As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Last 2016 Election Thread You'll Ever Wear

17172747677100

Posts

  • FakefauxFakefaux Cóiste Bodhar Driving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    What action did the party take against Sanders, specifically?

    Allowing joint fundraising through the Hillary Victory Fund was the most obvious. Added to that is the complete lack money being distributed to state parties despite assurances they would get help.
    Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of last month, the fund had brought in $142 million, the lion’s share of which — 44 percent — has wound up in the coffers of the DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), according to a POLITICO analysis of FEC reports filed this month. By comparison, the analysis found that the state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee — or only 0.56 percent.

    Do you think the DNC was a neutral arbiter during the Democratic primary?

    How are either of these things actions against the Sanders campaign?

    I'm not sure why you need anything more than a high-ranking Democratic operative leaking debate questions to one campaign and then being rewarded by becoming the chair of the party. That sort of seems like it should be enough.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited March 2017
    They've had exactly two two term Presidents survive to the end of their Presidency since 1920. And won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote both times. It's more a weird historical quirk that has more to do with the GOP being dominant electoral college wise for all but 36 (1932-1968) of the last 156 years.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No, I'm saying you're living in a goosey conspiracy-filled fantasy world whereyou seem to think that 1. the DNC shadow cabal screwed over Sanders when it reality he just lost and that 2. you can't seem to comprehend why they DNC (which, I hate to break it to you, is not some neutral body) might take umbrage from a candidate (who just so happened couldn't be bothered to even formally join the party until he realized he couldn't make it as an Independent) talking shit about how their fundraising methods were bullshit while Bernie himself was using that money to fund his campaigns.

    I just find it odd that you're shocked and outraged over the suggestion party leadership sabotaged Bernie's campaign when it's exactly the sort of thing you are saying they should be doing.

  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    What action did the party take against Sanders, specifically?

    Allowing joint fundraising through the Hillary Victory Fund was the most obvious. Added to that is the complete lack money being distributed to state parties despite assurances they would get help.
    Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of last month, the fund had brought in $142 million, the lion’s share of which — 44 percent — has wound up in the coffers of the DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), according to a POLITICO analysis of FEC reports filed this month. By comparison, the analysis found that the state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee — or only 0.56 percent.

    Do you think the DNC was a neutral arbiter during the Democratic primary?

    How are either of these things actions against the Sanders campaign?

    I'm not sure why you need anything more than a high-ranking Democratic operative leaking debate questions to one campaign and then being rewarded by becoming the chair of the party. That sort of seems like it should be enough.

    Donna did an improper thing and told Hillary that their would be a question about Flint, during a town hall in Michigan. If Hillary didn't see that coming, especially since she had been bringing it up, I would have been amazed.

    Regardless, what you have here is the actions of an individual that made a mistake, that is certainly not the same as the DNC, as an organization, taking action against Bernie Sanders.

  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No, I'm saying you're living in a goosey conspiracy-filled fantasy world whereyou seem to think that 1. the DNC shadow cabal screwed over Sanders when it reality he just lost and that 2. you can't seem to comprehend why they DNC (which, I hate to break it to you, is not some neutral body) might take umbrage from a candidate (who just so happened couldn't be bothered to even formally join the party until he realized he couldn't make it as an Independent) talking shit about how their fundraising methods were bullshit while Bernie himself was using that money to fund his campaigns.

    I just find it odd that you're shocked and outraged over the suggestion party leadership sabotaged Bernie's campaign when it's exactly the sort of thing you are saying they should be doing.

    There is a difference between sabotaging and having a candidate they prefer over another.

  • wanderingwandering Russia state-affiliated media Registered User regular
    Right now what we need is a Democratic figure that is able to draw as much media attention as Trump.

    ...And, uh, that will be hard.

    Maybe we can find a charismatic clown who likes to talk about the importance of good healthcare while juggling chainsaws on a unicycle.

  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No, I'm saying you're living in a goosey conspiracy-filled fantasy world whereyou seem to think that 1. the DNC shadow cabal screwed over Sanders when it reality he just lost and that 2. you can't seem to comprehend why they DNC (which, I hate to break it to you, is not some neutral body) might take umbrage from a candidate (who just so happened couldn't be bothered to even formally join the party until he realized he couldn't make it as an Independent) talking shit about how their fundraising methods were bullshit while Bernie himself was using that money to fund his campaigns.

    I just find it odd that you're shocked and outraged over the suggestion party leadership sabotaged Bernie's campaign when it's exactly the sort of thing you are saying they should be doing.

    There is a difference between sabotaging and having a candidate they prefer over another.

    Either be impartial or don't. But when the supporters of the guy you tipped the scales against find out, it's not going to be pretty. As we saw.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Bernie Sanders has the highest net favorables of any politician in the country. That's among the general population, but also among rank and file Democrats. He's the only famous Democrat besides Warren (at +3) who has net favorables among Independents.

    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.

    So the question is - why did he lose the primaries? Why didn't they materialize when he needed them the most?

  • skyknytskyknyt Registered User, ClubPA regular
    He was relatively unknown until second quarter 2016. Those early primaries most people didn't know who he was, but everyone knew who Clinton was.

    Tycho wrote:
    [skyknyt's writing] is like come kind of code that, when comprehended, unfolds into madness in the mind of the reader.
    PSN: skyknyt, Steam: skyknyt, Blizz: skyknyt#1160
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Bernie Sanders has the highest net favorables of any politician in the country. That's among the general population, but also among rank and file Democrats. He's the only famous Democrat besides Warren (at +3) who has net favorables among Independents.

    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.

    So the question is - why did he lose the primaries? Why didn't they materialize when he needed them the most?

    Because Democrats also like Hillary Clinton a lot and he never won over enough black or Hispanic voters.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No, I'm saying you're living in a goosey conspiracy-filled fantasy world whereyou seem to think that 1. the DNC shadow cabal screwed over Sanders when it reality he just lost and that 2. you can't seem to comprehend why they DNC (which, I hate to break it to you, is not some neutral body) might take umbrage from a candidate (who just so happened couldn't be bothered to even formally join the party until he realized he couldn't make it as an Independent) talking shit about how their fundraising methods were bullshit while Bernie himself was using that money to fund his campaigns.

    I just find it odd that you're shocked and outraged over the suggestion party leadership sabotaged Bernie's campaign when it's exactly the sort of thing you are saying they should be doing.

    There is a difference between sabotaging and having a candidate they prefer over another.

    Either be impartial or don't. But when the supporters of the guy you tipped the scales against find out, it's not going to be pretty. As we saw.

    Except that they didn't.

    And you still haven't provided proof outside of an article that didn't even say what you thought it did, and if anything only cast doubt on Bernie's claims.

    So please, show us the proof, but it's going to be just you trying to make the argument, because as I stated before none of the other Bernie supporters in this thread thinks it's true either.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    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.

    There are two people with the most influence to heal that divide, one is Bernie Sanders - the other is Hillary Clinton. That lone senator isn't a random nobody, he's at the center of this divide and is one of the people within the party itself giving oxygen to the divide. I'm not saying Bernie should do it all himself, but he damn well better do as much as possible to get his faction on board - unless he actually wants a repeat of Trump winning in '20. Nor is someone without influence within the party or over his own faction.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited March 2017
    Clinton had 100% name recognition among Democrats, had been the presumptive nominee for over a decade, was directly associated with the last two very popular Democratic administrations and was very popular among Democrats in her own right. Sanders, for his part, failed to convince a plurality of the primary electorate that he was worth essentially switching their vote from the person they'd been planning on voting for for the last eight years and whom they also looked just fine.

    There are reasons this field was a joke, and they affected Sanders just like they would have any other non Clinton candidate.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No, I'm saying you're living in a goosey conspiracy-filled fantasy world whereyou seem to think that 1. the DNC shadow cabal screwed over Sanders when it reality he just lost and that 2. you can't seem to comprehend why they DNC (which, I hate to break it to you, is not some neutral body) might take umbrage from a candidate (who just so happened couldn't be bothered to even formally join the party until he realized he couldn't make it as an Independent) talking shit about how their fundraising methods were bullshit while Bernie himself was using that money to fund his campaigns.

    I just find it odd that you're shocked and outraged over the suggestion party leadership sabotaged Bernie's campaign when it's exactly the sort of thing you are saying they should be doing.

    There is a difference between sabotaging and having a candidate they prefer over another.

    Either be impartial or don't. But when the supporters of the guy you tipped the scales against find out, it's not going to be pretty. As we saw.

    Once again,

    How did the DNC, as an organization, actively work against Bernie Sanders. Be specific, please.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    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.

    Then why is he so intent on destroying it and sabotaging its efforts? He's been an ally of this party for decades which makes all this even weirder.

    He's not a Democrat on a technicality, he actually joined the party to run in the primaries - no political party lets independents run as an outsider in the primaries, they're not generals.

    Being "true to some level" and "people like him for speaking the truth" is no excuse for how he's acted to get what he wants. Diplomacy has never been his strong suit, this is why he's been bad at collecting allies when he needs them or building long term organizations on the national scale. There are ways to do things rather than blowing things up, or doing things in public when they're usually done in private. Even if I agreed with every word he said how he goes about this backfires on getting the progress done behind the scenes were it actually matters because he must be seen as the ultimate outsider fighting the system 24/7. People aren't going to get over that if he can't control himself and work with us, all he's doing is doing Trump's/GOP's work for them.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Just as a tip:

    Punctuating an argument that the DNC didn't submarine Sanders with a statement that they would totally be within their rights to do so plays straight into the perception that you're arguing against. So unless your just looking for a fight, it's counter productive and should probably stop happening.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • wanderingwandering Russia state-affiliated media Registered User regular
    Speaking as a Bernie-bovine, I agree that Hillary won the primary fair and square. Maybe you can quibble with the debate schedule they set or whatever but I think the idea that the DNC 'threw' the election for Hillary is way overblown. There's no evidence of any Karl Rove/Nixon-style dirty tricks.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Sanders "looking to destroy the party and sabotage it's efforts" is so hyperbolic as to defy reply. Please bring the polemics down a notch or four if you actually want to have this conversation.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    edited March 2017
    Marathon wrote: »
    Once again,

    How did the DNC, as an organization, actively work against Bernie Sanders. Be specific, please.
    Paul Blumenthal, a political reporter for The Huffington Post noted that the super joint fundraising committee was unusual. Candidates did not normally agree to joint fundraising until after securing the nomination. It was also the first fundraising committee since the 2014 fundraising law changes.[8] The New York Times reported that some state party officials "expressed reservations" at the Clinton campaign's pairing with the national party before the nominee was officially selected.[7] By comparison, the 2008 campaign's fund was not started until June of the election year, and as of February 2016, the Republican National Committee had not established a joint fundraising committee with its candidates.[6] Some states were hesitant to join the fund, which might appear as a Clinton endorsement and alienation of local donors, but national party officials described the fund as "a way to strengthen the party at its roots".[6] Clinton's opponents in the Democratic presidential primary complained of impartiality on the part of the national committee.[7] While some Democrats questioned the strategy of joint fundraising when Republican super PACs were outpacing Clinton's campaign in fundraising, the chairman of the New Hampshire state party said that it was never too early to prepare for the general election.[7]

    The Washington Post reported in February 2016 that the Clinton campaign had received much of the fund's benefits despite its intended use in state party elections. The newspaper added that the early organization of the fund was a demonstration of the campaign's maximization of big donor support.[6] As the Clinton campaign fought off fellow primary candidate Bernie Sanders, the fund recruited new, small donors—a strategy that campaign finance attorneys described to The Washington Post as "unusual", since joint fundraising committees normally focused on large donors and posh events.[6] A former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission said that the joint fundraising committee structure was not intended to support a single candidate, and the fund appeared to turn "the traditional notion of a joint committee into a Hillary fundraising committee".[6] As of February 2016, the Sanders campaign was not involved in active joint fundraising with the national committee, and considered the fund to be subsidiary to the Clinton campaign.[6] The Sanders joint fundraising committee, the Bernie Victory Fund, is headed by the national committee's chief financial officer, and its only funding is a $1,000 donation from the national committee.[6] As of March 2016, the Sanders campaign financed itself completely through small donations and was potentially uninterested in the Victory Fund coffers if nominated.[12]

    To be clear, I also think Hillary won it outright and the meddling of party leadership did not affect the outcome. But leadership should be impartial in primaries, if for no other reason than to avoid alienating voters backing the person the party didn't support.

    Spaten Optimator on
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    How does Hillary raising money for herself and the party through the use of a victory fund hurt Sanders in any way? He could have done the exact same thing, but chose not to.

    What actions did the DNC take to hurt Sanders?

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Topic point: I am trying to find explanations of Mr. Sanders' apparent post-election popularity. I also submit the theory that not being a member of the Democratic party may have helped more than hurt in the Democratic primary.

    It's not very complicated. Bernie supporters love him, Hillary supporters were mostly fine to happy with him, and he was never subjected to a national campaign so he got to keep the positive feelings people who only heard cursory bits of his message had.

    I think that is a simple part of a complicated model, and I need to wade back in history to see if popular primary losers do maintain popularity after an election, and for how long. It's tricky because Mrs. Clinton was the analogue from the last election, and I don't remember as well going back further.

    John Kerry became the Secretary of State, with great acclaim.
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    They're not true independents anyway. The vast majority are partisans who don't want to be called partisans because believing in things is passe.

    An alternate graph reflects this:

    t_0zylkdouua2xxhq4yfkq.png

    But as long as people don't stand up and be counted in any party infrastructure, doesn't that doom the usefulness of party affiliation in all but fundraising? People want the choice of platform, just not all the baggage that comes with it.

    We may be seeing more independent sidelines in primaries and diminished centralization of party power.

    Topic point: I am trying to find explanations of Mr. Sanders' apparent post-election popularity. I also submit the theory that not being a member of the Democratic party may have helped more than hurt in the Democratic primary.

    I would argue this come back to what I said about motivating the base. A party, in theory, exists to centralize a national platform for and to elect politicians who will pursue and execute that platform. The people necessary to support that party's infrastructure often do so as employees, many of whom are probably more interested in their employment than in grand vision. But many others are there because they believe in the grand vision. Those people sign up because they are motivated. They volunteer, canvass, phone bank, work long hours for little personal gain, because they beleive in that vision.

    If they perceive the party as abandoning that vision, or not living up to that vision, well, some of them don't show up. Others do, because they want to keep working to steer things back on course. But others become disillusioned. They don't come back. They may still vote, but because the party no longer serves their interests, they become detached from the political process.

    I would argue this happened for both parties in this past election cycle. In the case of the Republicans, the disillusioned base came back with a vengeance, and wrested control away from the party leadership and paid employees to put their man on the throne. Some were turned off by this usurpation, but enough were inspired and impassioned enough to contribute anyway and the Republicans did modestly better than previous years. With the Democrats, however, the leadership asserted its control successfully and then failed to properly cultivate volunteers vital to the infrastructure. The disillusioned people who should have formed its backbone didn't turn up to help out, or turned up and found their efforts stymied and left in frustration. And many of those people simply chose not to vote.

    And here we are. A race between two candidates that had tepid support and high unavailability ratings came down to who could motivate the base more. Sure, some outside factors played a role, but the race was close from the beginning. The lesson we should take from this?

    In my option, it's "stick to your ideological guns." Go for your platform full throttle and you will get your base behind you, and you will crush the opposition so long as your base is bigger.

    This overlooks a problem for centrists, they have a PR problem with the leftists and the Rust Belt since they're seen as ineffective, traitors and responsible for all their problems (hint: it's really the GOP). Hillary could have said word for word what Bernie gives her, but they're not going t vote for her blindly or give her the benefit of a doubt - not when the GOP sends any charlatan there who will shape their lies into whatever they to vote for, and they'll do it despite how misogynist or racist they are to the Democrat. Obama was losing these people. If you want them to vote Democrat with these odds the party needs to do more than repeat a platform - because centrists have no credibility there. This is a big reason why Hillary lost, not because she couldn't get enough voters when the time came.
    Paladin wrote: »
    Topic point: I am trying to find explanations of Mr. Sanders' apparent post-election popularity. I also submit the theory that not being a member of the Democratic party may have helped more than hurt in the Democratic primary.

    It's not very complicated. Bernie supporters love him, Hillary supporters were mostly fine to happy with him, and he was never subjected to a national campaign so he got to keep the positive feelings people who only heard cursory bits of his message had.

    As someone who was bullied into supporting Hillary, no. Bernie supporters loved him, Hillary supporters who actually supported Hillary were okay with him, and people resigned to Hillary fucking hated him for having the audacity to believe that this wretched country could be improved until the Baby Boomers died off.

    Like, there's an entire brigade of people who supported Bernie's policies, thought that he'd give the party over to the DLC for a generation upon losing, and then had to watch as Hillary slam-dunked it into the fucking trash.

    Bullied into supporting Hillary? What?

    People hated him for numerous legitimate reasons - no one is against him for improving the country, though. And he's gladly returned the favor by giving us all the middle finger the moment he thought he could get away with it. So yeah, he's not going to welcomed any time soon until he gets with the program.

    And? Why are they so focused on the party, as if he was going to get coronated? He lost fair and square, they need to learn from what mistakes he made and get behind the next guy or girl. This is politics, losing happens.

    skyknyt wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Him staying in the race absolutely made the party platform better than it would have been otherwise.

    Yes let's look at all the good that platform is doing what with having no control of any branch of government.

    At best a pyrrhic victory.

    Just a few pages ago people were pointing at the platform as What the Dems Definitely Stand For. So is that what they stand for? Or is it just a bunch of words on a page that people don't want to back up?

    Hillary's "Popular Vote Win" is the ultimate Asterisk on the end of "But she still, along with her party, lost across the board" and yet we're hearing this "Well Bernie's primary votes weren't real" and "the platform doesn't matter (but hillary ran on the MOST PROGRESSIVE PLATFORM EVER)".

    Do the asterisks matter or not? Does the platform matter or not?

    The consequences of bernie's push were uselessly extreme.

    In order to get a marginally more leftward platform he painted the entire democratic party as corrupt corporate whores. Essentially doing the Republican's work to impune the character of not just hillary, but all democrats, and subsequently anyone willing to defend them. In order to get a more leftward platform, he did just about everything he could to make sure that platform would never be enacted.

    Again pyrrhic victory.

    You can complain about the fact that I'm laying some blame at the feet of bernie sanders, but don't try to tell me he accomplished anything of worth because the only thing he can even try to spin as a positive result of his massive incompetence was only able to be spun as positive if we had won. Without us having got the W his "accomplishments" are completely worth less. Most especially because all he succeeded in doing is giving credence to the idea that such a progressive platform is, apparently, not a winning one.

    Yeah man, if only he had dropped out of the race before she hired a magic bean salesman for her chief strategist, or before she had to defund the state parties, or picked a right to work governor for vice president, or decided to elevate trump, or tried to divide Trump from Republicans, or ran a personality focused campaign, or...

    It's everyone else's incompetence, but never her own, that brought her down apparently.

    No? I'm sure plenty of Hillary voting posters, including myself, have bought up that her campaign fucked up as well. I don't know why this keeps getting over looked on a regular basis.

  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    wandering wrote: »
    Speaking as a Bernie-bovine, I agree that Hillary won the primary fair and square. Maybe you can quibble with the debate schedule they set or whatever but I think the idea that the DNC 'threw' the election for Hillary is way overblown. There's no evidence of any Karl Rove/Nixon-style dirty tricks.

    This is why you're my favorite pink cow.
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Just as a tip:

    Punctuating an argument that the DNC didn't submarine Sanders with a statement that they would totally be within their rights to do so plays straight into the perception that you're arguing against. So unless your just looking for a fight, it's counter productive and should probably stop happening.

    Well, what would be productive? If you've got a silver bullet answer to put the "the DNC stole the primary from Bernie" argument to rest, then really I need it for my circle of friends.

  • skyknytskyknyt Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    How does Hillary raising money for herself and the party through the use of a victory fund hurt Sanders in any way? He could have done the exact same thing, but chose not to.

    What actions did the DNC take to hurt Sanders?

    Obviously anecdotal, but...
     Back home, Wisniewski signed up to chair the San- ders campaign. His decision didn’t sit well with the state’s Democratic leaders. “I announced my support for Senator Sanders, and I won’t use any names, but I had one assemblyman call me up and say, ‘I’m on board, I love everything that Sanders stands for. I’m glad you’re leading the effort. What can I do to help?’ And 48 hours later, I got a call from the same assemblyman, who said: ‘I got a call from my county chair, who said that if I support Sanders, I won’t get the party line for reelection next time.’ And I had a number of elected officials tell me, ‘I’m with you, but quietly. Unofficially.’ Below the radar, so to speak.”

    One cause for concern was John Currie, chairman of the state Democratic committee and a strong Clinton supporter. “John Currie was furious that I came out for Bernie Sanders,” Wisniewski said. Months later, Currie got his revenge. In June 2016, Currie unceremoniously booted Wisniewski (along with Reni Erdos, another Sanders supporter) from the DNC, replacing him with an insurance executive who was also a party fund-raiser. “They weren’t content just to be cheerleaders for Hillary Clinton,” Wisniewski told The Nation. “They wanted to make sure that there was no opposition at all.” In the end, not a single party leader, big-city mayor, member of the State Legislature, or member of Congress from New Jersey backed Sanders. “They feared that what John Currie did to me, he’d do to them,” Wisniewski said.
    https://www.thenation.com/article/can-a-sanders-democrat-win-the-new-jersey-governors-race/

    Tycho wrote:
    [skyknyt's writing] is like come kind of code that, when comprehended, unfolds into madness in the mind of the reader.
    PSN: skyknyt, Steam: skyknyt, Blizz: skyknyt#1160
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited March 2017
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    Speaking as a Bernie-bovine, I agree that Hillary won the primary fair and square. Maybe you can quibble with the debate schedule they set or whatever but I think the idea that the DNC 'threw' the election for Hillary is way overblown. There's no evidence of any Karl Rove/Nixon-style dirty tricks.

    This is why you're my favorite pink cow.
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Just as a tip:

    Punctuating an argument that the DNC didn't submarine Sanders with a statement that they would totally be within their rights to do so plays straight into the perception that you're arguing against. So unless your just looking for a fight, it's counter productive and should probably stop happening.

    Well, what would be productive? If you've got a silver bullet answer to put the "the DNC stole the primary from Bernie" argument to rest, then really I need it for my circle of friends.

    I would start by hearing them out and treating them like they're worthy of having a conversation with.

    Because sarcastically implying that the thing they're concerned about would be completely justified but definitely never happened has never made anyone put down the pitchforks.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • FakefauxFakefaux Cóiste Bodhar Driving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    Speaking as a Bernie-bovine, I agree that Hillary won the primary fair and square. Maybe you can quibble with the debate schedule they set or whatever but I think the idea that the DNC 'threw' the election for Hillary is way overblown. There's no evidence of any Karl Rove/Nixon-style dirty tricks.

    This is why you're my favorite pink cow.
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Just as a tip:

    Punctuating an argument that the DNC didn't submarine Sanders with a statement that they would totally be within their rights to do so plays straight into the perception that you're arguing against. So unless your just looking for a fight, it's counter productive and should probably stop happening.

    Well, what would be productive? If you've got a silver bullet answer to put the "the DNC stole the primary from Bernie" argument to rest, then really I need it for my circle of friends.

    How about you try acknowledging that even if she didn't steal it, there was definite a thumb on the scales in her favor? Then you can move on from there in terms of discussing what the party can do differently to win in the future.

    Crazy thought, I know.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Clinton had 100% name recognition among Democrats, had been the presumptive nominee for over a decade, was directly associated with the last two very popular Democratic administrations and was very popular among Democrats in her own right. Sanders, for his part, failed to convince a plurality of the primary electorate that he was worth essentially switching their vote from the person they'd been planning on voting for for the last eight years and whom they also looked just fine.

    There are reasons this field was a joke, and they affected Sanders just like they would have any other non Clinton candidate.

    Bernie's been in politics for decades, why hadn't he tried to build up his rep into being formidable by then? Or even in the 8 years while Obama was president. Nope, he's going to into the primaries with no support, then is surprised when he doesn't win.

    Yes, the field effected Bernie - by giving him the best opportunity in his political career to run unopposed - aside from Hillary herself. If this was a crowded field he wouldn't have got this spotlight as much as he did. He should be thanking Hillary for that.
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Sanders "looking to destroy the party and sabotage it's efforts" is so hyperbolic as to defy reply. Please bring the polemics down a notch or four if you actually want to have this conversation.

    Ok, destroy the party is hyperbolic - not sabotage. Exactly what do you think he's doing re-litagating the primaries over again these days? He's not a random internet poster what he says has intense effects on the left. Why isn't he trying to heal the rift he caused?

  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    How does Hillary raising money for herself and the party through the use of a victory fund hurt Sanders in any way? He could have done the exact same thing, but chose not to.

    Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    How does Hillary raising money for herself and the party through the use of a victory fund hurt Sanders in any way? He could have done the exact same thing, but chose not to.

    What actions did the DNC take to hurt Sanders?

    Obviously anecdotal, but...
     Back home, Wisniewski signed up to chair the San- ders campaign. His decision didn’t sit well with the state’s Democratic leaders. “I announced my support for Senator Sanders, and I won’t use any names, but I had one assemblyman call me up and say, ‘I’m on board, I love everything that Sanders stands for. I’m glad you’re leading the effort. What can I do to help?’ And 48 hours later, I got a call from the same assemblyman, who said: ‘I got a call from my county chair, who said that if I support Sanders, I won’t get the party line for reelection next time.’ And I had a number of elected officials tell me, ‘I’m with you, but quietly. Unofficially.’ Below the radar, so to speak.”

    One cause for concern was John Currie, chairman of the state Democratic committee and a strong Clinton supporter. “John Currie was furious that I came out for Bernie Sanders,” Wisniewski said. Months later, Currie got his revenge. In June 2016, Currie unceremoniously booted Wisniewski (along with Reni Erdos, another Sanders supporter) from the DNC, replacing him with an insurance executive who was also a party fund-raiser. “They weren’t content just to be cheerleaders for Hillary Clinton,” Wisniewski told The Nation. “They wanted to make sure that there was no opposition at all.” In the end, not a single party leader, big-city mayor, member of the State Legislature, or member of Congress from New Jersey backed Sanders. “They feared that what John Currie did to me, he’d do to them,” Wisniewski said.
    https://www.thenation.com/article/can-a-sanders-democrat-win-the-new-jersey-governors-race/

    Anecdotal and completely unverifiable. Also, still an example of someone acting on their own. The claim was that the DNC worked to hurt the Sanders campaign. All I'm asking for is an example of that.

    Otherwise this sounds an awful lot like the speech that Hillary totally gave where she said she could win without the help of any Sanders supporters.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Sanders never intended to be a national figure before the Iowa caucus. Monday morning quarterbacking a political career that stretches decades and includes a mayorship and Senate seat is rather arrogant, to be honest.

    To the other, Sanders didn't create the rift. I'm sympathetic to arguments that he could have done more to keep from exploding in the specific way it did, but that rift predates his candidacy by roughly a generation. So the question I would ask in reply to your question is why haven't the people with actual pull within the party for the last few decades done anything to fix it before it got bad enough that we end up having this conversation?

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited March 2017
    .
    So It Goes wrote: »
    If Bernie wants to be a standard bearer for Democratic ideas, why isn't he actually flying the Democratic flag? That's the point here. The answer is he doesn't want to be a standard bearer or a participant, he wants to call shots while remaining some sort of "outsider" beholden to no one.

    Or he believes the party is compromised with bought influence and does his best to help support the ideas he agrees with while remaining seperate from an establishment that actively worked against him in the primary when he did try to sign on to the team.

    And that attitude is incredibly harmful

    Edit
    .
    Fakefaux wrote: »
    I'm not sure why you need anything more than a high-ranking Democratic operative leaking debate questions to one campaign and then being rewarded by becoming the chair of the party. That sort of seems like it should be enough.

    So is the dissimilation of lies like this so they get parroted months later.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    How does Hillary raising money for herself and the party through the use of a victory fund hurt Sanders in any way? He could have done the exact same thing, but chose not to.

    Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

    Why do you think this?

  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    wandering wrote: »
    Speaking as a Bernie-bovine, I agree that Hillary won the primary fair and square. Maybe you can quibble with the debate schedule they set or whatever but I think the idea that the DNC 'threw' the election for Hillary is way overblown. There's no evidence of any Karl Rove/Nixon-style dirty tricks.

    This is why you're my favorite pink cow.
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Just as a tip:

    Punctuating an argument that the DNC didn't submarine Sanders with a statement that they would totally be within their rights to do so plays straight into the perception that you're arguing against. So unless your just looking for a fight, it's counter productive and should probably stop happening.

    Well, what would be productive? If you've got a silver bullet answer to put the "the DNC stole the primary from Bernie" argument to rest, then really I need it for my circle of friends.

    I would start by hearing them out and treating them like they're worthy of having a conversation with.

    Because sarcastically implying that the thing they're concerned about would be completely justified but definitely never happened has never made anyone put down the pitchforks.

    That sounds like a good plan, but eventually it just devolves into the word "wikileaks" over and over, and as long as they trust wikileaks (which is an entirely separate nut to crack) there's not that much I can do. These are the same folks who thought Stein was a great choice and that third party is the way to go.

    There is literally only so much time in the world or patience in my soul to keep doing that dance over and over and over.

    And it could all end if Bernie just came out and said that he shouldn't have said those things, even if while he does he maintains his valid criticisms of the party (let alone liberalism), but instead he keeps reopening the wound.

    And now Clinton might be popping back up? It's just exhausting man. It feels like the election season never ended, and that's not even considering what's happening in the White House.

    I'm tired.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2017
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Sanders never intended to be a national figure before the Iowa caucus. Monday morning quarterbacking a political career that stretches decades and includes a mayorship and Senate seat is rather arrogant, to be honest.

    To the other, Sanders didn't create the rift. I'm sympathetic to arguments that he could have done more to keep from exploding in the specific way it did, but that rift predates his candidacy by roughly a generation. So the question I would ask in reply to your question is why haven't the people with actual pull within the party for the last few decades done anything to fix it before it got bad enough that we end up having this conversation?

    I disagree, you don't come into a fight with Hillary Clinton without a plan and a lot of backup. Expecting to win under any conditions like that is arrogance. The man did excellently as a senator and mayor, yes national politics is a whole new ball game and he works in the senate. He learnt absolutely nothing when he needed it the most. This is blatantly obvious, too - I don't need to be running for president to know how primaries work.

    Technically you're correct, however, Bernie created his own rift on the back of that one. That we had a rift earlier does not mean this isn't its own beast where he was at its center. Many of the problems had to do with his campaign, focusing on rifts for a generation ago dismisses Bernie's actions in all this. It didn't spring up fully formed while Bernie was on the sidelines.

    I agree the party should do more, but it also takes two for this to work. Bernie was their best chance from their side, and even if they wanted to he made sure it was impossible to compromise with him once he realized he was going to lose. Bernie has as much responsibility for healing this as the party leadership does. Yet he continues to poke that tiger.

    Harry Dresden on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Then stop relitigating the primaries with them. There's literally no value in it.

    People still hung up on this stuff have taken their eyes completely off the ball. And frankly, to the hard core wikileaks crowd it won't matter what Sanders says. They're just in it for the fight at this point.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Sanders never intended to be a national figure before the Iowa caucus. Monday morning quarterbacking a political career that stretches decades and includes a mayorship and Senate seat is rather arrogant, to be honest.

    To the other, Sanders didn't create the rift. I'm sympathetic to arguments that he could have done more to keep from exploding in the specific way it did, but that rift predates his candidacy by roughly a generation. So the question I would ask in reply to your question is why haven't the people with actual pull within the party for the last few decades done anything to fix it before it got bad enough that we end up having this conversation?

    I disagree, you don't come into a fight with Hillary Clinton without a plan and a lot of backup. Expecting to win under any conditions like that is arrogance. The man did excellently as a senator and mayor, yes national politics is a whole new ball game and he works in the senate. He learnt absolutely nothing when he needed it the most.

    Technically you're correct, however, Bernie created his own rift on the back of that one. That we had a rat earlier does not mean this isn't its own beast where he was at its center. Many of the problems had to do with his campaign, focusing on rifts for a generation ago dismisses Bernie's actions in all this. It didn't spring up fully formed while Bernie was on the sidelines.

    I agree the party should do more, but it also takes two for this to work. Bernie was their best chance from their side, and even if they wanted to he made sure it was impossible to compromise with him once he realized he was going to lose. Bernie has as much responsibility for healing this as the party leadership does. Yet he continues to poke that tiger.

    Be the change you want to see in the world, Harry. Either forgive or don't. This finger pointing "you first!" Crap is pointless and solves nothing.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    How does Hillary raising money for herself and the party through the use of a victory fund hurt Sanders in any way? He could have done the exact same thing, but chose not to.

    Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

    You still haven't explained how it hurt Sanders

  • GundiGundi Serious Bismuth Registered User regular
    I just want to say, to put some perspective into the whole Democrats v. independents thing:

    I am registered as an independent in North Carolina. This allows me to vote in either the Republican or Democratic primaries. Thus I can theoretically leverage my primary votes to whatever I feel is more important: trying to stop someone absolutely terrible from getting in or trying to choose the candidate I like best.

    I still offer unconditional support to the Democratic party, and am a far-leftist, and would literally never vote for a Republican without extreme changes to party makeup. My experience with other independent voters is that they are pretty consistent in who they vote for, but not consistent in how often they vote. Rarely do you actually have people straddling the fence.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2017
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Then stop relitigating the primaries with them. There's literally no value in it.

    People still hung up on this stuff have taken their eyes completely off the ball. And frankly, to the hard core wikileaks crowd it won't matter what Sanders says. They're just in it for the fight at this point.

    Its not that simple.

    It's not only the hard core people who are the problem, anyone who wants out of the Democrats since Hillary lost that Bernie can get to is vital as well. Bernie hasn't done much to get them to stick with the Democrats. He's got to pull his weight here, and he's got to earn a lot of trust himself or the Democrats should throw him out and wait for someone else on the left who they can get behind to bargain with.

    edit: Ignoring this won't solve the problem, either. And this'll re-occur the next time a far left candidate runs in the primaries too. This is why it's important for the Dem party brass, including Bernie, are vital in helming the wounds. They'll still be there if they're not being addressed.

    Harry Dresden on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Then stop relitigating the primaries with them. There's literally no value in it.

    People still hung up on this stuff have taken their eyes completely off the ball. And frankly, to the hard core wikileaks crowd it won't matter what Sanders says. They're just in it for the fight at this point.

    Its not that simple.

    It's not only the hard core people who are the problem, anyone who wants out of the Democrats since Hillary lost that Bernie can get to is vital as well. Bernie hasn't done much to get them to stick with the Democrats. He's got to pull his weight here, and he's got to earn a lot of trust himself or the Democrats should throw him out and wait for someone else on the left who they can get behind to bargain with.

    On a personal level, it's absolutely that simple. If you've got people in your life that won't let it go, just don't talk politics with them for a couple months. Let it cool down.

    On a systemic level, we're back to being the change. Insisting that the other side has to make the first move is either a convenient means of extending the conflict or a simple act of cowardice. So we stop pointing fingers and get to work.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2017
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Sanders never intended to be a national figure before the Iowa caucus. Monday morning quarterbacking a political career that stretches decades and includes a mayorship and Senate seat is rather arrogant, to be honest.

    To the other, Sanders didn't create the rift. I'm sympathetic to arguments that he could have done more to keep from exploding in the specific way it did, but that rift predates his candidacy by roughly a generation. So the question I would ask in reply to your question is why haven't the people with actual pull within the party for the last few decades done anything to fix it before it got bad enough that we end up having this conversation?

    I disagree, you don't come into a fight with Hillary Clinton without a plan and a lot of backup. Expecting to win under any conditions like that is arrogance. The man did excellently as a senator and mayor, yes national politics is a whole new ball game and he works in the senate. He learnt absolutely nothing when he needed it the most.

    Technically you're correct, however, Bernie created his own rift on the back of that one. That we had a rat earlier does not mean this isn't its own beast where he was at its center. Many of the problems had to do with his campaign, focusing on rifts for a generation ago dismisses Bernie's actions in all this. It didn't spring up fully formed while Bernie was on the sidelines.

    I agree the party should do more, but it also takes two for this to work. Bernie was their best chance from their side, and even if they wanted to he made sure it was impossible to compromise with him once he realized he was going to lose. Bernie has as much responsibility for healing this as the party leadership does. Yet he continues to poke that tiger.

    Be the change you want to see in the world, Harry. Either forgive or don't. This finger pointing "you first!" Crap is pointless and solves nothing.

    This is above my pay grade, not Bernie's. And does this apply to Bernie himself, because I don't think he's forgiven or forgotten.

    edit: This won't be solved on the individual level, that only gets so far it needs to be done on the national scale to have the effect we need to unite the party.

    edit: It's also important to acknowledge exactly how much responsibility everyone owes to this, because some more than others will need to do more to earn trust - which is a problem Bernie has to deal with since he didn't retire from politics after the election.

    Harry Dresden on
This discussion has been closed.