Complaining about Sanders running as a Democrat is kind of unfair since there are no other legitimate political parties in America other than 'Democrat' or 'Republican.'
and if he had run as an independent liberal people would complain about him being a spoiler for Clinton regardless.
It's not like Bernie sullied the Democratic party by running as one.
The issue isn't so much that he ran as a Democrat. I'm happy to welcome him and other social democrats into the party!
The issue is more that he specifically avoided joining the party apparatus for decades, didn't work on building up contacts or goodwill or trying to help the party infrastructure, and then out of nowhere demands the party changes to adapt to him. If he had accepted defeat gracefully when it was clear he couldn't win, if he didn't have a host of surrogates going out complaining about rigged systems and "corporate Democratic whores", nobody here would've been pissed off at him.
It wasn't out of nowhere. It was when he was winning primary races against Clinton. It should have been a giant neon sign of a hint for the party as a whole.
He'd also been fighting for those exact positions for -years- it's not like his positions were unknowable before the primary.
Bernie repeated Trumps "rigged" rhetoric for about a month before eventually supporting her
Because Clinton had basically already been picked by the party apparatus. I don't think "rigged" was the right way to say it but ever since Obama won everyone had already decided on Hillary being the next nominee and how dare this Bernie fellow even try to run.
No one ever criticized Bernie for daring to challenge Hillary. She was in much the same position against Obama and he seemed to do ok.
He did routinely complain about things like superdelegates hurting him, despite the fact that Hillary actually put in the work to collect their support. Most of his early complaints basically amounted to Bernie being angry that's Hillary dared lay groundwork for her candidacy...like she wanted to win or something.
Bernie's salting a wound but he ain't wrong. If there was no ring of truth to his rhetoric there wouldn't be this much squirming. You can talk all you want about how "criticism is ok" but when it actually happens the reaction is "not THAT type of criticism and not from THAT person!"
The "squirming" isn't so much because we believe there's a grain of truth to it, it's because he does have a large base, and those sorts of anti-Dem comments are exactly the sort of feeling that led to president Trump. Many people who used to be totally fine with Hillary (as shown by her phenomenal favorability ratings pre-primary) decided that she was a crook and was ignoring the little man.
As mentioned above, Bernie spent months anti-Hillary and anti-Dem party before he reversed course and decided to campaign for her. But by then the damage was done, there were many people complaining about how Bernie betrayed them, or that he's only saying that because he has to and he doesn't really believe it, and so on. I don't have any numbers on exactly how many people decided not to vote/to vote third party because of the Sanders campaign in particular, but it sure as hell didn't help and in a race that close every last voter mattered.
Complaining about Sanders running as a Democrat is kind of unfair since there are no other legitimate political parties in America other than 'Democrat' or 'Republican.'
and if he had run as an independent liberal people would complain about him being a spoiler for Clinton regardless.
It's not like Bernie sullied the Democratic party by running as one.
The issue isn't so much that he ran as a Democrat. I'm happy to welcome him and other social democrats into the party!
The issue is more that he specifically avoided joining the party apparatus for decades, didn't work on building up contacts or goodwill or trying to help the party infrastructure, and then out of nowhere demands the party changes to adapt to him. If he had accepted defeat gracefully when it was clear he couldn't win, if he didn't have a host of surrogates going out complaining about rigged systems and "corporate Democratic whores", nobody here would've been pissed off at him.
It wasn't out of nowhere. It was when he was winning primary races against Clinton. It should have been a giant neon sign of a hint for the party as a whole.
He'd also been fighting for those exact positions for -years- it's not like his positions were unknowable before the primary.
He won some states against Clinton in the primary. Clinton won both the primary as a whole and a solid majority of voters. Showing that only a minority of the party supports him doesn't give him much ground to stand on to just demand whatever the hell he wants.
How long he's been fighting for those positions (as an independent) is irrelevant.
Bernie repeated Trumps "rigged" rhetoric for about a month before eventually supporting her
Because Clinton had basically already been picked by the party apparatus. I don't think "rigged" was the right way to say it but ever since Obama won everyone had already decided on Hillary being the next nominee and how dare this Bernie fellow even try to run.
That's how parties work - you work your way up, and build backing. Bernie wanted to be the upstart, but without all the baggage that comes with doing so.
And democracy works by having the politicians that focus on inter-party politics instead of winning elections lose. Seems fair.
Is amazing how Bernie focusing on getting the circular firing squad on isn't winning him any favors, or how crowned "Their turn"-has-beens politicians don't actually, you know, win.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
EDIT: To expand, I believe that when a party puts forward a shit field, is the fault of the party for failing to raise decent candidates that inspire people to vote for them. The GOPe put forward a field that was 100% dog poop, and as punishment, they lost control of the party to Trump. Same principle.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
+1
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Bernie repeated Trumps "rigged" rhetoric for about a month before eventually supporting her
Because Clinton had basically already been picked by the party apparatus. I don't think "rigged" was the right way to say it but ever since Obama won everyone had already decided on Hillary being the next nominee and how dare this Bernie fellow even try to run.
No.
There is no nefarious DNC cabal that decides nominees by fiat- Obama's victory over Clinton in 08 proved that.
Bernie lost because he didn't get enough votes, not because he got screwed over.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
TryCatcher on
+6
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Bernie repeated Trumps "rigged" rhetoric for about a month before eventually supporting her
Because Clinton had basically already been picked by the party apparatus. I don't think "rigged" was the right way to say it but ever since Obama won everyone had already decided on Hillary being the next nominee and how dare this Bernie fellow even try to run.
That's how parties work - you work your way up, and build backing. Bernie wanted to be the upstart, but without all the baggage that comes with doing so.
And democracy works by having the politicians that focus on inter-party politics instead of winning elections lose. Seems fair.
Is amazing how Bernie focusing on getting the circular firing squad on isn't winning him any favors, or how crowned "Their turn"-has-beens politicians don't actually, you know, win.
Her turn? How exactly does that get determined?
I'm mostly curious because I'd like to understand how Obama managed to slip into the nomination before her.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
The Dems have certainly been cultivating a bench! There are plenty of Dems who are either prominent or aiming to becoming prominent. The Castro brothers have been doing well for themselves, and one (Julian? the former HUD secretary) likely would've seen a prominent position in the Clinton administration; their limiting factor is that there's not much room for Dems in Texas politics, not that the party won't help them. In California, a few Dems' stars are rising, Becerra, Newsom, Garcetti. New York has Cuomo, Gillibrand, deBlasio. Warren is getting a little older and will be in her 70s by the next election, but she's very prominent (and will be younger than Bernie was this time around); she'd be great at bridging the gap between the two sides. Cory Booker has had a lot of national attention and is popular as well, despite the hits he's taken to his reputation because of his finance industry connections and by not siding with Bernie. Kander lost his senate election, but received a lot of attention and has built up connections. Martin O'Malley didn't do very well in the primary but came out smelling like roses and has two more years before the primaries start to keep himself in the public's eye.
It's not like all of the tens of millions of Dems have just been sitting tight for eight years, looking at Clinton and nobody else.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
Yes, the one thing we needed to find out about Hillary was whether or not she could stand up to baseless accusations...
She stood up to it just fine, the party as a whole did not. And I also have a hard time calling Bernies attacks "mild" since he spent much of the primary calling her corrupt and that's not even getting into the things his own surrogates said.
Complaining about Sanders running as a Democrat is kind of unfair since there are no other legitimate political parties in America other than 'Democrat' or 'Republican.'
and if he had run as an independent liberal people would complain about him being a spoiler for Clinton regardless.
It's not like Bernie sullied the Democratic party by running as one.
The point is that he's perfectly willing to use their resources and clout when it's convenient for him, but he's completely unwilling to actually work withon their framework.
How was he unwilling? Last I checked he campaigned for Hillary after he lost and specifically told his supporters to vote -for- her.
Hell the Democratic party itself seemed unwilling to work within it's own framework the last election considering how many goddamn races they -ignored- when there was absolutely no reason too. Clinton's own campaign offices were left hanging in more than one state.
And his supporters didn't listen. And that's on Bernie. And until he figures that out, he's going to keep the divide alive.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
Yes, the one thing we needed to find out about Hillary was whether or not she could stand up to baseless accusations...
She stood up to it just fine, the party as a whole did not. And I also have a hard time calling Bernies attacks "mild" since he spent much of the primary calling her corrupt and that's not even getting into the things his own surrogates said.
Not to mention his cribbing from the GOP playbook, such as with his U6 arguments used to attack the unemployment rate under Obama.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
Yes, the one thing we needed to find out about Hillary was whether or not she could stand up to baseless accusations...
She stood up to it just fine, the party as a whole did not. And I also have a hard time calling Bernies attacks "mild" since he spent much of the primary calling her corrupt and that's not even getting into the things his own surrogates said.
I keep hearing this same argument but I've seen zero evidence to support it. Everyone wants to scapegoat Bernie instead of the candidate, which is the easy way out. The Dem Establishment ran their star candidate just like they wanted, just like they planned for years, and then blame literally everyone and anyone else when it all fell to pieces.
As far as I'm concerned, if candidate was destroyed by an upstart socialist independent in a primary, then the blame is on the candidate. You don't blame the light breeze for blowing down the house if the house is made of carefully balanced playing cards.
being attacked from the left using the talking points of the right is not a "light breeze". Bernie flat out gave his supporters permission to accept the arguments of the Republicans!
If you want to attack in the primary then you do it on policy. You attack from the left and do not validate attacks from the right.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
Yes, the one thing we needed to find out about Hillary was whether or not she could stand up to baseless accusations...
She stood up to it just fine, the party as a whole did not. And I also have a hard time calling Bernies attacks "mild" since he spent much of the primary calling her corrupt and that's not even getting into the things his own surrogates said.
I keep hearing this same argument but I've seen zero evidence to support it. Everyone wants to scapegoat Bernie instead of the candidate, which is the easy way out. The Dem Establishment ran their star candidate just like they wanted, just like they planned for years, and then blame literally everyone and anyone else when it all fell to pieces.
As far as I'm concerned, if candidate was destroyed by an upstart socialist independent in a primary, then the blame is on the candidate. You don't blame the light breeze for blowing down the house if the house is made of carefully balanced playing cards.
Something that didn't actually happen, mind you.
Hillary won the popular vote and the delegate count by significant margins, and while largely focusing on and conserving resources for the general election.
True. And yet, none of those people wanted to get on the primary field. And a big part of that was because "it was her turn". Again, that's on the party.
Brooker, as an example, gets a ton of shit for good reasons, but even he could have beaten Clinton on an open primary.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
The Dems have certainly been cultivating a bench! There are plenty of Dems who are either prominent or aiming to becoming prominent. The Castro brothers have been doing well for themselves, and one (Julian? the former HUD secretary) likely would've seen a prominent position in the Clinton administration; their limiting factor is that there's not much room for Dems in Texas politics, not that the party won't help them. In California, a few Dems' stars are rising, Becerra, Newsom, Garcetti. New York has Cuomo, Gillibrand, deBlasio. Warren is getting a little older and will be in her 70s by the next election, but she's very prominent (and will be younger than Bernie was this time around); she'd be great at bridging the gap between the two sides. Cory Booker has had a lot of national attention and is popular as well, despite the hits he's taken to his reputation because of his finance industry connections and by not siding with Bernie. Kander lost his senate election, but received a lot of attention and has built up connections. Martin O'Malley didn't do very well in the primary but came out smelling like roses and has two more years before the primaries start to keep himself in the public's eye.
It's not like all of the tens of millions of Dems have just been sitting tight for eight years, looking at Clinton and nobody else.
Aye. The Dems are at a numerical disadvantage in lower levels of government, but that's still thousands of offices nationwide. The only reason people paid more attention to 2016's deep bench is that they always pay more attention to the backbenchers of the party that's out of the White House because there are few unified voices for that party. If Clinton had declared in 2014 that she wasn't going to run for President, i bet the Dems would have come up with 4-6 serious candidates (serious as in, could win at least one state's primary), not counting Bernie.
These folks exist, they were just staying out of Clinton's way for the sake of party unity. Now she's out of the way and we're learning a lot of new names.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
The Dems have certainly been cultivating a bench! There are plenty of Dems who are either prominent or aiming to becoming prominent. The Castro brothers have been doing well for themselves, and one (Julian? the former HUD secretary) likely would've seen a prominent position in the Clinton administration; their limiting factor is that there's not much room for Dems in Texas politics, not that the party won't help them. In California, a few Dems' stars are rising, Becerra, Newsom, Garcetti. New York has Cuomo, Gillibrand, deBlasio. Warren is getting a little older and will be in her 70s by the next election, but she's very prominent (and will be younger than Bernie was this time around); she'd be great at bridging the gap between the two sides. Cory Booker has had a lot of national attention and is popular as well, despite the hits he's taken to his reputation because of his finance industry connections and by not siding with Bernie. Kander lost his senate election, but received a lot of attention and has built up connections. Martin O'Malley didn't do very well in the primary but came out smelling like roses and has two more years before the primaries start to keep himself in the public's eye.
It's not like all of the tens of millions of Dems have just been sitting tight for eight years, looking at Clinton and nobody else.
Aye. The Dems are at a numerical disadvantage in lower levels of government, but that's still thousands of offices nationwide. The only reason people paid more attention to 2016's deep bench is that they always pay more attention to the backbenchers of the party that's out of the White House because there are few unified voices for that party. If Clinton had declared in 2014 that she wasn't going to run for President, i bet the Dems would have come up with 4-6 serious candidates (serious as in, could win at least one state's primary), not counting Bernie.
These folks exist, they were just staying out of Clinton's way for the sake of party unity. Now she's out of the way and we're learning a lot of new names.
Party unity sure did a lot of good on 2016.
In a less pithy observation, if she had been out of the way sooner, Trump probably wouldn't have won.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
Yes, the one thing we needed to find out about Hillary was whether or not she could stand up to baseless accusations...
She stood up to it just fine, the party as a whole did not. And I also have a hard time calling Bernies attacks "mild" since he spent much of the primary calling her corrupt and that's not even getting into the things his own surrogates said.
I keep hearing this same argument but I've seen zero evidence to support it. Everyone wants to scapegoat Bernie instead of the candidate, which is the easy way out. The Dem Establishment ran their star candidate just like they wanted, just like they planned for years, and then blame literally everyone and anyone else when it all fell to pieces.
Speaking of hearing the same argument. The argument that the establishment got what they wanted should not be repeated as often as it is.
Especially since "establishment" is such a vague term that as we saw during the primary essentially just stood for anyone who supported Hillary over Bernie, like Planned Parenthood. It completely ignores that she actually won the primary contests.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
The Dems have certainly been cultivating a bench! There are plenty of Dems who are either prominent or aiming to becoming prominent. The Castro brothers have been doing well for themselves, and one (Julian? the former HUD secretary) likely would've seen a prominent position in the Clinton administration; their limiting factor is that there's not much room for Dems in Texas politics, not that the party won't help them. In California, a few Dems' stars are rising, Becerra, Newsom, Garcetti. New York has Cuomo, Gillibrand, deBlasio. Warren is getting a little older and will be in her 70s by the next election, but she's very prominent (and will be younger than Bernie was this time around); she'd be great at bridging the gap between the two sides. Cory Booker has had a lot of national attention and is popular as well, despite the hits he's taken to his reputation because of his finance industry connections and by not siding with Bernie. Kander lost his senate election, but received a lot of attention and has built up connections. Martin O'Malley didn't do very well in the primary but came out smelling like roses and has two more years before the primaries start to keep himself in the public's eye.
It's not like all of the tens of millions of Dems have just been sitting tight for eight years, looking at Clinton and nobody else.
Aye. The Dems are at a numerical disadvantage in lower levels of government, but that's still thousands of offices nationwide. The only reason people paid more attention to 2016's deep bench is that they always pay more attention to the backbenchers of the party that's out of the White House because there are few unified voices for that party. If Clinton had declared in 2014 that she wasn't going to run for President, i bet the Dems would have come up with 4-6 serious candidates (serious as in, could win at least one state's primary), not counting Bernie.
These folks exist, they were just staying out of Clinton's way for the sake of party unity. Now she's out of the way and we're learning a lot of new names.
Party unity sure did a lot of good on 2016.
That is circular reasoning.
Our argument is Sanders did a lot to damage party unity. If all those names I mentioned above had ran in the primary and then spent the general election ganging up on Hillary, there would've been less party unity and she would've done worse. If Bernie had had a more civil primary campaign, there would've been more party unity and she would've done better.
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
Yes, the one thing we needed to find out about Hillary was whether or not she could stand up to baseless accusations...
She stood up to it just fine, the party as a whole did not. And I also have a hard time calling Bernies attacks "mild" since he spent much of the primary calling her corrupt and that's not even getting into the things his own surrogates said.
I keep hearing this same argument but I've seen zero evidence to support it. Everyone wants to scapegoat Bernie instead of the candidate, which is the easy way out. The Dem Establishment ran their star candidate just like they wanted, just like they planned for years, and then blame literally everyone and anyone else when it all fell to pieces.
Ummm I don't see anyone blaming Clinton's loss entirely on Sanders, or that Clinton and the Dems ran a perfect campaign. I also don't see the DNC or Clinton doing it.
I most assuredly didn't see the DNC shadow cabal picking Clinton "like they had planned for years" because hardy har har, if that were true, she would have been the nominee in 08.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
The Dems have certainly been cultivating a bench! There are plenty of Dems who are either prominent or aiming to becoming prominent. The Castro brothers have been doing well for themselves, and one (Julian? the former HUD secretary) likely would've seen a prominent position in the Clinton administration; their limiting factor is that there's not much room for Dems in Texas politics, not that the party won't help them. In California, a few Dems' stars are rising, Becerra, Newsom, Garcetti. New York has Cuomo, Gillibrand, deBlasio. Warren is getting a little older and will be in her 70s by the next election, but she's very prominent (and will be younger than Bernie was this time around); she'd be great at bridging the gap between the two sides. Cory Booker has had a lot of national attention and is popular as well, despite the hits he's taken to his reputation because of his finance industry connections and by not siding with Bernie. Kander lost his senate election, but received a lot of attention and has built up connections. Martin O'Malley didn't do very well in the primary but came out smelling like roses and has two more years before the primaries start to keep himself in the public's eye.
It's not like all of the tens of millions of Dems have just been sitting tight for eight years, looking at Clinton and nobody else.
Aye. The Dems are at a numerical disadvantage in lower levels of government, but that's still thousands of offices nationwide. The only reason people paid more attention to 2016's deep bench is that they always pay more attention to the backbenchers of the party that's out of the White House because there are few unified voices for that party. If Clinton had declared in 2014 that she wasn't going to run for President, i bet the Dems would have come up with 4-6 serious candidates (serious as in, could win at least one state's primary), not counting Bernie.
These folks exist, they were just staying out of Clinton's way for the sake of party unity. Now she's out of the way and we're learning a lot of new names.
Party unity sure did a lot of good on 2016.
In a less pithy observation, if she had been out of the way sooner, Trump probably wouldn't have won.
A serious attempt to beat Clinton would have been a serious waste of money. She didn't win the Democratic party because people handed her the race (the only time that happened, it was Bernie doing the handoff, in that he basically ceded Dixie to her without much of a fight), she won because she was imminently qualified.
It's definitely her fault that she didn't have a good way to beat the GOP's 25-year smear campaign, but how was anybody else going to top her, realistically? The reason Obama beat her, despite being a similarly centrist Democrat, was because he played better with black people (for obvious reasons), but she had a strong link with that demographic too.
She lost because of a series of flukes combined with poor messaging towards the industrial Midwest. Let's fix the messaging and also focus more time/energy/money downticket. And I guess don't run someone who's been mercilessly slandered for 25 years, but that's obviously happening so who cares.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+12
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
True. And yet, none of those people wanted to get on the primary field. And a big part of that was because "it was her turn".
And as is continually pointed out, this is ludicrous bullshit.
Do you have any evidence supporting this? Because, as I and others keep telling you, if what you say was true Obama's 08 primary victory apparently didn't occur and the McCain administration just ended.
being attacked from the left using the talking points of the right is not a "light breeze". Bernie flat out gave his supporters permission to accept the arguments of the Republicans!
If you want to attack in the primary then you do it on policy. You attack from the left and do not validate attacks from the right.
And this is the exact same thing you'd hear from Sanders' supporters about Clinton. There were many complaints against her on these boards and elsewhere because people felt she was attacking Sanders' policies using a right-wing framing.
The Democrats live and die on enthusiasm and turnout. Don't throw shit in the primary that kills either one.
It's kind of a loaded question anyway, since there's not really an answer that isn't A) filled with platitudes that lack substance (ie: 'we're for equally for all!) and doesn't alienate or prioritize some groups over others. It's a question that can only be answered by consensus, not by one person during an interview.
It's not really either. The specific quote from the piece is:
I asked him if he thought the Democratic Party knew what it stood for. “You’re asking a good question, and I can’t give you a definitive answer,” he said. “Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats.”
And while what he says is correct, it's also seems like a dodge so he can take a swipe at the party. There's things the party is arguing over when it comes to changing but there's TONS of ground on which the Democratic party knows what it stands for and Sanders can certainly answer for that. He helped set down some of it after all.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
The Dems have certainly been cultivating a bench! There are plenty of Dems who are either prominent or aiming to becoming prominent. The Castro brothers have been doing well for themselves, and one (Julian? the former HUD secretary) likely would've seen a prominent position in the Clinton administration; their limiting factor is that there's not much room for Dems in Texas politics, not that the party won't help them. In California, a few Dems' stars are rising, Becerra, Newsom, Garcetti. New York has Cuomo, Gillibrand, deBlasio. Warren is getting a little older and will be in her 70s by the next election, but she's very prominent (and will be younger than Bernie was this time around); she'd be great at bridging the gap between the two sides. Cory Booker has had a lot of national attention and is popular as well, despite the hits he's taken to his reputation because of his finance industry connections and by not siding with Bernie. Kander lost his senate election, but received a lot of attention and has built up connections. Martin O'Malley didn't do very well in the primary but came out smelling like roses and has two more years before the primaries start to keep himself in the public's eye.
It's not like all of the tens of millions of Dems have just been sitting tight for eight years, looking at Clinton and nobody else.
Aye. The Dems are at a numerical disadvantage in lower levels of government, but that's still thousands of offices nationwide. The only reason people paid more attention to 2016's deep bench is that they always pay more attention to the backbenchers of the party that's out of the White House because there are few unified voices for that party. If Clinton had declared in 2014 that she wasn't going to run for President, i bet the Dems would have come up with 4-6 serious candidates (serious as in, could win at least one state's primary), not counting Bernie.
These folks exist, they were just staying out of Clinton's way for the sake of party unity. Now she's out of the way and we're learning a lot of new names.
No, they stayed out of her way because they looked at the way the invisible primary was shaping up and realised they didn't have a shot. They didn't want
to end up the way O'Malley did.
There's a long period of time before the primary voters start voting where politicians send out feelers and talk to people and basically gauge their level of support among the party. And all the people doing this in the lead up to 2016 came away realising almost everyone was already supporting Clinton.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
EDIT: To expand, I believe that when a party puts forward a shit field, is the fault of the party for failing to raise decent candidates that inspire people to vote for them. The GOPe put forward a field that was 100% dog poop, and as punishment, they lost control of the party to Trump. Same principle.
I agree the field shouldn't have been as restricted, but that doesn't necessarily become proof Bernie would have won. She was our best shot by every metric, she lost - its not like she took a dive for Trump.
Shockingly Democrats do lose in elections, including Presidentials - though I do find this criticism rich from Bernie backers. If Hillary losing to Trump is such a burden why isn't this standard applied to Bernie. He couldn't even beat Hillary.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
The Dems have certainly been cultivating a bench! There are plenty of Dems who are either prominent or aiming to becoming prominent. The Castro brothers have been doing well for themselves, and one (Julian? the former HUD secretary) likely would've seen a prominent position in the Clinton administration; their limiting factor is that there's not much room for Dems in Texas politics, not that the party won't help them. In California, a few Dems' stars are rising, Becerra, Newsom, Garcetti. New York has Cuomo, Gillibrand, deBlasio. Warren is getting a little older and will be in her 70s by the next election, but she's very prominent (and will be younger than Bernie was this time around); she'd be great at bridging the gap between the two sides. Cory Booker has had a lot of national attention and is popular as well, despite the hits he's taken to his reputation because of his finance industry connections and by not siding with Bernie. Kander lost his senate election, but received a lot of attention and has built up connections. Martin O'Malley didn't do very well in the primary but came out smelling like roses and has two more years before the primaries start to keep himself in the public's eye.
It's not like all of the tens of millions of Dems have just been sitting tight for eight years, looking at Clinton and nobody else.
Aye. The Dems are at a numerical disadvantage in lower levels of government, but that's still thousands of offices nationwide. The only reason people paid more attention to 2016's deep bench is that they always pay more attention to the backbenchers of the party that's out of the White House because there are few unified voices for that party. If Clinton had declared in 2014 that she wasn't going to run for President, i bet the Dems would have come up with 4-6 serious candidates (serious as in, could win at least one state's primary), not counting Bernie.
These folks exist, they were just staying out of Clinton's way for the sake of party unity. Now she's out of the way and we're learning a lot of new names.
Party unity sure did a lot of good on 2016.
In a less pithy observation, if she had been out of the way sooner, Trump probably wouldn't have won.
Bernie guaranteed the unity was never 100 per cent when he radicalizes some off his voting base and lost total control over that segment when the time came to cash in those chips he held to the throat of the party for his endorsement. He started this rift and to this day refuses to end it from his side.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
Even with a good bench it's not easy for the losing party to get their shit together. How long has it been since the election? A month, two? We'll find our new leaders in the next elections as parties all have.
being attacked from the left using the talking points of the right is not a "light breeze". Bernie flat out gave his supporters permission to accept the arguments of the Republicans!
If you want to attack in the primary then you do it on policy. You attack from the left and do not validate attacks from the right.
And this is the exact same thing you'd hear from Sanders' supporters about Clinton. There were many complaints against her on these boards and elsewhere because people felt she was attacking Sanders' policies using a right-wing framing.
The Democrats live and die on enthusiasm and turnout. Don't throw shit in the primary that kills either one.
I would not compare what Hillary did in comparison to Bernie and his campaign. Hillary ran an ordinary campaign, Bernie wanted to burn the house down when it was clear he wasn't going to win and continues running anyway.
No one cares when a rando on the internet does it, it's quite another when the candidate themselves, their surrogates and their staff encourage it. Bernie being the leader means this all falls on him.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
The Dems have certainly been cultivating a bench! There are plenty of Dems who are either prominent or aiming to becoming prominent. The Castro brothers have been doing well for themselves, and one (Julian? the former HUD secretary) likely would've seen a prominent position in the Clinton administration; their limiting factor is that there's not much room for Dems in Texas politics, not that the party won't help them. In California, a few Dems' stars are rising, Becerra, Newsom, Garcetti. New York has Cuomo, Gillibrand, deBlasio. Warren is getting a little older and will be in her 70s by the next election, but she's very prominent (and will be younger than Bernie was this time around); she'd be great at bridging the gap between the two sides. Cory Booker has had a lot of national attention and is popular as well, despite the hits he's taken to his reputation because of his finance industry connections and by not siding with Bernie. Kander lost his senate election, but received a lot of attention and has built up connections. Martin O'Malley didn't do very well in the primary but came out smelling like roses and has two more years before the primaries start to keep himself in the public's eye.
It's not like all of the tens of millions of Dems have just been sitting tight for eight years, looking at Clinton and nobody else.
Aye. The Dems are at a numerical disadvantage in lower levels of government, but that's still thousands of offices nationwide. The only reason people paid more attention to 2016's deep bench is that they always pay more attention to the backbenchers of the party that's out of the White House because there are few unified voices for that party. If Clinton had declared in 2014 that she wasn't going to run for President, i bet the Dems would have come up with 4-6 serious candidates (serious as in, could win at least one state's primary), not counting Bernie.
These folks exist, they were just staying out of Clinton's way for the sake of party unity. Now she's out of the way and we're learning a lot of new names.
Party unity sure did a lot of good on 2016.
In a less pithy observation, if she had been out of the way sooner, Trump probably wouldn't have won.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
EDIT: To expand, I believe that when a party puts forward a shit field, is the fault of the party for failing to raise decent candidates that inspire people to vote for them. The GOPe put forward a field that was 100% dog poop, and as punishment, they lost control of the party to Trump. Same principle.
The 'empty bench' narrative is garbage. Trump won. We can pick ANYONE and they can win with the right messaging and support. Honestly, considering our opponents we're probably best picking someone like 5 minutes before the first primary so they have as little time as possible to slander them.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
EDIT: To expand, I believe that when a party puts forward a shit field, is the fault of the party for failing to raise decent candidates that inspire people to vote for them. The GOPe put forward a field that was 100% dog poop, and as punishment, they lost control of the party to Trump. Same principle.
The 'empty bench' narrative is garbage. Trump won. We can pick ANYONE and they can win with the right messaging and support. Honestly, considering our opponents we're probably best picking someone like 5 minutes before the first primary so they have as little time as possible to slander them.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
EDIT: To expand, I believe that when a party puts forward a shit field, is the fault of the party for failing to raise decent candidates that inspire people to vote for them. The GOPe put forward a field that was 100% dog poop, and as punishment, they lost control of the party to Trump. Same principle.
The 'empty bench' narrative is garbage. Trump won. We can pick ANYONE and they can win with the right messaging and support. Honestly, considering our opponents we're probably best picking someone like 5 minutes before the first primary so they have as little time as possible to slander them.
Huh? No. Who we pick matters.
It won't matter who gets picked if they're not backed up with right messaging and support. The party also must be pragmatic enough to adjust to whoever is the nominee too.
If you think Hillary was the nominee simply because it was "her turn" then I really don't know what to say because you've bought a narrative entirely divorced from reality.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
EDIT: To expand, I believe that when a party puts forward a shit field, is the fault of the party for failing to raise decent candidates that inspire people to vote for them. The GOPe put forward a field that was 100% dog poop, and as punishment, they lost control of the party to Trump. Same principle.
The 'empty bench' narrative is garbage. Trump won. We can pick ANYONE and they can win with the right messaging and support. Honestly, considering our opponents we're probably best picking someone like 5 minutes before the first primary so they have as little time as possible to slander them.
Huh? No. Who we pick matters.
It won't matter who gets picked if they're not backed up with right messaging and support. The party also must be pragmatic enough to adjust to whoever is the nominee too.
Yeah but that's not what was asserted? This doesn't follow from my post.
What was originally stated was we could nominate a theoretical SuperCandidate and that person would lose if the GOP had the right messaging and support. I don't find that a useful way of thinking, since it completely removes any impetus we might have to try and nominate the best candidate possible.
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Posts
It wasn't out of nowhere. It was when he was winning primary races against Clinton. It should have been a giant neon sign of a hint for the party as a whole.
He'd also been fighting for those exact positions for -years- it's not like his positions were unknowable before the primary.
No one ever criticized Bernie for daring to challenge Hillary. She was in much the same position against Obama and he seemed to do ok.
He did routinely complain about things like superdelegates hurting him, despite the fact that Hillary actually put in the work to collect their support. Most of his early complaints basically amounted to Bernie being angry that's Hillary dared lay groundwork for her candidacy...like she wanted to win or something.
The "squirming" isn't so much because we believe there's a grain of truth to it, it's because he does have a large base, and those sorts of anti-Dem comments are exactly the sort of feeling that led to president Trump. Many people who used to be totally fine with Hillary (as shown by her phenomenal favorability ratings pre-primary) decided that she was a crook and was ignoring the little man.
As mentioned above, Bernie spent months anti-Hillary and anti-Dem party before he reversed course and decided to campaign for her. But by then the damage was done, there were many people complaining about how Bernie betrayed them, or that he's only saying that because he has to and he doesn't really believe it, and so on. I don't have any numbers on exactly how many people decided not to vote/to vote third party because of the Sanders campaign in particular, but it sure as hell didn't help and in a race that close every last voter mattered.
He won some states against Clinton in the primary. Clinton won both the primary as a whole and a solid majority of voters. Showing that only a minority of the party supports him doesn't give him much ground to stand on to just demand whatever the hell he wants.
How long he's been fighting for those positions (as an independent) is irrelevant.
And democracy works by having the politicians that focus on inter-party politics instead of winning elections lose. Seems fair.
Is amazing how Bernie focusing on getting the circular firing squad on isn't winning him any favors, or how crowned "Their turn"-has-beens politicians don't actually, you know, win.
Oh, don't take me wrong. She was the best candidate of the bunch, no question. Problem is, the bench is empty because "Why bother to get a bench, we have Obama!" turned into "Why bother to put a decent primary field, she's going to win".
And now, the bench is still empty and there's no victory to show it. Whoops.
EDIT: To expand, I believe that when a party puts forward a shit field, is the fault of the party for failing to raise decent candidates that inspire people to vote for them. The GOPe put forward a field that was 100% dog poop, and as punishment, they lost control of the party to Trump. Same principle.
The one doesn't follow from the other. You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench.
Also, if Hillary was the best of the bunch, what is the benefit of making her go through a primary where she gets attacked from the left and right? What did we gain by having the best candidate go through a process that was made to be as difficult as possible?
No.
There is no nefarious DNC cabal that decides nominees by fiat- Obama's victory over Clinton in 08 proved that.
Bernie lost because he didn't get enough votes, not because he got screwed over.
To prove that your candidate can take it? I mean, since a Socialist from Vermont that only put forward relatively mild attacks gave her so much difficulty, there was heavy skepticism that she could take hits from the Trumpdozer and the GOP without sinking. That skepticism was, unfortunately, proved correct.
Also, "You can have prominent candidates and also cultivate a bench." Isn't the dire straits of the party a consequence of failing to do that?
Her turn? How exactly does that get determined?
I'm mostly curious because I'd like to understand how Obama managed to slip into the nomination before her.
The Dems have certainly been cultivating a bench! There are plenty of Dems who are either prominent or aiming to becoming prominent. The Castro brothers have been doing well for themselves, and one (Julian? the former HUD secretary) likely would've seen a prominent position in the Clinton administration; their limiting factor is that there's not much room for Dems in Texas politics, not that the party won't help them. In California, a few Dems' stars are rising, Becerra, Newsom, Garcetti. New York has Cuomo, Gillibrand, deBlasio. Warren is getting a little older and will be in her 70s by the next election, but she's very prominent (and will be younger than Bernie was this time around); she'd be great at bridging the gap between the two sides. Cory Booker has had a lot of national attention and is popular as well, despite the hits he's taken to his reputation because of his finance industry connections and by not siding with Bernie. Kander lost his senate election, but received a lot of attention and has built up connections. Martin O'Malley didn't do very well in the primary but came out smelling like roses and has two more years before the primaries start to keep himself in the public's eye.
It's not like all of the tens of millions of Dems have just been sitting tight for eight years, looking at Clinton and nobody else.
Yes, the one thing we needed to find out about Hillary was whether or not she could stand up to baseless accusations...
She stood up to it just fine, the party as a whole did not. And I also have a hard time calling Bernies attacks "mild" since he spent much of the primary calling her corrupt and that's not even getting into the things his own surrogates said.
And his supporters didn't listen. And that's on Bernie. And until he figures that out, he's going to keep the divide alive.
Not to mention his cribbing from the GOP playbook, such as with his U6 arguments used to attack the unemployment rate under Obama.
I keep hearing this same argument but I've seen zero evidence to support it. Everyone wants to scapegoat Bernie instead of the candidate, which is the easy way out. The Dem Establishment ran their star candidate just like they wanted, just like they planned for years, and then blame literally everyone and anyone else when it all fell to pieces.
As far as I'm concerned, if candidate was destroyed by an upstart socialist independent in a primary, then the blame is on the candidate. You don't blame the light breeze for blowing down the house if the house is made of carefully balanced playing cards.
If you want to attack in the primary then you do it on policy. You attack from the left and do not validate attacks from the right.
Something that didn't actually happen, mind you.
Hillary won the popular vote and the delegate count by significant margins, and while largely focusing on and conserving resources for the general election.
True. And yet, none of those people wanted to get on the primary field. And a big part of that was because "it was her turn". Again, that's on the party.
Brooker, as an example, gets a ton of shit for good reasons, but even he could have beaten Clinton on an open primary.
Aye. The Dems are at a numerical disadvantage in lower levels of government, but that's still thousands of offices nationwide. The only reason people paid more attention to 2016's deep bench is that they always pay more attention to the backbenchers of the party that's out of the White House because there are few unified voices for that party. If Clinton had declared in 2014 that she wasn't going to run for President, i bet the Dems would have come up with 4-6 serious candidates (serious as in, could win at least one state's primary), not counting Bernie.
These folks exist, they were just staying out of Clinton's way for the sake of party unity. Now she's out of the way and we're learning a lot of new names.
Party unity sure did a lot of good on 2016.
In a less pithy observation, if she had been out of the way sooner, Trump probably wouldn't have won.
Speaking of hearing the same argument. The argument that the establishment got what they wanted should not be repeated as often as it is.
Especially since "establishment" is such a vague term that as we saw during the primary essentially just stood for anyone who supported Hillary over Bernie, like Planned Parenthood. It completely ignores that she actually won the primary contests.
That is circular reasoning.
Our argument is Sanders did a lot to damage party unity. If all those names I mentioned above had ran in the primary and then spent the general election ganging up on Hillary, there would've been less party unity and she would've done worse. If Bernie had had a more civil primary campaign, there would've been more party unity and she would've done better.
Ummm I don't see anyone blaming Clinton's loss entirely on Sanders, or that Clinton and the Dems ran a perfect campaign. I also don't see the DNC or Clinton doing it.
I most assuredly didn't see the DNC shadow cabal picking Clinton "like they had planned for years" because hardy har har, if that were true, she would have been the nominee in 08.
But keep screwing that chicken if you wish.
A serious attempt to beat Clinton would have been a serious waste of money. She didn't win the Democratic party because people handed her the race (the only time that happened, it was Bernie doing the handoff, in that he basically ceded Dixie to her without much of a fight), she won because she was imminently qualified.
It's definitely her fault that she didn't have a good way to beat the GOP's 25-year smear campaign, but how was anybody else going to top her, realistically? The reason Obama beat her, despite being a similarly centrist Democrat, was because he played better with black people (for obvious reasons), but she had a strong link with that demographic too.
And as is continually pointed out, this is ludicrous bullshit.
Do you have any evidence supporting this? Because, as I and others keep telling you, if what you say was true Obama's 08 primary victory apparently didn't occur and the McCain administration just ended.
Keeps the meta commentary somewhere else.
And this is the exact same thing you'd hear from Sanders' supporters about Clinton. There were many complaints against her on these boards and elsewhere because people felt she was attacking Sanders' policies using a right-wing framing.
The Democrats live and die on enthusiasm and turnout. Don't throw shit in the primary that kills either one.
It's not really either. The specific quote from the piece is:
And while what he says is correct, it's also seems like a dodge so he can take a swipe at the party. There's things the party is arguing over when it comes to changing but there's TONS of ground on which the Democratic party knows what it stands for and Sanders can certainly answer for that. He helped set down some of it after all.
No, they stayed out of her way because they looked at the way the invisible primary was shaping up and realised they didn't have a shot. They didn't want
to end up the way O'Malley did.
There's a long period of time before the primary voters start voting where politicians send out feelers and talk to people and basically gauge their level of support among the party. And all the people doing this in the lead up to 2016 came away realising almost everyone was already supporting Clinton.
I agree the field shouldn't have been as restricted, but that doesn't necessarily become proof Bernie would have won. She was our best shot by every metric, she lost - its not like she took a dive for Trump.
Shockingly Democrats do lose in elections, including Presidentials - though I do find this criticism rich from Bernie backers. If Hillary losing to Trump is such a burden why isn't this standard applied to Bernie. He couldn't even beat Hillary.
Bernie guaranteed the unity was never 100 per cent when he radicalizes some off his voting base and lost total control over that segment when the time came to cash in those chips he held to the throat of the party for his endorsement. He started this rift and to this day refuses to end it from his side.
Even with a good bench it's not easy for the losing party to get their shit together. How long has it been since the election? A month, two? We'll find our new leaders in the next elections as parties all have.
I would not compare what Hillary did in comparison to Bernie and his campaign. Hillary ran an ordinary campaign, Bernie wanted to burn the house down when it was clear he wasn't going to win and continues running anyway.
No one cares when a rando on the internet does it, it's quite another when the candidate themselves, their surrogates and their staff encourage it. Bernie being the leader means this all falls on him.
Define "been out of the way sooner."
The 'empty bench' narrative is garbage. Trump won. We can pick ANYONE and they can win with the right messaging and support. Honestly, considering our opponents we're probably best picking someone like 5 minutes before the first primary so they have as little time as possible to slander them.
Huh? No. Who we pick matters.
It won't matter who gets picked if they're not backed up with right messaging and support. The party also must be pragmatic enough to adjust to whoever is the nominee too.
Yeah but that's not what was asserted? This doesn't follow from my post.
What was originally stated was we could nominate a theoretical SuperCandidate and that person would lose if the GOP had the right messaging and support. I don't find that a useful way of thinking, since it completely removes any impetus we might have to try and nominate the best candidate possible.