HRC would have been a great president...but she's never going to run again.

[Ken Burch]

And nothing is going to happen that will lead to the invalidation of the 2016 election results and HRC being sworn in after all.

And we can't win in 2018 or 2020 simply by saying "we only lost in 2016 because of the Russians and Comey".

So what is the POINT of saying we can't openly discuss what we should do differently in the future?

Of acknowledging we will need to do at least some things differently in the future?

So long as the discussion is respectful(and the trolls kept at bay), what is the harm?

I agree that no person should be vilified or disrespected...but ideas, strategies and tactics are not people.

And change should not be the enemy if we are the party of change.

[Kaleva]

1. I disagree with much of what you post but on this, I agree.

[MineralMan]

2. In that case, why did you bring her up?

For pete's sake, let's look forward, rather than back, can't we?

[Cary]

5. Apparently "we" can't

Who is "we?"

I'm not wild about the wording of "A Better Deal" but that's the least of my concerns. My leaders are are trying to put out a positive message and rally people. I am behind that idea 100%. In order to be a good leader, one needs first to be a good follower. So to my leaders and my fellow followers, I consider myself to be part of that "we."

I'm not sure what's with Chuck Schumer and I hope he has a good explanation. "We" are in the fight of our lives here.

[Ken Burch]

11. I only brought her up because any suggestion that the party change anything

is automatically taken as a personal attack on her.

There was no way to do that without referencing her name. If there had been, I would have done so.

I haven't said anything negative or even critical about her as a person or as a candidate since the election, or for that matter since I endorsed her shortly before the convention.

Are you willing to accept that suggesting we do some things differently in '18 and in '20 is NOT a personal attack on her, or an insult or disrespect to anybody else?

[kcdoug1]

78. THIS!!!

It's time to debate the hard stuff...WE HAVE to Change! HAVE to understand and learn from our past mistakes...

[Baconator]

96. If you don't look back and realize the "WHY" of the loss...

... what is to keep it from happening again?

[Eliot Rosewater]

126. Funny how that happens, isnt it.

Almost makes a person wonder about motives around here.

I cant bring it up, I have been warned so I cant.

[Weekend Warrior]

3. "HRC would have been a great president"

Yes, she would have.

[Cary]

8. Absolutely

Welcome to DU.

[True Dough]

27. Now remember

to pace yourself! As a weekend warrior, you're probably going to rack up thousands of posts every Saturday and Sunday and have nothing left for the week. Glad to see you have some energy on this Monday!

[Weekend Warrior]

36. The fools running our country are providing me with an endless amount of ammo.

This place is an amazing news dump site. Not saying it isn't more than that as well.

[Gothmog]

64. You are correct

[loyalsister]

4. I think recognizing places problems with our long standing focus is also reasonable

I know people dislike the word neoliberalism, but it is real and there are some elements mentioned in this article that suggest potential improvements.

The focus of full employment and highly educated populace sound good on the surface as a way of achieving a good quality of life, but it doesn't work out as hoped. We are seeing actual damage from placing such a high priority on higher education with a severe student loan crisis. While the GOP is traditionally considered elitist because of it's focus on wealth, Democrats often come across as intellectual elitists. It's a big problem, and it is why people who have accepted their low income circumstances are attracted to "plain spoken" candidates. Being talked down to is perceived as an immediate personal insult to some people.

One thing the GOP has been getting right for a long time is promoting trade schools.

Poverty is not going away. Capitalism will ensure that. So, why not work on making poverty tolerable?



“Neoliberalism” isn’t an empty epithet. It’s a real, powerful set of ideas.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/7/18/15992226/neoliberalism-chait-austerity-democratic-party-sanders-clinton

[Ken Burch]

62. I agree with all you said there.

n/t.

[padfun]

106. All good points

College isn't for everyone. Trade schools are perfect for many.

[LisaM]

129. How, exactly, is the GOP promoting trade schools?

I've never seen any evidence of that (maybe some lip service). Are there some specific programs you're referring to?

I agree that trade schools are important (and community colleges can provide a lot of vocational training, too), but I've never noticed the GOP trying to make it affordable, encouraging apprentice programs, or doing anything to preserve the trade unions that support many of the professions (plumber, electrician, carpenter, etc.)

[loyalsister]

133. Republican on the issues has it

It is included in their platform among a number of dastardly policy positions. And there's this lip service.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2017-06-12/donald-trump-to-tout-training-apprenticeships-in-workforce-development-week

[LisaM]

134. I don't know if any jobs came from that (hope they did) but it's untrue that the Dems didn't address

this issue.

From Hillary's platform:

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/29/clinton-talks-up-vocational-education/

Hillary in 2016:

"And here’s something we don’t say often enough: College is crucial, but a four-year degree should not be the only path to a good job.

We’re going to help more people learn a skill or practice a trade and make a good living doing it."

Ivanka in 2017:

"We're visiting one of the great examples of skill-based learning and skills-based education, a technical school in Wisconsin, which we're very excited about, to talk about the skills gap and to really highlight the fact that there is a viable path other than a four-year college experience," Ivanka Trump said.

[loyalsister]

135. Jobs jobs jobs is part of the problem

Low unemployment presents a false image of the economy that people who subscribe to neolibral ideas has latched onto. When they were bragging about 4% unemployment in my area last year they neglected to give any attention to the 20% poverty. FDR understood that some people accepted poverty as their lot in life, but just wanted it to be a little easier. Welfare reform decimated that and then opened the door for republicans to push the up by the bootstrap American dream narrative further.

[xajj4791]

152. Trades

The issue is that learning trades is not sufficient if the unions are powerless to protect jobs and make them middle class jobs instead of outsourced minimum wage jobs that no one can live off of especially with children. Union busting has been the business since Reagan turned on the unions that got him elected the first time. The Democratic Party "should" be backing unions 1000%.

Once the union is propped back up and put in a position of being truly an equal for any corporation, then we can look at creating more trade jobs. Great examples are nurses and computer technicians. Both of those skill sets are in high demand, but, more and more jobs in both fields are being contracted out to companies who then pay out the least possible to hire warm bodies. This process is debilitating the middle class and must be stopped.

A great example of what I mean is school bus drivers. When I was growing up, being a school bus driver was a great job that paid well and had full benefits. As school districts contracted out for bus drivers, the drivers were being paid minimum wage and the contract carriers would not perform sufficient background investigations so you end up with pedophile bus drivers, drunk bus drivers, etc. The school board claims not their fault because it is contracted out, the contract carrier performs their internal review and moves on with no recourse to parents whose children were placed in harms way because the contract forces any complaints to be adjudicated instead of permitting any lawsuits. This practice hurts the students, hurts the parents, hurts the people who would be good quality bus drivers earning decent wages and benefits. It helps the contractor and the school board though as they each save/make money and minimize risk.

The same thing is happening to prison guards, school teachers, universities, security guards, and many other professions. Take a look at any impartial review of the prisons that use contracted out guards. Unfortunately, I see this practice spreading as the Republicans push for privatized public schools, police forces, anywhere really that the government is spending money.

[pnwmom]

6. When has she ever said that? That's not an assumption people are making about the men who ran. n/t

[Ken Burch]

12. I didn't say she had said it. It's simply a logical inference.

She's already run twice and been nominated once. The Dems haven't renominated any previous nominee since Adlai Stevenson. And from her post-election behavior, I don't think HRC would even want to run again.

And actually, you're wrong about me and assumptions regarding male candidates. I don't think any of the male 2016 Dem candidates will or SHOULD run again-with the possible exception of O'Malley.

(Webb is now a right-wing independent, if anyone was thinking of him as a possible repeat candidate).

You still seem to believe that I and most other Dems who preferred someone else in the primaries were simply opposed to the idea of a female president. For myself, and for everyone else I knew who preferred someone else, that had nothing to do with it. It was the issues and nothing else. Why, at this late date, do you still refuse to accept that?

If we are to have any chance of making an electoral comeback, we can't freeze all discussion on the party's direction, policies, strategy and tactics until our last nominee publicly declares she absolutely won't stand in 2020. Doing so would do us no good at all. And I can't imagine that she would want us to freeze all debate and discussion-especially since that discussion would be about ideas, not individuals.

[pnwmom]

15. It isn't logical to me. And it also isn't logical to dismiss

the importance of the Russian hacking into the election. There is no reason to think they won't do the same thing in 2018 and 2020 unless we recognize the importance of what just happened and take steps to stop it from happening again.

The election was STOLEN. The next one could be, too. But let's pretend it has something to do with Hillary not being a good enough candidate.

[Ken Burch]

17. I never once dismissed the importance of it.

The Russians interfered. It had a major effect. The election was essentially stolen.

What do we do with those facts NOW, though?

We can't win in '20 by running the exact same campaign with the exact same candidate, doing nothing different other than shouting that the Russians interfered and the election was stolen. If we do, the Russians will simply interfere again. Most likely everything the Right did and said will be done and said again. Most likely, it will all work again.

What's the point of even pretending victory would be possible in that scenario?

I haven't said anything critical about our 2016 nominee as a candidate or a person since the convention. All I did say, during the fall campaign and after, that the way the campaign itself was run didn't do our nominee any favors.

I wish she had become president. I grieve the November result as deeply as you do.

And I'll say this again-I don't think any of the OTHER 2016 Dem candidates should run in '20, for that matter.

We need someone new.

[pnwmom]

21. There wasn't anything wrong with her campaign. She would have lost due to Russian hacking

and voter suppression no matter what sort of campaign she ran.

And we will lose again in 2020 if the Russians again hack into the election -- with even more help from the GOP.

http://time.com/4865982/secret-plan-stop-vladimir-putin-election-plot/?utm_campaign=time&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&xid=time_socialflow_twitter

RUSSIA'S DANGEROUS NEW GAME
About three weeks after the Riverside County hack, a Russian agent signed on to the voter-registration website of one of Illinois's 109 election jurisdictions, each of which has its own voting system. But instead of entering his personal information in one of the fields for names and addresses, the hacker uploaded a string of malicious prewritten code, executing a classic hack known as SQL injection. With that, the hacker opened a back door to all 15 million files on past and current voters in the state since 2006. And for nearly three weeks, no one knew he was there.

Such intrusions weren't entirely new. Russia had been probing U.S. state and local electoral systems for years. In 2008, Moscow hacked the campaigns of both Obama and John McCain. Then, in 2014, the Russians became more brazen. "Previously, when you discovered the Russians somewhere, they disappeared like ghosts--poof!" says Michael Daniel, former White House cybersecurity coordinator. "After 2014, you'd find them in networks, and they'd stay, almost like they were taunting us. They became much more aggressive."

Election 2016 was a step well beyond that. After the Illinois hack and a similar one at about the same time in Arizona, "we realized we were playing a different game," Daniel says. The Russians weren't just stealing information for the purposes of collecting intelligence as they had been in previous election cycles. Instead, Daniel's team concluded, they were showing a possible intent to meddle with the vote.
Illinois discovered the intrusion on July 12, when the hackers triggered an alarm by trying to download the whole file of 15 million voters. Illinois officials took the system offline and found that about 90,000 files had been stolen, more than 75,000 of which included personal data like driver's-license numbers and the last four digits of the voters' Social Security numbers. When Illinois reported the news to the FBI in late July, the bureau dispatched a tactical Cyber Action Team to the state capital, Springfield, where the computers are kept.

[Ken Burch]

25. So we should speak out against Russian interference. Fair enough

I agree with you about that.

All I'm saying is that doing that, by itself, won't be enough to elect us.

[pnwmom]

26. More than that. We should be fighting for secure election systems

and against gerrymandering and voter suppression -- in all our states.

[Ken Burch]

53. Absolutely. I'm totally with you on that.

Do you know of anybody in this party or even close to it who has said we SHOULDN'T do that?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

45. There were things wrong with her campaign

To assert there weren't and to not look at things to change for 2020 would be a bad idea. She needed to come to Wisconsin. She didn't. She could have won here. People told her that and it was ignored.

I'm not saying there weren't other problems outside her control, but let's not pretend this was a perfect campaign.

[pnwmom]

46. Wisconsin's voter ID law suppressed 200K votes in 2016. DT won by less than 23K.

Visiting Wisconsin wouldn't have made up for the depressed turnout caused by the ID law.

https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/

According to federal court records, 300,000 registered voters, 9 percent of the electorate, lacked strict forms of voter ID in Wisconsin. A new study by Priorities USA, shared exclusively with The Nation, shows that strict voter-ID laws, in Wisconsin and other states, led to a significant reduction in voter turnout in 2016, with a disproportionate impact on African-American and Democratic-leaning voters. Wisconsin’s voter-ID law reduced turnout by 200,000 votes, according to the new analysis. Donald Trump won the state by only 22,748 votes.

The lost voters skewed more African-American and more Democrat. For example, Wisconsin’s 2016 electorate was 6.1% more Republican, and 5.7% less Democrat, than the group of ‘lost voters’. Furthermore, the WI electorate was 3.7% more White and 3.8% less African American than the group of ‘lost voters.’ This analysis suggests that the 200,000 lost voters would have both been more racially diverse and have voted more Democratic.

[Me.]

48. +1

[Ken Burch]

57. And again, there is no debate about the important of fighting voter suppression.

It's not as though the only way we can fight that, or fight Russian interference, is to avoid any discussions about ideas, strategy and tactics, though.

We don't need to be a party where there can't be any open conversations in order to win.

Nobody who'd consider voting for us WANTS us to be a dissent-free zone.

[forthemiddle]

122. Are you out there trying to get these voters IDs?

The voter ID law had almost 5 years from the time it was written, until the time it took effect due to lawsuits.
Why in the hell didn't the party make it a priority to get these voters to the DMV?
Very few of the 300,000 were unable to get the ID due to the fact that the courthouse with their birth certificate burned down, or whatever else excuse there was, yet we still had that many without a valid (free) ID?
Living in Wisconsin, it was a forgone conclusion that eventually the ID would take effect, so why wasn't that time used to help these people out?
They had 5 years!!!!!!

[pnwmom]

123. Am I? No. My state doesn't have a voter ID law. We have all mail-in. If you are a Democrat,

why are you using the word "you" to refer to Democrats?

The law wasn't a "foregone conclusion." In fact, it had been overturned by a judge, and then upheld by an appeals court shortly before the election.

The fight still goes on. But I fully agree that Democrats should already be working to make sure everyone has an acceptable ID.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/appeals-court-oks-wisconsin-s-strict-voter-id-law-n638501

The court’s decision likely means that, barring intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court, the strict ID measure will be in place in a key presidential swing state, where it could make voting much harder, especially for racial minorities and students.

In July, a district court ruled that Wisconsin must soften its law by allowing voters who were unable to get ID to sign an affidavit attesting to their identity. Earlier this month, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit blocked that ruling from going into effect for the November election. On Friday afternoon, the full appeals court unanimously upheld the panel’s decision, after an appeal from voting rights groups.

The appeals court noted that in a separate challenge to the voter ID law, a court had required Wisconsin to make IDs as easy as possible to obtain, including by giving out temporary IDs at DMV offices. As a result, the appeals court found, the affidavit option is unnecessary to ensure that voters aren’t disenfranchised.

But voting rights advocates weren’t convinced that the state will really make IDs easy to get. On Twitter, Dale Ho of the ACLU called the state’s pledge to give out temporary IDs to all who need them “dubious.” Ho noted that the lower court had found that the state’s efforts on that score had for five years been marked by “utter failure.”

[forthemiddle]

127. I lived here!

It was pretty much a forgone conclusion!
On the State level, our Supreme Court is dominated by conservatives, and on the Federal level, the law basically mirrored Indianas law which had already cleared the US Supreme Courts ruling!
For the Democrats to not concentrate on getting those people to the DMV was criminal!
I lived (I have since moved) in a very rural area, in which it wasn't too much of a problem because lack of ID here isn't as much of an issue. You can't really live there without a vehicle.
Again I will state "They had 5 years!"

[pnwmom]

128. And again I'm asking: why are you saying "you" and "they" instead of "we" and "us"?

[forthemiddle]

130. Whatever

Just project instead on facing the problem!
"They had 5years!"
I know from reading previous posts that you won't accept any answer but, They cheated!!!
So this probably isn't a conducive conversation.
Just keep to your fantasy and don't try and fix things (getting the disenfranchised IDs) and we will see how that works!

[pnwmom]

131. You live in the state, I don't. So why do you keep blaming me instead of yourself?

In my state getting registered is as easy as checking a box on the form for a driver's license.

[forthemiddle]

132. Almost as easy here

As long as you have that drivers license!
We have same day registration so CrossCheck wasn't even a problem, just getting the disenfranchised that ID was all that was needed! And I'm disappointed in the State Party (the They I bitched about)! "They" should have organized to gets those without an ID to the DMV.

Honestly at the polling station I worked at, it wasn't an issue. We didn't have anyone coming in without the ID needed, but I am sure the more urban areas did experience that.

[pnwmom]

136. No, there is a big difference. After we register, we don't have to bring an ID to vote.

The ballots get sent to our houses, we mail them back (or stick them in drop boxes), and then we can go online and make sure they were received.

[forthemiddle]

143. But you still need the I'd to register anyways!

The problem is getting the I'D in the first place, isn't it?

[pnwmom]

144. No. It's always easy in WA.

If you have a driver's license or state ID, you can go online and register.

If you don't, you can print off a paper and mail it in -- with your 4 digit Social Security number.

And you only have to do that once. After that you get mailed ballots for every election.

[Baconator]

99. "There wasn't anything wrong with her campaign."

It's impossible to take anything you say seriously after you start like that.

It's patently false on its face because she isn't in the White House.

[pnwmom]

100. No, it's not false. Between the Russian hacking and the voter suppression

it is very unlikely that any Democrat would have won. And it will be very unlikely to win in the future unless we solve those problems.

[Baconator]

102. Did she win?

No...

That is literally that...

Not to mention that she lost to a man who had approval in the low 40s.

It shouldn't have been close let alone a freaking loss.

Go to Wisconsin, find a candidate who can generate enthusiasm, at least find a VP who could make people engaged, different internal polling, different campaign structure and personnel...

A different strategy to the freaking e-mail scandal...

The list goes on and on...

... and on...

Take off your blinders otherwise, you'll just end up repeating the same whines in 4, 8 and 12 years.

[pnwmom]

104. The election was stolen. 200,000 votes got suppressed in Wisconsin --

that made a much bigger difference than if she'd held a few rallies there. Get real.

And the email "scandal" was a Russian propaganda effort managed through paid hackers and leaked by Wikileaks.

Despite all that, Hillary won only 70,000 fewer votes than Obama in 2012 -- even though the 2013 SCOTUS decision dismantling the Voting Rights Act resulted in the suppression of millions of votes.

If people don't realize that this election was stolen we won't ever win again.

[Baconator]

105. See you in 4 years...

... when you just can't understand how it all fell apart again.

Criminy...

[pnwmom]

107. And how do you think your perfect candidate will overcome even greater voter suppression

and continued Russian hacking into our elections systems?

[Baconator]

108. No one is asking for perfect...

I'd settle for good at this point.

Our bench was weak last time because of a flimsy primary and we paid the price. I hope we learn.

[delisen]

28. We can't win by pretending the Russians won't interfere again or that voter suppression

will cease its own accord.

You are free to run any candidate you want. You are free to run yourself.

"We need someone new" is is a non-action argument. The person "someone new" will develop a campaign or not without us pretending we are back room king or queen-makers.

We don't "need" someone new. We don't "need" to make "someone new" to be a criterion for or barrier to running for office. we don't need to be narrowing our options.

We don't need to be giving away our power by creating artificial barriers to running for office.

If candidate "someone new" needs the equivalent of a golfing handicap rating to win primaries we have already lost.

[onetexan]

31. exactly

[Ken Burch]

54. And I never said we SHOULD pretend that the Russians won't interfere again

OR that voter suppression won't happen again.

Please stop creating binaries that don't exist.

It's not a choice of fighting voter suppression and Russian interference OR developing better tactics, strategies and proposals.

We need to do BOTH.

[Gothmog]

67. Meanwhile in the real world, many of us are fighting voter suppression

Ignoring Russia and GOP voter suppression efforts will not make these things go away. The Kobach voter suppression commission scares the heck of me and we need to be as active as possible in opposing it. We lost one lawsuit against this voter suppression commission but there are three more lawsuits pending.

In the meantime, we are encouraging voters in Texas to file complaints https://www.democraticunderground.com/107835703

[Ken Burch]

74. I'm just as much in the real world as you are.

And you have never had any reason to try to discredit me on a personal level.

I'm just a long-time pragmatic activist who disagrees with you on some things.

[Gothmog]

82. Have you made it to an indivisible meeting? I just received this e-mail

Here is what the Indivisible groups are doing in the real world according to an e-mail that I just opened.

Say it with us: this is not over.
We lost a procedural vote today that puts Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that much closer to the finish line. But he still has a huge lift on his hands: convince 50 Senators to vote for a complete dumpster fire of a bill—a bill that will cause 22-32 million people to lose their insurance, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and a bill that at least ten Republican senators are on record as opposing in some previous iteration.
The process on this has been horrifying. No hearings. No CBO score. Not even final guidance from the Senate Parliamentarian on whether the bill follows the Senate rules.
Usually a vote for the MTP signals support for the underlying bill. But senators literally do not know which bill they’re taking a final vote on—which means the outcome is anyone’s guess. The vote on final passage will be Thursday or Friday, so we need you RIGHT NOW.
Fight back by showing up on Wednesday and Thursday.
On Wednesday and Thursday, Indivisible’s whole network will be showing up at district offices across the country to say a vote on TrumpCare would hurt our friends and family. You can search for existing events here or register an event here if none are planned in your area yet.

Our local groups are also busy fighting the Texas bathroom bills. I just called my GOP state rep and was pleased to find that he is against the Texas bathroom bill as is the GOP speaker of the House.

Have fun.

[Ken Burch]

85. I signed up. I'll go to the next meeting they have. That puts the Indivisible thing to rest.

BTW, Indivisible doesn't have that much to do in blue states...the issues it deals with in places like Texas usually don't come up in places like Washington state.

Out of interest, if you see me as out of touch with reality, why ARE you so obsessed with having me be in Indivisible? It's simply one anti-Trump organization among many. It's not the only one that matters. And in pushing this hard to get me into the group you are actually admitting that I do live in the real world and am politically effective.

Most people in Indivisible are Just as Left as I am...virtually none are contemptuous of progressives in the way you are to me.

What is it about what I post here that causes you to waste so much time trying to personally discredit me? Me, a person who does no harm? someone who does no harm? Why not just put me on ignore and leave it at that?

It's disturbing that you seem to be this fixated on me. I'm just one person posting a few ideas. It's not as though I have the capacity to single-handedly make this party or anyone in it do anything they wouldn't otherwise do. Nor do any of the other posters that you relentlessly treat like this.

It diminishes you to spend so much time belittling and disrespecting another poster. I've never done anything whatsoever that is personally disrespectful to you.

[Gothmog]

88. Did you make it to their e-mail list yet?

The e-mail that I copied and paste was from the national group. The local groups are also fighting the Texas bathroom bill. I seem to be on three Indivisible mailing lists.

[Ken Burch]

90. Let it go already. I'm with them

And there was never a conflict between them and the things I post.

Enough already.

[Gothmog]

94. You did not answer my question

Have you made it onto their e-mail list yet? Do I need to continue posting what this group is doing in the real world?

[Ken Burch]

97. I've proved I work in the real world. You need to stop badgering me.

I've never deserved this thing from you.

I signed up with them. I think I am on their list. Leave it at that.

And stop acting as though I don't do practical work on day to day issues.

I've never made this personal with you.

Why are you this obsessed with ME?

I'm just one person posting things here.

Most of the time, I do other stuff.

[Gothmog]

113. Your posts speak for themselves

If you had actually signed up with Indivisible you would be receiving three or four e-mails a week on what people in the real world are doing to fight Trump and the GOP. The e-mail that I cut and paste was from the national organization. The local Indivisible and grassroots groups in Texas are focused on the special session.

I have enough facts to make a valid opinion as to the viability of your concepts. I strongly believe that your proposals and concepts would not work in the real world. I like living in the real world where I am actually working on changing things including actually attending Indivisible, PeoplePower and other meetings. Again, please get out into the real world and see how people in the real world react to your claims and proposals.

You can post your proposals and other posters are free to evaluate and discount such proposals

[Ken Burch]

115. I know what people in the real world do. I've worked in politics for decades And I did sign up.

There is no conflict between what Indivisible does and what I post here.

BTW, you just accused me of lying in that post, and you had no right to do so.

If you want to debate my concepts, deal with what you disagree with about the concepts. You are not qualified to try and discredit me as a human being. Personal derision has no place on this board.

[Cary]

83. I just got home from work and I have like 40 flies in my house

I've killed them all. What should I do now?

[Gothmog]

65. Why not O'Malley?

How did he become tainted?

[Ken Burch]

111. He isn't "tainted"...I'm not saying anyone is "tainted"

My point was that we need a clean break from the personalities of '16 and the baggage associated with that year.

[Gothmog]

112. Read you post, you stated that no one who ran in 2016 should run again

[Ken Burch]

114. Which is not the same as saying anyone is personally tainted.

I don't think about people that way or use terms like that.

O'Malley is a good person.

It's just about moving on from that year. That's all.

[Gothmog]

119. I will agree with you that O'Malley is a good person

I personally have a great deal of respect for O'Malley

[Ken Burch]

137. OK.

n/t.

[Eliot Rosewater]

118. There is an agenda here, you seem to have rooted it out, good on you.

[onetexan]

153. +1

With all the evidence that's come out I don't get why people don't see the past General election was stolen. Maybe they're in denial Hillary won outright?I

BTW why won't Hillary or DNC contest the race? Are they waiting for Mueller's investigation to conclude?

[karynnj]

7. Only Clinton herself can say that she will not run again

I doubt that she will because the two loses had to be devastating - especially the 2016 one. I remember some comment in a NYT magazine article in the early fall that Clinton felt pressure that she was now the only person who stood between Trump and the Presidency. In fact, the title refers to a Trump presidency as the Apocolypse. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/magazine/hillary-clinton-campaign-final-weeks.html?_r=0

There is no doubt that Clinton is mentally tough, but what is clear is that she bears a huge burden from the 2016 campaign. In addition, she has to know that another run will be as tough on her, her family and friends as this one. This is not 2005, when DU posters argued that only the Clintons could fight the right wing and emerge unscathed. Even in 2013, she had never faced being the candidate in the general election. I suspect the ONLY circumstance under which she would consider it is if it was widely seen that only she could win.

Still it will be her decision.

[geek tragedy]

9. donors and DNC establishment would also play a role

in the unlikely event she'd think about running again, as in they'd say "phuck no."

She'll remain influential inside the party of course, but the same group of people that helped clear the field for her in 2016 would clear her off the field in 2020.

[BainsBane]

20. She has already said it

Very clearly.

[Gothmog]

68. Agreed-I would support her in a second if decides to run

[karynnj]

79. I would support her if she again won the nomination

We do not know who else will run. At this point, we do not even know any new candidates who might make a serious run. This leads to polls showing people like Sanders, Biden and Clinton. I doubt our nominee will be one of them or Gore and Kerry for that matter - though I doubt either want to run again.

I suspect that gradually, new faces will gain traction. Remember 1992, where pundits tried to push Coumo to run referring to all the others as the 7 dwarfs. Someone will be nominated and that very act will change his or her profile.

The powers that be twice tried to give her the nomination, both times in years where the Democrat had either a great chance or a very good one. I hated it when many people here said in 2005 that Kerry had his chance, but the reality was that even though he ran a very good race in a very tough year, he was not going to get the nod in 2008.

[StevieM]

87. Nobody ever tried to give her the nomination. She got the votes she got. (eom)

[seaglass]

10. This is like your 5 millionth post saying the same thing you have been saying since last Nov.

Just say what you want to say and people will either discuss it with you or they won't.

[Ken Burch]

14. This is what I want to say.

I have no hidden agenda and I'm not campaigning for anybody.

I just want us to be able to have an honest, respectful conversation without everyone who suggests any change at all being essentially told to STFU.

[Me.]

49. Finding That Hard To Believe

[Ken Burch]

59. I'll say it directly then: I DON'T think Bernie should run in 2020.

And I haven't ever thought he should run again or covertly campaigned for him to do so.

The guy would be 79 and too many people would automatically vote against him.

That's the goddess' truth on how I feel.

[BannonsLiver]

121. You aren't the only one.

[Gothmog]

69. So have you given up on strengthening third parties and weakening the Democratic Party?

Please let us know what are your current proposals?

[ecstatic]

13. Any discussion is useless until voter suppression and easily compromised

voting machines are addressed. After those issues are resolved, then we should discuss fine tuning the message.

[Ken Burch]

16. Have I ever said we SHOULDN'T address those issues? Even once?

We all agree that they matter and need to be addressed. It's just that addressing those isn't the automatic solution to all of our problems.

Why can't we speak out on voter suppression and vote tampering AND also discuss issues, strategy and tactics?

And how much can we do about voter suppression and dodgy voter machines between now and 2018, given who's running Congress and most state legislatures? It's not as though we have any ability to force Republicans to give up either of those advantages between now and 2018, and the Supremes are pretty much always going to rule Trump's way on voting issues.

We need to keep bringing those things up, over and over-you are right on that-but we can't win in 2018 JUST by bringing them up. Those issues can't flip Congress or any state legislatures anywhere.

[BainsBane]

19. Meanwhile

We see demands to replace Democratic primaries with caucuses, to ensure the franchise is further restricted.

"We" can actually do a lot. We can ensure low-income voters have IDs and are registered. Many of us who volunteer have registered thousands of voters. That is what grass roots organizing can accomplish. It does, however, require actually wanting the poor, elderly, disabled, and people of color to vote.

[Ken Burch]

23. I don't support replacing Democratic primaries with caucuses. Never have.

I'd personally prefer all states had primaries...with same-day registration and re-registration.

And I fully agree with you about the importance voter registration, re-registration, and re-credentialing to register and wanting the poor to vote. Everybody on the left agrees with that. Everybody who supported any 2016 Dem presidential candidate agrees with that(ok-everybody but the eight people who were gonna vote for Webb. Those folks are the ones who don't want the poor to vote). That's part of the reason some of us are so outspoken about economic justice and income inequality-addressing those issues helps the poor more than anybody else. They aren't the only issues that matter to the poor, but they are essential to any fight against poverty.

My only disagreements with your post there are with the implications that Hillary was cheated by the caucuses and without the caucuses Bernie's campaign wouldn't have gone anywhere at all.

HRC's campaign did badly in caucuses in '08-the caucuses were where she lost the nomination to Obama. People who were going to run her campaign in '16(let's face it, she was always going to run again that year and everybody knew it)knew caucuses had been the Achilles' Heel in '08, had EIGHT YEARS to re-shoe that heel and somehow failed to do so. They didn't even do the simple, logical thing and hire the people who ran Obama's caucus operation in '08-since Obama's pros were always going to be pro-HRC in '16, it should have been easy to bring his caucus team onboard. Yet they didn't. Nor did they use the influence they had in the process with an obviously pro-Clinton DNC chair to end or at least limit the number of caucuses.

So it was never an injustice that Obama OR Sanders generally beat HRC in the caucuses. It was just the breaks. And the existence of the caucuses in 2016 doesn't mean the support Sanders received wasn't legitimate and widespread.

If we are to win in '18 and '20, we can't nominate anyone from '16, and we need to engage the Sanders coalition and include its economic vision(combined with an anti-social oppression agenda even stronger than our strong '16 message in our program and a foreign policy based on getting into fewer wars and not taking the side of the global rich against the global poor). I'm talking there solely about the economic vision and the supporters, NOT Bernie himself as nominee-he'd be 79 then, he still wouldn't be trusted by those who distrusted him in '16, and I truly think he doesn't even want to run for president again.

[JI7]

24. she lost to Obama in the South which were mostly Primaries .

[BainsBane]

34. There is no implication

Last edited Tue Jul 25, 2017, 06:19 AM - Edit history (1)

My only disagreements with your post there are with the implications that Hillary was cheated by the caucuses and without the caucuses Bernie's campaign wouldn't have gone anywhere at all.

Don't project your own obsession with the primaries or members of the political elite on to me.
My concerns are voting rights and voter participation. No politician's career will ever become more important to me than a commitment to voting rights and voter access. The effort to replace primaries with caucuses is the same as the voter ID push. The point is to limit the electorate so that those promoting those changes get the results they want. I rather have every single citizen vote for someone I despise than have fewer people vote for my preferred candidate. That has been my view as a long as I can remember, and it's not going to change based on a party primary in one year.

Nor was Clinton "cheated" in caucuses. She won the majority of them. Given your relentless obsession with the 2016 primary, I would think you should at least familiarize yourself with the results.

[Ken Burch]

47. I wasn't the one claiming caucuses were unfair to HRC.

Last edited Tue Jul 25, 2017, 02:24 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't think they were.

What I was referring to there was the lie that caucuses somehow gave the other candidate an unfair advantage. They didn't. It was just that that candidate had a better caucus operation and thus won more delegates than some people felt that candidate should win.

The caucuses are a bad system...but the only valid reason to change them is to replace them with an inclusive system, not to stick it the supporters of a past candidate who did better than you think that candidate had a right to do.

And if not refighting means nobody should still be claiming we should have nominated someone else, it should equally mean that nobody should still be arguing that the runner-up in the primaries shouldn't have been allowed to run or should have felt obligated to withdraw after Super Tuesday. The result in November would have been exactly the same if our nominee had been nominated without significant opposition, and would still have been the same if that candidate had run on a less progressive platform.

After Occupy, there HAD to be an anti-corporate candidate. There had to be someone running who reached out to the spirit of that movment. The times required it.

And I supported HRC in the fall(as did most supporters of that candidate), which proves I'm not hostile to her or refighting the primary.

We all agree on voter registration and re-registration. There's no debate on that, and nobody is saying the party should try to win the votes of working-class whites INSTEAD of trying to make sure that people of color can vote

Please stop acting as if there are disputes where there aren't, as if only some of us are antiracist and antioppression. We're united on those issues now and most of us always were.

[Gothmog]

70. Caucuses are not democratic and are easy to game

Why not abolish all caucuses. Texas got rid of the Texas two step in 2016 and things were a little smoother.

[BainsBane]

89. I didn't mention any candidate

Reread my initial post to you. I never said caucuses were unfair to Clinton. Nor do I think it. That you shape your positions on issues based on what you think favors a particular member of the political elite doesn't mean everyone else does.

I was talking about voting rights. Caucuses have the lowest voter turnout in the country because those who have to work, are ill, disabled, too old to get out, or have child care to deal with. I don't give a shit which politicians are favored by open access to the ballot. Citizens rights come first.

Clearly the idea that anyone would care about principle or key democratic rights and values rather than reshaping their worldview to promote a particular politician's career is beyond your comprehension.

It is impossible for you to discuss issues, isn't it? Everything for you is about that damned primary and Hillary vs. Bernie. The irony is that you lecture DU that isn't not about individuals, when you make every discussion about it. Clearly that reflects your value that the political elite are what matter most. I do not now and will never share that value system.

[Ken Burch]

91. I agree with you about voting rights and the issues involved in caucuses.

Caucuses have problems. They always did. But almost none of the people denouncing caucuses this year were saying anything about them before this year. Before 2016, people like Howard Dean never said a damn thing about the caucuses.

The only valid reason to be anti-caucus is protecting the democratic process. No other reason should be part of it.

You know perfectly well that I accepted the results of the nominating process. I only mention the primaries when unfair things are said about the campaign I was involved in. You do the same when things you feel are unfair are said about the campaign you were involved.
This thread wasn't about the primaries at all. Neither are any of the threads I've started since the end of the primaries. They are about nothing but the future direction of the party.

Let's just agree that both candidates were legitimate and that both had broadbased support and leave it at that. OK?

[Gothmog]

72. I was a caucus leader for the Obama team in 2008

We had extensive training on how to game the caucus process. Caucuses are not democratic and there are some nasty games that can be used to distort the results. The Obama people did a great job of using game theory in Texas where he lost the primary but won the caucus stage of the Texas two step.

I am happy that we got rid of the Texas two step.

[Ken Burch]

86. OK. And I'm not a defender of caucuses as a system.

I think we should have nothing BUT primaries-with same-day registration or re-registration for the presidential ballot in all primary states.


What bothers me is the repeated insistence that the Sanders campaign was nothing without the caucuses.

That insistence is refighting the primaries if anything is, and there's no reason for anybody, at this late date, to be belaboring the role of the caucuses in '16. We should be past that now.

In addition to the primaries, the Sanders campaign won several primaries, and lost several others by only narrow margins, and if it had been an all-primary nominating process there's no reason to think that campaign wouldn't have run just as strongly. It's just as easy to organize people to blockwalk(or canvas--blockwalking and canvassing are simply different regional terms for the same thing)and phonebank for a primary as it is to get enough folks to show up for a caucus.

If there's no reason to be saying we should have nominated someone else-and there isn't any such reason-there is equally no reason to be trying to retroactively argue that Bernie's support in the nominating process wasn't real, or to blame the Sanders campaign for the November result when it bore no responsibility for it.

Not refighting the primaries should mean not tearing EITHER former candidate or their supporters apart, and it should mean not trying to retroactively delegitimize either candidate. Both candidates had strong and real support and both had a legitimate place in the contest.

Contrary to your repeated false accusations, I don't WANT Bernie or anyone else to "take over" the party-what I've called for was a blend of the Clinton positions on social justice and the Sanders positions on economic justice. There is widespread support for egalitarian economic policies and measures to make it easier to unionize your workplace, something on the lines of a second New Deal-without the devil's bargains with white supremacism that marred the original New Deal.

You are right to say that certain parts of the Democratic base didn't support Sanders. That is a truism. But they didn't refuse to support him for the reason you seem to imply. Those groups are not to his right on economics.

What those groups found objectionable in the Sanders campaign were what sounded like a lack of strong commitment to standing up to institutional racism and other forms of institutional social oppression. They weren't and aren't against economic justice-why WOULD they be? It's not as though people of color, women, LGBTQ people, Muslims and immigrats, in addition to being victims of social oppression, aren't also victims of economic oppression. They just wanted their particular concerns included and had every right to want that.

[Bettie]

66. Well, how do we get the REPUBLICANS who are in charge of all of that

to address the issue? There is a huge problem there.

We can be upset, angry, enraged about it all we want, but the cold fact is that we have no power to change it until we win some state elections. So, how do we do that, knowing that our votes will be suppressed and that machine counts are not being nudged to our side?

[0rganism]

22. after 4 (or, heaven forbid, 8) years of Trump & friends the platform will need to change

to reflect necessary repairs to the damage our "elected" arsonists have done to our already-shaky infrastructure, and go about making us a 1st-world country again.

[yuiyoshida]

29. You know I wouldn't be surprised if science proved there to be

infinite Earths, and unfortunately we will never experience what life would be like had Hillary won the Presidency, but some where, in another dimension, there are people very happy with the outcome of the election.

[delisen]

30. HRC seems to have really gotten under your skin.....

and I though Republicans were obsessed.

What do you personally want in terms of vision and policy? -without reference to Sanders or Clinton.

[onetexan]

32. +1

we shouldn'nt make such bold statements on the subject line given its clearly a personal preference. many of us would gladly vote for Hillary again any day.

[Gothmog]

73. Yep

[Ken Burch]

103. A much stronger economic justice program

one that challenges corporate power and the idea of mostly deferring to what business wants.

A much stronger social justice program that acknowledges that there isn't really a bitter rivalry between the social justice and economic justice movements, that recognizes the two justice movements are distinct, but related, and in agreement on the vast majority of issues, with remaining points of disagreement to be worked out through dialog.

A notion of Americanism that recognizes that all citizens and would-be citizens are equally American and that the beliefs and ideals each American holds are all as American as those of the "mainstream" or of any other individual.

A foreign policy that accepts that, while we need to defend our country from external attack, we've done about all we can at the moment with military interventions in other countries or with the further construction of nuclear weapons.

An international economic and military vision that recognizes that we, as a country, have no right to try to force other countries to put our economic needs ahead of the needs and dignity of their own populations, and that it's not our place to try to force other countries to adopt OUR economic model.

And a willingness to actually defend the idea that a lot of things(the fight against poverty, the protection of the climate, the conditions people live under)require both the use of government, and the involvement of people working from below for reasons other than short-term individual gain, and therefore CANNOT be left at the mercy of market values.

That is largely the same list of things I've believed in and worked for throughout my life.

[delisen]

109. Thank you Ken for posting your ideas.

[Ken Burch]

110. Thanks for your courteous response

Since Philly, all I've been trying to do here is present ideas. Nothing else.

I only used the names as points of reference.

[LenaBaby61]

33. "And we can't win in 2018 or 2020 simply by saying "we only lost in 2016 because of ..."

"we"




Anyway .....

[Ken Burch]

55. And a side-eye from Oprah gif proves WHAT, exactly?

I agree(we ALL agree)that we need to be speaking out about what Comey and the Russians did.

And fighting voter suppression.

But those aren't the only things that matter.

[BainsBane]

35. Question

Why did you pick today of all days to repost this?

Chuck Schumer came forward with a series of policy proposals progressives had previously supported, only to be met with condemnation. I can't help wonder if pretending that the party refuses to change is to help progressives feel better after the trauma of seeing someone they despise come out in favor of positions they supported until today?

[Ken Burch]

60. Coincidence. I hadn't known Schumer had put out the proposals that day.

I was helping my elderly mother move into a senior center and not focusing on the news. I posted that on a break.

I'm glad Schumer came out with the proposals. It's a good start.

To be fair, Schumer is disliked and distrusted by a lot of progressives because he was known as a guy who, on a personal level, treated progressive activists in his home state with contempt and dismissal. He's an effective senator and the right minority leader for the moment, but it's natural that, given his past, some people might have issues with him on a personal level.

I give the guy his due for at least listening to what's happening out there.

[nikibatts]

37. I will just drop this here: Remember how Bill Clinton, Al Gore, were treated by Democrats here?

Remember how Clinton and Obama have been treated here?
It's not just Hillary, it's about how we use our differences to either support or trash our own. It's not usually about what we fight for, it's about how we fight for it. When we fight together instead of fighting each other, we win. When we support good or better strategies, though not our own, we win. When we support the good instead of the perfect we win. When we learn to treasure ALL of our previous candidates and past Presidents instead of trashing them, then we will be recognized as unstoppable and unified Democrats. There is strength in that recognition. If we are not in a position to recognize this about ourselves, no one else will.

[Blue_Tires]

38. There's only one goddamn thing we need to do in the future

Last edited Tue Jul 25, 2017, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)

and that's show up at the polls (and I'm not just talking every four years, either)... End of story.

Everything else is just noise.

EDIT: Oh, and for all those Dems who decided to pout and stay home? Congratulations, because today belongs to you -- Own it!

[still_one]

39. So it is ok to blame the Democratic party for the loss, but under no circumstances should we bring

up the Comey interference, the media's double standard coverage, the constant undermining of Hillary by the media, along with some of those self-identified progressives who never missed a chance to dis Hillary, President Obama, or the Democratic party.

The issues were never more clear during this campaign, and what was at stake. I remember more than once being belittled by commenting that if for no other reason, the Supreme Court should be enough of a reason to vote Democratic.

The self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary, along with the 47% who couldn't bother to vote are the reason we are where we are today, and the ultimate blame is laid at their feet.

Every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican, and most of those Democrats were progressive.

The bullshit line, "I need to have a reason to vote for someone", doesn't hold water. The Supreme Court wasn't reason enough? Healthcare wasn't reason enough? Women's rights, Civil Rights, workers rights, environmental rights, etc. weren't reason enough?

[betsuni]

40. +1

[NurseJackie]

42. Great post. Excellent observations. (Thank you.)

It appears that you're seeing the same things I'm seeing... only... you're able to explain it and describe it better than I can.

[still_one]

43. Thank-you, but you are far more articulate than I will ever be

[Ken Burch]

58. I've never once said that we shouldn't talk about the Russians and the Comey effect

I've never said or even implied(and to my knowledge nobody on our side of the spectrum has ever said or implied)that we shouldn't be fighting voter suppression.

We're all agreed on those things.

It's just that those aren't the only things that matter.

OK?

[NurseJackie]

75. So what? I never said or even implied that you did.

LOL!

[Paladin]

44. Bullseye. Thank you so much.

Enough of the endless Democrat-bashing in general, and the Hillary-bashing in particular. Hasn't enough damage been done?

[Blue_Tires]

50. +1

[HughBeaumont]

51. There's also "Donald Trump as President is the opposite of a smart idea".

Ultimately, the people to blame for Donald Trump are the voters who thought it'd be a great idea to have that know-nothing asswipe run our country, with the flimsy and downright stupid reasoning that "we need to shake things up". THAT'S who I blame.

[Ken Burch]

61. I totally agree with that.

I campaigned for HRC all fall and spend tons of time saying that to people.

[Ken Burch]

52. Of course not. I never said not to bring those up. Not once.

It's just that it doesn't do us any good to act as if those factors were the ONLY reasons we had the results we had.

And that we can't win next time just by saying "we only lost the EC because of Comey and the Russians". There are almost no voters that will swing to us from the Right or nonvoters who will become voters just because of those two factors.

The main things I'd change for next time would be

1) Avoid an ad campaign based mostly on attacking Trump-instead, focus ads and social media almost exclusively on what we have to offer, and making sure voters know what is in the platform. This campaign proved that negative ads can never work against Trump.

2) If there is a runner-up who made a strong showing, do ads that reach out to that candidate's supporters and validate their work in the primary, emphasizing that voting for the nominee is the best way to work for what they fought for in the spring. That isn't about pandering to those who say "give me a reason to vote", its about not treating the people who supported the runner-up as though they were nothing but losers who should just shut up and get in line. What's the harm in treating all the voters we need with respect, rather than just demanding their votes? Who or what is harmed?

3) Get the nominee personally to every state where the margin between candidates is 5% or less-EVEN if its a state where we're in the lead-as opposed to taking the candidate to states where we've never won.

You are right that we had a lot to offer and that the choice was clear. All I've done there is to suggest more effective ways we could communicate that in the future. Do you actually disagree with anything I've suggested above?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

56. Please stop

making sense.

[betsuni]

41. If a Hillary Clinton falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[JHan]

76. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[Gothmog]

63. Strengthening third parties or weakening the Democratic Party are not viable options

Change for the sake of change alone is not a smart way to proceed. Adoption of platforms that have been rejected by Democratic voters is also not a great way to proceed.

I prefer to live in the real world where there are problems that need to addressed. Again change for the sake of change sake alone is not a viable path forward in the real world. If you want to propose specifics, please do so.

[JHan]

77. ++++

[Ken Burch]

92. And I don't support weakening the Democratic Party. What I support would strengthen it.

Don't ever accuse me of not living in the real world again. I'm as realistic as you are and as committed to dealing with short-term problems as you are. Doing so doesn't require a person to check their convictions at the door or to believe that nothing matters but winning elections for the SAKE of winning elections.

You are not entitled to lecture me on reality and participation in the moment. I've been active in politics for decades, in every role a person could play in a campaign.

Why are you obsessed with me anyway?

[Gothmog]

93. Strengthening third parties is a really stupid idea that would hurt the Democratic party

None of your proposals would work in the real world and each of these proposals would hurt or weaken the Democratic Party significantly in the real world.

[Ken Burch]

95. Actually, that's not true.

What doesn't strengthen us is the idea of shouting progressives down and trying to browbeat them into supporting the blandest, most centrist policies possible.

My suggestion for pr in legislative and Congressional elections would create an outlet for people who can't handle some of the limits our party imposes, while setting up potential alliances between our party and others that might be more progressive.

It helped massively in the Thirties, with things like fusion voting between the Democrats and the American Labor Party in New York.

That kind of alliance created most of the economic ideas of the New Deal.

The devil's bargains with the Southern segregationists, on the other hand, were made unavoidable by the committee system in Congress and the disproportionate political weight the Electoral College gave and continues to give the white South.

[Gothmog]

120. Ken, your policies do not make any sense in the real world

Last edited Thu Jul 27, 2017, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Weakening the Democratic Party by promoting third parties is an idea that will not work in the real world. I actually work with my state and local parties and your concepts will not work in the real world. Your claims about how the party system works are simply wrong.

I like living in the real world and working in the real world on making things better.

[still_one]

138. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Last edited Thu Jul 27, 2017, 10:00 PM - Edit history (1)

[NurseJackie]

140. You're reading my mind.

[JustAnotherGen]

139. I agree

I'm in very deep in local elections - and pushing 3rd party in a huge year for VA and NJ is not good.

It's party first in 2017 - after we win we can have grand philosophical discussions.

[Gothmog]

142. Weakening the Democratic party is a really dumb idea

Pushing third parties makes no sense in the real world

[WoonTars]

71. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle...

Woulda, coulda, shoulda helps no-one but the gop.

We need to focus on the future, the republicans are voting to literally year this country apart....they have to be stopped!!!

[RandySF]

80. I'm partial to O'Malley for the moment.

[samnsara]

81. we dont deserve her..:(

[Willie Pep]

84. Clinton gets too much of the blame for 2016.

Th truth is we have been getting our butts kicked at the state and local level since 2010 and that is our biggest problem. After 2008 the Republicans and right-wing billionaires like the Koch brothers regrouped and decided on a strategy to contest every office they could at the state and local level. This was a great plan because it gave them power over redistricting and voting laws which is how we got the gerrymandering and voter suppression problems we have now.

The Democrats fell asleep at the wheel. We thought that changing demographics would deliver us easy victories and didn't notice the Republican plans to make a comeback after the disastrous Bush II administration. Part of our problem is too much of a focus on the presidency while allowing the states and Congress to fall to the GOP.

Even if HRC won she would have been totally stymied by the GOP Congress. Clinton would get nothing passed and would probably have to deal with politically-motivated witch hunts into supposed corruption. The GOP base would eat it up since they have had it in for HRC for almost 30 years.

We have to rebuild organizations on the ground level and match the Republican machine with out own version of machine politics. I know "machine politics" brings up images of corruption and Tammany Hall but the fact is that the Republicans are currently practicing machine politics and winning. We need to at least match them organizationally to have any hope of winning.

See: https://newrepublic.com/article/135686/soul-new-machine

[Ken Burch]

101. I agree with all that you said there about what we need to do.

Last edited Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:03 AM - Edit history (1)

And I don't personally blame her. I assign responsibility for the result to the flawed strategic decisions that occurred in the campaign-particularly the decision that most of the campaign ads should be attack ads about Trump.

We knew immediately that the attack ads weren't working. Why ever bother doing a second round of them when the first round failed?

The ads should have been about nothing but our proposals and our platform.

We'd have won the EC if we'd just focused on winning the argument.

[NurseJackie]

141. Woulda shoulda coulda... finding fault, laying blame and looking backward again?

Yawn.

[Ken Burch]

145. Not finding fault and laying blame...pointing out problems.

Nothing I've said in response to the election was a personal attack on anyone, including you.

What is so terrible about saying we should do some things differently next time?

It's not as though there's any case for simply re-running the exact same campaign, after all.

I want us to win, and win FOR the things you and I care about.

That is the only reason I've posted any of the things I've posted since November.

[NurseJackie]

146. Looking backward is not looking forward ...

... and yes you are looking backward. What good purpose does that serve?

#####
"Nothing I've said in response to the election was a personal attack on anyone, including you."
##### 
LOL! Who said anything about "personal attack" (other than you?) Why defend yourself against an imagined accusation that nobody actually said?

[Ken Burch]

147. You referred to "laying blame".

Generally, that is taken to mean that a particular person or persons are going to singled out for criticism and attack.

I'm not talking about people...I'm simply talking about some choices-some decisions that happened to be made.

I don't really care who made the decisions...it's the decisions themselves we need to make sure aren't repeated in the future.

For some reason, you take this all personally, as if I was calling you out or other people out personally.

I'm not calling ANYBODY out.

And unless you were the one making those choices(as far as I know, you weren't), I'm no talking about you OR about anything you did.

[NurseJackie]

148. Yes... actually you were laying blame.

That's looking backward. It serves no good purpose.

[Ken Burch]

151. We have to acknowledge what didn't work last time if we are to do better next time.

It's not as though the voters will reward us for insisting that no bad choices were made.

And we have nothing to gain from working on the assumption that we shouldn't do anything differently.

Campaigns aren't run by popes...no one expects campaigns to be infallible.

[NurseJackie]

155. Actually... we have to acknowledge that looking back is not the same a moving forward.

In the real world of politics, nobody is doing the things you're claiming. Nobody.

Quit looking backward. Quit finding fault and assigning blame. Move forward, Ken. It's time. Seriously.

That's all I'm saying. It serves no good purpose to keep obsessing about the past.

[Ken Burch]

158. I'm not obsessing about the past. I'm not refighting. I'm not attacking anybody

And you have no reason to keep telling me or anyone else here to shut up.

What I'm doing IS "looking forward".

"Looking forward" means looking for ways to do better.

It doesn't mean never questioning anything or suggesting anything new.

And it doesn't mean pretending the result was solely due to Comey and the Russians.

I could understand your response if I was saying we should listen to the JPR maniacs...but that isn't what I'm saying at all.

I'm just calling for respectful dialog and a willingness to listen to constructive critique and positive ideas.

We have to have those if we are going to move forward.

It's impossible to move forward by pretending nothing went wrong.

[NurseJackie]

161. Look forward, Ken. Look forward. Stop focusing on the past.

And you have no reason to keep telling me or anyone else here to shut up.

LOL! You have no reason to accuse me of saying things that I haven't said. Why do it? Please stop making false accusations. I have never said that to you. Never! Not once! Not ever! Never!

You've said before that you want me to respect you... but honestly, Ken... it's hard to respect someone who makes false accusations about me. Respect is earned, not demanded. So, my suggestion to you is to please stop making false accusations about me. No good can come of it.

What I'm doing IS "looking forward".

No. I have to tell you, that what you often do is look backward. And I'm not the only one who's telling you this. Others see it too. Your posts speak for themselves. Those posts focus on the past, they look to lay blame and find fault. It's repetitive and tiresome. It accomplishes nothing.

Looking backward is NOT the same as looking forward. Focusing on the past is NOT the same as looking to the future. I know it's difficult to let go, but it's time to move on. No good can come from remaining still, looking back and focusing on the past.

I'm just calling for respectful dialog and a willingness to listen to constructive critique and positive ideas.

Honestly, frankly... the "ideas" you're putting forth are actually old-ideas and have already been rejected by the voters. All I'm saying is that it serves no good purpose to live in the past and to cling to the old ideas.

We need NEW ideas. Things that make sense in the real world of today's politics. It does no good to focus obsessively on the past.

It's impossible to move forward by pretending nothing went wrong.

Nobody is pretending that, Ken. NOBODY. It's unclear to me why you believe this is happening, or why you think it's a big problem... but please allow me to reassure you that NOBODY in the real world (ie: people who are actually involved in politics outside of being ''keyboard warriors'') believes that "nothing went wrong". NOBODY believes that. Your fears and accusations do not match reality.

[Ken Burch]

162. I'm "looking forward" as much as you are.

Stop reposting that phrase to me over and over. In isolation, it means nothing at all.

The only ideas from '16 that I've argued should be part of the future are the economic justice agenda. Those ideas remain popular. Many of the supporters of our '16 nominee supported them.

I don't even think the candidate I supported should run again. I don't have a candidate at this point.

Which of those economic justice ideas, as ideas in their own right, do you feel are unacceptable? Which would you fear?

None of them actually conflict with the need to fight against social oppression. None of them exclude women, people of color, LGBTQ people or immigrants. All of them, in fact would benefit the Democratic base more than anybody else as far as I can see.

All I've said is that those ideas should be accompanied by a stronger commitment to social justice than some saw in my candidate, combined with newer ideas as they emerged.

See? No diabolical plot there. No hidden agenda. No harm. Nothing you have any reason to keep shushing me about.

Look...if you have this much of a problem with the things I post here, why don't you just put me on ignore?

[NurseJackie]

163. Look forward!

Stop reposting that phrase to me over and over. In isolation, it means nothing at all.

I'm not posting anything "in-isolation". Sorry to hear that my posts make you uncomfortable and that you don't like being challenged. I'm being as polite as I can be and I'm just stating the facts.

"Look forward" is actually a very positive and hopeful message. There's nothing at all wrong with it. Why would anyone object to it? I fail to comprehend your particular objection/s to it.

Look...if you have this much of a problem with the things I post here, why don't you just put me on ignore?

Look, yourself. Tell me now, why would I want to do that? I think the "ignore" feature is a rather childish "solution". It's an immature response to people who are incapable of interacting with others or who feel threatened by others. So, I ask you Ken, what good purpose does it serve me to do that to you?

I don't even think the candidate I supported should run again. I don't have a candidate at this point.

Okay. So what? I don't care. It's of no interest to me. You're the only one bringing that subject up. I said nothing about it, yet you keep mentioning it over and over again.

See what I mean. I'm just saying that this is just another example of looking backward, focusing on the past, imagining things that never happened, making accusations that aren't true. It serves no good purpose... so why do it?

See? No diabolical plot there. No hidden agenda. No harm. Nothing you have any reason to keep shushing me about.

False accusations again. I've never, not once, NEVER made any such accusations toward you. Please stop. It's not conducive to having an adult and real world conversation.

Have a great week, Ken!

[Ken Burch]

164. You aren't "challenging" anybody. You are talking down to people and treating them like children

An actual challenge would be to engage people on the level of ideas...you have almost never done that.

I'd welcome an actual discussion from you...an actual conversation on the level of mutual respect. Instead, you've basically tried to ridicule me everybody even minutely to the left of your personal comfort zone into simply not posting anymore.

Why exactly do you feel entitled to take that tone with me or with anybody else. You aren't superior to anyone else here. You aren't above having to treat other people with the basic level of respect everybody here is entitled to.

Why do you give people you disagree with the "go away, little boy" treatment. Nobody you do that do here has done anything to deserve it.

And I've proven I'm looking forward. "Looking forward" doesn't mean never questioning anything and never suggesting that things be done differently in the future.

I'm not personally attacking anybody. I'm not disrespecting anybody. I'm not doing anything negative here at all.

When things go badly for a party in an election, that party(whichever party it might be)ALWAYS examines its choices during the campaign. As far as I know(and I've been involved in election campaigns since 1976) that is the only way for any party that does badly to do better in the next election.

That's ALL any of the people who've posted on the fall campaign have tried to do, Jackie. That's all.

It's the only way to "Look Forward".

You have no reason to try to shut people up for doing that. It's positive thing to do.

If we don't do that, what hope do we have of doing better?

We can't flip Congress in '18 or retake the White House simply by being "Not Trump". Why even try?

[NurseJackie]

165. Making false accusations about me is very negative...

... I've done nothing to deserve that kind of treatment.

My best advice is to look forward and to stop wasting time by focusing on the past and laying blame. There's a big difference between learning from the past and dwelling on it or obsessing over it. No good can come from continually looking backward.

Look Forward! Obsess about the future not the past.

PS: It's always been my belief that respect must be earned. I'm just trying to be clear when I say that I do not respond to threats or demands.

[Ken Burch]

166. I made no threats against you and I never would.

And I've made no false accusations. You've treated people to the left of your comfort zone like this for years...not even debating the issues, just chanting meaningless phrases, doing contemptuous insulting smilies and treating those who disagree with you like they are somehow inferior to you.

I've done nothing but make positive suggestions. I've acted out of nothing but positive intent. That's the case with pretty much all of the people you've treated in this dismissive way.

Of the suggestions I've made, which do you actually disagree with?

[NurseJackie]

167. I don't deserve this...

... I'm so tired of the insults and threats and demands and false accusations. I don't understand why anyone feels entitled to treat me this way.

[Ken Burch]

168. I've mostly treated you with courtesy.

All I've done here is to point out the way you treat others. I'm not the only person who's noticed it.

Why don't you actually discuss what it is that you disagree with in terms of the ideas of other people.

Why don't you simply debate?

Everyone here deserves to be engaged with on the merits of their ideas.

[NurseJackie]

169. Look forward, Ken.

I'm not going to "debate" the past. That's a waste of time. It serves no good purpose. My main concern is to focus on real world solutions ... not looking for scapegoats. Being realistic is better than being idealistic in my opinion so that's what I strive for. Why are you opposed to that? And don't forget ... respect is earned, not demanded. Look forward. Look forward. Embrace the future. Discard the past. Don't keep holding on to yesterday and rejected ideas. Don't stop thinking about tomorrow. Yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone!

[NurseJackie]

170. Another false statement about me...

You've treated people to the left of your comfort zone like this for years

Saying "years" is absolutely false. Not correct. I haven't even had my 2nd anniversary yet. I can only say that half-truths, veiled insults, and misleading statements are not conducive to the "discussion" or "debate" that some here often claim to be interested in. That's unfair to me and I hope that the people who make false statements about me will stop. What good purpose does it serve? I don't deserve to be treated like this by you or anyone else.

All I know is that for some people here, a little introspection and self-examination might be a good thing. I've often read complaints from some users who resent being "talked down to" or "treated like a child"... and I'm sure that must be an annoying thing. But all I'm saying is that those who say such things, if what they're experiencing is ongoing and continual, they might find the answers from within by examining their own behavior and attitudes. That's all I'm saying. Nothing nefarious about that. There's no conspiracy here. I'm not trying to be rude, I just want to be honest and tell the truth.

[NurseJackie]

149. Here you go ... you specifically laid blame ...

#####
"I blame whoever made the major strategic decisions in the campaign..."
#####
There! See? Those are your own words where you specifically lay blame.

[Ken Burch]

150. I only said that to clarify that I wasn't attacking the nominee.

(you've known the whole time I wasn't attacking her, yet you kept falsely accusing me of that offense).

I've now rephrased the line you objected to, to avoid making it personal in even an inadvertent, oblique way, to "I assign responsibility for the result to the flawed strategic decisions that occurred in the campaign-particularly the decision that most of the campaign ads should be attack ads about Trump".

What is the point of insisting that everyone agree that the fall campaign was flawless?

What purpose does it serve to believe we could carry the Electoral College running the exact same campaign AGAIN?

[NurseJackie]

154. Yeah right. Rephrase, reword, whatever. You don't have to use the word "blame" to ...

... assign blame in these backward-looking fault-finding "woulda-shoulda-coulda" posts that you like to make. There are many synonyms for "blame" and "fault" ... the meaning is the same.

All I'm saying is that it serves no good purpose to be so obsessive about the past and to constantly look backward. You can't change the past. It's done. It's over. Time to move forward.

In the real world, the smarter thing is to look forward. I strongly suggest that you consider doing that. (Looking around and reading the replies and comments in this thread, it appears that I'm not the only one who sees it. It's not my imagination.)

(you've known the whole time I wasn't attacking her, yet you kept falsely accusing me of that offense).

No I didn't. I never accused you of any such thing. Never. It's all in your imagination. (Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else. I challenge you to cite the post in this thread and quote me, word for word, where I have accused you of "attacking her". ---- You can't, because I've done no such thing.

What I did point out (and correctly so) is that you were indeed laying blame. You even used the word "blame". When challenged, you even falsely denied you used the word "blame", then when challenged on it, when it's cited and quoted back to you, you edited it out and changed it to suit your current arguments and to comport with your denials.

So you wrote "blame" but you didn't mean "blame", eh? Now you just "assign responsibility". That is just synonymous or euphemistic way of laying blame. It's essentially the same thing! You know that, right? So do I. (I'm afraid I have to tell you that I'm not fooled. Don't underestimate my intelligence just because I'm a woman. That's insulting! I'm smarter than you think I am.)

What is the point of insisting that everyone agree that the fall campaign was flawless?

OMG! Seriously? Who TF cares? It's in the past. Quit looking backward. Focus on the future rather than the past. No good can come from obsessing about the past.

What purpose does it serve to believe we could carry the Electoral College running the exact same campaign AGAIN?

LOL! Who believes that? What evidence do you have that such a thing will actually happen? Are you a soothsayer? Can you predict the future? Are you omnipotent? Are you a fortune-teller? Why focus on the past? Why continue to look backward?

I think we can all agree that looking FORWARD is the best option. Looking backward and laying blame (or "assigning responsibility" ) serves no good purpose. Picking scabs and opening wounds serves no good purpose. So why do you do it? Please stop.

[Ken Burch]

156. We can only look forward if we are open to doing things differently

It's not possible to look forward by saying we can't discuss anything, if we can't have honest conversations about anything.

We look forward by just saying "it was Comey and the Russians".

All that I'm doing is about making positive, practical change within the party-change that will enable us to do better next time.

I'm not campaigning for anybody. I'm not calling for anything like a "takeover". I want a process of dialog and discussion, where constructive suggestions made in a spirit of honesty and sincere good will are welcome.

That's the only reason I've posted any of the things I've posted since we came back after the site crash.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that's all it's about with me?

And I've worked in politics for decades, so I've never done anything to deserve this "in the real world" crap. Being in the real world doesn't have to mean being a dismissive centrist.

[NurseJackie]

160. Focusing on the past isn't moving forward.

We look forward by just saying "it was Comey and the Russians".

Yes we can. That's a fact that can't be changed.

I'm not campaigning for anybody. I'm not calling for anything like a "takeover". I want a process of dialog and discussion, where constructive suggestions made in a spirit of honesty and sincere good will are welcome.

So? Who said you were? Nobody is saying that... so why are you defending yourself against accusations that NOBODY has made against you?

That's the only reason I've posted any of the things I've posted since we came back after the site crash.

Looking backward and focusing on the past will get you nowhere in the real world.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that's all it's about with me?

It's not really my place to accept you, is it? Frankly, I have no opinion about you one way or the other, Ken.

What I'm saying is that, to me, you're just an anonymous stranger on the internet. It is what it is, it's neither good nor bad. I don't really think about you all that much in real life. I reply to you, but that's about it. Chatting and bickering here isn't the real world, so it's easy for me to not get too wrapped-up and overwrought about things.

It's a good philosophy, a realistic one that's served me well. I highly recommend it.

[helpisontheway]

98. And she should not run again

She had two chances to become president and she lost both times. She has been damaged by all of the Clinton haters. The media will never give her fair coverage. She can still support the Democratic Party without running for president. President Obama plans to help us behind the scenes. I hope Hillary finds some things that she can do to help our future candidates. Like Obama says all of them have had their day. It is time to pass the baton to the future candidates of the Democratic Party.

[BzaDem]

116. "And we can't win in 2018 or 2020 simply by saying..." Says who?

American politics is cyclical. A small percentage of Democratic voters got complacent in 2016, and Republicans were energized. Trump and Republicans in Congress are busy making sure that Democrats will be flocking to the polls in 2018 and 2020, regardless of any particular policy proposal they make. The real question is whether Republicans are energized or demoralized, which frankly has zero to do with the policies Democrats put forward.

To be clear, I'm not saying your proposals are necessarily bad ideas, or that Democrats shouldn't listen to them. I'm just saying that they are largely independent of the 2018 and 2020 outcomes.

Even more generally, people should be very skeptical of themselves when they claim that the way to win elections is for one's party to adopt one's own preferred policies. Such policies might be a great idea in the abstract, and might also be a great idea for their party to propose and enact the day they take office. But you are fooling yourself if you think they (or even most other alternatives) are electorally necessary, helpful, hurtful, or have much of an effect. Most people that actually decide elections likely wouldn't even know if the Democrats did what you proposed (let alone feel strongly one way or the other about them), or would have independent reasons to vote for Democrats regardless of what they proposed doing (within reason).

[Warren DeMontague]

117. In 2020 we will be 1/5th of the way to the TWENTY-SECOND Century.

On DU, though, it usually stays '72.... come shine or rain.

Yeah, grim tidings; it's later than we think.


And change is coming whether people can deal with it or not.

[Expecting Rain]

124. The harm is in seeing Populism as the "answer" when Populism is the problem.

For liberalism to prevail we Democrats need to embrace rationality and have real plans for leading with complex problems.

When politics gets reduced to reflexive ideological positions that rely on anger and scapegoating, the rationality that liberalism requires is tossed out the window.

We should not be the Tea Party (Green Tea Party?) of the left, or one that embraces authoritarian and totalitarian type impulses or becomes a party built around a cult of personality.

It is one thing to make heat, and another to make light. Democrats should be the party of light.

Fiat Lux.

[Orsino]

125. I think she'd be a great president...

...if she'd still have us.

[triron]

157. HRC is the legitimate POTUS

even though the media, and repukes pretend Trump "won".
Still she has no power because of this charade.

[Ken Burch]

159. She won the popular vote and would be far better in the job.

There is no scenario, however, that leads to the EC results being invalidated and HRC being sworn in after all.

I wish there was...but it can't happen.

[Demsrule86]

171. I want fresh candidates in 2020. Neither Clinton nor Sanders should run.

I don't believe Sec. Clinton plans to run in 2020. However, Sen. Sanders has indicated he may run in 2020. I hope not. I don't believe he will win a Democratic primary assuming he is permitted to change parties and run again as a Democrat which may not happen. Again neither 2016 candidate should run.