General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsToday Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) goes on then record about the Brazile excerpts!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-express-outrage-over-allegations-of-early-control-for-clinton-in-2016/2017/11/02/84e949da-c000-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.913dd8ce0547
Snip: In response to the report Thursday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a CNN interview that she believed the primary contest between Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders had been rigged. This is a real problem, she said. We have to hold this party accountable.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)influence in our elections... eh??? Clearly no respect for the voters....
Clinton was pretty much anointed by the party. Not out of the blue. She created those coalitions, but it wasn't a simple matter of her being who the voters wanted all along. Money always talks in elections, and she had a hell of a warchest, and apparently, given that she bailed the DNC out of the red, she had an inordinate amount of influence at the level of democratic leadership and it showed in the tepid way that the DNC approached the primary.
None of that is surprising or unexpected. Nor is it fair to say that influence Clinton had wasn't earned by hard work over the decades, but it is putting a thumb on the scales...it is trying to pretend the Democratic process in our party is truly democratic while it functions as anything but. This certainly doesn't add up to "had things been done differently Sanders would have won the primary." Nor does it add up to Clinton doing anything that was itself nefarious. She struck a hard bargain and got a good deal. But people have legitimate reasons for having a problem with this arrangement.
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)thank God for that-whe should move on...now I think the lesson learned is never allow Independents to run in a Democratic primary.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)decision if not all of us collectively? How would that not alienate a good portion of the base if the leadership made those decisions rather than at least putting up the pretension of a democratic process? All that would confirm is that its a small club and that the bouncers are working for those select few who own it, not the rest of us.
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)Now, votes are cast in a primary, votes are counted in a primary. One candidate wins and others lose. It is all about voting...and the Brazille bullshit doesn't change that. The primary was fair...and as another poster pointed out, there were two agreements...one before the nomination was decided and one after...not that it would have made one bit of difference if what Brazille said was true (she is a liar trying to make a new career in rightie or our revolution media) because it is all about the votes. And if you don't vote for Democrats then you get Trump and the GOP...so choose wisely.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)I know propaganda works...I know marketing and message framing does as well, but you can't have it both ways.
It would harm the party to ban people who members of the party are perfectly happy to welcome in. How could you possibly argue that that wouldn't do harm?
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)I saw the same propaganda and recognized it for what it was...I saw it on DU and in other forums...there are poster who made their last post on election eve and then were gone...I am sure they will be back in time for the next election. We are not banning anyone...but you got to join the party. We are a big tent...but to sit out and refuse to join sends a message and frankly not a message of unity. You either join or support the Democratic Party or you don't.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)an independent doesn't run against a dem in the primary. 2 dems run. If in the future he were to run in our primary, that would be the same of course.
Refusing to allow the voters in your party a choice to pick that candidate is not in the service of unity. We are doing a lot of talking past each other here. Sure, I accept that you think Sanders is a divisive force. I disagree with that...I think the root of that is elsewhere. but I accept that that is your argument. Please acknowledge that if our leadership put some sort of litmus test that prevented people like Sanders from running and getting as far as the support from our party members might take him, would itself be an incredibly divisive response. Such an action would only exacerbate any rift you see existing. Now, you can disagree with that. You can present a counter argument, but you can't just keep saying "independents shouldn't be allowed to run in our primary period" without at least addressing the concerns I brought up.
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)the contrary went back to being an independent. I am absolutely against independents running on the Democratic ticket going forward.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)If you're always ripping them down and deny the will of the party's voters- that's a clue. If you use them for your own ends and spread lies about them when you don't get what you want- that's another clue.
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)Hillary Clinton's candidacy. And they would have done the same to any Democratic candidate because Trump colluded with them. The Russians should not be allowed to influence our elections...but voters still could have recognized it for what it was...many of of us did...in the end it is votes that matter... in terms of the election process-including the primary-2016 was a typical year. People voted...votes were counted. But our elections were under assault by foreign propaganda...and that can never be tolerated.
Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #22)
LostOne4Ever This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)I find slick, focused group tested responses disrespectful.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Voters were emotionally manipulated into constant outrage and it seems many got addicted. Leads to fuzzy thinking.
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)I have learned to never take "interpretations" of Dem statements by dishonest organizations like the Hill or Politico at face value. Saying DNC needs to be accountable is not the same as buying Bullshit "rigged!" Memes.
eggman67
(837 posts)[link:http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/elizabeth-warren-dnc-rigged/index.html|]
Tapper: "Do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?"
Warren: "Yes."
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)unlikely to get my vote in 2020 primary. Nor will candidates who hide their tax returns. Bernie supporter in Primary 2016. Afraid those are my litmus tests in 2020, as I expect policy differences will be minimal, as they were in 2016.
Demit
(11,238 posts)Perhaps to qualify/clarify what she meant. I find CNN's truncating of her statement dishonest.
Kirk Lover
(3,608 posts)emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)Even though people are trying to tell me the opposite, yr assessment sounds about right given what I know about the people involved
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)BannonsLiver
(16,161 posts)emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)When your cohorts smeared Bernie for endorsing HRC as he promised he would do, we stood by him too.
While the Hill misrepresents Democrats and stirs the pot, we'll continue to stand by Warren etc.
Omaha Steve
(99,054 posts)Warren was my first choice before she said she wasn't running. Still is for 2020 too.
OS
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)Warren was villified here, at JPR, and in the fetid bowels of Reddit for her full throated support of HRC.
She was an incredible surrogate and amazing at getting under Trump's skin.
For that, she was villified as a "sell out" and worse by those ideologues. Just as Bernie was smeared and thrown under the bus by the same people.
You know as well as I do that all that happened. Those ideologues and GOP operatives posing as progressives trashed her and I will not forget that. I won't sit here and pretend that didn't happen.
It's probably irrelevant I guess, but I do not want to see Warren used and abused again by folks who want to divide Democrats. They got away with it last time but not anymore. I am super protective of Dems like Warren.
Omaha Steve
(99,054 posts)POLITICS JUN 9 2016, 10:26 PM ET
Elizabeth Warren Endorses Hillary Clinton on Rachel Maddow Show: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/elizabeth-warren-endorse-clinton-rachel-maddow-show-n589236
You really need to watch the video of Warren saying YES to the was it rigged question at the end: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/358514-warren-says-she-agrees-that-2016-democratic-primary-was-rigged-for-clinton
OS
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)I'll watch the vid tomorrow. If Warren did indeed promote the false rigged meme, it is highly unlikely I'll support her for President if she runs. I won't support anyone who promotes false "rigged" meme or any one won't release their tax returns. I guess those are my two litmus tests right now
Night Steve. Take care.
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)I do hope it isn't true.
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)BannonsLiver
(16,161 posts)Earlier I was told by a Sanders supporter Sanders supporters never had any animus at all toward Warren whatsoever. Quite laughable.
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)I've got a very low tolerance for revisionist history
BannonsLiver
(16,161 posts)emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)R B Garr
(16,919 posts)Notions dont require much verification.
VOX
(22,976 posts)Lets save the fireworks for the monsters who are destroying the country.
Cheers
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)candidate in 20.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)It's one thing to fight for influence and control of a political party. It's entirely different to trash your party and essentially ignore the will of 16,914,722 voters who saw two (or three) names on the ballot and chose the one they preferred. Unless Warren and Brazile are accusing the DNC of vote tampering, their "rigged" accusation is inconsequential to the primary outcome.
Demsrule86
(68,347 posts)that it is and was all about votes.
BannonsLiver
(16,161 posts)I absolutely will not support her in the primary. It's going to be a big field anyway. Lots of new, and more interesting candidates.
Sienna86
(2,147 posts)I appreciate Senator Warren going on record. We have to hold our party to high standards and not let this happen again. Winning seats is too important.
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)So many here don't want facts.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Some would prefer to be blind, though.
still_one
(91,937 posts)and was the favored candidate of the DNC. The RULES were the same. Hillary lost because Hillary got less votes in 2008.
2016. Bernie lost because Bernie got less votes in 2016. No one lost for any other reason. There was no rigging. If Sanders had gotten more votes he would have won, he DIDN'T
MOVE ON!!!
Omaha Steve
(99,054 posts)still_one
(91,937 posts)that I am throwing them under the bus
What an asinine thing to imply
Omaha Steve
(99,054 posts)Note it ended with a question mark.
What an asinine thing to imply!
OS
still_one
(91,937 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)I stand with Elizabeth. The party needs to be held accountable. It's time to make it more democratic. Why it okay to bash Elizabeth Warren?
still_one
(91,937 posts)disagree with someone, I am not only throwing them under the bus, but bashing them.
Interesting perspective.
I guess I must be bashing you also because I am disagree with you
Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)No one is allowed to say anything about Hillary that isn't all roses here. It's always considered bashing, even if it's true. I bet she could shoot someone on 5th ave and we'd be scolded here if we said anything about it. Such a double standard.
still_one
(91,937 posts)likewise there are post defending her, and criticizing others
Were you here during 2016? Hillary and President Obama were called every foul name in the book. It was only after that had gone on for so long that they finally changed the TOS rules.
The double standard you are referring to is a double edged sword, and it slices both ways.
You believe that it is only occurring one way, then you are being selective in your perusal, because it is rampant from all perspectives
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)dem4decades
(11,241 posts)mercuryblues
(14,489 posts)The DNC was heavily in debt and in disarray due to the mismanagement if DWS, Clinton bailed them out. In exchange they wanted some on involvement in how it was run, to make sure it wasn't run back into the ground.
Besides raising money for her campaign, Clinton also raised money for the DNC. What did Bernie do to help fund the DNC? He sued them. He wanted all the benefits, but none of the work.
In right to work states, you don't have to join a union. But if you have a grievance with your employer the union, by law, has to represent you.
Why is one ok, but not the other.
Oneironaut
(5,461 posts)I know that real life is complicated, but I wouldnt want a party where the highest donors are given preferential treatment as candidates vs. other potential candidates.
This leads to:
- Horrific corruption
- Inferior candidates who are less likely to win
Im not saying this happened in 2016 (I thought for sure Hillary would win and believe she won the nomination fairly), but we should be worried about it happening in future elections. I wouldnt want Democratic candidates to need to pay-to-play before they get the blessing of the DNC. Please talk me off the ledge if Im not understanding this correctly.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I also hope people notice the deceptive editing of the headline on that op that makes the book title appear to be something it is not. This here is deceptive as well and is parroting Trumps twitter account. Its food for those who are still extremely desperate to refight the primary.
The story is Clinton saving the party.
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)They don't even hide it anymore.
Rene
(1,183 posts)MrScorpio
(73,626 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,054 posts)Post her reply. Simple.
seaglass
(8,170 posts)the phone said they had no more information. It was simple. Guess she was just going with a "feeling." Very disappointed in her non-fact based assertions.
Omaha Steve
(99,054 posts)highplainsdem
(48,718 posts)compounding Brazile's mistake.
Sigh...
bigtree
(85,915 posts)...has better things to do than chase contrived threads from Brazille's book.
mfcorey1
(10,997 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:35 PM - Edit history (2)
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)She shouldn't have spoken out till she had the facts.
Well, I guess everyone's entitled to some mistakes.