You're viewing a single thread.
I will keep repeating this, Biden will be the reason Trump gets reelected. If he loves his country he needs to leave right fucking now. Democrats like him and Clinton are addicted to power. Bernie Sanders could have beaten Trump in both election but the democrats circles of power made sure to get the candidate they wanted. Old fool.
Sanders wouldn't stand a chance. Too many moderate Democrats would be terrified of the scary socialist madman.
"The scary socialist madman" accompanied by the Democratic Party apparatus? A presidential candidate Sanders along with a moderate liberal VP would have gotten both the traditional Democratic vote (as long as the party collaborated with him, rather than giving him the Corbyn treatment, which I don't trust liberals not to do) and a considerable chunk of the electorate who doesn't feel represented by either party. The day you guys understand that you don't have to fight the Republicans in traditional terms, but rather, to change the coordinates of the fight, you'll force Republicans to choose between evolving or getting buried. But the real problem by this point is whether it is too late.
At this point, I'm convinced the Democrats are purposely throwing the election.
Maybe you’re right but too many of us think the opposite. I would much rather a younger more progressive candidate but Joe Biden has a track record of beating Trump. Biden has done a lot of good things in his first term that I’d want to continue. Even where he hasn’t gone nearly far enough or balanced bad with good, it may be necessary to appeal to the undecideds in the middle. Biden is the only one who can overcome the Trump personality cult
If a big complaint is age, how is that a plus for Sanders? I’m sorry but he missed his chance and now is solidly in “too old for this shit” territory
A track record of beating trump?
Something about the statistical validity of a sample size of one.
It's the usual catch - the leader of the losing side doesn't get the post, but keeps power of his faction.
While if that leader is no longer a leader, their personal power would be less even if the faction wins.
Western Roman Empire had a similar story with Stilicho's conviction and execution. The empire loses, but those who ate him get some power.
How about we pick someone who vaguely approaches the average age of an American adult. There's a ton - Buttigieg, AOC, I dunno even Kamala would be a million times better. Literally anybody under the age of 70. Why is that so hard to do?
You keep repeating it because a false dichotomy, that you must choose between a D or R, prevents you from accepting that the lesser evil is, in fact, evil. So, you're stuck on stupid and not asking questions. This should help:
The Democrats already, quite predictably, ignored the outcome of their primary to nominate Clinton. They're not going to do a fucking thing that doesn't make a corporate donor money. All of Sanders proposals took from corporations to provide for humans. He never stood a chance of being nominated as a Democrat and he damned well knew it. If we give him the benefit of the doubt then his goal was education. If not, he rallied for Democrats to avoid the rise of a Labor Party during a critical time in history.
People keep saying Bernie could have won, but he didn't beat Clinton.
Sanders and Clinton didn't play on a level field.
Like what? Did she get votes for him thrown out?
People have been saying for years that she had an advantage and so it wasn't fair, but those advantages seem to ignore that more people voted for her.
He was an independent running as a Democrat, and then claiming it's unfair when the Democratic party was more aligned with the person who had always been a Democrat.
those advantages seem to ignore that more people voted for her.
How can that be ignored it is the conclusion of the argument. Those advantages meant more people voted for her.
He was an independent running as a Democrat,
Listen dear, all politicians who want to be president are independents running as Democrats/Republicans.
claiming it's unfair when the Democratic party was more aligned with the person who had always been a Democrat.
The whole point of a primary is to determine who the democratic party is more aligned with. It is unfair to determine that in advance.
So what were the advantages? The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn't matter if more people voted for the winner, or that they didn't proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.
Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?
I'm not sure you know how political affiliation or "people" work. Being a member of the party for decades vs being a member for months matters. Those are called "connections", and it's how most politicians get stuff done: by knowing people and how to talk to them.
The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with. Party leadership will almost always be more aligned with the person who has been a member longer, particularly when that person has been a member of part leadership themselves. It's how people work. You prefer a person you've known and worked with for a long time over a person who just showed up to use your organization, and by extension you, for their own goals.
We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don't make it unfair.The Obama campaign is a good example. He didn't have the connections that Clinton did, so party leadership favored her. Once they actually voted, he got more so leadership alignment didn't matter and he was the candidate. He then worked to develop those connections so that he and the party were better aligned and work together better, and he won. Yay!
So what rules did they break for Clinton? What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn't have over Obama?
Which of those advantages weren't just "new people to the party didn't know tools the party made available?”So what were the advantages?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic Party, was found to have sent an email during the primary election saying Mr Sanders "would not be president"
There were six primaries where ties were decided by the flip of a coin — and Clinton won every single one. The odds of that happening are 1 in 64, or less than 2 percent
The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn't matter if more people voted for the winner,
superdelegates system favoured Clinton by pre-announcing their support, giving Clinton a massive early lead.
or that they didn't proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.
Clinton bought the DNC by paying off the debt created after Obama.
Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?
I'm saying she doesn't align and would happily run as an independent if she thought she would be elected.
The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with.
"The party" is the people who vote in the primary.
Party leadership will almost always be more aligned with the person who has been a member longer, particularly when that person has been a member of part leadership themselves.
Party leadership is not the party.
It's how people work. You prefer a person you've known and worked with for a long time over a person who just showed up to use your organization, and by extension you, for their own goals.
Exactly. This is why the primaries were rigged in Clinton's favor and Sanders and his supporters were right to claim unfairness.
We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don't make it unfair.
Those rules were broken. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to resign.
The Obama campaign is a good example.
Of fairness (or a super strong candidate beating stacked odds).
So what rules did they break for Clinton?
- Campaign finance
- Debate questions
- Impartiality
What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn't have over Obama?
I haven't researched how unfair Obama had it so I can't compare.
Which of those advantages weren't just "new people to the party didn't know tools the party made available?”
Hilarious you refer to a 76 year old career politician like Sanders as a new person.
Quoting a phrase from an internal email out of context makes you seem disingenuous. The emails that were stolen show people being mean, but it also shows that they were consistently not rigging anything. Or does someone making a shitty suggestion and then a higher ranking member of the party saying "no" not fit the narrative your drawing? Or that the only time they talked about financial schemes was after the Sanders campaign alleged misconduct?
In context, Sanders told CNN that if he was elected, she would no longer be the chair person. The internal comment was "this is a silly story. Sanders isn't going to be president" at a time where he was already loosing.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to resign.
She did. Eight years ago.
Tldr, party leadership preferred Clinton over Obama. Turns out that preference without misconduct doesn't have much impact.
you refer to a 76 year old career politician like Sanders as a new person.
Oh please. It's even in the bit that you quoted: new to the party. I act like he was new to the party because he was, and his campaign was run by people who didn't know the party structures. When their inexperience with the party tools led to them not taking advantage of them, they cried misconduct for the other campaigns knowing about them.
Quoting a phrase from an internal email out of context makes you seem disingenuous.
Source. Disingenuous is trying to claim the DNC chair was not biased
The emails that were stolen show people being mean,
Showing bias in positions of responsibility is not "being mean"
but it also shows that they were consistently not rigging anything.
Debate questions in advance.
6 heads in a row.
Obtuse financing rules.
Etc.
Or that the only time they talked about financial schemes was after the Sanders campaign alleged misconduct?
She did. Eight years ago.
Yes. Because there was clear evidence of bias. Straight after, Debbie was rewarded with an honorary chair of the Clinton campaign’s 50-state program.
Turns out that preference without misconduct doesn't have much impact.
How are you sure there was no misconduct?
How are you sure there was no impact?
When their inexperience with the party tools led to them not taking advantage of them, they cried misconduct for the other campaigns knowing about them.
Or, because Hillary controled the party's finances, procedures were made deliberately obtuse to her advantage.
Do you think that source contradicts what I said?
Mr. Miranda asked Ms. Wasserman Schultz whether they should call CNN to complain about a segment the network aired in which Mr. Sanders said he would oust the chairwoman if he were elected. “Do you all think it’s worth highlighting for CNN that her term ends the day after the inauguration, when a new D.N.C. Chair is elected anyway?” Mr. Miranda asked. Ms. Wasserman Schultz responded by dismissing the senator’s chances. “This is a silly story,” she wrote. “He isn’t going to be president.”
Shocking. She didn't speak kindly of a person who publicly attacked her, and opted to leave the story alone instead of doing anything.
Same information, but cast with additional context
Most of the shocking things mentioned in the emails were only mentioned, and are then dismissed.
Your mistaking opinions and preference bias, which all people have, for unfair bias. Do you actually expect that the people who run a political party don't have an opinion about politics?
The coin thing didn't happen.. At best she won six out of a dozen, which is what you would expect. The reality is more complicated.
You grossly mischaracterize the agreement.
From the article:This does not include any communications related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC.
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates.
HFA will be granted complete and seamless access to all research work product and tools (not including any research or tracking the DNC may engage in relating to other Democratic candidates).
In other words, her campaign agreed to give the DNC money to prepare for the general election, and in exchange they got to look at those preparations.
This was definitely the Clinton campaign assuming she would be the candidate, but it's not exactly a smoking gun for financial impropriety regarding the primary.Honestly, if your campaign can't find a lawyer or accountant who can understand campaign finance management, you probably actually shouldn't be in charge of a country. The financial arrangements weren't particularly obtuse or obfuscated for moving millions of dollars between multiple political entities in multiple states.
Actions speak louder than words. Let's review what happened.
- Wasserman Schultz resigned due to bias then immediately joined Clinton.
Guilty
Guilty
Guilty. Note that it's very easy to claim others didn't follow the rules when you are the ones writing them (possibly retroactively).
Bernie ain't winning shit at a national level
Most of this country is centrist, so no unfortunately sanders would have lost to trump.
lol at thinking Americans are mostly centrists…
Most Americans I know think they're centrists, even if they support either major party... I'm an American so I know a few Americans lol
Lol at thinking Americans lean hard left or right
Can you guys just put obama back in? I would unironically say thanks. It would be poetic.
Yeah there's still a few doctors without borders hospitals he hasn't bombed yet.
No. Trust me, this would be amazing but he cannot legally run again :(
No, there's an amendment in our consimtituion that says a president can only be in office for two terms total. The only president who evaded this was FDR and he's still villainized to this day.
Actually. I'm pretty sure hes the reason that amendment got passed.
Before FDR it was just a tradition, started by George Washington. Personally I think FDR deserves a pass, he got us out of the great depression and through WW2, it would have been hard to have a leadership change in the midst of that turmoil.
Totally agree. But imagine a 4-term Obamna presidency, with the orange avatar of conservative rage building in strength and gathering malice for 16 years instead of 8.
I am pro term limits, but you're kinda making a good counter point. Eight more years of Obama instead of Trump and Biden... Doesn't seem that bad. The conservatives went ballistic anyway, at least we'd have reproductive rights and better healthcare. I'm certain Obama would have been a lot better at managing COVID and the BLM protests. He was pro ceasefire in Gaza way before Biden too. Idk, for all his flaws, Obama seems better than what we got in his place.
I would have loved it too. But the backlash would be intense
Fair enough, but the backlash from 8 years was already beyond the pale.