Kurt Eichenwald - The Myths Democrats Swallowed That Cost Them the Presidential Election

[WhiteTara]

https://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
By Kurt Eichenwald On 11/14/16 at 12:22 PM

On Friday, I almost assaulted a fan of my work. I was in the Philadelphia International Airport, and a man who recognized me from one of my appearances on a television news show approached. He thanked me for the investigative reporting I had done about Donald Trump before the election, expressed his outrage that the Republican nominee had won and then told me quite gruffly, “Get back to work.” Something about his arrogance struck me, so I asked, “Who did you vote for?”

He replied, “Well, Stein, but—” I interrupted him and said, “You’re lucky it’s illegal for me to punch you in the face.” Then, after telling him to have sex with himself—but with a much cruder term—I turned and walked away.

A certain kind of liberal makes me sick. These people traffic in false equivalencies, always pretending that both nominees are the same, justifying their apathy and not voting or preening about their narcissistic purity as they cast their ballot for a person they know cannot win. I have no problem with anyone who voted for Trump, because they wanted a Trump presidency. I have an enormous problem with anyone who voted for Trump or Stein or Johnson—or who didn’t vote at all—and who now expresses horror about the outcome of this election. If you don’t like the consequences of your own actions, shut the hell up.

snip

Which leads back to the main point: Awash in false conspiracy theories and petulant immaturity, liberals put Trump in the White House. Trump won slightly fewer votes than Romney did in 2012—60.5 million compared with 60.9 million. On the other hand, almost 5 million Obama voters either stayed home or cast their votes for someone else. More than twice as many millennials—a group heavily invested in the “Sanders was cheated out of the nomination” fantasy—voted third-party. The laughably unqualified Jill Stein of the Green Party got 1.3 million votes; those voters almost certainly opposed Trump; if just the Stein voters in Michigan had cast their ballot for Clinton, she probably would have won the state. And there is no telling how many disaffected Sanders voters cast their ballot for Trump.

[underpants]

1. Reading later

[Trumpocalypse]

13. Exactly right

The same can be said of Nader voters in 2000. Yet they still refuse to take any responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

[Trumpocalypse]

78. Unfortunately

There are many who still refuse to admit that not voting for Clinton was a mistake. They are far too invested in their own ideological purity.

[onit2day]

136. I've yet to find a Sanders supporter who voted for Trump but

plenty who voted for Stein. It can be demonstrated that voting for Nader did not sway the election in the least according to Thom Hartman. I remember Trump lying constantly so he sounded like he was for democratic party policies. Wouldn't touch Medicare or SS etc. I feel that no matter the primary battles, democrats should vote for the Dem nominee. I do Believe Hillary won and Trump was elected by the Electoral College which is outdated and the only way republican presidential candidates get elected so the majority is stuck being led by the minority in charge. I predict that when we get rid of this civil war EC Democrats will never lose a presidential election again

[Trumpocalypse]

145. Nader did sway the election

He was the difference in NH. If that one state had gone to Gore, Florida would have been irrelevant. And I believe Hartman is an unrepentant Nader supporter so I wouldn’t trust anything he says on the subject.

[former9thward]

210. If Gore had won his home state of TN both states would have been irrelevant.

Why blame Nader voters in FL when hundreds of thousands of registered Democratic voters in FL voted for Bush? The Nader vote would have been a footnote if Democrats had voted for the Democratic candidate.

[Trumpocalypse]

229. Vote was outspent 3 to 1 in Tennessee

Part of the reason was that because his campaign had to divert funds to the west coast to counter Nader ads that he paid for by accepting GOP money. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Nader and Nader voters are responsible for helping Bush steal the 2000 election from Gore. They should be adults and accept the consequences of their actions.

[former9thward]

232. People making a decision to vote for one person over another is not "stealing" an election.

I guess you are forgetting or ignoring the votes Buchanan got in FL which by your theory were "stolen" from Bush. If we are going to call Nader votes stolen then we have to call Buchanan votes stolen on the other side. The major parties have to earn their votes. No one has a "right" to any vote.

[Trumpocalypse]

233. Not what I said at all.

Bush stole the election with the help of the Supreme Court by ending the recount. But there never would have been a recount of not for Nader.

There was only one candidate who could defeat Bush and that was Gore. Nader voters threw their votes away to made a useless point. It is about time they took responsibility for it and everything that came after.

[LanternWaste]

231. Moving the goalposts again, eh?

Well, it you can't fault the premise itself, I suppose yours is the next best thing.

[WhiteTara]

168. Well, that assertion is true if

you leave out Florida. And that was the end.

[Gothmog]

190. Nader was key in giving Bush the 2000 victory

Here are some facts on this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush's Florida 'win']. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush's 'win' in that state]." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.

All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.

The SCOTUS would never had a chance if Nader had not been stupid

[Gothmog]

193. Really?

I note that the idiots on JPR fell for a ton of russian fake news. There were a ton of thread on pizzagate on JPR for a while. Sanders supporters were targeted by Russia and judging from the studies posted above with great effect

Link to tweet

Again, sanders supporters were easily fooled by russian fake news and the studies cited above show this cost the election

Link to tweet

[CentralMass]

238. How is it that you know plenty of Sanders voters, and in particular those who voted for Stein?

In my circle of friends and family ,(most from MA), most supported Bernie in the primary and all voted for Hillary in the General.

In Oregon, where I have been living, Bernie won the closed primary by double digits yet Hillary won the state handily in the general election. The Sanders voters that I've met here are democrats and they voted for Hillary.

Were they democrats ?

[Gothmog]

191. Nader was Rove's puppet just as stein was Putin's puppet

I will never forgive nader Rove funded Nader in 2000 and 2004 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader’s campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP’s Laura Meckler headlined “GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads.” She opened: “Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. ... ‘Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,’ Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: ‘What’s Al Gore’s real record?’ Nader says: ‘Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.’” Meckler’s report continued: “A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader’s speeches.” Bush’s people - the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council - knew exactly what they were doing, even though the liberal suckers who voted so carelessly for Ralph Nader obviously did not. Anyone who drives a car the way those liberal fools voted, faces charges of criminal negligence, at the very least. But this time, the entire nation crashed as a result; not merely a single car.....

On July 9th, the San Francisco Chronicle headlined “GOP Doners Funding Nader: Bush Supporters Give Independent’s Bid a Financial Lift,” and reported that the Nader campaign “has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party,” according to “an analysis of federal records.” Perhaps these contributors were Ambassador Egan’s other friends. Mr. Egan’s wife was now listed among the Nader contributors. Another listed was “Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.” Furthermore, Ari Berman reported 7 October 2004 at the Nation, under “Swift Boat Veterans for Nader,” that some major right-wing funders of a Republican smear campaign against Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam service contributed also $13,500 to the Nader campaign, and that “the Republican Party of Michigan gathered ninety percent of Nader’s signatures in their state” (90%!) to place Nader on the ballot so Bush could win that swing state’s 17 electoral votes. Clearly, the word had gone out to Bush’s big contributors: Help Ralphie boy! In fact, on 15 September 2005, John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader, reported that, “A year ago, as the Presidential general election campaign raged in battleground state New Hampshire, consumer advocate Ralph Nader found his way onto the ballot, with the help of veteran Republican strategist David Carney and the Carney-owned Norway Hill Associates consulting firm.”

It was obvious, based upon the 2000 election results, that a dollar contributed to Nader in the 2004 contest would probably be a more effective way to achieve a Bush win against Kerry in the U.S. Presidential election than were perhaps even ten dollars contributed to Bush. This was a way of peeling crucial votes off from Bush’s real opponent - votes that otherwise would have gone to the Democrat. That’s why the smartest Republican money in the 2004 Presidential election was actually going to Nader, even more so than to Bush himself: these indirect Bush contributions provided by far the biggest bang for the right-wing buck.

[CaptainTruth]

22. +1

[Blue_true]

40. I know how Kurt feel.

I doubt that I can stand among a group of purists without me becoming a wall to fists, and I am a nominally peaceful person. They and the mere thought of them simply sicken me. It is all about them and their feelings, they never look at a larger picture of how the choices they make can lead to decent human beings losing their lives.
I wonder how many of the 97,000 Nader voters in Florida 2000 blame themselves for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the massive loss of life and ruined lifes that came from those wars. I am willing to bet that none do, they completely lack the gifts of self reflection and true empathy.

[greenman3610]

62. But, remember-

“There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush”-
Tell that to a million dead.
And no, I will never get over it.

[Blue_true]

65. I have a saying.

"People trully are at all times what they are at crunchtime". It was very clear coming into the election of 2000 that there was a vast amount of difference between Al Gore and George W Bush, anyone that ignored that were being what they trully were, any attempt to explain away what they did is bullshit and isn't something that I pay attention to.

[FM123]

103. "People truly are at all times what they are at crunchtime"

Such true words!

[Blue_true]

123. Sorry, I am horrible with double LL, get me every time.

I am a spellcheck idiot too.

[Hamlette]

67. +1000

[Chemisse]

127. That was a pivotal moment for climate change too.

I really don't think we can ever get back that moment of opportunity.

[lapucelle]

159. Paul Krugman warned in September 2016 that the same thing was happening to HRC.

Americans of a certain age who follow politics and policy closely still have vivid memories of the 2000 election — bad memories, and not just because the man who lost the popular vote somehow ended up in office. For the campaign leading up to that end game was nightmarish too.

You see, one candidate, George W. Bush, was dishonest in a way that was unprecedented in U.S. politics. Most notably, he proposed big tax cuts for the rich while insisting, in raw denial of arithmetic, that they were targeted for the middle class. These campaign lies presaged what would happen during his administration — an administration that, let us not forget, took America to war on false pretenses.

Yet throughout the campaign most media coverage gave the impression that Mr. Bush was a bluff, straightforward guy, while portraying Al Gore — whose policy proposals added up, and whose critiques of the Bush plan were completely accurate — as slippery and dishonest. Mr. Gore’s mendacity was supposedly demonstrated by trivial anecdotes, none significant, some of them simply false. No, he never claimed to have invented the internet. But the image stuck.

And right now I and many others have the sick, sinking feeling that it’s happening again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html

[Trueblue Texan]

116. yeah, but it pisses me off when...

...the media generalizes liberals. I consider myself a liberal and I goddamned sure didn't put Trump in the Oval office. I voted for Hillary.

[SergeStorms]

146. I'm with you.

I absolutely had no part in Trump's ascension to the presidency. The author is remiss in not assigning blame to the rat-fucking Russians for their efforts to elevate Ms. Stein as an alternative to Ms. Clinton. The Stein phenomenon didn't arise out of thin air. There was a concerted effort by foreign "entities", with cooperation from Ms. Stein herself, in portraying her as a viable alternative to Ms. Clinton. Liberals had nothing to do with that, so the author should step down from his high horse and give credit where it's really due!

[lapucelle]

154. ...

whataboutism (noun)

The technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

181. As has been pointed out, and the date is in the OP, this was written in Nov 2016

The evidence for Russian rat-fucking has become much clearer since then.

[better]

186. Yes, and no.

For me, it's not about who's to blame. It's about who needs to change in order to prevent it from happening again. Yes, it is true that there was a concerted effort by foreign "entities" to undermine Secretary Clinton, of which the Stein angle was but one small component. But the fact remains that far too many liberals were also manipulated into complicity in Trump's "victory" by one or more parts of that campaign.

That doesn't make them quite the enemy, but it does expose within our ranks an ignorance and/or naivete that does in fact need to be addressed in order to prevent something like it happening again. The important part to remember is that it's not those liberals who are the enemy, but rather the ignorance and/or naivete that left them vulnerable.

[Fullduplexxx]

3. Completely agree

"A group heavily invested in the “Sanders was cheated out of the nomination” fantasy—voted third-party. The laughably unqualified Jill Stein of the Green Party got 1.3 million votes; those voters almost certainly opposed Trump; if just the Stein voters in Michigan had cast their ballot for Clinton, she probably would have won the state. "

[Zoonart]

4. ... and they are back to do it all over again.

N/T

[brush]

36. Yep, they're already gearing up to re-do the divisiveness of 2016...

and some are already falling for as witnessed by the Bernie Sanders-as-a-3rd Way-victim email letter posted here yesterday.

[PaulX2]

71. I Am A Strong Bernie Supporter Who Phone Banked For And Donated To Hillary

I feel sorry for people who don't understand politics and the fact that some candidates have more friends helping them than others.

I knew how bad Trump was, and that he was a lifelong criminal, and serial liar before the election.

I also knew Hillary would be impeached 30 times by now because, well, she's Hillary. Removed in the Senate probably not. All politics for Republicans trying to impress the rat brained cult that now call themselves "conservatives" or god know what else.

Republicans make me sick. Trumpscum make me sick. People who didn't vote for Hillary in the face of clear and present danger (Trump) belong in asylums.

[justie18]

158. Plus

The Jill Stein votes in PA and WI exceeded the margin between Trump and Hillary as well.

[theaocp]

5. "I have no problem with anyone who voted for Trump..."

Yea? I have a FUCKLOAD of problems with them, dick. This fucker is no less pure than anyone he rips on. Aren't we DONE with this shit yet? How is this ENDLESS fucking infighting helping? Is the morale higher yet? I'm guessing not, since the beatings will continue.

[Fullduplexxx]

7. Self reflection is good .. you get it but not everyone does

[Hekate]

34. Look at the date: Eichenwald wrote it in November 2016. Think back, then look around.

[Blue_true]

43. It is not infighting. It telling people to use their fucking heads.

Anyone with half a brain that was truly a liberal WOULD NOT HAVE DONE ANYTHING BUT VOTE FOR HILLARY IN THE 2016 GENERAL. People can pain ass all they want and talk about division, but if they are moving toward doing what they did in 2016, then they are assholes that I am completely comfortable with ripping the fuck apart. Voting involved more than just focusing on one's wants, it is about thinking about ALL the consequences of that vote. I have voted for many democrats that I was not happy with, but the simple thing was, that democrat was worlds better than the only other person that could have won.

[theaocp]

46. This OP is solving less than nothing.

This horse has been beat within a second death already. It allows people to feel self-righteous and nothing more. As you said, ripping apart assholes. I assume you feel better, but I see this as divisive.

[Blue_true]

50. One thing that I know.

Regardless of how bitter I am that my preferred candidate didn't win the nomination or at least get chosen as a VP nominee, I have not and WILL NOT refuse to support the Democratic Party nominee 100% in the General. I want to see the purist assholes make and live up to the same promise, if they can't then I am fucking better than them, period!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[azureblue]

66. it is a deliberate distraction

from putting the blame on Russian trolls and how Russia spread lies and divisiveness, and how the GOP over and over committed election fraud, through gerrymandering, kicking people off the voting rolls.voting machine manipulation, deceptive ballots and deliberate relocating of voting locations to reduce the number of "undesirable"votes.

What lost the election is what is called "death bu a thousand cuts". It wasn't one thing that did it. It was a well coordinated campaign to shave a few votes here, some there, and work the refs, that did it.

He might as well be a troll for the half truths he spreads.

[SharonAnn]

73. I see it as pointing out what seems to happening again. Diviseness is being spread by Social Media

"Politics is the art of the possible"

Those who think that anyone other than the eventual Democratic nominee should be voted for is voting for the impossible.

[paleotn]

91. The article is from 2016, fresh off the disaster.

Argue with the poster, not with the author.

[ehrnst]

150. Did you look at the date on it? (nt)

[WhiteTara]

169. Not only did I look at it, I

also posted the date, so you would know it too.

[Gothmog]

207. I think that this articleis ztill very relevant

[lapucelle]

152. Many of us received an email this week, crowing about what happened in 2016

and threatening to do the same in 2020. The email revived the the false narrative that Eichenwald wrote about and did so in the interest of raising cash.

Democrats were put on notice last week. It's not a threat we should ignore.

[GWC58]

99. I was with Hillary from the primaries

of 2008 & 2016. I know how it felt backing a candidate that lost the nomination. I voted for Obama in 2008. I didn’t think of voting for anyone else. 🤔

[Blue_true]

124. I was stone cold Hillary in 2008 and was pissed when she lost and was not chosen as the VP nominee.

But you know what, I warmed up to them Senator Obama real fast. Not only voted for him, but pushed him to everyone that I knew and maxed out on donations to his campaign. There simply was NO other choice in my mind.

[GWC58]

239. Maybe had Senator Obama chose Hillary

as his running mate in 2008 she’d have been elected in 2016. Of course one can’t say one way, or the other. Just me speculating 🤔. I can say we, as a nation, would be better off, way better off, than we are now.

[Blue_true]

240. You have to wonder about if she was VP.

No doubt that we would be infinitely better off with her in the Oval Office.

[GWC58]

241. No doubt about it, my friend. 👍🏻

[paleotn]

88. You just don't get it....

It's not Eichenwald who's the cause or symptom of the infighting. It's the goddamn Bernie Busters. The DNC is a corporate stooge crowd. Morons who think all major parties are essentially the same. The fucking idiots who line up behind Nader, Stein, et al every goddamn 4 years because, god forbid, the Dem candidate is tainted and not NEEEEEAAAAARLY as idealogically pure as these ass hats think they should be.

It's the same fucked up mentality that has destroyed the Republican party. THESE are the infighting crowd, who bitch and moan even when they have NOTHING substantial to bitch and moan about. These idiots just can't stomach the fact that the Democratic Party is a big tent. We have varying ideas and that's a good thing. But dear sweet Jesus on a fucking stick, our ideological differences are mere millimeters compared to the fucking light years between us and modern Rethugs, the party of Ayn Rand acolytes and the Kochs. These jackasses just can't seem to get that through their fucking heads....thus W and the Iraq war.....Now shitler and crime family. If they want to truly see what the problem is, they should look in the fucking mirror.

[radical noodle]

139. X 10,000

Truth!

[GulfCoast66]

144. Yep. And in 2020 it is going to be Medicare for all.

Any democrat, despite the fact we all support Universal Healthcare, who does not support Medicare for all will be called a corporate sell out. You can see it here now.

[betsuni]

149. +1

[MagickMuffin]

6. Let me get this straight: We are to blame??? Ah NO, we are not to blame

Last edited Sat Dec 29, 2018, 02:26 PM - Edit history (2)

There are the Russians, election fraud, and yes, I will acknowledge the green party had a hand in the mix. But there are way to many variables to just blame one group.


Also, this article is from Nov. 2016. Hardly worth rehashing Kurt Eichenwald's theories about what happened and who deserves the blame!


ETA: I am a precinct chair for the Tarrant County Democratic Party. I only vote for Democrats.

Apparently everyone here is thinking I supported the green party. However, since I am a precinct chair for the Democratic Party, then I thought perhaps I needed to clarify what party I belong to.

[Fullduplexxx]

8. The russians shouldnt have been able to talk dems out of voting for dems but they did

But it worked on the indies as well so you are correct in that it's not just dems who are to blame

[ehrnst]

173. "Should not..."

Why do you think that they were able to, if they "should not have been able to?"

[Demsrule86]

11. It wasn't just Russians ...read the old JPR posts.

I saw a DU poster announce breathlessly on JPR that if it wasn't close in his state, he would vote for Stein...but if it was close he would vote for Trump. This person was no Russian- a longterm DU'er . He was all out to stop Hillary...I hate hate despise this sort, and THEY ARE NOT AND NEVER WERE PROGRESSIVE . I don't care if they support single payer or any issue.

[Blue_true]

49. People like the person you mentioned.

May support single payer or other social programs, but if you take a deep dive, it is all because they feel that THEY are not getting something that THEY deserve, they really don't give a shit about anyone else other than those close to them. The old DU poster WilliamPenn was a perfect example, looked like he had large medical problems in his family, so he set out on a virulent attack on democrats for not coming up with something better than the ACA, he never spoke a word about the insane opposition from republicans to ANY healthcare reform.

The thing that bother me is when I read some posts, I sense that people like WilliamPenn have made their way back to DU, just in time for our primary season where we are trying to find someone who can defeat a fucking immoral monster and his evangelical base. We will see the throwing of shade on good democrats and the divisiveness, we are already seeing the tired as terms "corporatist democrats", "Wall Street democrats", "third way democrats" being freely thrown about, it only gets worse from here.

[peggysue2]

74. Exactly!

Blue_true wrote:

The thing that bother me is when I read some posts, I sense that people like WilliamPenn have made their way back to DU, just in time for our primary season where we are trying to find someone who can defeat a fucking immoral monster and his evangelical base. We will see the throwing of shade on good democrats and the divisiveness, we are already seeing the tired as terms "corporatist democrats", "Wall Street democrats", "third way democrats" being freely thrown about, it only gets worse from here.

We are seeing/reading it here. This is just the start; it's going to get ugly.

On the positive side, we've had a heads up on the mewling distractions after the 2016 debacle. So, it's up to us to hold hard and fast, push back on the negatives and arm ourselves for the debates and screeching ahead. Because just like 2018, the election coming up is crucial to defeat the fascist and destructive elements of Trumpski's Administration and the corrupted GOP.

Republicans are not going to lift a finger to protect the country from Trump's corrosive, vindictive nature. So, it's up to Democrats to rally around a candidate who can win and then repair the damage done.

Anything less is self-defeating and anyone pushing the overly critical, negative memes has an agenda not in the country's best interest.

We've seen this picture show before.

[Demsrule86]

92. I agree...many are back...some never left.

[Honeycombe8]

95. I'm noticing the disruptive posts.

Occasionally, a post comes out that sows the seeds of discord, or does something to damage the reliability of Democrats voting for a Democrat. Of course, it's legitimate to point out one's view of issues, bang the drum for a Democrat one supports, or whatever. But I think we can spot the disruptive ones. There's no real point of them other than leading to damage to the cohesiveness of the Democratic Party members. We are, after all, on the same side.

[scipan]

114. like this thread?

[Chemisse]

128. This thread talks about people who DON'T go out and vote for the Dem when push comes to shove.

So no. Not like this thread.

[JI7]

104. do you mean will Pitt who threatened to kill a homeless woman ?

he was upset he wasn't able to sell shit to liberals angry over the Republican in the white house.

same reason most of these so called liberals hated Obama and now trying to go after Beto and Kamala harris.

[Blue_true]

120. Yes. A really angry person that did nothing but attack democrats.

The only poster worse was MannyGoldstein, who was most likely a ratfucker, because he was 24/7 down on democrats. The thing that really burned my ass was they couched their attacks as if they supported a utopian world (big SS raises each year, ect), stuff which any decent democrat would want, but they used those things as a cudgel to beat the hell out of good democratic politicians, all to weaken us.

[sheshe2]

142. Let's make that a trifecta and add WillyT to the mix.

One can never forget the Stockholm Syndrome Ops. They all left to join JPR, a Democratic hate site, where they were freely allowed to call Hillary the C word. Actually, Manny, a self proclaimed Republican, ran the place with Marym.

[Hekate]

197. Speaking of Manny...

Remember one of his monikers was Third Way Manny? And then he'd talk about the turd way.

Just in the last several days the old canard about "third way Democrats" was resurrected here to the admiration of the naive and the otherwise misinformed. And I wondered if Manny had returned.

[sheshe2]

200. Ah, yes Third Way Manny.

You are right I have seen that term arise once again. From what I hear, JPR is not doing all that well since their revamp... Wouldn't be surprised if MG is bored and returned here to haunt us.


Hekate.

[Hekate]

201. Happy new year, she

[sheshe2]

206. You too, hon.

[George II]

209. That "Third Way" was actually resurrected by Sanders himself in an email to his followers....

....which was posted here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11597935

He referred to them as "a group of Wall Street Democrats known as the Third Way" claiming that they're already running ads in the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada (even though two of those are actually caucus states, but whatever).

The interesting thing is that he never said anything specific about the content of the so-called ads, and no one has been able to find anything about them either in the press or anywhere on the internet (like youtube)

Makes one wonder if the ads were really run or if this was a way to introduce "Wall Street Democrats" or "Third Way", as well as the "political, financial and media elite of this country", early in the campaign discussion.

[Hekate]

211. I noticed, believe me, and noticed how eager some were to pick up the refrain

It's going to be a looooong way to November 2020.

[Blue_true]

222. Would not surprise me if the references are an early attempt to smear Harris and Biden.

Harris is one half of a very powerful, well connected couple, although her liberal bonafides are well established, as are those of her husband. Joe Biden never was rich (remember President Obama stopping him from selling his home to pay Beau's medical bills and protect Beau's family?). Joe likely has done the lucrative paid speaker circuit for the last two years, in addition to being a rock for democratic candidates during special elections and in 2018. But it does not matter how noble Joe has been, if he is viewed as a threat and has even a remote association to Wall Street or Big Business, he is going to get smeared by the purists, while the purists ignore stuff like failing to release tax returns or support the downcaste, such as immigrants that just want work and a safe place to live.

[George II]

223. You're probably right, but since that term has become the negative rallying cry....

...it very well can be used against almost anyone perceived to be a threat. No doubt Cory Booker and even Kirsten Gillibrand will be branded with that term.

What's ironic is according to his Senate Personal Financial Disclosure, the person who it throwing out the "Wall Street Democrats known as Third Way" smear himself has upwards of $1M invested in Mutual Funds, i.e., "Wall Street"!

[mcar]

213. Lots of posts referencing Third Way lately

[Hekate]

215. Just a coinkydink, I am sure

[mcar]

216. Yep, nothing to see here

[Blue_true]

219. I would not be surprised if Manny hasn't slithered back in.

But his behavior is pretty easy to detect for anyone that pays attention, his posts have very distinct markers to them.

[mcar]

212. Quite a trifecta

They spread anti-Democratic hate here for a long time before they were stopped.

[Blue_true]

218. I remember WillyT and Marym.

Willy too was awful, Marym, not as much. Some posters that I liked drank their coolaid and decampted over to that ratsnest.

[sheshe2]

220. I agree about Willy.

Marym may not have been the worst of the lot, however as admin/ founder of JPR a thread over there struck me cold.


She stated clearly to a poster that it was fine to call Hillary the C word there, HOWEVER you call another poster at JPR that you WILL be banned for life. Woah. I can't tell you how much that angered me. Go figure.

[Trumpocalypse]

14. If Stein voters

In several key states had voted for Clinton, she would have won those states and the election. Those people are to blame because they knew better and didn't do everything possible to stop Trump. Instead they sat on their ideological high horse and are still making excuses for the consequences of their actions.

[louis c]

23. ... and anyone who voted for Stein, a Traitor to this country.

If you voted for Stein and knew better, you absolutely have to share the blame for the Trump presidency.

[luvtheGWN]

30. I remember listening to an interview on NPR a week before the election.

Three 20-somethings were asked who they intended to vote for. They all claimed to despise Trump but 2 of them were voting for Stein and the other one for the Libertarian candidate. The odd thing was that they all claimed to be progressive, forward-thinking individuals who were in favour of most of the Democratic platform but just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary.

I sat there in my car, listening to this, and decided that they weren't so forward-thinking as they claimed, because they couldn't see how voting Green or Libertarian could almost certainly make Trump the president. As someone who lives in a country with 3 well-established parties (Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic Party) that, when we vote, we must necessarily consider whether or not voting for the perennial underdog party -- the NDP -- will help the Conservative Party win.

But when you have Americans saying that the Repubs and the Democrats are the same, and I hate them both, then you just haven't done your research, have you?

[louis c]

33. You explain our system very well.

If we can get a system of "rank choice voting" we can basically make our system "idiot proof". But, until then, we are saddled with outcomes that as a result of idiots.

[thesquanderer]

41. re: "couldn't see how voting Green or Libertarian could almost certainly make Trump the president"

That very much depends on what state they're from. New York is not the same as Michigan.

[luvtheGWN]

70. Agreed.

[Blue_true]

122. But, if you don't Trump as President, why risk getting him doing a meaningless vote.

In our system, only two possible votes mattered, either for Hillary or for the Asshole. Anyone who could not see that is an idiot period, IMO. The state DOES NOT MATTER!!!

[louis c]

135. You are a true patriot. You understand our political system

People who want Trump voted for Trump. People who didn't want Trump, voted for Hillary. People who didn't want Trump and voted third party, blanked, wrote-in Bernie or stayed home are fucking idiots.

[Hekate]

198. Apparently it worked in Wisconsin, where Jillsie won by more than the margin by which Hillary lost

[Squinch]

51. If you voted for Stein, or didn't vote, or spread any of the

Russia-sponsored messages eichenwald lists, or if you ever once said Hillary did not excite you enough or didn't earn your vote, thereby giving others excuses not to vote for her, then yes. It is your fault.

[MagickMuffin]

61. I only know of one person who voted for Stein and it isn't me

I am a precinct chair for the Tarrant County Democratic Party. I only vote for Democrats.

Apparently everyone here is thinking I supported the green party. However, since I am a precinct chair for the Democratic Party, then I thought perhaps I needed to clarify my position.

[Squinch]

85. I'm not thinking anything about who you voted for. I'm responding to your post

where you said eichenwald was blaming democrats. He is. Specifically those who voted for Stein or didn't vote or acted as pasties for the Russian sabotage.

I blame them too.

[Silent3]

175. Just to clarify, did you vote for Clinton in 2016?

I'm not saying you didn't by the way, but when you say "I only vote for Democrats" that does leave wiggle room for you to have not cast any presidential vote at all.

[MagickMuffin]

179. Just to clarify: Of course I voted for Hillary Clinton

I worked the election and voted on a paper ballot like I do every time I vote.

There is NO wiggle room when I said I only vote for Democrats, which means exactly what it says. I only vote for Democrats. No if ands or buts. No wiggle room.

Did you vote for Clinton since we are going down this path of clarification???

Do you work the elections???

Are you a precinct chair???

How do you help the local democratic party???

I need clarification, as there could possibly be some wiggle room in your responses!!!

[mcar]

214. What do you mean by this?

I'm not saying you didn't by the way, but when you say "I only vote for Democrats" that does leave wiggle room for you to have not cast any presidential vote at all.

Sounds like you are saying HRC isn't a Democrat.

[certainot]

79. the dem party and progressive groups are to blame because they've got

the resources and have had 30 years to NOT completely ignore 1500 coordinated radio stations.

the words "talk radio" and "limbaugh" have been said more in media the last week than in those 30 years.

putin's been using talk radio since at least 2008.
trump studied talk radio in 2014
anyone who listens to talk radio even just once in a while knows most of the russian trolling piggybacked talk radio memes that had been around for months, years, even decades

the hillary email and border wall bullshit was almost entirely talk radio generated with some fox visuals and russian trolling thrown in

so finally democrats hear the name limbaugh, the true leader of the GOP, who has probably been fed by the kremlin since at least when manafort was mccain campaign co-chair and limbaugh withheld his support until palin was picked.

and even though media discovered talk radio and limbaugh momentarily the left will put the music back on and will ignore it again until the next election

dems don't even poll for talk radio/trump - so the analysis continues as if studying fish without water, blaming symptoms of ignoring talk radio, and dems will get beaten and forced into compromises that the base will blame on "spineless democrats", with trolling help, and won't vote, or vote for steins.

[Martin Eden]

153. He's blaming those who didn't vote for Hillary ...

... or didn't vote at all, even though they knew or should have known what a monster Trump is.

As far as rehashing 2016, I think it's important to understand what happened in order to better deal with those factors next time.

[Demsrule86]

9. They are back at it for sure.

[ooky]

10. "He expressed outrage that the Republican nominee had won"

It takes a special kind of stupid for someone who used his vote on Stein to say this. His outrage should be directed at himself.

[northoftheborder]

12. Well, they don't have Hillary to kick around any more, so what is their excuse now???????

[Hekate]

37. They're still kicking Hillary around, in an amazing turn of events (sarcasm). They & the GOP will...

...continue to beat up on that woman till the day she dies and long afterward.

[ismnotwasm]

15. Pretty much agree with this, except

The primaries left me in a state of helpless horror. There was so much bullshit. I’m actually not one to argue much with people who are into conspiracy with no evidence. When Hillary lost, I wasn’t nearly as shocked as I should have been, and I was plenty shocked.

That being said, the whole sorry situation is the end result of reactionary racism and sexism. Trump is peak bigotry, peak Whiteness as a social dominant. We have millions of very proud bigots in this country. While the political malignancy of Stein voters and die-hard Hilliary haters was always very evident, I’m not inclined to give White people in general a pass on this. Black women voters knew what was at stake on voted accordingly.

So yeah, I remain angry and will always be angry at the left voters who bailed when they KNEW the Supreme Court was at stake, I am even angrier at our systems of Institutionalized bigotries, which are being strengthened by the Trump courts.

[SMC22307]

16. "I have no problem with anyone who voted for Trump..."

Kurt Eichenwald, breaking bad on the internet. Assault, punch in the face, telling him to have sex with himself? What a tough guy. Isn't this the seizure victim? How is he better than the idiot who sent the animated strobe image?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

24. No, he's the "tentacle porn" guy. Lol.

He posted a photo of his computer screen but forgot to close his browser where he was apparently watching Japanese bondage cartoon porn.

https://news.avclub.com/newsweek-s-kurt-eichenwald-was-just-looking-at-tentacle-1798263101


Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald was just looking at tentacle porn for his family


Eichenwald has loads of enemies on the left and the right who quickly zeroed in on one of his tabs, which was apparently a search for “B-Chiku,” an extremely hardcore hentai. (Do not Google it.) He began getting owned for this almost immediately, and, to his credit, he did not delete the original tweet. His excuse, however, is not the best:

[oberliner]

27. He is also the seizure guy

[Hekate]

38. Why do you have two animations of violence against little girls in your posts, Hassin? Just curious.

They've been there for quite awhile, and just thought I's ask.

[IronLionZion]

102. Little girls are the real enemy

you can't trust them!

[Hekate]

117. That is certainly one answer, isn't it?

Those animated gifs have been there quite awhile, so I figured there was a message in there somewhere and I thought I'd ask about it.

I'll patiently wait for enlightenment.

[sheshe2]

143. Ummhmm. nt

[lapucelle]

155. At least he doesn't appear to be a rape porn guy. N/T

[ehrnst]

171. ...

[SMC22307]

94. LOL! Yeah, Kurt, leave your wife and kids out of your porn habit!

I don't follow him and must not have known (or forgot) that he was a Republican but now a Sensible Centrist Democrat. Interesting.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

121. The guy has integrity issues.

And he’s always had a creepy vibe about him when I’ve seen him on TV.

[SMC22307]

162. Maybe that's why I've tuned him out.

I've tuned a lot of the yammering out, though... very low threshold!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

217. He has exhibited some really bizarre behavior and tells a lot of lies for a "journalist"

Never mind the creepy “tentacle porn” fiasco (and the involvement of his wife and kids)

He claimed to be an MSNBC contributor after he was let go.
Same thing with Vanity Fair.

That shady check-book journalism scandal where he paid an underage male sex-worker porn-actor for a story then lied to his editor about it (and changed stories several times).

He got in to a email/twitter war, regarding one of the Parkland survivors, that caused Vanity Fair to distance themselves from him. He claimed to have a psychologist who diagnosed the kid - another in a growing list of outlandish “claims” this guy makes.

Then this “cool story bro” interaction at an airport...

[lapucelle]

156. Is tentacle porn as troubling as rape porn?

It's amazing what some men really think of women.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

160. Actually tentacle porn was his lame excuse.

The website he had open in his browser is, quite literally, rape porn. Like the AV Club article said, don’t google it.

[lapucelle]

177. A poster characterized it as "tentacle porn". It goes without saying that rape porn is disgusting.

On a more positive note, it's nice to see that this thread includes no "humorous" images of violence against children. That sort of thing is equally disgusting.

[SMC22307]

161. Bestiality, rape, tentacles in every orifice?

I'll let you answer that for yourself. I just made the mistake of Googling some images and... gross.

[lapucelle]

176. Isn't googling images akin to what the writer in question is accused of doing? N/T

[SMC22307]

180. You've dodged the answer to your own question.

"Is tentacle porn worse than rape porn?" Evidently it *is* rape porn, featuring bestiality and tentacles in every orifice. Since former Republican Eichenwald's involved and many DUers seem very protective of him since he's bashing liberals in that crap piece... are there degrees of porn that are acceptable? Is it worse? Better?

[lapucelle]

182. Because I have no expertise on the variations of tentacle porn, I'll take your word on its subsets.

[SMC22307]

184. Probably not a very smart thing to do on your part...

considering I first learned of it less than 24 hours ago and don't find it appealing in the least. Perhaps you'd be better off taking former Republican Eichenwald's word on tentacle porn's variations and subsets, and help you answer your question as to whether it's "as troubling as rape porn."

[lapucelle]

185. Perhaps the writer in question was doing similar research at the time in question. N/T

[SMC22307]

196. Seems Eichenwald has a habit of making excuses...

whether about his roles at Vanity Fair and MSNBC, asking that a 16-year-old Parkland student be evaluated long-distance for mental issues, paying a child-porn star $2,000 for a story then claiming he didn't tell his editors because it slipped his mind, claiming that research on tentacle porn was a family affair. But, yes, "perhaps."

[lapucelle]

199. Curious thing about uncited links... for all we know, it could be Ben Shapiro and Fox News. N/T

[SMC22307]

203. "Researching" tentacle porn?

Sure, why not. "Everybody's doing it."

[lapucelle]

205. Researching hit pieces. (I think we've already established who researches tentacle porn.) N/T

[mr_lebowski]

58. You are selectively editing here ... the author continues 'because they WANTED a Trump Presidency'.

He's saying that ... in order to draw a line between the people who actually voted for Trump because they liked/wanted Trump as POTUS ... versus the people (esp. former Obama voters) who SAY they did NOT want Trump, but EFFECTIVELY voted for him by not voting at all, voting for Stein/Johnson, etc.

[SMC22307]

96. And maybe the Stein/Johnson, etc. voters WANTED a Stein/Johnson, etc. presidency.

I understand many Obama voters voted for Dirty Don because they thought he'd be better for the economy -- plenty's been written about Pennsylvania, in particular. But where is the data on all these mythical Obama voters who voted third party? I want hard data, not rants by Sensible Centrist media personalities or some loudmouth with a Twitter account. What percentage of the total vote are we talking about? What are the specific percentages for PA, MI, and WI? I can easily find the third-party figures, but I'm looking for the specific subset within those figures.

[mr_lebowski]

98. I'm just saying your particular subject-line quote, and ensuing post, left out important context

re: the point that KE was attempting to make.

He wasn't really meaning 'I have no issue with Trump Voters', he meant 'at least they were voting for what they actually wanted, and believed could become reality, unlike Stein voters'.

I don't have the numbers you request, I doubt anyone really does.

I suspect we (and KE) actually agree that the particularly galling subset of non-Hillary voters ... are the Obama voters who just elected to stay home rather than show up to vote for Hill, which was, in effect, a vote for Trump.

[SMC22307]

166. This NTY piece about Milwaukee non-voters made me feel...

angry and some degree of despair.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/many-in-milwaukee-neighborhood-didnt-vote-and-dont-regret-it.html


Justin Babar, seated at center, said he voted for Donald J. Trump as a protest against Hillary Clinton.

But rather than breaking bad in an airport by hurling insults, perhaps we need to work with these voters to bring them back into the Democratic fold. I wonder if Kurt would have gotten in the faces of those guys? I'm guessing not, and quite frankly I'm questioning whether the airport incident happened at all.

[ehrnst]

151. ad ho·mi·nem /ˌad ˈhmənəm/

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

[SMC22307]

167. You don't have a problem with someone supposedly on our side...

threatening violence against a non-Hillary voter? To be honest, I don't believe it happened... former-Republican-turned-centrist-Democrat Kurt's just conveniently bashing the Bernie Bro/Stein/Pajama Boy left. I wonder if he would have gotten in the faces of these guys?

Many in Milwaukee Neighborhood Didn’t Vote — and Don’t Regret It

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/many-in-milwaukee-neighborhood-didnt-vote-and-dont-regret-it.html


Justin Babar, seated at center, said he voted for Donald J. Trump as a protest against Hillary Clinton.

I'm guessing that would be a big n-o.

We desperately needed Wisconsin! People need to stop attacking nonvoters and bring them back in the Democratic fold.

[ehrnst]

170. straw man /ˌstr ˈman/

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

[SMC22307]

178. I'll take that as a no.

This thread has been quite illuminating: DUers cheering a former-Republican-turned-centrist-Democrat who threatened violence against a non-Hillary voter. Yeah, that'll win us 2020.

[ehrnst]

188. ....

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/57/Argument-from-Silence

[Trumpocalypse]

17. Great article

Thanks for posting!

[aikoaiko]

18. I remember this pathetic piece from 2016.

I think he needed to justify his own stances by telling others they believed in myths.

[louis c]

20. Jill Stein is a Traitor to this contry, is that your point?

[aikoaiko]

165. I really don't pay attention to Jill Stein.

She may well be an actual traitor to the country and Mueller's investigation may show that.

[louis c]

19. Agree: 100%

[watoos]

21. United we stand, divided we fall.

This thread sukks, serves only one purpose.

[louis c]

25. I don't know. It does explain that a Genreal Election...

...is a binary choice and if you don't get that after 2000 and 2016, you're as much a part of the problem as a teabagger.

[shanny]

26. cool story, bro

[judy]

28. And let's not forget jill's presence at the famous Putin dinner with Michael Flynn, etc.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696

The Russians were pushing her candidacy, and it worked to eliminate Hillary...

Stein's 2016 campaign was heavily promoted by RT. She hasn't spoken much about the RT dinner, but in an interview with NBC News last fall, she deflected questions about her appearance, instead chastising the U.S. media for not paying attention to her campaign while RT gave it a lot more attention.
"And my own connection to RT, you know ironically, it takes a Russian television station to actually be open to independent candidates in this country and that is a shame. A shameful commentary on our own media," she told NBC's Alex Seitz-Wald.

I heard her interviewed, I think on Thom Hartmann, and I didn't like her at all...I don't really like Hillary Clinton either because she is such a hawk, but I voted for her in a heartbeat against the Orange Abomination...

[Me.]

29. Thank You So Much Mr. Eichenwald & Thank You White Tara

At last, finally, someone breaks through the cloud of myth and delusion to tell the truth.

[Hekate]

31. I remember this 2016 essay well. Good reminder, White Tara.

[recentevents]

32. Why is a 2016 article being posted now?

"Then, after telling him to have sex with himself—but with a much cruder term—I turned and walked away. "
I suggest the author take his own advise and go fuck himself.


This post does nothing but sow further discord and the poster should self delete.

[Hekate]

42. It seems pretty relevant today. The discord at DU is coming from other quarters, not Eichenwald...

...and not the OP.

If you read Eichenwald's essay all the way thru, you will see it is a call for intelligent and thoughtful unity on the Dem/left/progressive side when it comes to voting for president.

Instead, to this day we have someone in this thread claiming Hillary is a Hawk, which was a favorite lefty/libertarian/Green meme all the way through the 2016 election cycle. (Which hawkishness, btw imo, there is no evidence for.)

[Squinch]

52. Maybe because the trolls are swarming here again lately.

[Squinch]

53. PS, I think it should be regularly posted until people get over the idea that

their vote is an opportunity for self expression. It isn't. Its a civic duty.

[Chemisse]

129. Discord?

Anyone here who did not vote Dem in 2016 should not even be on DU, much less be here and angry about this.

[betsuni]

134. +1

[Hekate]

137. +2

[pamdb]

35. Eichenwald

Completely agree. I rember talking to friends who wanted to vote for Bernie ( a lot of us voted for him in the Michigan primary) that now it was time to rally around the nominee who was Clini. If the nominee had been Bernie I would have said the same thing. You vote the party.ive. Ever agreed with this “ I vote the candidate not the party” because generally the two are the same. I really hope Bernie doesn’t run again.

[Nitram]

39. Eichenwald is lumping all liberals together. It is a certain kind of liberal that voted for

Stein instead of Clinton when a man like Trump is the other choice. Most of us had more sense. The millennials that didn't vote or voted for Stein were just politically naive.

[Squinch]

54. He's not doing any such thing.

[Chemisse]

130. He specifically said "A certain kind of liberal makes me sick."

[Nitram]

192. Ture. I overlooked that. I should have written "Democrat" rather than "liberal."

[seaglass]

44. So many STILL believe these myths and new ones will be created if either Bernie decides not to

run or he loses badly.

[mountain grammy]

45. I respect and admire Kurt Eichenwald

for his relentless, excellent exposure of trump, but talk about dividing Democrats. When he says "And there is no telling how many disaffected Sanders voters cast their ballot for Trump," I say, that's a non factual statement that is far beneath his normal fact based reporting and is only there to piss people off.

[EleanorR]

48. He wrote this a week after the election. Lots of anger mixed with some self-pity.

Fortunately the recent mid-terms showed that Democrats understand well the importance of voting.

[mountain grammy]

111. Thank you for that perspective.

I completely missed the date, and yes, I agree. It appears the importance of voting has been revived..hopefully forever.

[dlk]

47. Eichenwald Nailed It!

Particularly the part about those with "narcissistic purity" -- they cause as much harm as Republicans with their sanctimony. Eichenwald is not the only one who would like to "punch them in the face" or tell them "to have sex with themselves."

[50 Shades Of Blue]

55. What crap - NOTHING Democrats did or didn't do mattered. PUTIN saw to that.

[SharonAnn]

75. Only because some who would've voted D believed th s@@t they spread

[50 Shades Of Blue]

89. Not "only." BECAUSE OF PUTIN. Put the blame where it belongs!

Stop trying to divide Democrats!

ETA: If Stein and Bernie didn't exist, Putin would have still seen to it that Trump won the election!

[Chemisse]

131. Stein was one of Putin's tools to win.

And the Bernie uprising was encouraged by Russian bots, way beyond the primary season.

How does this divide Democrats who went out and voted for Hillary no matter who they supported in the primaries?

[Hekate]

118. Massive amounts of US-generated voter suppression techniques, the New Jim Crow Laws, Citizens United

...and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act all played their part. Putin had plenty of help from our side, and we do have to own that.

Even so, Hillary won the actual vote by 3 million, which means the majority of my fellow Americans have their heads screwed on right.

[lancelyons]

57. He needs to consider the large amounts of anti Clinton stuff pushed by Russians and media

[jalan48]

59. It's the voters fault! Will this be an effective campaign strategy in 2020? Stay tuned....

[emulatorloo]

183. Always love your hot takes.

[jalan48]

187. Thanks!

[emulatorloo]

189. ...

[jalan48]

194. ..

[DonCoquixote]

60. put this quote in GOLD

"Of course, there will still be those voters who snarl, “She didn’t earn my vote,” as if somehow their narcissism should override all other considerations in the election. That, however, is not what an election is about. Voters are charged with choosing the best person to lead the country, not the one who appeals the most to their egos.

If you voted for Trump because you supported him, congratulations on your candidate’s victory. But if you didn’t vote for the only person who could defeat him and are now protesting a Trump presidency, may I suggest you shut up and go home. Adults now need to start fixing the damage you have done."

[WhiskeyWulf]

63. "Narcissistic purity" expresses it well

Voting is an act of governing, not self-expression. It's a practical matter. We have to do what's going to achieve the most good, not what makes us feel self-righteous.

[KPN]

64. What a ridiculously divisive post. Why else

would someone post an article that was published on this particular topic more than 2 years ago? ....

Oh, I forgot. To tell people to smarten the F up, as if that will make them think or behave differently.

[watoos]

69. Still think this OP isn't divisive??

The top of the charts.

2016 a lot of Democrats were pranked. Even the Bernie Bros. were a Russian creation. Who knows if machines flipped votes, they don't get audited?

I would hope that by 2020 that Democrats who didn't vote for Hillary really don't need a reminder what they did.

How about we bury the hatchet and stay united?

[TexasBushwhacker]

72. Uh, this is from a week after the election in 2016

What we know now about Russian manipulation makes all this moot. Clinton didn't lose because some fuckwits voted for Jill Stein or Berniebros stayed home and drank microbrews. She lost because Trump was installed by the Russians. PERIOD.

I would love to think it was all our fault, because then it would just be our problem to fix it. It isn't. A FOREIGN ADVERSARY CHOSE OUR PRESIDENT. That is EVERY Americans problem, not just the Democrats.

[PatrickforO]

76. He brings up some good points.

Like it or not, we are a two party system. The reality today is that if you don't like the Republican, you have to vote for the Democrat.

But what if Clinton would have won? The Republicans would probably have impeached her, and certainly would have, as with Obama, opposed everything she ever tried to do in lockstep. And, about half the country would be rooting for them, because while many genuinely love Clinton, right-wing extremist talk show hosts and other fringe conspiracy theorists have spent decades sowing hatred and fear of Hillary Clinton. You all know this. It is painful, but it is true. A substantial portion of the US population was so propagandized to hate Clinton that the election was bound to be close. And it was.

I believe that we needed this Trump presidency. He has been a gift for us. He is utterly corrupt and does not even try to hide his lies. He is under what, seven criminal investigations, and his 'charitable' foundation was closed down for criminal activity? He pulled us out of Paris, and put a EPA-hating oil guy, succeeded by a coal guy, in charge of the EPA, and they have stupidly rolled back dozens of regulations necessary to keep us safe.

The guy sits on the toilet at 4am and tweets out nonsensical, childish stupidity, and Americans have been able to watch other world leaders treat him with contempt, laugh at him, do fake handshakes.

His ill-conceived trade war has hurt millions of the very Americans who voted for him, and people are recoiling with horror at the brutality of Trump's ICE and CBP forces on the border, who are incarcerating people in American Nazi style concentration camps.

But you all know all this, and are every bit as horrified as I am. Now look what happened with the mid-term elections - a Democratic party landslide. It really was. Millions more votes for our candidates. A whole new group of unapologetically progressive Democrats elected. Whole states turning blue. Reports that Republicans have lost suburban women and that their decisive lead among white men has deteriorated. And, look at how the Republican cheating in NC has come to national attention.

Americans have become disgusted with Trump, and the Republican party. People are waking up to how big a crisis climate change really is. People are asking questions about how things like a space force are better for them than healthcare. People are questioning the wisdom of 2017s giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations, and looking with increasing concern toward the ballooning national debt and starting to think about what will happen to Social Security and other programs because of it. They don't like Republican attacks on pre-existing conditions and the ACA in general.

Americans may be awakening to how we need strong government controls to mitigate the excesses of capitalism. Because the market is amoral, it is up to governments to be moral. I urge you all to support:

- The National Popular Vote Compact
- Elizabeth Warren's 'Accountable Capitalism Act' which will expand fiduciary responsibility of CEOs beyond shareholder earnings to include worker and consumer welfare and the environment.
- Any efforts to overturn Citizens United
- Any efforts to vigorously address climate change

[siriuslll]

77. I agree with everyone that agrees with me...

Once the argument is made that the Democratic party isn't monolithic enough... it troubles me. I like to imagine that anyone voting their conscience and doing their best to understand the situation at hand can be forgiven the backlash of hindsight. Even if it appears that some were 'played'.

Also, when the term " these people.." is used to generalize the shortcomings of a mythical block of voters... I begin to suspect that the point of the piece is not always what is being said directly. More 'other-izing' often serves to separate culprit from blame.

[Eliot Rosewater]

83. sigh

[wasupaloopa]

110. I don't like the phrase "voting your conscience."

Seems to me people who say they vote their conscience feel like it is the right thing to do. And it is the reason they vote for someone other than the party’s candidate.

In reality they are throwing their vote away since elections are a zero sum game.

They may as well say I don’t care if we win or lose.

They have taken themselves out of the election.

Their vote is meaningless except to them.

[Eliot Rosewater]

80. Not liberals. LIBERALS knew what to do.

[ananda]

81. I'm a liberal and ..

.. I hate it when people falsely portray me.

[lark]

82. Liberals didn't put drumpf in the WH.

Pretend liberals motivated by Russian disinformation and too lazy to research real information, KKK, Nazis, Israel, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia and greedy rich put orange assmouth in the WH. Real liberals knew Stein was just a plant to reduce Clinton's #'s and would never have voted for her. Sanders people that knew his policies wouldn't have voted for drumpf unless they were the pretend liberal Susan Sarandon variety of traitor.

[FakeNoose]

84. Eichenwald says 5 million Dems didn't vote for Hillary and that's what made the difference

Well no it's not, unless he can show that those 5 million Democrats would have voted in borderline red states. If he can show that enough of those borderline red states would have been swung over to blue, then I'll accept his premise. But I don't believe he can show that.

I live in Pennsylvania - one of those borderline states that was supposed to go blue - and we still haven't seen what really happened in 2016. We suspect that the votes were hacked here, but so far nobody has proven it. The slimy Republicans have surely won by cheating, here and elsewhere.

It's the GOP's cheating (and colluding with Russians) that made the difference in 2016, pure and simple.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

86. I hope the few Stein-ers I know understand their errors now.

I love my friends, so sometimes...ya just gotta grit your teeth.

[mountain grammy]

112. I have a cousin, the only close blood relative on my mom's side I still see every few years..

full Stein, full anti vaxxer. full crazy.
I love her so much. she's 4 years older than me. We have so little time left. I've learned to grit my teeth and walk away.

In so many ways, I'm just as crazy..

[Gothmog]

195. Tell that to Sarandon

I do not like Sarandon. She voted for Jill Stein because she wanted trump to win and for there to be some sort of revolution. Trump has done a ton of damage and Sarandon and Jill Stein supporters do not deserve any credit for increased number of women running. I agree with Debra Messing on this issue https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/debra-messing-reignites-her-political-feud-with-susan-sarandon/ar-BBNfcTV

Roses are red, violets are blue, Debra Messing and Susan Sarandon are feuding about leftist politics again — what’s new with you? After Sarandon told Variety that the only highlight of Donald Trump’s administration is that his policies have unintentionally inspired women and people of color to run for office, Debra Messing took her to task in a Twitter thread.

“STFU SUSAN,” Messing wrote Wednesday afternoon. “Oh yes, PLEASE let’s give Trump CREDIT. I mean how else are you able to walk out on the street.”

Link to tweet

See for yourself: our long national nightmare — Sarandon and Messing not talking about politics — is over!

Link to tweet

I agree with Debra Messing and I strongly disagree with Sarandon and any Jill Stein supporters.

A vote for Jill Stein was a vote for trump.

[jimlup]

87. I disagree somewhat with this analysis

In Pennsylvania and Wisconsin the margin was quite wide and I don't think the Stein voters/non-voters would have closed that gap. In my home state - Michigan it would have. It didn't come down to Michigan. It came down to all three.

I know it is dangerous to say here but fuck, we need to put up candidates that the nation gets behind and it isn't about "snobby liberals" - its about figuring out that we need candidates who have wide appeal to all voters and the American people are a lot more liberal than the mainstream is capable of admitting (some of them know this and hide from it.)

To any potential juriour of this post - notice that I didn't mention any candidate by name and spoke in generalities not specifics so it is hard for me to see how this breaks any "rules" and if it does we are probably in a hopeless position of self denial of our own truths.

[shockey80]

90. The problem is most Americans are fucking clueless.

That's a fact. The 2016 election was the biggest no brainer in American history and the American people fucked it up. This crosses party lines, the American people in general are fucking clueless.

[Cetacea]

93. Odd that major media is never blamed

Fox News and "liberal" major news outlets spread false beliefs more than anybody. I don't know when dems are going to see this huge problem. It's not "the economy, stupid!". it's "the media, stupid!". Yet that same media would have you think that the economy is the number one issue on voters minds after health care. (not true: climate change was number one issue for California gop voters in the midterms, yet only MSNBC's Chris Jansen mentioned this (on numerous occasions)

[karynnj]

97. I would add what at the end was another false win -- Hillary would win by a landslide

This was propigated by her campaign - through actions like going to Arizona near the election, the media, and the various analysts - some claiming that her chances a few weeks out were above 95%. None of them were strong enough or loud enough to claim in the last week, that although she was favored, it could be very very close. AND THIS MEANS GET OUT TO VOTE .... AND NO "PROTEST VOTES".

To those groups, we - in all honesty, must add DU, Daily Kos etc. We ALL were extremely certain that November would see a President elect Clinton. In my town, the interfaith community had a Monday night prayer and song service that the country could heal after the devisive election -- with NO ONE thinking that we would not celebrate the next day and hope to never hear Trump again!

The long term message from this election is that we need to face EVERY election as if we could loose and do everything we can to get every last vote for our nominee. Even if our favorite lost or if we didn't like the choices.

[progressoid]

100. Well, this is certainly a productive discussion.

[IronLionZion]

101. Ratfucking and trolling was widespread in 2016

Liberals are very easily divided. Trolls exploited this with carefully coordinated precision.

[lovemydogs]

105. I don't play in purity. It's defeating

I have a candidate I like in the primary. If that candidate doesn't win, I go with the general election candidate.
Doing purity only gets you so far.
You can work for changes in your party but, to stand out of voting because the candidate is not pure enough sets us up for Republican rule.
Clinton was not my choice. Bernie was. But, I did not hate Clinton and she is capable, able and a policy wonk who works well with our allies and can beat our enemies. She would have made a good centrist president.
The only problem would be the ongoing gop hate for her and their ongoing sabotaging like they did with Obama.

[betsuni]

106. Ha, love it!

[KayF]

107. counterproductive to post this old article

without explanation of the reason for posting it, or any comment on it, or participation in a discussion.

There are an infinite number of rehashes about the 2016 election, are we going to keep randomly posting them one at a time?

It's not a good analysis, imho. A lot of the ones right after the election weren't great. But one thing it has going for it is that it got a lot of responses.

[zentrum]

108. Excuse me. But, to quote the article: "Liberals did

....not put Trump in the White House". Many forces did that.

No need to slam an entire group, which most Dems are a member of--"The Liberals"--without that Republican type misleading exaggeration.

[sharedvalues]

109. Russian propaganda aimed to suppress liberal votes

The main purpose of both the Russian and republican disinformation campaign was to suppress liberal votes.
Yes, everyone should have known better, but some are always going to fall for it when so much money is spent on lies.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-05-29/inside-the-pro-trump-effort-to-keep-black-voters-from-the-polls

[BlueWI]

115. I've asked you this question before

and you will probably ignore it again.

How many registered Democrats voted for Trump in 2016, or Bush in 2000? I bet they are greater in number than the Stein or Nader vote. How come they never get mentioned? How come we're not talking about ways to get the Reagan Democrats back? There's way more of them than Stein voters.

Why does the so-called "left" get all the credit for electing Trump, when compared to moderates and conservatives, liberals rarely vote Republican? They are one of the most reliable groups of Democratic voters.

I challenge you and others to put your energy and analysis towards reducing the white majority vote in favor of Republicans. That would make a real difference. If you're in Wisconsin, a huge number of friends and neighbors who are white will be pulling the lever in favor of a gerrymandered and discredited Republican legislative majority. So, will more bashing of the so-called left change that in the slightest?

So much energy expended on this thread for no purpose other than to beat dead horses. Fresh thinking sure would be good to sustain, coming up to critical 2019 and 2020 elections.

[D23MIURG23]

119. Bravo! This whole article was a joy to read. n/t

[marble falls]

125. I don't know of any Bernie Sanders supporters who voted for Trump. But if there were any ...

fuck them, too. I do know of some who didn't vote or voted for Stein and I won't be talking them again. Fuck them, too.

[Progressive dog]

126. I don't remember having read that before

Eichenwald put in plain words the anger and pain that I feel whenever I look back on that election and the way my party's nominee was treated by some who claim to be liberal.

[Gothmog]

133. I read it a long time ago

I have cited a few times in the past

[Gothmog]

132. Great article

[Firestorm49]

138. Spot on.

[Jim Lane]

140. We know a lot more now than we did when he wrote this.

He writes that "there is no telling how many disaffected Sanders voters cast their ballot for Trump."

Well, since then, polling has been done. We know that Sanders voters, however disaffected they were, voted for Clinton in the general at a higher rate than Clinton's 2008 voters went on to vote for Obama in the general.

More than 60 million people voted for Trump. About 100 million who were eligible didn't vote at all. The obsession with the 1 million who voted for Stein is disproportionate. Those other blocs deserve much more of the attention. They deserve the blame for 2016, if you insist on recriminations, but what's important is that they deserve more of the strategizing for 2020.

Before I attract vitriolic responses, let me make clear that I voted for Clinton, and I have no problem with people trying to persuade Stein voters to repent in 2020 (as long as the persuasion takes forms other than a punch in the face, or even an expression of a desire to do so). But here's my bias: I'm a Democrat who cares less about venting my self-righteousness and more about finding enough votes to win. Those scores of millions of people who didn't vote for Clinton or for Stein aren't all gettable, but a lot of them are, and they shouldn't be overlooked in favor of yet another round of denouncing Stein.

And, of course, throwing mud at Bernie Sanders and his 13 million voters may make some people feel better, but it's a terrible strategy for a 2020 win.

[BlueWI]

157. THIS.

Although no references to actual facts will make a difference to those that prefer circular firing squads over strategizing to win.

[lapucelle]

208. Contextualized facts are generally preferable to random raw stats.

Link to tweet

[CentralMass]

224. Sanders voters voted for Hillary in the general by a 2 to 1 margin over Hillary voters in 2008 who

voted for Senator Obama. They were more loyal to the party. The studies published by the WAPO on these concluded that those Sanders
/trump votes were never going to vote (were not Democrats) for Hillary to begin with.

(The text below is about Sanders/trump voters not Sanders/Hillary voters)

"What kinds of Sanders voters supported Trump?

Perhaps the most important feature of Sanders-Trump voters is this: They weren’t really Democrats to begin with.

Of course, we know that many Sanders voters did not readily identify with the Democratic Party as of 2016, and Schaffner found that Sanders-Trump voters were even less likely to identify as Democrats. Sanders-Trump voters didn’t much approve of Obama either.

In fact, this was true well before 2016. In the VOTER Survey, we know how Sanders-Trump voters voted in 2012, based on an earlier interview in November 2012. Only 35 percent of them reported voting for Obama, compared with 95 percent of Sanders-Clinton voters. In other words, Sanders-Trump voters were predisposed to support Republicans in presidential general elections well before Trump’s candidacy"

------------------------------------------------------------------

There were 2,787,820 votes cast in Wisconsin. The 51K Sanders voters who voted for trump were 1.8% of the vote

In Michigan 4,548,382 were cast and the 47k voters who voted for trump were 1 % of the vote.

In PA 5,897,174 votes were cast and the 116K Sanders/trump voters were 1.97%
Of the vote.

From the text cited above, it is unlikely tg they were Democrats.

[lapucelle]

225. That sounds like an argument for closed primaries. N/T

[CentralMass]

226. I belive of the the 3 states only Wisconsin holds and open primary

However I'm not sure that is really an issue here when talking about the GE results.

[lapucelle]

227. Some of the primary voting stats may have helped stoke a narrative

that solidified during the convention and was exploited by bad actors during the general election campaign season.

[BlueWI]

228. So here's another take.

In the 3 states you mentioned, 91%, 92%, and 84% of Sanders voters also voted for Clinton, minus the Stein voters. In all 3 cases, that's a fairly high percentage of Sanders voters supporting the Democratic ticket. Nothing wrong with doing focus groups with voters to see how that percentage could improve, but there are several larger voting blocs where the margin can be improved, with a much larger potential upside.

Other demographics voted for Trump, in numbers that comprise a much larger share of the electorate than the fabled Bernie or Busters: white voters (57%), union voters (43%), self described moderates (40%). Also in these national exit poll figures from the Roper Center, only 10% of liberals voted for Trump.

I'm not going to look up state by state numbers, but I bet they are similar.

So, given that so many groups that should know better than voted for Trump, why aren't there repeated laments about the high support for Trump among moderates, union members, and white voters? Why does all this surplus attention get directed at the so-called "left," a term that is used, inaccurately, as a synonym for Sanders voters? Liberals are one of the most reliable Democratic voting blocs.

2019 and 2020 are coming. Time to expand Democratic support among all of these groups. Put the main energy into improving support among groups that are a larger percentage of the electorate. Doing so made a difference in 2018, winning more suburban voters, maximizing turnout among groups that strongly support Democrats. Makes more sense than steadily beating a dead horse.

[lapucelle]

230. The data I cited concerns numbers, not percentages.

It goes without saying that expanding the percentages of demographic groups that vote for Democrats is a worthy goal going forward.

However, the discussion at hand concerns the number of Sanders to Trump voters in the 2016 general election in the three states in question and their impact on the result, and this number exceeds the Republican margin of victory in all three cases.

[BlueWI]

234. Percentages are numbers too.

I get that this recycled thread from 2016 makes the oft-repeated point that if 90/95/100% of Sanders voters voted for Clinton in WI/MI/PN, she would have won.

We've all heard this, have we not? Repeatedly, for two years running? The people who most need to hear this, that small margin of Sanders voters who voted for Trump, are probably not on DU. Personally, I don't think Sanders will be as competitive in 2016, but it would behoove all Democrats to consider what issue positions or other factors led people from Sanders to Trump. But I see none of that kind of productive conversation on this thread.

Comparatively, there are more votes to win in other groups - white voters, union voters, etc. I disagree with your statement that it goes without saying that winning more of these voters should be a priority. Strategies for winning among these groups are not discussed nearly enough (and we could add young voters to the areas needing growth as well). I don't think I have seen even one thread on union voters supporting Trump at 40%. I find that to be a shocking figure that should certainly be addressed as we approach critical elections in 2019 and 2020.

[lapucelle]

235. A percetage is a number that expresses a fraction of 100.

Its purpose is to measure rather than to count. The relative percentages of holdouts in 2008 and 2016 is an interesting statistic. It is the impact, however, that matters.

Decontextualized percentages can be misleading. In this instance, percentages do not tell the complete story because votes are counted, and counting falls within the domain of natural (rather than pure) numbers.

The (natural) number of Sanders to Trump voters exceeds the (natural) number of Trump's margin of victory in the three states that (combined) gave him his electoral college victory. That is not a relative truth. It is a fact.

[BlueWI]

236. Has anyone disputed that fact?

I mentioned it in my last post.

You repeated it in your response.

It's been repeated numerous times since 2016, to the point where no literate individual on DU could have missed it. Any insights this particular fact may have had for informing future election strategy or understanding 2016 have been derived long ago.

On the other hand, there's been comparatively little discussion of other findings from the election, including the demographics I mentioned. While the percentage findings I cited are not expressed as whole numbers, they certainly could be converted to whole numbers and broken out by individual states, and it would tell another relevant story of how Clinton could have won. However, analysis of the white majority's embrace of Trump and Republicans doesn't seem to be as sexy on DU as calling out the small minority of Sanders supporters who voted for Trump, especially if one is looking for anything beyond broad brush venting.

The OP's analysis was somewhat novel, though overwrought IMO, when it first appeared in 2016. Now it's 2019. Maybe new topics, insights, and numbers are called for, or maybe we can rehash this point till 2020. Charge on and do what you do.

[lapucelle]

237. You shifted the terms of the argument presented in order to express what you felt

was an "interesting take" on something entirely different. The issue was one of relevancy more so than one of disputed facts.

It is evident from what happened in 2016 that many failed to learn the lessons of 2000. It's imperative that it not happen a third time.

[BlueWI]

242. Sure. Suggesting more productive angles is allowed

on a discussion board, especially when further analysis calls attention to a strategy for winning more votes in 2020.

Sanders primary voters who voted for Trump in the general are not "a certain kind of liberal." Liberals are, by far, the most likely group to have voted for Clinton.
However, it might be good to continue thinking about policy positions that led to the Sanders uprising. But on many days in this forum, policy discussions are scant. In the general election, legislative agendas matter, and articulaing those agendas will determine the winner, IMO. Trying to get from 84%-91% to 100% of Sanders-Trump shifters in 3 states in 2020 is not possible, and is a classic example of the metaphor of generals fighting the last war. It's 2019, conditions are shifting. This party either moves on from spinning its wheels on this topic or it risks losing again.

[lapucelle]

243. People were warned that what happened in 2000 was happening again in 2016.

It isn't a matter of fighting the last war. It's a matter of learning the lessons of history.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html

[BlueWI]

244. So this isn't fighting the last war

but now you're posting about the 2000 election?

Of course there are lessons to learn from history. Multiple lessons, in fact. Election interference, voter suppression especially of voters of color, campaign strategy, support from particular groups, the appeal of the candidate, the legislative agenda, etc. These would all be productive to look at, and some areas have greater potential to win more votes.

Why is it that this small margin of Sanders primary voters who aren't probably liberals (since they voted for Trump in 2016) get such outsized attention?

Moderates who voted for Trump or Democrats who voted for Bush don't get this level of attention, although there are more votes to win in these groups. As you probably know, more Democrats in Florida in 2000 voted for Bush than the number of Nader voters. Why is there no public harangue about Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000?

White voters, union voters supporting Republicans don't get this much attention. And there are many, many votes to win in these demographics, not just a few outliers. And even to win the outliers, harangue isn't going to do the job. Understanding why they voted the way they did is a much better approach.

Until 2016, voters suppression directed at black voters didn't get this much attention. If even one of the DC Democratic senators in 2001 had had the courage to stand up against certifying the electoral votes from Florida, history could have been different (I am assuming you are aware of that issue). At least now, Speaker Pelosi and the house leaders are refusing to seat the US rep from North Carolina who benefited from voter suppression. Kudos.

It's not just forgetting history that leads to repetition of bad outcomes. Taking the wrong lessons from history also leads to unfavorable future outcomes.

[lapucelle]

245. I've been posting about the 2000 election for years.

I'm not sure why anyone would think that understanding and learning from the parallels between 2000 and 2016 would be taking "the wrong lessons".

The 2016 election was the first presidential contest after the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. I worked far from my home in a swing state every weekend in September and October re-registering marginalized voters and devising election day plans to get them to the polls. On some of those weekends, our home base was a local headquarters of a national union. In both NY and PA, I worked alongside members of both small and major unions to get out the Democratic vote.

Because of the effects of the Supreme Court decision, we needed all hands on deck, and it was imperative that every eligible voter show up on election day to do the next right thing. The last thing we needed were the lazy, the halfhearted, the bitter, and the privileged who felt entitled to be courted, wooed, and inspired before they would deign to fulfill the most basic responsibility of every citizen.

I was there in 2000, and because 2016 felt very similar, I (among others) begged people to do the right thing. Not everyone listened. It is important that it not happen for a third time within the first two decades of this young century.

[eppur_se_muova]

164. +A googol nt

[ehrnst]

172. " throwing mud at Bernie Sanders and his 13 million voters"

When you have nothing left:

[lapucelle]

204. ...

Link to tweet

[NoMoreRepugs]

141. An oldie but a goodie.

tRumpy has been so horrendous a pResident that a good number of the fools who were swayed and coerced into voting for Stein will hopefully see the light and realize the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE is their only hope for sanity in the country.

[kaotikross]

147. Its this simple:

Support who you want, but if it becomes patently obvious they dont have a chance, support whoever will beat th damn GOP! If you wanted your choice to have a chance you should have been out stumping for them, if you did and it's a lost cause please for the love of God get in with the rest of us, a vote to "be cool" or out of protest doesnt help anybody except the GOP

[tecelote]

148. Ranked Choice Voting

It's the will of the people.

[sellitman]

163. Russian Rat Fuckers & Stupid Liberals

A Deadly combination indeed.

I hope we don't run down this path ever again.

Somehow I doubt we are that smart.

[Baltimike]

174. The same guy who was cyber attacked so badly it nearly killed him is talking "conspiracy theories".

Oooooo-kay.

[Ciaphas Cain]

202. Eichenwald playing the victim again

Eichenwald opines about various subjects and then howls like a wounded animal when he faces inevitable criticism.

[ucrdem]

221. Good reminder, at a good time. The fact is that winning isn't enough and all distractions hurt.

Also, there are no perfect candidates. Many of us saw this with crystal clarity back when Bernie launched and tried to get the word out. But alas.

[Quixote1818]

246. I wonder if it was Jimmy Dore he ran into?