She can certainly play a role in shaping policy, since she's probably a literal genius, but definitely stay out of the spotlight. She's tainted goods now; the one who blew an almost sure-thing and proved how out of touch the democratic party is with the populace. Everytime she steps in front of a camera, it'll be 'the one who lost to Trump.'
I think if she can still bring money in, go for it. An overly selective playing field is what got the Democratic party in trouble in the first place. Plus it would really stick it to the American public.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Stay in the memory hole forever as far as i'm concerned. She let us down, she let her country down. Her failure led to irreparable damage to the nation that we'll all feel the rest of our lives. Half the reason why i felt like Tim Kaine should've resigned immediately, too. Anyone with a sense of shame should have after that performance.
The performance where she lost the Electoral College by a pittance, but won the popular vote by 3 million despite being illegally slandered by the FBI director 10 days before the election? It is shameful, just not in the way you think.
This post is an entire Jenga-tower of problems.
And as for Kaine resigning? Yes, let's give up a Senator's seat because of your sour grapes.
edit- PS- By that logic, Bernie should resign too, because he failed at even winning the primary, of course it's not really his fault what with the all-controlling DNC pushing their nefarious and unstoppable (except for that one time in '08) Clinton Coronation!
If anything she should keep her head down not because we don't deserve anymore of her bullshit, but frankly because she doesn't deserve any more of our bullshit.
The fact that she apparently still wants to get involved is a testament to her tenacity, and if she does decide to get back involved I'm going to go out on a limb and say she'll do it while not throwing her own allies and party under the bus.
Honestly, we did. We threw a woman who managed to get millions of children healthcare for a man who can't even give a damn about most of his own. She should just abandon us. We don't deserves her kind.
+14
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The problem with Clinton re-emerging is twofold:
1, it gives Trump back one of his favorite targets to rail against. That doesn't mean Trump wouldn't do it anyway, but as long as she stays gone he looks pathetic doing it.
2, any conversational oxygen she takes up isn't going to the people who need it--Democratic rising stars, who need a chance to build credibility as party leaders.
I've said before, semi-seriously, that Clinton would make a good lightning rod for the GOP ratfucking squad to distract them from whoever is going to run in 2020, but I think the problem with that is that she's too distracting for the center and left.
She should stay gone and focus on charitable work, policy suggestions, or behind-the-scenes organizing--even just picking a state and focusing on improving the Democratic party there would be a good idea. But she can only harm our efforts on the national stage.
+1
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Anything she does is going to gain national attention. We don't even know what she means when she says she's willing to come back into the light. We didn't banish John Kerry to eternal darkness because he "failed" to stop Bush.
Any time Trump spends rambling about her rather than doing his job is going to resonate with anyone not already sorely in his corner. Doubly so if she does a charity outing for Meals On Wheels while Trump rants about her being Satan. This is similar to Obama, anything we can do to draw a distinction between how Democrats behave and how the party of Trump behaves is going to pay dividends.
It's not on Clinton to stay invisible forever. That's just not reasonable. And Trump never stopped talking about her anyway, so her absence really doesn't matter on that level.
But she needs to stay a private citizen and keep out of the way of the people coming up through the party. She's political poison on a number of levels, now.
It's not on Clinton to stay invisible forever. That's just not reasonable. And Trump never stopped talking about her anyway, so her absence really doesn't matter on that level.
But she needs to stay a private citizen and keep out of the way of the people coming up through the party. She's political poison on a number of levels, now.
It depends on what she does and how she does it. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that her political career is (should be) over, but I also think it's unreasonable to say that she should have utterly no input at all.
Not to twist the knife, but at least she's still a Democrat, while Sanders is not. I would have more tolerance for Bernie's continued rhetoric about cleaning up the party if, at the very least, he'd join the party and state in unequivocal terms that the DNC is not the devil who screwed his ass over and that maybe he shouldn't have been quite so vociferous toward them in his campaign.
Meh. She can't be seen as having any actual political power, or the whole thing ends up where we are now again. If she wants to advise, great. But she never votes on or heads anything internal ever again.
Not to twist the knife, but at least she's still a Democrat, while Sanders is not. I would have more tolerance for Bernie's continued rhetoric about cleaning up the party if, at the very least, he'd join the party and state in unequivocal terms that the DNC is not the devil who screwed his ass over and that maybe he shouldn't have been quite so vociferous toward them in his campaign.
The party does need to be cleaned up.
Meanwhile, Bernie is going out and talking to Trump supporters on CNN and MSNBC town halls, and he's getting them on board with universal health care. He's doing a better job evangelizing Democratic ideas than most Democrats.
As for Hillary, when you amass the largest campaign warchest in history and end up losing to an obviously unqualified, disastrous candidate who is now attempting to put democracy in a chokehold, I would say keep out of the spotlight for a minute.
+12
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Meh. She can't be seen as having any actual political power, or the whole thing ends up where we are now again. If she wants to advise, great. But she never votes on or heads anything internal ever again.
Why? Because she and her entire party was slandered as being corrupt by her primary opponent?
If so, it speaks primarily to the reason so many of us are pissed at Sanders. The rift in the party would either be wafer-thin or wouldn't exist at all if Bernie had tempered his rhetoric responsibly.
So now, as a result of that, Clinton should accept the position of continued whipping-girl due to Bernie's malfeasance, while he gets to continue to spout off about whatever he well pleases?
This thing isn't going to go away until one of two things happen- either Clinton admits that it was all a setup to shut Bernie down (which is bullshit), or Bernie admits he done messed up- which would infuriate his base assuming they even believed he wasn't being leaned on by the DNC cabal.
I think we have a bit more nuanced than "Clinton failed the country! Blood for blood!" or "We have failed our glorious matriarch. Begin the ritualistic suicide."
There is absolutely no doubt that misogyny and a decades-running smear campaign hurt Clinton tremendously, and were she a different candidate things would be different. But she also made numerous tactical errors in what should have been an incredibly easy election regardless of her handicaps. She bought into the myth of the firewall, overreaching and trying to get a huge mandate by trying to flip pie-in-the-sky Southern states. Also, unlike Trump, she lacked a strong central message to her campaign, instead hoping that this NEXT scandal would deep-six the orange fuck. But if you paid attention to the primary, you'd know that you need more than to go negative to beat Teflon Don.
Sterica on
+16
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Not to twist the knife, but at least she's still a Democrat, while Sanders is not. I would have more tolerance for Bernie's continued rhetoric about cleaning up the party if, at the very least, he'd join the party and state in unequivocal terms that the DNC is not the devil who screwed his ass over and that maybe he shouldn't have been quite so vociferous toward them in his campaign.
The party does need to be cleaned up.
Ok, sure. But, you don't clean up a house by burning it to the ground. Doubly so when you don't actually live there, but did decide to move in and stay there rent-free while it was convenient, all the while talking shit about the home owners, only to move out again when they weren't useful to you anymore.
Meanwhile, Bernie is going out and talking to Trump supporters on CNN and MSNBC town halls, and he's getting them on board with universal health care. He's doing a better job evangelizing Democratic ideas than most Democrats.
That and you know continuing to talk shit about Democrats and the DNC.
As for Hillary, when you amass the largest campaign warchest in history and end up losing to an obviously unqualified, disastrous candidate who is now attempting to put democracy in a chokehold, I would say keep out of the spotlight for a minute.
And as has been repeatedly brought up to you in the very last few pages, there were a bigly number of other things that affected the race- specifically Comey's intervention 10 days out from election day- that nullify this line of argument. Also the uncounted millions (billions?) in free advertising Trump got from our media such as his empty podium receiving a full screen while Clinton getting a muted box in the corner probably didn't help either.
Moreover, if the electorate had a hard time choosing between the woman who's debate performance was full-on Hermoine Grainger while Trump was a babbling pussy-grabbing-bragging-you're-the-puppet moron, than that says a lot more about the electorate than it does about it Clinton.
Meh. She can't be seen as having any actual political power, or the whole thing ends up where we are now again. If she wants to advise, great. But she never votes on or heads anything internal ever again.
Why? Because she and her entire party was slandered as being corrupt by her primary opponent?
If so, it speaks primarily to the reason so many of us are pissed at Sanders. The rift in the party would either be wafer-thin or wouldn't exist at all if Bernie had tempered his rhetoric responsibly.
So now, as a result of that, Clinton should accept the position of continued whipping-girl due to Bernie's malfeasance, while he gets to continue to spout off about whatever he well pleases?
This thing isn't going to go away until one of two things happen- either Clinton admits that it was all a setup to shut Bernie down (which is bullshit), or Bernie admits he done messed up- which would infuriate his base assuming they even believed he wasn't being leaned on by the DNC cabal.
Just want to point out here: That Rift existed well before the primary. The Sanders vs. Clinton fight can be seen as a microcosm of the conflict between the harder-left wing/progressive wing of the party vs. the DLC/Third Way Wing.
It's an intraparty conflict that's been happening ever since the DLC wing took the reigns as the Party's major driving force. Acting as though Sanders was the cause misjudges a long-running idealogical feud within the party that's finally coming to a head, particularly after the DLC wing was weakened in Obama's win.
Meh. She can't be seen as having any actual political power, or the whole thing ends up where we are now again. If she wants to advise, great. But she never votes on or heads anything internal ever again.
Why? Because she and her entire party was slandered as being corrupt by her primary opponent?
If so, it speaks primarily to the reason so many of us are pissed at Sanders. The rift in the party would either be wafer-thin or wouldn't exist at all if Bernie had tempered his rhetoric responsibly.
So now, as a result of that, Clinton should accept the position of continued whipping-girl due to Bernie's malfeasance, while he gets to continue to spout off about whatever he well pleases?
This thing isn't going to go away until one of two things happen- either Clinton admits that it was all a setup to shut Bernie down (which is bullshit), or Bernie admits he done messed up- which would infuriate his base assuming they even believed he wasn't being leaned on by the DNC cabal.
Just want to point out here: That Rift existed well before the primary. The Sanders vs. Clinton fight can be seen as a microcosm of the conflict between the harder-left wing/progressive wing of the party vs. the DLC/Third Way Wing.
It's an intraparty conflict that's been happening ever since the DLC wing took the reigns as the Party's major driving force. Acting as though Sanders was the cause misjudges a long-running idealogical feud within the party that's finally coming to a head, particularly after the DLC wing was weakened in Obama's win.
But sure, let's keep banging on about distancing ourselves from him as a party. Because fuck that guy, amiright?
Edit: +77. Among Democrats. "...so many of us are pissed." Yep. Most of us clearly hate this guy.
And how much of that popularity exists because people actually believe the "DNC rigged it against him" narrative?
I also wonder how many of those people actually know that Sanders 1. wasn't a Dem till he ran for president and 2. left the party as soon as the getting was good.
For all the times I've seen Clinton called a carpetbagger by her detractors, I always find it amusing that they don't hold similar ideas about Sanders.
+3
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
Meh. She can't be seen as having any actual political power, or the whole thing ends up where we are now again. If she wants to advise, great. But she never votes on or heads anything internal ever again.
Why? Because she and her entire party was slandered as being corrupt by her primary opponent?
If so, it speaks primarily to the reason so many of us are pissed at Sanders. The rift in the party would either be wafer-thin or wouldn't exist at all if Bernie had tempered his rhetoric responsibly.
So now, as a result of that, Clinton should accept the position of continued whipping-girl due to Bernie's malfeasance, while he gets to continue to spout off about whatever he well pleases?
This thing isn't going to go away until one of two things happen- either Clinton admits that it was all a setup to shut Bernie down (which is bullshit), or Bernie admits he done messed up- which would infuriate his base assuming they even believed he wasn't being leaned on by the DNC cabal.
Just want to point out here: That Rift existed well before the primary. The Sanders vs. Clinton fight can be seen as a microcosm of the conflict between the harder-left wing/progressive wing of the party vs. the DLC/Third Way Wing.
It's an intraparty conflict that's been happening ever since the DLC wing took the reigns as the Party's major driving force. Acting as though Sanders was the cause misjudges a long-running idealogical feud within the party that's finally coming to a head, particularly after the DLC wing was weakened in Obama's win.
Isn't it a common refrain on this forum to expect the people in power of an organization to change things for the better, since they're the ones actually in power? That it's foolish to expect outsiders to waltz in and fix all of our problems while the people who actually hold the influence do nothing? Expecting a lone senator to heal that divide instead of the actual people capable of guiding the party is misguided and dumb.
I also wonder how many of those people actually know that Sanders 1. wasn't a Dem till he ran for president and 2. left the party as soon as the getting was good.
For all the times I've seen Clinton called a carpetbagger by her detractors, I always find it amusing that they don't hold similar ideas about Sanders.
I'm curious why the party label is so important. Do you think Joe Manchin (D-WV) is a better standard bearer for Democratic ideas than Bernie?
But sure, let's keep banging on about distancing ourselves from him as a party. Because fuck that guy, amiright?
Edit: +77. Among Democrats. "...so many of us are pissed." Yep. Most of us clearly hate this guy.
And how much of that popularity exists because people actually believe the "DNC rigged it against him" narrative?
I also wonder how many of those people actually know that Sanders 1. wasn't a Dem till he ran for president and 2. left the party as soon as the getting was good.
For all the times I've seen Clinton called a carpetbagger by her detractors, I always find it amusing that they don't hold similar ideas about Sanders.
+77 among Democrats.
What you're essentially saying here is that all but about 15% of the party are siding with Sanders because of that narrative.
Meh. She can't be seen as having any actual political power, or the whole thing ends up where we are now again. If she wants to advise, great. But she never votes on or heads anything internal ever again.
Why? Because she and her entire party was slandered as being corrupt by her primary opponent?
If so, it speaks primarily to the reason so many of us are pissed at Sanders. The rift in the party would either be wafer-thin or wouldn't exist at all if Bernie had tempered his rhetoric responsibly.
So now, as a result of that, Clinton should accept the position of continued whipping-girl due to Bernie's malfeasance, while he gets to continue to spout off about whatever he well pleases?
This thing isn't going to go away until one of two things happen- either Clinton admits that it was all a setup to shut Bernie down (which is bullshit), or Bernie admits he done messed up- which would infuriate his base assuming they even believed he wasn't being leaned on by the DNC cabal.
Just want to point out here: That Rift existed well before the primary. The Sanders vs. Clinton fight can be seen as a microcosm of the conflict between the harder-left wing/progressive wing of the party vs. the DLC/Third Way Wing.
It's an intraparty conflict that's been happening ever since the DLC wing took the reigns as the Party's major driving force. Acting as though Sanders was the cause misjudges a long-running idealogical feud within the party that's finally coming to a head, particularly after the DLC wing was weakened in Obama's win.
And Sanders was perfectly placed to either nip that divide in the bud, or pour Miracle-Grow all over it.
From his continued rhetoric, it's obvious which path he took.
How does a single candidate, whose policy positions are explicitly opposed to the classic DLC/Third-Way policy positions (Short version: A conservative drift away from mid-20th Century Democratic Party policy positions in an attempt to recapture "Reagan Democrats) "Nip in the bud" the divide between progressives and more conservative DLC types?
There seems to be this idea that Sanders himself is solely responsible for the behavior of a wing of the party, that he is the instigator and as such he must therefore be capable of controlling the rabble who are causing so much dissent and turmoil within the Democratic Party.
This ignores decades of intraparty history and infighting and the fact that this fight is much bigger than either Sanders or Clinton or even their campaign teams.
Lanz on
+10
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
Meh. She can't be seen as having any actual political power, or the whole thing ends up where we are now again. If she wants to advise, great. But she never votes on or heads anything internal ever again.
Why? Because she and her entire party was slandered as being corrupt by her primary opponent?
If so, it speaks primarily to the reason so many of us are pissed at Sanders. The rift in the party would either be wafer-thin or wouldn't exist at all if Bernie had tempered his rhetoric responsibly.
So now, as a result of that, Clinton should accept the position of continued whipping-girl due to Bernie's malfeasance, while he gets to continue to spout off about whatever he well pleases?
This thing isn't going to go away until one of two things happen- either Clinton admits that it was all a setup to shut Bernie down (which is bullshit), or Bernie admits he done messed up- which would infuriate his base assuming they even believed he wasn't being leaned on by the DNC cabal.
Just want to point out here: That Rift existed well before the primary. The Sanders vs. Clinton fight can be seen as a microcosm of the conflict between the harder-left wing/progressive wing of the party vs. the DLC/Third Way Wing.
It's an intraparty conflict that's been happening ever since the DLC wing took the reigns as the Party's major driving force. Acting as though Sanders was the cause misjudges a long-running idealogical feud within the party that's finally coming to a head, particularly after the DLC wing was weakened in Obama's win.
And Sanders was perfectly placed to either nip that divide in the bud, or pour Miracle-Grow all over it.
From his continued rhetoric, it's obvious which path he took.
How does a single candidate, whose policy positions are explicitly opposed to the classic DLC/Third-Way policy positions (Short version: A conservative drift away from mid-20th Century Democratic Party policy positions in an attempt to recapture "Reagan Democrats) "Nip in the bud" the divide between progressives and more conservative DLC types?
There seems to be this idea that Sanders himself is solely responsible for the behavior of a wing of the party, that he is the instigator and as such he must therefore be capable of controlling the rabble who are causing so much dissent and turmoil within the Democratic Party.
This ignores decades of intraparty history and infighting and the fact that this fight is much bigger than either Sanders or Clinton or even their campaign teams.
A great many leftists I know view Sanders himself as a compromise candidate. These people were already angry at how the Democratic Party leadership was doing things, and they latched onto him as a potential alternative who could lead to at least moderately more progressive policies.
Fakefaux on
+3
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
I think we have a bit more nuanced than "Clinton failed the country! Blood for blood!" or "We have failed our glorious matriarch. Begin the ritualistic suicide."
There is absolutely no doubt that misogyny and a decades-running smear campaign hurt Clinton tremendously, and were she a different candidate things would be different. But she also made numerous tactical errors in what should have been an incredibly easy election regardless of her handicaps. She bought into the myth of the firewall, overreaching and trying to get a huge mandate by trying to flip pie-in-the-sky Southern states. Also, unlike Trump, she lacked a strong central message to her campaign, instead hoping that this NEXT scandal would deep-six the orange fuck. But if you paid attention to the primary, you'd know that you need more than to go negative to beat Teflon Don.
I'm not seeing anyone saying that Clinton was some glorious god-queen with no flaws, but I sure as hell see (and continue to see) a lot of bad faith nonsense thrown her way while specifically ignoring the problems Sanders not only fanned but continues to fan.
And as is continually mentioned, it's easy to focus on the flaws on her campaign while ignoring the Comey effect. Even if she had dealt with everything else perfectly, do you really think there anything she could have done to prevent or mitigate that.
You know what I NEVER see get brought up in these threads? Clinton's superlative debate performance. She was great, a little boring at times, but otherwise she knocked it out of the park. But nope, that doesn't matter, even though her opponent was a babbling moron.
I mean shit, is there anyone on these boards who didn't think the election was a done deal with the "grab em by the pussy" tapes? Because at that point, it's less about your candidate being good, so much as the electorate not being idiots- which isn't Clinton's fault when it turned out to be true.
Sanders gave voice to something that was already there, the strength of which he seemed completely unprepared for.
The idea that Sanders was the genesis of literally any of the sentiment expressed during the primary flies in the face of the history of the party since at least the Clinton administration.
Meh. She can't be seen as having any actual political power, or the whole thing ends up where we are now again. If she wants to advise, great. But she never votes on or heads anything internal ever again.
Why? Because she and her entire party was slandered as being corrupt by her primary opponent?
If so, it speaks primarily to the reason so many of us are pissed at Sanders. The rift in the party would either be wafer-thin or wouldn't exist at all if Bernie had tempered his rhetoric responsibly.
So now, as a result of that, Clinton should accept the position of continued whipping-girl due to Bernie's malfeasance, while he gets to continue to spout off about whatever he well pleases?
This thing isn't going to go away until one of two things happen- either Clinton admits that it was all a setup to shut Bernie down (which is bullshit), or Bernie admits he done messed up- which would infuriate his base assuming they even believed he wasn't being leaned on by the DNC cabal.
Just want to point out here: That Rift existed well before the primary. The Sanders vs. Clinton fight can be seen as a microcosm of the conflict between the harder-left wing/progressive wing of the party vs. the DLC/Third Way Wing.
It's an intraparty conflict that's been happening ever since the DLC wing took the reigns as the Party's major driving force. Acting as though Sanders was the cause misjudges a long-running idealogical feud within the party that's finally coming to a head, particularly after the DLC wing was weakened in Obama's win.
And Sanders was perfectly placed to either nip that divide in the bud, or pour Miracle-Grow all over it.
From his continued rhetoric, it's obvious which path he took.
How does a single candidate, whose policy positions are explicitly opposed to the classic DLC/Third-Way policy positions (Short version: A conservative drift away from mid-20th Century Democratic Party policy positions in an attempt to recapture "Reagan Democrats) "Nip in the bud" the divide between progressives and more conservative DLC types?
There seems to be this idea that Sanders himself is solely responsible for the behavior of a wing of the party, that he is the instigator and as such he must therefore be capable of controlling the rabble who are causing so much dissent and turmoil within the Democratic Party.
This ignores decades of intraparty history and infighting and the fact that this fight is much bigger than either Sanders or Clinton or even their campaign teams.
A great many leftists I know view Sanders himself as a compromise candidate. this people were already angry at how the Democratic Party leadership was doing things, and they latched onto him as a potential alternative who could lead to at least moderately more progressive policies.
Sanders gave voice to something that was already there, the strength of which he seemed completely unprepared for.
The idea that Sanders was the genesis of literally any of the sentiment expressed during the primary flies in the face of the history of the party since at least the Clinton administration.
These two things right here.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Not to twist the knife, but at least she's still a Democrat, while Sanders is not. I would have more tolerance for Bernie's continued rhetoric about cleaning up the party if, at the very least, he'd join the party and state in unequivocal terms that the DNC is not the devil who screwed his ass over and that maybe he shouldn't have been quite so vociferous toward them in his campaign.
The party does need to be cleaned up.
Meanwhile, Bernie is going out and talking to Trump supporters on CNN and MSNBC town halls, and he's getting them on board with universal health care. He's doing a better job evangelizing Democratic ideas than most Democrats.
Democratic ideas have majority support throughout the country. Many Republican voters are in favor of moderate gun control, for instance, and most people are in favor of the ACA's provisions. Getting Republicans on board with universal health care doesn't do anything until you convince them to leave their tribe and join ours--and you can't do that by refusing to call yourself a Democrat and failing to encourage people to actually vote Democrat come election time.
I also wonder how many of those people actually know that Sanders 1. wasn't a Dem till he ran for president and 2. left the party as soon as the getting was good.
For all the times I've seen Clinton called a carpetbagger by her detractors, I always find it amusing that they don't hold similar ideas about Sanders.
I'm curious why the party label is so important. Do you think Joe Manchin (D-WV) is a better standard bearer for Democratic ideas than Bernie?
No, but he's a better standard bearer for the Democratic Party, the only tool capable of implementing Democratic ideas. Bernie doesn't seem to understand that.
But sure, let's keep banging on about distancing ourselves from him as a party. Because fuck that guy, amiright?
Edit: +77. Among Democrats. "...so many of us are pissed." Yep. Most of us clearly hate this guy.
I don't know if I speak for anybody else, but I don't want the party to distance itself from Bernie. I want Bernie to stop distancing himself from the party. Nothing stops Bernie from saying, "The Democratic Party has a lot of problems, but they're the only organization who can improve this country. I'm going to roll up my sleeves and work to support and improve the party from within, and you should too." Nothing stops him from doing that and maintaining his ideological purity or continuing to urge the party to move in his direction.
Bernie is popular because he's independent from the system--neither part of the GOP people dislike or the Democrats people are disappointed in--but the power of his position is only worth anything if he can use his popularity to make people excited about the party again. The more he lobs stones at them from behind the comfort of his (I), the more he encourages the people who like him to succumb to "throw it all away"-ism, and that attitude will destroy any chance of defeating Trump and the GOP in 2018/2020.
+10
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
I think we have a bit more nuanced than "Clinton failed the country! Blood for blood!" or "We have failed our glorious matriarch. Begin the ritualistic suicide."
There is absolutely no doubt that misogyny and a decades-running smear campaign hurt Clinton tremendously, and were she a different candidate things would be different. But she also made numerous tactical errors in what should have been an incredibly easy election regardless of her handicaps. She bought into the myth of the firewall, overreaching and trying to get a huge mandate by trying to flip pie-in-the-sky Southern states. Also, unlike Trump, she lacked a strong central message to her campaign, instead hoping that this NEXT scandal would deep-six the orange fuck. But if you paid attention to the primary, you'd know that you need more than to go negative to beat Teflon Don.
I'm not seeing anyone saying that Clinton was some glorious god-queen with no flaws
There were a bunch of posters in this very thread talking about how the people of America didn't deserve her, like she was some immaculate politics saint, just a few minutes ago. And, I note, every time the more leftist members of this discussion bring up the serious missteps Clinton made during the campaign there's a contingent that responds with "oh, we're not saying she's perfect" that then goes right back to demonizing Bernie Sanders and blaming everything on Comey and Putin.
I'm honestly not sure how many rank and file voters even know that Sanders isn't technically a Democrat. Regardless, I'd be very surprised if the average voter didn't strongly associate him with the party, anyway.
The fact is, he's only "not a democrat" on a technicality. One that he embraces, sure. But he caucuses with the party, holds a seat for the party, and fundraises for the party. At some point, people just need to let go of the rage over the I and realize that he keeps saying the things he does because they're true on some level, and people like him for it because they think those things too.
I also wonder how many of those people actually know that Sanders 1. wasn't a Dem till he ran for president and 2. left the party as soon as the getting was good.
For all the times I've seen Clinton called a carpetbagger by her detractors, I always find it amusing that they don't hold similar ideas about Sanders.
I'm curious why the party label is so important. Do you think Joe Manchin (D-WV) is a better standard bearer for Democratic ideas than Bernie?
Acknowledging reality ? That's what the Democrats' lack of basic party discipline means.
No. Lack of party discipline in this case would be the party leaders telling him to shut up, rather than continuing to tear the party apart from the inside. Make his case inside, rather than continuing to enflame the gulf between the factions. What he's saying here is not going to change anyone's mind or going to calm down the ongoing conflict. By acting this only guarantees the next elections the Dems are going to have a circular firing squad, and making it easier for Trump and the GOP to win.
There are ways he can engage his opponents within the party and offer critiques without burning the party down. He never caught onto the fact the real enemy are the GOP, not the Democratic party/centrists. Nor is he an independent IIRC, he's got a larger role in how the party functions now.
edit: The Republicans are probably laughing over drinks about this, Bernie's delivering what they've wanted in their biggest rival. To them he's the gift that keeps on giving.
So, elected officials voting for racism and bigotry is ok, but daring to criticize the party publicly is wrong.
In other words, the only thing the party stand for is getting members of the party elected; once they are there, who cares what they do.
Seems to me that Sanders is correct.
What is he correct about? Especially in that quote he offers nothing but undefined criticism and also offers nothing in the way of his own opinion of what the party should be doing.
You can tell everyone their ideas are shit all day long, but eventually someone is going to ask "ok, what do you think we should do?"
He is correct that he cannot say what the democrat party stands for, since the party only stands for getting its members elected. That's what a party without party discipline is.
Sanders is not a Democrat. But he had no problem joining up JUST to run for president while using the party's infrastructure, warchest, and donor listings all while batching about the establishment that was actively propping his ass up.
This doesn't even address the shit him and some of his supporters pulled during in the primary. Sorry Bernie, there was no rigging g you just lost
"Being a Democrat" is meaningless. The only purpose of the party is getting its members elected. Given that elected Democrats can do whatever they want without consequence from the party, I don't really care if some outsider try to use the same ressources for his own purposes.
You've mentioned members voting for racism and bigotry without consequence a few times, what exactly are you talking about?
Joe Manchin III. But he's fine, he's not a dirty outsider criticizing the party.
Good thing everyone here routinely dumps on him for his shittier moves, while simultaneously acknowledging that it is unlikely any other Democrat could win in West Virginia and that a shitty Dems is better than any Republican.
Need proof? He's with the rest of the party with regards to pushing back against the GOP on healthcare.
Unless you'd prefer with run a more idealogical palatable (to us) candidate and lose the seat a Republican...
But sure, let's keep banging on about distancing ourselves from him as a party. Because fuck that guy, amiright?
Edit: +77. Among Democrats. "...so many of us are pissed." Yep. Most of us clearly hate this guy.
I think that Democrats and Republicans, or rather, people who seek to label themselves as Democrats or Republicans, are disappearing.
I mean, it makes sense. As politics gets more divisive, people will be less willing to pick up a flag and wade into that hot mess, even if they share the same beliefs. Also people hate the system.
So, being a third party candidate actually gets you more popularity because you are affiliated with the majority of US citizens that are uncommitted to party membership.
At this point, I don't actually see a reason to join a party. It seems libertarian, but it looks like that's the trend for America: have your individual beliefs, support those closest to you, but don't lock yourself in to the current clade.
I wonder what the event horizon is for minimum party membership.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That graph's axes are a little deceptive. Independent affiliation is up 9 points in a generation, which is a little bit significant I guess. Each of the parties individually is only down 4 or 5 percent, though. I'm not sure I'd plan my retirement around the dissolution of the two party system, just yet.
I think we have a bit more nuanced than "Clinton failed the country! Blood for blood!" or "We have failed our glorious matriarch. Begin the ritualistic suicide."
There is absolutely no doubt that misogyny and a decades-running smear campaign hurt Clinton tremendously, and were she a different candidate things would be different. But she also made numerous tactical errors in what should have been an incredibly easy election regardless of her handicaps. She bought into the myth of the firewall, overreaching and trying to get a huge mandate by trying to flip pie-in-the-sky Southern states. Also, unlike Trump, she lacked a strong central message to her campaign, instead hoping that this NEXT scandal would deep-six the orange fuck. But if you paid attention to the primary, you'd know that you need more than to go negative to beat Teflon Don.
I'm not seeing anyone saying that Clinton was some glorious god-queen with no flaws
There were a bunch of posters in this very thread talking about how the people of America didn't deserve her, like she was some immaculate politics saint, just a few minutes ago. And, I note, every time the more leftist members of this discussion bring up the serious missteps Clinton made during the campaign there's a contingent that responds with "oh, we're not saying she's perfect" that then goes right back to demonizing Bernie Sanders and blaming everything on Comey and Putin.
Yes, I read those posts, and you're free to post them yourself and show us precisely where ANY of them said that she was an immaculate Snow White, rather than someone that got unfairly fucked over, and continues to get unfairly fucked over by people with an axe to grind.
I'll wait.
-e- You're also free to post the posts that those were responding to, including the little gem where it was stated that her Vice Presidential choice should have fucking resigned due to the loss.
I am proud that I voted for Bernie and gave money to his historic campaign. Bernie is exciting for many reasons. He was the first major presidential candidate to get most of his funding from small-dollar internet donations. He was the first to call himself a socialist. He staked out bold, fearless positions that other politicians are too cautious and handwringy to touch. Like most Americans under 30, I thought Bernie was the right person to lead our country in a new direction, and hoped he would become our president.
But I am also proud that I voted for Hillary. I'm proud that I went door-to-door to try and convince other people to vote for her. I recognized that I needed to do whatever I could to try and stop Trump. I was also excited that we might have our first female president.
As a supporter of both candidates, I find a lot of the hyperbolic interparty bickering pretty eye-roll worthy. Neither candidate was perfect. Neither was the devil incarnate. I hope we learn from what they both did wrong and what they both did right.
That graph's axes are a little deceptive. Independent affiliation is up 9 points in a generation, which is a little bit significant I guess. Each of the parties individually is only down 4 or 5 percent, though. I'm not sure I'd plan my retirement around the dissolution of the two party system, just yet.
I also wonder how many of those people actually know that Sanders 1. wasn't a Dem till he ran for president and 2. left the party as soon as the getting was good.
For all the times I've seen Clinton called a carpetbagger by her detractors, I always find it amusing that they don't hold similar ideas about Sanders.
I'm curious why the party label is so important. Do you think Joe Manchin (D-WV) is a better standard bearer for Democratic ideas than Bernie?
I also wonder how many of those people actually know that Sanders 1. wasn't a Dem till he ran for president and 2. left the party as soon as the getting was good.
For all the times I've seen Clinton called a carpetbagger by her detractors, I always find it amusing that they don't hold similar ideas about Sanders.
I'm curious why the party label is so important. Do you think Joe Manchin (D-WV) is a better standard bearer for Democratic ideas than Bernie?
I also wonder how many of those people actually know that Sanders 1. wasn't a Dem till he ran for president and 2. left the party as soon as the getting was good.
For all the times I've seen Clinton called a carpetbagger by her detractors, I always find it amusing that they don't hold similar ideas about Sanders.
I'm curious why the party label is so important. Do you think Joe Manchin (D-WV) is a better standard bearer for Democratic ideas than Bernie?
Posts
I think if she can still bring money in, go for it. An overly selective playing field is what got the Democratic party in trouble in the first place. Plus it would really stick it to the American public.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The performance where she lost the Electoral College by a pittance, but won the popular vote by 3 million despite being illegally slandered by the FBI director 10 days before the election? It is shameful, just not in the way you think.
This post is an entire Jenga-tower of problems.
And as for Kaine resigning? Yes, let's give up a Senator's seat because of your sour grapes.
edit- PS- By that logic, Bernie should resign too, because he failed at even winning the primary, of course it's not really his fault what with the all-controlling DNC pushing their nefarious and unstoppable (except for that one time in '08) Clinton Coronation!
This. This right here.
If anything she should keep her head down not because we don't deserve anymore of her bullshit, but frankly because she doesn't deserve any more of our bullshit.
The fact that she apparently still wants to get involved is a testament to her tenacity, and if she does decide to get back involved I'm going to go out on a limb and say she'll do it while not throwing her own allies and party under the bus.
Honestly, we did. We threw a woman who managed to get millions of children healthcare for a man who can't even give a damn about most of his own. She should just abandon us. We don't deserves her kind.
1, it gives Trump back one of his favorite targets to rail against. That doesn't mean Trump wouldn't do it anyway, but as long as she stays gone he looks pathetic doing it.
2, any conversational oxygen she takes up isn't going to the people who need it--Democratic rising stars, who need a chance to build credibility as party leaders.
I've said before, semi-seriously, that Clinton would make a good lightning rod for the GOP ratfucking squad to distract them from whoever is going to run in 2020, but I think the problem with that is that she's too distracting for the center and left.
She should stay gone and focus on charitable work, policy suggestions, or behind-the-scenes organizing--even just picking a state and focusing on improving the Democratic party there would be a good idea. But she can only harm our efforts on the national stage.
Any time Trump spends rambling about her rather than doing his job is going to resonate with anyone not already sorely in his corner. Doubly so if she does a charity outing for Meals On Wheels while Trump rants about her being Satan. This is similar to Obama, anything we can do to draw a distinction between how Democrats behave and how the party of Trump behaves is going to pay dividends.
But she needs to stay a private citizen and keep out of the way of the people coming up through the party. She's political poison on a number of levels, now.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It depends on what she does and how she does it. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that her political career is (should be) over, but I also think it's unreasonable to say that she should have utterly no input at all.
Not to twist the knife, but at least she's still a Democrat, while Sanders is not. I would have more tolerance for Bernie's continued rhetoric about cleaning up the party if, at the very least, he'd join the party and state in unequivocal terms that the DNC is not the devil who screwed his ass over and that maybe he shouldn't have been quite so vociferous toward them in his campaign.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The party does need to be cleaned up.
Meanwhile, Bernie is going out and talking to Trump supporters on CNN and MSNBC town halls, and he's getting them on board with universal health care. He's doing a better job evangelizing Democratic ideas than most Democrats.
As for Hillary, when you amass the largest campaign warchest in history and end up losing to an obviously unqualified, disastrous candidate who is now attempting to put democracy in a chokehold, I would say keep out of the spotlight for a minute.
Why? Because she and her entire party was slandered as being corrupt by her primary opponent?
If so, it speaks primarily to the reason so many of us are pissed at Sanders. The rift in the party would either be wafer-thin or wouldn't exist at all if Bernie had tempered his rhetoric responsibly.
So now, as a result of that, Clinton should accept the position of continued whipping-girl due to Bernie's malfeasance, while he gets to continue to spout off about whatever he well pleases?
This thing isn't going to go away until one of two things happen- either Clinton admits that it was all a setup to shut Bernie down (which is bullshit), or Bernie admits he done messed up- which would infuriate his base assuming they even believed he wasn't being leaned on by the DNC cabal.
But sure, let's keep banging on about distancing ourselves from him as a party. Because fuck that guy, amiright?
Edit: +77. Among Democrats. "...so many of us are pissed." Yep. Most of us clearly hate this guy.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
There is absolutely no doubt that misogyny and a decades-running smear campaign hurt Clinton tremendously, and were she a different candidate things would be different. But she also made numerous tactical errors in what should have been an incredibly easy election regardless of her handicaps. She bought into the myth of the firewall, overreaching and trying to get a huge mandate by trying to flip pie-in-the-sky Southern states. Also, unlike Trump, she lacked a strong central message to her campaign, instead hoping that this NEXT scandal would deep-six the orange fuck. But if you paid attention to the primary, you'd know that you need more than to go negative to beat Teflon Don.
Ok, sure. But, you don't clean up a house by burning it to the ground. Doubly so when you don't actually live there, but did decide to move in and stay there rent-free while it was convenient, all the while talking shit about the home owners, only to move out again when they weren't useful to you anymore.
That and you know continuing to talk shit about Democrats and the DNC.
And as has been repeatedly brought up to you in the very last few pages, there were a bigly number of other things that affected the race- specifically Comey's intervention 10 days out from election day- that nullify this line of argument. Also the uncounted millions (billions?) in free advertising Trump got from our media such as his empty podium receiving a full screen while Clinton getting a muted box in the corner probably didn't help either.
Moreover, if the electorate had a hard time choosing between the woman who's debate performance was full-on Hermoine Grainger while Trump was a babbling pussy-grabbing-bragging-you're-the-puppet moron, than that says a lot more about the electorate than it does about it Clinton.
Just want to point out here: That Rift existed well before the primary. The Sanders vs. Clinton fight can be seen as a microcosm of the conflict between the harder-left wing/progressive wing of the party vs. the DLC/Third Way Wing.
It's an intraparty conflict that's been happening ever since the DLC wing took the reigns as the Party's major driving force. Acting as though Sanders was the cause misjudges a long-running idealogical feud within the party that's finally coming to a head, particularly after the DLC wing was weakened in Obama's win.
EDIT: To that point: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/1997/08/centrists_vs_progressives.html 1997.
And Sanders was perfectly placed to either nip that divide in the bud, or pour Miracle-Grow all over it.
From his continued rhetoric, it's obvious which path he took.
And how much of that popularity exists because people actually believe the "DNC rigged it against him" narrative?
I also wonder how many of those people actually know that Sanders 1. wasn't a Dem till he ran for president and 2. left the party as soon as the getting was good.
For all the times I've seen Clinton called a carpetbagger by her detractors, I always find it amusing that they don't hold similar ideas about Sanders.
Yeah, fuck that guy for expressing his ideological beliefs as part of our democratic system! What an asshole!
I'm curious why the party label is so important. Do you think Joe Manchin (D-WV) is a better standard bearer for Democratic ideas than Bernie?
+77 among Democrats.
What you're essentially saying here is that all but about 15% of the party are siding with Sanders because of that narrative.
Sanders Derangement Syndrome is alive and well.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
How does a single candidate, whose policy positions are explicitly opposed to the classic DLC/Third-Way policy positions (Short version: A conservative drift away from mid-20th Century Democratic Party policy positions in an attempt to recapture "Reagan Democrats) "Nip in the bud" the divide between progressives and more conservative DLC types?
There seems to be this idea that Sanders himself is solely responsible for the behavior of a wing of the party, that he is the instigator and as such he must therefore be capable of controlling the rabble who are causing so much dissent and turmoil within the Democratic Party.
This ignores decades of intraparty history and infighting and the fact that this fight is much bigger than either Sanders or Clinton or even their campaign teams.
A great many leftists I know view Sanders himself as a compromise candidate. These people were already angry at how the Democratic Party leadership was doing things, and they latched onto him as a potential alternative who could lead to at least moderately more progressive policies.
I'm not seeing anyone saying that Clinton was some glorious god-queen with no flaws, but I sure as hell see (and continue to see) a lot of bad faith nonsense thrown her way while specifically ignoring the problems Sanders not only fanned but continues to fan.
And as is continually mentioned, it's easy to focus on the flaws on her campaign while ignoring the Comey effect. Even if she had dealt with everything else perfectly, do you really think there anything she could have done to prevent or mitigate that.
You know what I NEVER see get brought up in these threads? Clinton's superlative debate performance. She was great, a little boring at times, but otherwise she knocked it out of the park. But nope, that doesn't matter, even though her opponent was a babbling moron.
I mean shit, is there anyone on these boards who didn't think the election was a done deal with the "grab em by the pussy" tapes? Because at that point, it's less about your candidate being good, so much as the electorate not being idiots- which isn't Clinton's fault when it turned out to be true.
The idea that Sanders was the genesis of literally any of the sentiment expressed during the primary flies in the face of the history of the party since at least the Clinton administration.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
These two things right here.
Democratic ideas have majority support throughout the country. Many Republican voters are in favor of moderate gun control, for instance, and most people are in favor of the ACA's provisions. Getting Republicans on board with universal health care doesn't do anything until you convince them to leave their tribe and join ours--and you can't do that by refusing to call yourself a Democrat and failing to encourage people to actually vote Democrat come election time.
No, but he's a better standard bearer for the Democratic Party, the only tool capable of implementing Democratic ideas. Bernie doesn't seem to understand that.
I don't know if I speak for anybody else, but I don't want the party to distance itself from Bernie. I want Bernie to stop distancing himself from the party. Nothing stops Bernie from saying, "The Democratic Party has a lot of problems, but they're the only organization who can improve this country. I'm going to roll up my sleeves and work to support and improve the party from within, and you should too." Nothing stops him from doing that and maintaining his ideological purity or continuing to urge the party to move in his direction.
Bernie is popular because he's independent from the system--neither part of the GOP people dislike or the Democrats people are disappointed in--but the power of his position is only worth anything if he can use his popularity to make people excited about the party again. The more he lobs stones at them from behind the comfort of his (I), the more he encourages the people who like him to succumb to "throw it all away"-ism, and that attitude will destroy any chance of defeating Trump and the GOP in 2018/2020.
There were a bunch of posters in this very thread talking about how the people of America didn't deserve her, like she was some immaculate politics saint, just a few minutes ago. And, I note, every time the more leftist members of this discussion bring up the serious missteps Clinton made during the campaign there's a contingent that responds with "oh, we're not saying she's perfect" that then goes right back to demonizing Bernie Sanders and blaming everything on Comey and Putin.
The fact is, he's only "not a democrat" on a technicality. One that he embraces, sure. But he caucuses with the party, holds a seat for the party, and fundraises for the party. At some point, people just need to let go of the rage over the I and realize that he keeps saying the things he does because they're true on some level, and people like him for it because they think those things too.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
We already hashed both of these things out scarcely 5 pages ago... forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/208964/the-last-2016-election-thread-youll-ever-wear/p67
I think that Democrats and Republicans, or rather, people who seek to label themselves as Democrats or Republicans, are disappearing.
I mean, it makes sense. As politics gets more divisive, people will be less willing to pick up a flag and wade into that hot mess, even if they share the same beliefs. Also people hate the system.
So, being a third party candidate actually gets you more popularity because you are affiliated with the majority of US citizens that are uncommitted to party membership.
At this point, I don't actually see a reason to join a party. It seems libertarian, but it looks like that's the trend for America: have your individual beliefs, support those closest to you, but don't lock yourself in to the current clade.
I wonder what the event horizon is for minimum party membership.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yes, I read those posts, and you're free to post them yourself and show us precisely where ANY of them said that she was an immaculate Snow White, rather than someone that got unfairly fucked over, and continues to get unfairly fucked over by people with an axe to grind.
I'll wait.
-e- You're also free to post the posts that those were responding to, including the little gem where it was stated that her Vice Presidential choice should have fucking resigned due to the loss.
But I am also proud that I voted for Hillary. I'm proud that I went door-to-door to try and convince other people to vote for her. I recognized that I needed to do whatever I could to try and stop Trump. I was also excited that we might have our first female president.
As a supporter of both candidates, I find a lot of the hyperbolic interparty bickering pretty eye-roll worthy. Neither candidate was perfect. Neither was the devil incarnate. I hope we learn from what they both did wrong and what they both did right.
Especially considering that a lot of people registered or identifying as independents still vote along almost straight party lines. The idea of this floating block of independent voters who can be snatched up by the canny presidential candidate is something of a myth. What's far more important is the divide between people who vote and people who don't vote. The candidate that can motivate their base to turn out has the advantage, especially if the other candidate cannot.
That didn't answer the question.
Do you think Joe Manchin (D-WV) is a better standard bearer for Democratic ideas than Bernie?
In West Virginia? Yes. But literally no one is touting Manchin as a national candidate.
No, in Vermont. I mean nationally.