference to any evidence I provide, but instead cherry-picking that which only supports your position.

Click to expand...

Wow, you're really committed to not having a debate about the merits of what you said, aren't you? You offered one source, and I critiqued it. Then you went on a bizarre rant about how I am so presumptuous to know better than the professional journalist (Even when I cited another professional journalist who questioned what Eichenwald said --what happens then? Do we look at who's been in the field longer, so we can continue to ignore any and all evidence pertaining to who's correct?). I said it last post, and I'll say it again: That is a lazy, unthoughtful, unserious argument.

Apparently, I was presumptuous in thinking that this could be a debate where we actually argued based on the merits of evidence and reason. Apparently, I was supposed to look at your singular source and say, "Oh my goodness, I didn't realize that some professional journalist disagrees with me. I'm sorry, I guess that makes me tautologically, indefensibly wrong about everything. And you are totally justified in asserting that I'm cherrypicking, without any evidence for the assertion of any kind."

Only it doesn't. All of us are allowed to disagree with journalists when what they say does not comport verifiable facts. Or when what that journalist says contradicts himself in the same article. Now, you could attack my argument, and actually make a proper go of trying to prove me wrong, but apparently you're more interested, again, in meta-narrating that I'm wrong and mean, presumptuous, arrogant person (let's set aside the fact that you're the one who's literally implied that I'm a sexist for no discernible reason).

Note, BTW, that I am dare not going to commit the arrogant blunder that you did of assuming that Eichenwald and I are anywhere near equals when it comes to compiling information and critically examining it

Click to expand...

And rather than bloviating about the fact that he's a brilliant, unquestionable professional journalist, you could have actually furthered the conversation and attempted to discuss what I raised as problematic in his article. If you genuinely believed that I'm wrong, you should have had no problem showing that what I said was factually errant or contains errors in reasoning, rather than using "But he's a professional journalist!" as a rhetorical bludgeon.

Furthermore, your assessment also clashes with that of another skilled journalist, this one who draws his conclusions heavily based on numbers: Nate Silver.

Click to expand...

Apparently you don't agree with Kurt Eichenwald either, because he didn't say "she had all but locked up," he said it was not "mathematically possible" for Sanders to win.

Note that I disagree with what Nate said, too, in specific parts (other parts of his analysis I agree with), but since we're not using journalists as sources, merely as rhetorical bludgeons, I'm not going to bother explaining my objections to what he said.

Here's the thing, though. Part of the divide that lingers within the Democratic base is that, IMO, Hillary spoke to our minds, while Bernie spoke to our hearts. (Incidentally, Donald spoke to our fears.) So that's going to be the question going forward toward 2020: Will we try to get behind a candidate who can fire up the crowds, even if they don't have a lot of substance in their talks? Or will we try to get behind a policy wonk that isn't so charismatic? Guess we'll find out.

Click to expand...

Nope, wrong again. Yes, Bernie spoke to people's hearts, at least the ones that believed in economic populism. But he also talked about policy. A lot. And no, Hillary wasn't a "wonk" when it came time for the generals. She almost never talked about policy substance, and her first debate against Trump only contained the smallest traces of policy discussion highlighting how she was different than Trump. It's fun to call a loser a "wonk" and act like that makes up for them being a loser, but it doesn't. Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate, and the people who voted for her in the primary directly contributed to electing Donald Trump to the presidency.


As per Surrealistik's response, I'll see you and yours in the 2018 primaries. Go ahead, take the last word.

Phys251 said:

Let me give you six numbers:

22,748, 31,072.
10,704, 51,463.
44,292, 49,941.

The three rows represent Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania respectively. The first column represents the margin of defeat for Clinton. The second? Jill Stein voters. People who "didn't like Clinton" or thought that "both parties are the same" or some other ****, etc. And that's not counting a single Gary Johnson vote. All other factors being equal, had nearly every Stein voter switched their vote to Clinton last November, we would not be dealing with President Donald Trump. That's twice in the last five elections that the Green party wrecked a presidential election. That is as irrefutable and uncontroversial of a fact as is that we breathe oxygen and the Earth is round. There's literally nothing to debate there other than the quantifier, "all other factors being equal." Which, they weren't.

The election loss was a perfect storm of a number of forces that collided in just the right way. We had the Bernie-or-Busters (see above for the proof). We had a Democratic challenger who acted like a spoiled brat even after Clinton had outright clinched enough delegates to win the nomination. We had a sensationalist media who was absolutely obsessed with Clinton's emails. We had a whole swath of the country who gave into racial angst that the Muslims and the Hispanic immigrants are somehow taking over. And that's just some of the problems, not even beginning to get into all the policy issues. How we get out of this in 2020, I will not claim to have all the answers. But I can assure you of this, continuing your petty accusations and willful refusal to accept the slightest bit of responsibility is not how you do it. We won the primary. We lost the general election. These are facts, and they're not up for discussion, no matter how badly you insist to the contrary. Learn to compromise, as we do the same with you, or learn to have the Republican party continue to dominate this nation for the forseeable future.

Click to expand...

If people would just vote the party platform, they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot like has happened here. I NEVER vote for a person...I vote for ideas.

Surrealistik said:

Apparently I still get quote notifications from people I have on my ignore list. I debated about whether to respond, but I figure I may as well leave it at this before I cease replying completely:

This discussion, like fundamentally every other discussion I've had with you isn't going anywhere. You're talking in circles while you wholly refuse to acknowledge the very real flaws in messaging and campaigning that were responsible for Clinton's horrid turnout and her loss to a PT Barnum cheeto baboon. Even this very quote demonstrates as much; discussing such things with you is evidently and clearly a totally hopeless endeavour. If you want to point fingers at the tiny minority of Bernie supporters that sat out the election without acknowledging the existent and real failures of Clinton and her team there can be no progress. If you refuse to acknowledge, as you do, the fact that failure to compromise and share power and policy is largely on the establishment Dems who have systemically frozen out progressives from every single position of high office in the DNC, while Perez gave us all of 2 of 30 advisory council positions, even as they bray on constantly about unity and reconciliation, having the gall to effectively demand votation without representation for half (or more) of the party, there can be no progress.

Click to expand...

1. Tell me one time, just one time, where I stated that Clinton did not have flaws in her messaging and campaigning strategy. Quote it verbatim, in context. Go on, I'll be waiting.
2. Yet again you demonstrate the all-give-and-no-take mentality I was talking about earlier. You believe that you are absolutely right, and that I am not, and therefore I am absolutely wrong. Common ground is simply not possible when one or more parties take such an absurd stance.
3. One thing you keep failing to acknowledge--and I'm not sure why you're doing this--is the acid test on the ground. For example, how did the single-payer referendum fare in Colorado? Answer: It was crushed, 79-21. With those kinds of numbers, I am reasonably certain that even quite a few Sanders supporters voted against it. How can single-payer stand a chance on a national level when it gets walloped this badly in a blue state? Also, don't even try the "Sanders did better against Trump in the polls" trick. Polls require certain assumptions and can fluctuate over time. If polls told the whole story, then every portion of Obamacare other than the coverage mandate would be popular. If polls told the whole story, then we would have President Hillary Clinton right now. The sad truth is that she ran a campaign on these assumptions, which, thanks to some outside meddling, turned out not to hold.

In general, I'm sick of your persisting, shameless disingenuity, the likes of which are rivaled only by some of Trump's worst supporters, and am just absolutely done with you. As stated, talk is cheap, and, beyond this, I've got nothing more to say to a diehard Clinton partisan like yourself. We cannot and will not reconcile; there will be no mutual understanding or mending of fences because you've consciously chosen to make that impossible. People like you are exactly why it's necessary we destroy your kind in the Dem primaries, and we will. Those who identify as the establishment, as among the neoliberals who usurped the party in the 90s and moved us away from the tradition of FDR, are long overdue for the historical dustbin. We hope to see you off there sooner rather than later.

Click to expand...

Answered in the next post (character limit).

Surrealistik said:

In general, I'm sick of your persisting, shameless disingenuity, the likes of which are rivaled only by some of Trump's worst supporters, and am just absolutely done with you. As stated, talk is cheap, and, beyond this, I've got nothing more to say to a diehard Clinton partisan like yourself. We cannot and will not reconcile; there will be no mutual understanding or mending of fences because you've consciously chosen to make that impossible. People like you are exactly why it's necessary we destroy your kind in the Dem primaries, and we will. Those who identify as the establishment, as among the neoliberals who usurped the party in the 90s and moved us away from the tradition of FDR, are long overdue for the historical dustbin. We hope to see you off there sooner rather than later.

Click to expand...

What you choose not to understand is that you and I are actually pretty close when it comes to positions. I favor a more progressive tax system, a tax on Wall Street, more expansive healthcare coverage for the middle class and the poor, a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, etc. I'm reasonably certain we're in lockstep agreement on this and many other issues. But when you throw a temper tantrum like the one you just did, you prove that you are not ready to close the relatively small gap that does remain. I am reminded of the Sanders-Clinton debate over the minimum wage, with Clinton wanting to push for $12 and Sanders wanting to push for $15. Both represent sizable increases over the current minimum wage of $7.25! So you could do what a lot of Sanders fans did, and that is to accuse Clinton of being a "neoliberal corporate sellout," or you could have realized that a $15 minimum wage would have met far, far more resistance in the largely rural states of Arkansas and Mississippi than it would have on the coasts. Clinton was one of the most pragmatic candidates I have ever seen, and it is precisely that pragmatism that switched my support to her from Sanders. Yep, I felt the Bern...at first.

But if you're just going to engage in this kind of infighting, then I have to question what your goals really are. I question whether you really want to move the policy needle to the left. To use a football analogy, you guys insist on going for a touchdown and the two-point conversion, while some of us are pleading with you to understand that on some drives, you are going to have to settle for a field goal. And I readily admit that too often that we've kicked field goals in touchdown situations--the 111th Congress (2009-2010) comes to mind here. But past mistakes are past mistakes and it is time to move on. Are you ready, or not?

FieldTheorist said:

Wow, you're really committed to not having a debate about the merits of what you said, aren't you? You offered one source, and I critiqued it. Then you went on a bizarre rant about how I am so presumptuous to know better than the professional journalist (Even when I cited another professional journalist who questioned what Eichenwald said --what happens then? Do we look at who's been in the field longer, so we can continue to ignore any and all evidence pertaining to who's correct?). I said it last post, and I'll say it again: That is a lazy, unthoughtful, unserious argument.

Apparently, I was presumptuous in thinking that this could be a debate where we actually argued based on the merits of evidence and reason. Apparently, I was supposed to look at your singular source and say, "Oh my goodness, I didn't realize that some professional journalist disagrees with me. I'm sorry, I guess that makes me tautologically, indefensibly wrong about everything. And you are totally justified in asserting that I'm cherrypicking, without any evidence for the assertion of any kind."

Only it doesn't. All of us are allowed to disagree with journalists when what they say does not comport verifiable facts. Or when what that journalist says contradicts himself in the same article. Now, you could attack my argument, and actually make a proper go of trying to prove me wrong, but apparently you're more interested, again, in meta-narrating that I'm wrong and mean, presumptuous, arrogant person (let's set aside the fact that you're the one who's literally implied that I'm a sexist for no discernible reason).

Click to expand...

Show me verbatim where Eichenwald contradicted himself. I looked at where you claimed this, and the mental gymnastics required to do such a thing are worthy of an Olympic medal.

And rather than bloviating about the fact that he's a brilliant, unquestionable professional journalist, you could have actually furthered the conversation and attempted to discuss what I raised as problematic in his article. If you genuinely believed that I'm wrong, you should have had no problem showing that what I said was factually errant or contains errors in reasoning, rather than using "But he's a professional journalist!" as a rhetorical bludgeon.

Apparently you don't agree with Kurt Eichenwald either, because he didn't say "she had all but locked up," he said it was not "mathematically possible" for Sanders to win.

Note that I disagree with what Nate said, too, in specific parts (other parts of his analysis I agree with), but since we're not using journalists as sources, merely as rhetorical bludgeons, I'm not going to bother explaining my objections to what he said.

Click to expand...

That is what we called "splitting hairs." For Sanders to have made a comeback starting in May would have required a reversal of fortunes somewhere on par with winning the Powerball lottery. So hey, if you want to try to convince me that the difference between a one-in-insanely-large chance and a literal zero chance is statistically more significant than between that and "Sanders had a legitimate chance even in May," then be my guest. You'd be demonstrating a gross lack of understanding of how statistics work if you did. Again, you are arguing against math.

And why are you willfully ignoring the Nate Silver article? That's twice now you've willfully ignored a reputable journalist simply because you disagreed with them. That's not how this is supposed to work.

Nope, wrong again. Yes, Bernie spoke to people's hearts, at least the ones that believed in economic populism. But he also talked about policy. A lot. And no, Hillary wasn't a "wonk" when it came time for the generals. She almost never talked about policy substance, and her first debate against Trump only contained the smallest traces of policy discussion highlighting how she was different than Trump. It's fun to call a loser a "wonk" and act like that makes up for them being a loser, but it doesn't. Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate, and the people who voted for her in the primary directly contributed to electing Donald Trump to the presidency.

Click to expand...

The highlighted phrase is a bald-faced lie. If you don't even understand who your opponent is, how can you stand a chance to understand why she received more primary votes than literally any other candidate in 2016? Go on and explain that number to me.

As per Surrealistik's response, I'll see you and yours in the 2018 primaries. Go ahead, take the last word.

Click to expand...

See the last two paragraphs of my response to Surrealistik. I echo them word-for-word to you.

Honestly, your post continues your tradition of non-responsive meta-narration asserting I'm wrong, but not explaining why I'm wrong. I am perfectly happy to let you have the last word. But so long as you're inviting me to make a comment on this, let me conclude my statement with this:

Phys251 said:

What you choose not to understand is that you and I are actually pretty close when it comes to positions.

Click to expand...

We've been over this, but in summary:

1.) I don't care what your views are. If you regurgitate the talking points of the establishment media and DNC officials, I don't really care if you disagree with those people privately. Again, the people you're defending and the talking points you're spouting come straight from the side of the party that is at best very hazy on all of the positions you described, at worst outright disagrees with you.

2.) Bernie won 44% of the party, and yet he and his allies have 0% representation within the party. It doesn't cut it for me to say that you're "close to" my views, and so let's call it six of one, half dozen of the other. It's not happening. I will not back down until, at a minimum, the 44% of the voting Democrats who share my views on economic populism are given proportional representation within the party. And every day, every article that we are excluded from the party makes is reminder of why there's no point in trying to make peace with the DNC and the media establishment, and every article that continues to spread lies and propaganda is, again, another reminder that while Tom Perez and his cohort publicly bloviate about "Party Unity," they're holding a sign above their heads that plainly reads "Go **** yourselves."

I am reminded of the Sanders-Clinton debate over the minimum wage, with Clinton wanting to push for $12 and Sanders wanting to push for $15. [...] Clinton was one of the most pragmatic candidates I have ever seen, and it is precisely that pragmatism that switched my support to her from Sanders. Yep, I felt the Bern...at first.

Click to expand...

Except she ****ing lost the most despised candidate to run for the presidency in the history of the US, what part of that makes her "pragmatic"? She actively drove away the working class, and was too arrogant and removed from reality to understand or care why. And everyone who sung her songs and carried her water without question helped her walk right off of that cliff.

But if you're just going to engage in this kind of infighting, then I have to question what your goals really are.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I haven't made it abundantly clear, but I don't care if you question or, as you already have, you impugn my motives. You already casually implied that I'm sexist; I could give three ****s what else you think of me.

And I readily admit that too often that we've kicked field goals in touchdown situations--the 111th Congress (2009-2010) comes to mind here. But past mistakes are past mistakes and it is time to move on. Are you ready, or not?

Click to expand...

1.) You don't get to ask me if I'm ready to move on or not right after the DNC strips 44% of the Democratic voters of their representation within the party. If the branch of the Democratic party --call them moderates, pragmatists, whatever floats your boat-- that you're defending right now wanted peace, they could have had it. But they had no interest in it, whatsoever.

2.) These aren't aberrations. I know you will never concede this point, but Democrats don't just pick the Ben Nelsons and Joe Manchin to be party leaders and the people you're allowed to cede to because they like them personally. Those corporate pieces of **** brought in money, and then when they hamper legislation important to the Democrats, that can be forgiven. But if Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kusinich goes against Obama to get a better version of the ACA, it's important to reign holy hell on them, and call them nasty things in the press.

Yeah, those rules don't work for me anymore. Sorry, but no deal. If the Democratic party wants to work with the Bernie-wing, they've had many opportunities, and they've pissed them down, every time.

Phys251 said:

Let me give you six numbers:

22,748, 31,072.
10,704, 51,463.
44,292, 49,941.

The three rows represent Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania respectively. The first column represents the margin of defeat for Clinton. The second? Jill Stein voters.

Click to expand...

Finally this before I go: It sounds to me like you're saying that it was pretty unpragmatic when Hillary decided to tell these voters to eat **** during the platform meetings, the VP pick, etc. It sounds an awful lot to me like Hillary's campaign tactics weren't pragmatic, and in fact were totally stupid and arrogant.

---

As stated, we're not going to agree on this, and I won't debate you while you refuse to actually anything forwarded to you. I'm just clarifying my positions.

Phys251 said:

Bernie never faced a serious political challenge. Ever. BTW, I find it fascinating that the same Donald Trump, who is all but confirmed to have colluded with the Kremlin to influence the discourse of the election, talked in remarkably deferential tones towards Bernie Sanders and his supporters late in the primary. Doesn't that strike you as just a little...coincidental? Doesn't his encouraging Sanders to stay in the primary sound a little...coincidental?

Click to expand...

Phys251 said:

Obviously there is no evidence that will sway you from your blind faith in this CT.

Click to expand...

That's what people who fall for CTs do.

Click to expand...

:lol: :doh

FieldTheorist said:

Honestly, your post continues your tradition of non-responsive meta-narration asserting I'm wrong, but not explaining why I'm wrong. I am perfectly happy to let you have the last word. But so long as you're inviting me to make a comment on this, let me conclude my statement with this:

We've been over this, but in summary:

1.) I don't care what your views are. If you regurgitate the talking points of the establishment media and DNC officials, I don't really care if you disagree with those people privately. Again, the people you're defending and the talking points you're spouting come straight from the side of the party that is at best very hazy on all of the positions you described, at worst outright disagrees with you.

Click to expand...

1. You just tipped your hand with the highlighted phrase. You just confirmed the suspicion I had, that if I am not in 100% lockstep with your views that must be absolutely perfect, then I must be absolutely wrong. Tell me, FieldTheorist, how is that in any way different from fundamentalist religion?

2. The rest of that paragraph is patently dishonest. Later in your response you accused me of impugning your motives, and here you have the gall to do precisely that to me. Pot, meet kettle. Besides, you flat-out lied, as I formed my views about the candidates and the positions on my own.

2.) Bernie won 44% of the party, and yet he and his allies have 0% representation within the party. It doesn't cut it for me to say that you're "close to" my views, and so let's call it six of one, half dozen of the other. It's not happening. I will not back down until, at a minimum, the 44% of the voting Democrats who share my views on economic populism are given proportional representation within the party. And every day, every article that we are excluded from the party makes is reminder of why there's no point in trying to make peace with the DNC and the media establishment, and every article that continues to spread lies and propaganda is, again, another reminder that while Tom Perez and his cohort publicly bloviate about "Party Unity," they're holding a sign above their heads that plainly reads "Go **** yourselves."

Click to expand...

There it is again. Your way or the highway.

Let me be crystal clear in what I am about to say: Too many Sanders supporters have shown, with their presence of volume and lack of patience and class, that they may not be ready for those seats that they apparently feel entitled to. In my lifetime I have never seen such a gross lack of maturity on the Left as I have from Sanders fans when they don't get their way. It is becoming very clear to me that my-way-or-the-highway beliefs are a core tenet of populism anywhere on the political spectrum, and that certainly includes too many supporters of Sanders.

Now if they would chill the **** out and make their case calmly, reasonably, and persistently, without childishly insulting those with whom they don't 100% agree, then maybe, just maybe, they will earn the right to be heard out. Until then, they seem to be bringing about as much to the table as a tantrum-throwing three-year-old.

Except she ****ing lost the most despised candidate to run for the presidency in the history of the US, what part of that makes her "pragmatic"? She actively drove away the working class, and was too arrogant and removed from reality to understand or care why. And everyone who sung her songs and carried her water without question helped her walk right off of that cliff.

Click to expand...

And to the Kremlin and to the FBI and to Wikileaks and to sexism, etc. Failure to assess all relevant reasons to her loss would be patently dishonest, and I hope that you can transcend that.

Perhaps I haven't made it abundantly clear, but I don't care if you question or, as you already have, you impugn my motives. You already casually implied that I'm sexist; I could give three ****s what else you think of me.

Click to expand...

Ahhhhh, so you were triggered! OK, this is starting to make sense now. First of all, yet again, you lie. I very clearly pointed out the correlation, not an equation, between Trump vs. Clinton voters. That my merely pointing out this correlation triggered you is not my responsibility.

Continued...

1.) You don't get to ask me if I'm ready to move on or not right after the DNC strips 44% of the Democratic voters of their representation within the party. If the branch of the Democratic party --call them moderates, pragmatists, whatever floats your boat-- that you're defending right now wanted peace, they could have had it. But they had no interest in it, whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Who got stripped? The percentage of progressive representation on the DNC went from what percentage down to zero? And where is the proof that the progressive Left has zero representation within the party in the first place? I suspect that you are steadfastly using your your-way-or-the-highway approach to make this claim. And why should Sanders be one of those representatives when he's not even a Democrat?

2.) These aren't aberrations. I know you will never concede this point, but Democrats don't just pick the Ben Nelsons and Joe Manchin to be party leaders and the people you're allowed to cede to because they like them personally. Those corporate pieces of **** brought in money, and then when they hamper legislation important to the Democrats, that can be forgiven. But if Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kusinich goes against Obama to get a better version of the ACA, it's important to reign holy hell on them, and call them nasty things in the press.

Yeah, those rules don't work for me anymore. Sorry, but no deal. If the Democratic party wants to work with the Bernie-wing, they've had many opportunities, and they've pissed them down, every time.

As stated, we're not going to agree on this, and I won't debate you while you refuse to actually anything forwarded to you. I'm just clarifying my positions.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing. If we were experiencing a repeat of the 111th Congress with a Democratic president, all of whom caved way too much to the Republicans, then I would be far more sympathetic towards your views. But that is not a luxury we have right now. We currently have the most dangerous president in modern times, with a Republican Congress, and there is no telling what they are going to do to this nation. The small victory of deferring the Obamacare repeal last Friday is likely to be overshadowed by far greater defeats. So in the face of that, what do you ideological purists want? More purging. More primary challenges. And I don't care how much it triggers you, I am going to repeat a point I made earlier: It makes me strongly question whether y'all really want to move the political needle to the left. It makes me strongly question whether y'all really want a more perfect union. Y'all want something, of that their is no question, but how y'all are going about trying to get it is in serious need of review before it is to earn the respect that you apparently feel entitled to receive. Y'all want to shift the party leftward? Stop whining and start working. Stop talking about single-payer and start getting it to pass in the bluest of states. Stop talking about wanting to take back the House if you threaten to primary challenge any representative who doesn't have a 100% perfect liberal record. And FFS, let's work together to stop this dangerous president. None of our infighting matters if that threat is not stopped!

Abbazorkzog said:

:lol: :doh

Click to expand...

The Trump-Kremlin collusion has very likely been confirmed. At the very least, circumstantial evidence of it exists, but it seems there is more than just that.

Phys251 said:

The Trump-Kremlin collusion has very likely been confirmed. At the very least, circumstantial evidence of it exists, but it seems there is more than just that.

Click to expand...

That is very different than claiming there is a Vast Right-Wing, Left-Wing, Trump-Putin-Bernie-Democrat-Republican-Kremlin-Progressive-Everyoneintehworlz Conspiracy against Hillary Clinton...

SouthernDemocrat said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Democrats are currently to the right of center.

They need to move left.

The Mark said:

The Democrats are currently to the right of center.

They need to move left.

Click to expand...

There's a phenomenon known as "baseline wander" where having too much content in one-direction pulls the "middle" toward that direction.

The ramping up of right wing extremism is pulling the nations perspective of "middle" toward the right.

Absentglare said:

There's a phenomenon known as "baseline wander" where having too much content in one-direction pulls the "middle" toward that direction.

The ramping up of right wing extremism is pulling the nations perspective of "middle" toward the right.

Click to expand...

Buckley v Valeo has pulled the country to the right since the 70s, when it opened the floodgates of private money in public office, and the SCOTUS idiotically declared that money was speech.

As almost certainly a direct consequence, today's mainstream Democrats are yesterday's moderate Republicans.


Moreover as a basis of comparison, mainstream Democrats are more conservative than Canada's Conservative party on every aspect barring perhaps social justice (noting that Canada is a bridge between Europe and the US in terms of overall conservatism), and would be readily identified as being of the right or even far right in the vast majority of the first world.