2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow are the continuing attempts to delegitmize Bernie's campaign NOT "refighting the primaries"?
Wouldn't a TRUE "don't refight the primaries" position be "Both candidates had the right to run...one of them was nominated, the other campaigned hard for the nominee, and now the election is over, so no good comes from arguing that either of them shouldn't have run"?
We will need a unified effort from former Clinton AND former Sanders supporters in 2018 and 2020. To get that effort, both groups of supporters need to be made fully welcome. To do that, we need parity of esteem between them.
It's wrong to vilify Hillary...AND it's wrong to insist Bernie's campaign should never have happened.
To win in the future, we need to combine the best of both campaigns. Insisting that either was bogus does us nothing but damage.
In the name of the future, move on and unite.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Ignore it
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Never fails
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)you will.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)speculation from your backside?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Either keep fighting for years or recognize that 2018 will be here very soon.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)
JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)without every calling Trump a PERVERT one even ONCE during the campaign. I'll answer your question about Bernie. Is it a deal?
Hekate
(90,645 posts)She lost the Electoral College, antiquated relic of slave-holding states, because she lost rural states and former slave-states. Although they are low in population, their cumulative EC numbers are significantly greater than the urban states with high populations.
Trump was helped by FBI Director Comey, who bitterly hates Hillary Clinton and who released information that was legal garbage, as we know today.
Trump was helped by Vladimir Putin, who is thrilled to have a useful idiot in the White House. Putin's electronic fingerprints are all over the cyber attack. It was essentially an act of war. And by the way, Putin also has a vendetta against Hillary -- is it a bad thing or a good thing, in your estimation, to be hated by a ruthless cold blooded dictator?
Trump was helped by white supremacists like Bannon, who could probably teach a thing or two to Goebbels.
Trump was helped by all the states that, under GOP leadership, gerrymandered the hell out of all their congressional districts. He was helped by all the states that instituted voter suppression laws that effectively brought Jim Crow back from the grave.
The list goes on. Did Hillary really need to call the pervert a pervert herself? Or was Michelle Obama's spontaneous speech about that issue sufficient? Would HRC calling DT a pervert have turned the tide against Trump, or were the women who voted for him believing it was just locker room talk and boys will be boys, already so far gone that nothing could reach them?
Here's your "deal," but I really am tired of arguing the issue with Bernie supporters. It's too much like religion.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Amazing what they say about self-referential posts.
Hekate
(90,645 posts)Seems to be the magic word for him, like the GOP insisting that if only Obama would say "radical Islamic terrorists" real fast while standing on his head then ISIS would go away.
Response to Hekate (Reply #65)
Post removed
Hekate
(90,645 posts)Do I look like I'm trying to get peacable Bernie supporters banned? I hope not. However I do object to laying all the blame on Hillary for being a terrible no good very bad candidate when she WON by 3 million more votes than Benedict Donald, for reasons I have enumerated in one of my posts to pervert-guy.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Hekate
(90,645 posts)Never mind.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)It goes like this. Republicans and their corporate lawyers drew up a scheme to actually PAY companies to send the country's manufacturing jobs overseas and Bill Clinton signed it. These factory jobs were supposed to be replaced by high paying, high tech jobs. This is why whenever the subject of jobs comes up you will hear a democrat pivot to education and they will claim workers need to "train for the jobs of the 21st century". This blames the workers for their own job loss. Meanwhile all of those promised high tech jobs went to India. (Oops!)
Now the democrats are trapped by the rules of the game in DC to defend NAFTA which was originally a REPUBLICAN disaster. This has also led to having to argue with unions which are a major source of campaign money while bragging that they can raise more money from Wall Street than the Republicans.
Now we are in a place where members of the democratic party are talking about "the working class" as if it's beneath them.
And Liberals?
Today's crop of Democrats can play "kick the hippie" with the best of them.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)the WH. The problem goes much deeper. Democratic voters are tired of seeing Big Donors get what they want from our Party. They are tired of watching unions and minorities being taken for granted.
We need to attack the root problem of campaign finance and bust up the media and banking oligarchies. We should run on those things. We need to remind the voters that voting for Republicans has gotten them the Plutocratic President. The "job creators" will once again get huge tax breaks and create no jobs. They will continue to keep those overseas, but bring their money back tax free.
Trump and the Republicans will give us lots to campaign on and we have to be in position to take advantage. This time, lets support our candidates who refuse corporate money!
Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #102)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)That was a huge strategic mistake. It seemed like 95% of "Approved by Hillary" ads actually had nothing to do with Hillary herself, and were just about how Trump was unqualified.
The most qualified candidate in history ran a campaign entirely on why the other guy wasn't. Brutal.
Response to JoeOtterbein (Reply #7)
emulatorloo This message was self-deleted by its author.
Rincewind
(1,203 posts)the popular vote as well as the Electoral vote.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I'm not counting Hillary out just yet.
WhiteTara
(29,704 posts)and coronate the old white man as the savior of the world. Sounds like a white man's viewpoint to me.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,922 posts)No disrespect intended but I believe he was the oldest Presidential candidate ever.
79 in 2020? Can't say that's much of a future.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,922 posts)Also if Bernie wants the 2020 nomination why is he no longer a Democrat?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Also, Bernie is a LEADER in the Senate on Democratic issues, which is why Chuck Schumer is "joined at the hip" with him. So, please, let's all unite... the future of the country is at stake!!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)How are the continuing attempts to delegitimize Hillary's campaign NOT "refighting the primaries?
JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)It's a little strange.
And that PERVERT (your word/emphasis) had the FBI, Russia and the Media conspiring to help him win.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)Hekate
(90,645 posts)JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)Grey Lemercier
(1,429 posts)sheshe2
(83,746 posts)BS never had a chance to lose to the pervert. He never made it to second base. Hell, he never made it to first. He lost the primary by HUGE margins.
Response to sheshe2 (Reply #15)
Post removed
WhiteTara
(29,704 posts)compliant media and constant lies...not just from the right, but from her opponent...i.e, she not qualified to be president...which of course he had to retract. Bernie just lost to the woman because Democrats PREFERRED her to him.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)about the pervert to Hillary's emails in the days before the election. And undecided, low-info voters have very short attention spans.
And because some sexists would rather have a male pervert in office than the most experienced, intelligent, and caring woman.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #49)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Hillary had every right to have run. She was nominated. I campaigned for her, as did most Sanders supporters.
It's not delegitimization to ask a few questions about tactics and strategy, which is all I've done.
JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)Because we are telling the Truth, AND we have the will to FIGHT, on our side.
JHan
(10,173 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)… give it up already!
I’m tired of hearing this bullshit – and I don’t think I’m alone.
Bernie ran for the nomination – and he lost. By a LOT.
The Bernie supporters who need an engraved invitation to stand with Democrats against Trump and his minions are probably not worth having. And despite the popular rhetoric emanating from that crowd, they are a handful of voters who would rather carry on their butt-hurt complaining than do the right thing in any event – so who needs them?
The majority of Bernie supporters are already with us. Those who require coddling are clearly not worth the effort – nor are they reliable voters, as they can be swayed to vote for the likes of Trump or Stein at the drop of a hat.
”Wouldn't a TRUE "don't refight the primaries" position be "Both candidates had the right to run...one of them was nominated, the other campaigned hard for the nominee, and now the election is over, so no good comes from arguing that either of them shouldn't have run"?
Wouldn’t a TRUE ‘don’t refight the primaries’ position be that those who chose to stand with the Democratic nominee, for the good of the country and the Party, be all that needs be said? Why are there some (and thankfully, very few) who need to be handed an “also participated” award, singled-out for their special achievement in having supported a different primary candidate?
”In the name of the future, move on and unite.”
In the name of the future, the vast majority of us already have.
JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,922 posts)You must have missed her ads. Almost all of them replayed own words.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The guy is a creep, but I'm not sure using that specific word would have made a difference. My thought was that, if anything, our campaign spent too much time focusing on Trump's personal ickiness, and it didn't help.
JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)
mtnsnake
(22,236 posts)With an attitude like what Ken is suggesting, one of unity, we have a fighting chance.
JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)mtnsnake
(22,236 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... like constantly pushing divisiveness.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... is dead on right.
Fuck those who need to be hand jobbed to vote against an overtly racist, sexist, religious bigot who defrauds others.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What I'm talking about is the endless threads arguing that Bernie's campaign should never have happened, or that campaign caused the result in November.
If people shouldn't be arguing that Hillary should not have been the nominee, they equally shouldn't be arguing that Bernie's campaign was illegitimate and should never even have happened.
If Bernie had stayed out, the fall result would have been exactly the same.
There had been twenty-four years of continuous right-wing attacks on Hillary. An unopposed nomination and a platform with no Sanders proposals would not have counteracted the effects of those twenty-four years. It was up to the Clinton campaign to come up with an effective counter-strategy, and that campaign chose not to.
Bernie and his supporters bear no responsibility for that, and a blander primary and more centrist fall campaign would not have made any of it go away.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts).. the importance of unity. HRC supporters, and the Democratic Party as a whole, are NOT keeping Bernie supporters out of the mix - Bernie supporters are keeping themselves out by wanting to be kow-towed to.
You're either WITH the Democrats who are willing to stand united against Trump, or you are standing on the sidelines waiting to be coddled, cajoled, and told how special you are.
It's one or the other, Ken. It's time to stand up - or stand down while awaiting some kind of revered recognition for having supported the guy who lost the nomination.
We don't know how things would have played out had Bernie not run - and pretending to know serves absolutely NO purpose other than to sow division.
So please STOP with the "for the sake of unity" bullshit. You are promoting divisiveness at every turn - and you know it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What I wanted was for the fall campaign(and this could have been done with Hillary as nominee, and pretty much with our 2016 platform-adding specific "no TPP" language is the only change I called for, and no one in the party would have been harmed by that.) to have engaged the passion the Sanders supporters brought to the contest-to say to his supporters, especially his younger supporters who are still in the process of trying to decide whether to be involved in political work "you didn't get your candidate nominated, but you got a lot of things you wanted into the platform and you made a difference. If you want to keep making a difference, you can do so by working with us". And I wanted that NOT because I wanted anyone treated as a "special snowflake", but because we needed the votes of those who abstained. Reaching out to them would have increased our vote total and wouldn't have done any harm to anyone already in the party or cost us any existing voters. It wouldn't have disrespected Hillary. It would simply have been good politics.
Why is it so abhorrent to you to suggest we should ASK people, ALL people, for their votes, rather than demanding them and simply expecting people to fall in line? What is so threatening about treating support from young voters as a thing we should want and actively seek? It's as though you think running a positive campaign rather than saying "you HAVE to vote for us-the other side is evil" is the equivalent of giving up our dignity as a party.
And I have stood up. Over and over again. I don't have to say "everyone on the left was simply OBLIGATED to support our ticket, no matter what, because Trump". I tried over and over to persuade people to vote Hillary-I proved my loyalty.
It simply couldn't have increased our fall support anywhere if Hillary had faced no opposition in the primary. We can't grow our party by standing for less and keeping activists even further out in the cold. There never were any "moderate Republicans" who were going to refuse to vote for Trump, because there simply aren't any moderate Republican voters anywhere.
All I'm doing now is trying to help us win in the future. That depends on us boosting our vote total, which we can ONLY do by turning non-voters and third-party voters into Democratic voters. We can gain votes from them...we can't ever win over anyone who's to our right by going "Sistah Souljah" on the left.
And in saying that, I stand wholeheartedly with all who say that Comey should be fired, AND all voter suppression laws must be overturned, AND whatever steps possible must be taken to prevent things like Russian meddling in our election.
True Dough
(17,302 posts)I hope your detractors in this thread took the time to read this post particularly carefully. It undermines their accusations that this is just another Bernie defense trope and also makes clear that a person can actually argue Hillary was both undermined by nefarious opponents AND she could have improved her campaign. Those are not mutually exclusive points of view, as some would have us believe.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)My agenda now is simply unity in the present and victory in the future.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)While you're at it, tell them to grow the fuck up and put the country's good before their idol. It's sickening how they keep spamming their hurt feelings and "I told you so"s. Of course people will remind them they lost- and why.
Hint- it wasn't the damned TPP.
JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)Hekate
(90,645 posts)
Response to bettyellen (Reply #28)
JoeOtterbein This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)and I DO NOT NEED to be told to grow up!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)No one but rich white people would ever have benefited from it.
Hekate
(90,645 posts)I studied Asia and the Pacific while an undergrad at University of Hawai'i, but young Obama and his mother actually lived in Indonesia. It gives one a different perspective on the world.
China is a major concern going into the future, and not because Trump keeps bellowing "Gina!" while having his crap made there. Trump has no clue about China's territorial ambitions.
I listened to Obama when he spoke about the TPP, and I believe I understand his intent, which is to get as many nations as possible to agree on certain things, and to rein in China. I could be completely wrong about my understanding, and he could have been completely wrong about the putative results of the TPP, but that is my take on it.
China is laying claim to chunks of the South Pacific by building naval/air stations on coral atolls by infilling them with sand and other materials. Claiming them as sovereign Chinese territory allows China to patrol the area and lay claim to the ocean around them. Here is one article I turned up for you, though I read all about it years ago in the Los Angeles Times. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea.html
China is also up in Tibet, as you know, and claims it as a Chinese province. They are engaging in cultural genocide, something that is without dispute. But in addition to that, they are in a race to dam the Brahmaputra River, which flows into India and is a major water source for an enormous region of South and Southeast Asia across several countries. I first heard about this by going to a public lecture by an exiled Tibetan senior lama, who was easily one of the sharpest people I ever heard speak. (I remember sitting bolt upright and almost saying aloud: Dam the Brahmaputra? Shit!) Sadly, I never caught his name, because I was dragged there by an acquaintance who thought we were going to have an evening of Om, instead of a lecture on international politics. I found what he had to say MUCH more interesting than that, but I couldn't "hear" or remember his name without seeing it in print. Here is the first article that popped up just now, so you have some context. http://theconversation.com/china-and-indias-race-to-dam-the-brahmaputra-river-puts-the-himalayas-at-risk-65496
I am by no means rich, but recognizing Obama's methods over the years as being those of patiently laying groundwork so that Step 1 leads to Step 2 and so forth, I don't think TPP was ever intended as a rich man's toy, but as Step 1 in something longer term. Given China's aggression and territorial ambitions, that would be a good thing.
I hope that helps.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:47 PM - Edit history (1)
he could, at the very least, have insisted that corporations NOT be able to force countries to cut social services, reduce educational funding, and repeal strong labor, environmental and consumer protection laws by calling them "tariffs" or "subsidies".
(A tariff should be nothing other than a fee charged for the importation of goods, and a subsidy should be nothing but direct state cash payments to companies. Trade deals should never be used to let corporations force sovereign states to impose austerity, hardship, and greater social and economic inequality.)
Also, if there had to be "tribunals" in which corporations can challenge laws passed by sovereign states, they should include representatives of labor, environmental organizations, racial/ethic/religious/sexual/gender minorities, indigenous communities and the poor...otherwise, the tribunals will automatically biased in favor of corporate interests and the will of the people will more often than not be thwarted.
(The negotiating teams for each nation involved should also include members of those groups).
And once negotiated, the terms of the agreement should have been made public. There's no excuse for trying to get something of that magnitude passed without the public knowing for sure what was in it.
Making those changes in approach would not have conflicted with any of the president's objectives. It should be possible to get agreement between a variety of nations on a trade pact without making the pact a formula for greater inequality and less sovereignty.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)During the Clinton-Sanders battle, each side had a lot of people who most emphatically were not nice to people on the other side.
Each side also had a large number of adherents who maintained that the vitriol was coming almost exclusively from the other side. I personally found this myopia more annoying than the actual nasty names that were thrown at me.
My takeaway is not that people should "keep spamming their hurt feelings" for the next four years. Instead, my first takeaway is that, in future struggles, everybody should bear in mind the advice of St. Augustine: "Love men. Slay errors." We can update that to be gender-neutral, or into the somewhat more touchy-feely "Disagree without being disagreeable." My second takeaway is that, when other people fall short of that standard, everyone else should do their best to have a thick skin.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)like a DEM President, a DEM controlled Congress and a DEM appointed SCOTUS.
Hillary was a great candidate and Bernie was a great surrogate. That's is all that needs to be said.
Please please please get out of your feels. This is not about you. This is about us.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But I also know I need to get over them and not relive the primaries. The primary hurt our party in the end and I think that shouldn't be covered up, but politics is not always peaches and cream. You have to be able to take a punch in politics.
Honestly I really don't want to go on reliving the primary or the general election because it is too painful. For all of us! Those who loved and voted for Hillary are hurting because we think what could have been. Those who voted for Sanders are hurting because they are saying what could have been if he won. But we lost and Trump won and we all need to accept it.
I do think we need to discuss the future of the party and that will be seen somewhat of a proxy battle between different wings of the party. Personally I think the center and left need to be well represented in the party. We need both sides to win a national election and alienating each other like many of us did in the primary led to the nightmare we are about to go through.
Hillary and Bernie will not be our nominee in 2020. We need to learn to accept what has happened and fight the bastard that is taking over now. And hoping he screws up is not a plan.
We are all hurting and to some extent we turned on each other this year. We need to move beyond it and pick up the pieces.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It is an honest opinion and I need to practice what I preach.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Hekate
(90,645 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)I'd rather focus on policy agenda and sussing out disagreements over trade and how to refine our arguments to target wage stagnation, being a party of now and the future, sticking it to the GOP, but people persist in saying the attacks like "Corporatist shill" and all the other nonsense name-calling..
Or adopt the attitude of "Anyone who disagrees with me sucks and is bad for the party"
Cannot possibly have a fruitful discussion when framed in those terms.
emulatorloo
(44,116 posts)mvd
(65,173 posts)A young progressive who is not tied to big money - like Sanders, but younger. Bernie will be too old by then. Elizabeth Warren could run, but I prefer someone younger. We also need someone energetic. Who knows if Bernie would have won, but he very well could have in an anti-establishment year. We should prepare for that kind of year again in 2020.
I continue to believe that Clinton was not our best choice, but she still should have won. Things look good for us in 2020 if we do things right.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's crucial to move past the "Hillary vs. Bernie" dynamic.
The distinctions between them as individuals no longer matter.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)And, of course, most importantly, he's right on all progressive issues.
Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
mvd
(65,173 posts)someone fresh would be good. Bernie had a lot of followers, and it shouldn't fall all on Bernie to continue his message in office. A lot depends on their health at the time too. Bernie is in good health, which is a plus for him.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)They DO, however, need to be just as progressive on the issues... and not "Johnnie/Janie-come-latelies" like some wannabes.
mvd
(65,173 posts)If anything, some of my views are even to the left of Bernie. If it is someone progressive but has some differences I am willing to listen though. The Democrats may not nominate someone just as progressive right away, but it IS possible.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)mvd
(65,173 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Javaman
(62,521 posts)but the responses in this thread prove that your hope probably will never happen.
good try though.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
JudyM
(29,233 posts) 
TaterBake
(56 posts)Wall Street needs to be taxed, and regulated, not coddled, or hit up for cash.
Sorry, this is not a hit on Hillary, but unless we fight for regular people 100% we can't expect their votes.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It sounds a bit like a centrist "spoof" of what a pro-Sanders post would sound like.
JudyM
(29,233 posts) Forgot my email password for other account made years ago.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)To Goldman Sachs
emulatorloo
(44,116 posts)Trump won voters above 50k and voters concerned about terrorism and immigration.
Yes we need to make changes to the party, but best if we base those changes on facts rather than false narrative.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=0
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)What does "won" in that sentence even mean to you? This is not a binary and 50% of working people don't cut it. In fact, for a Democrat to only get just above 50% of people under 50K is fucking pathetic. I want 70-90 percent of that demographic.
Bottom line is too many working people who voted for Obama didnt show up this time or we let them go to the dark side.
Optics like 100k speeches and smoozing with corporate and entertainment bigwigs dont help.
emulatorloo
(44,116 posts)Opinion pieces, false internet memes don't count.
And stop pretending that Trump isn't a predatory capitalist who lied to working clsss voters.
We're gonna remake the damn party and make sure people get our message, but we're not gonna do it based on "feels over reals".
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Andtwo and four years from now, we'll have less than no time to spare.
We need strongly progressive candidates who agree on big progressive solutions that don't involve cuddling Wall Sttreet.
Beartracks
(12,809 posts).... you're still allowed to hold a grudge.
You know, like: "Unite with us or not, whatever."
======================
WheelWalker
(8,955 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I campaigned for Hillary all fall.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Which is one (just one) of the many reasons why Trump will be installed in the WH Jan 20.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And if you reinstate it, I'd respectfully request that you make a clear distinction between "refighting" and simply questioning whether we ran the best campaign we could have run in the fall.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"In the name of the future, move on and unite."
mtnsnake
(22,236 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)Gothmog
(145,130 posts)Sanders really hurt Clinton I am still mad at the number of times that trump used Sanders' claims against Clinton. Sanders' baseless charges that the system was fixed and rigged were used by trump to great effect and hurt Clinton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rigged-system-donald-trump_us_5855cb44e4b08debb7898607?section=us_politics
I think he was able to thread a certain toxic needle. But he did win, and we’re all going to pay the price.
John Weaver, aide to Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential campaign
The underlying irony for those who sought to end what they perceived as corruption is that they may well have elected a president whose record through the years and whose actions since the election signal it could be the most openly corrupt administration in generations.....
And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.
Sanders' bogus rigged process claim hurt a great deal
mtnsnake
(22,236 posts)He had a lot of momentum going but not enough to overtake Hillary in the end.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)Clinton's delegate lead after Super Tuesday was so great that Sanders had no chance of being the nominee. Sanders had little support from Jewish, African American and Latino voters who are key groups in the Democratic base. After Super Tuesday, Sanders had no chance of being the nominee and as far as I am concerned Sander misled his supporters when he claimed that he could win.
At the end, Hillary Clinton had more than four times the lead in pledged delegates over sanders compared to the lead that President Obama had over Hillary Clinton in 2008. Clinton immediately conceded and worked from after the Calif. primary to the general election. Sanders held out hope to his supporters that he could still win until just before the convention.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That's simply the truth. And the stew had been boiling since at least 1981. Bernie didn't put any ideas in anybody's heads-he didn't make anyone feel anything they didn't already feel.
It could not have been progressive or a reflection of reality to pretend that corporate power doesn't have a disproportionate role in our politics.
And we weren't going to win on an "everything is wonderful and we HAVE justice for all" message. Nobody believes that.
What we needed to say, and didn't find the way to say, in the fall was "We hear you. We care about you. We will stand with those we stand with now, AND we won't leave you behind in doing so".
And with Comey's interference, Trump might have won no matter WHAT message we offered.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)You are wrong in your attempt at analysis and your claim is simply false. I have real personal expierence here based on being a delegate to the National Convention. The Sanders supporters at the convention were convinced that Sanders was talking about the primary process and the system being rigged. Some of your fellow sanders supporters are still claiming that the DNC fixed the process and that this is the only reason why Sanders lost. Your analysis and the claims of sanders supporters who think that the DNC rigged teh process are both false.
Trump quoted Sanders accurately a number of time and these quotes were very effective.
Again, you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. Your claims are not backed up by the facts
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The primaries had often been run in a very high-handed way, and the party bureaucracy HAD basically acted as though Bernie had no right to be in the race(they didn't block him, but they did not treat him and his supporters on a level of equality with HRC and her supporters.
And, as I've repeatedly said, if ONLY the platform committee had done what the vast majority of the party wanted(and as HRC herself said in the primaries)put specific "No TPP' language in the platform, 90% of the things you saw from those delegates would not have happened.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)I was.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And I've read many, many accounts from others who were.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)I was there. I was in the delegation where 20+ of the younger sander delegates came to the delegation breakfast marching with locked arms to demand that the Clinton delegates change their votes to sanders and agree to condemn Hillary Clinton. These idiots were told that if they yelled loud enough, they could win. The Sanders young delegates were listening to the Sanders campaign up until the week before the convention.
The Sanders campaign did not vet their delegates and these delegates were poorly informed as to the process. In addition, according to the Clinton whipping infrastructure, Sanders refused to condemn these efforts and all he would do is send a text to his delegates. That worked very well. Sanders delegates bought his lies about the process being fixed and there were a number of attempts to ruin the convention that were mainly stopped because the Sanders people plotted there demonstrations on an unsecured web list. According to the Clinton whips, Sanders did not want to be too hard on his delegates because he wanted their support later. The Clinton whips let us know about each Sanders attempted disruption ten or so minutes before they occurred.
Your facts are again wrong. Facts are good things and you may want to use actual facts in your posts. I was actually at the convention and to deal with these Sanders delegates.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)Again, I was at the convention. You were not. I saw first had what happened.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I guess some find that insulting.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)
azmom
(5,208 posts)That is his crime.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)It is important to keep the Sanders campaign in mind while considering Keith Ellison as DNC chair. I feel that Ellison is disqualified and should not be DNC chair due to his support of Sanders
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)BTW...it's beginning to sound as if you think Bernie WANTED Trump to win. Please don't imply things like that.
NONE of us wanted Trump to win.
And we can't be a progressive party if we blacklist everyone who supported Sanders. Doing so leaves the corporate wing in permanent control and we can't be progressive AND pro-corporate at the same time. Nobody finds that credible.
Ally with small business, yes. Not with the Fortune 500 and Wall Street.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)Relevancy objections are always amusing and it is fun seeing non-lawyers make such claims when the practical effect of a relevancy objection is to give the other party a soapbox to explain why the claim is relevant. The issue of the campaign for DNC chair is very relevant to this thread. The premise of the OP is that we need to forgive and forget Sanders and not hold Sanders actions against Ellison. Ellison's chances will be based to a large degree on whether a large number of Democrats who are active in the party will be willing to forgive Sanders' actions. I am not willing to forgive and think that Sanders actions are relevant to the issue of whether Ellison should be DNC chair.
Sanders had no chance whatsoever of being the nominee without African American, Jewish and Latino voter support. Sander continued his campaign well after it was clear to everyone that Sanders had no chance and many democrats will not forgive or forget this.
You made the rather amusing claim on another thread that Hillary Clinton was a weak candidate because she did not wrap up the nomination by April. That attempt at analysis was amusing in that the other Democratic candidates who were in the same position as Sanders dropped out because (a) they were actual members of the Democratic Party and (b) these Democrats cared about the party. Sanders continued his campaign long after he had no chance and that hurt the party and the general election chances. Sanders is now running as an indie for Senate and his conduct during the primary and convention process cast doubts on whether he cares about the Democratic Party. I am not alone in my views on Sanders.
I am not alone in holding Sanders responsible in part for the loss. This is from one DNC member http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/keith-ellison-democratic-dnc-232613
“Ellison is not the front-runner, Ellison has no chance at all,” said Tennessee committeeman William Owen, giving voice to that view. “I’m a Hillary person. Bill Clinton said, 'I’ll be with you till the last dog dies,' and I’m the last dog. I will not vote for Keith Ellison, I will not vote for a Bernie person. I think they cost Hillary the election, and now they’re going to live with Donald Trump. Donald Trump asks, 'What do you have to lose?’ Nothing, except life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Luckily that above person is a member of the DNC and will get to vote on the new chair. Again, I and others will not be happy with a Sanders supporter as DNC chair and so I reject the premise of the OP.
George II
(67,782 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2016, 11:04 PM - Edit history (1)
.....we can't choose a DNC chairman solely because we want to retain a (diminishing) portion of his supporters. As we've seen here and elsewhere, a good number of Sanders supporters were only that because they wanted to stop Clinton.
We know that once Clinton got the nomination they flipped over to Trump. I'm sure you read other sites and see the abject venom directed toward her and the adulating praise of Trump. Do you think those people were truly "progressive" and wanted to improve the Democratic Party?
Finally, in today's political day and age a candidate and/or party can't turn their backs on people who work in this mythical monolith of "Wall Shtreet" (to quote certain Senator)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Wall Street is not mythical in terms of its influence on the political and economic system.
The tiny number of people on Wall Street who write checks to us insist that we only be progressive on issues where they won't face any personal sacrifice OR any loss of dominance over the working and nonworking poor.
BTW, in case you didn't notice, the results prove that Wall Street money doesn't do us any good. It's useless to get big donations if thre donations don't actually lead to our candidates being elected.
And there's no evidence that any large number of Sanders supporters voted for Trump in the fall. Most voted for Hillary, some for Stein, some for Johnson(that choice makes no sense to me, either). I'd say a far larger number didn't vote at all. And while they should have voted, our party's dismissive "you lost-know your place" attitude towards Sanders supporters in general did play at least some role in causing them to make that choice.
If you want people to vote for you, is it REALLY asking too much to treat them with respect and to treat what they care about with respect? It's not as if there are large groups of people elsewhere in the spectrum who voted for us but ONLY did so because Sanders people were dissed.
George II
(67,782 posts)....you should browse the FEC regulations regarding donor limits AND while you're at it check out Sanders' FEC filings.
On the surface it looks like "Wall Shtreet*" makes huge donations, but those are actually a huge number of small donations from average people who happen to work for banks (any idea how many people in NY work for banks????)
Then, there's a limit of $2700 per person and $5400 per couple on donations. THAT'S it! No one, regardless of where they work or how much they have can donate more. Period. There are no "big donations".
Next, check Sanders' FEC filings, there have been thousands upon thousands of violations due to overruns of contributions. Some single people have donated way more than the limit, some couples even further over the limit. Sure, they gave "$27 donations", but some gave a huge number of them, exceeding the FEC limits.
Not only that, his campaign accepted many donations from foreign donors, again violations.
So, you can go on about "Wall Shtreet money", but that's just an easy catch phrase to throw out to criticize someone you obviously wasn't interested in supporting.
Finally, there was no more ""you lost-know your place" than there was "you won, but we still won't support you or vote for you".
*it's not a speech impediment, it's a mispronunciation!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
George II
(67,782 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Most Bernie supporters campaigned for her and voted for her-therefore, Bernie's supporters as a group wanted her to win.
The largest single group who didn't simply didn't vote, and I don't defend their choice on that.
Joe941
(2,848 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Gothmog
(145,130 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Look at how badly Evan Bayh did in Indiana.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)your outrage is highly selective
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What I'm saying, instead, was that his campaign was legitimate and necessary and that no one should be demanding(as some seem to be) that Bernie and his supporters apologize for even trying.
emulatorloo
(44,116 posts)I would say a couple handfuls at most.
What I'm mostly hearing is that Jeff Weaver ran a scorched earth campaign for months after it was clear Bernie was not going to win the nomination.
Prior to that he ran an issues campaign. For NY and beyond the emphasis was more on character attacks.
Character smears like Weaver's "deal with the devil" statement and so on.
I don't know what I think about that argument but it has a basis in fact. Weaver did indeed switch the campaign from mostly issues based to more and more negative campaigning.
As an aside, You remember I am a Bernie supporter, and we have talked in the past about how I beleive Jeff Weaver lost Bernie the nomination by failing to broaden Bernie's coalition.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's my belief that he was the most resistant to having Bernie directly address racism in his stump speech and his ads(the speech and the ads did end up addressing racism, but not until the false "Bernie doesn't care" narrative had been established in the AA community).