Support NeoGAF

[KingBroly]

Ron Paul got a vote lol

 

[sc0la]

We actually gained seats in the House and Senate in 2016, believe it or not. We gained ground. Just a small amount.

I would have preferred to lose ground in both and retain the presidency as a firewall. Including the senate refusing to hold hearings for a nominee to SC.

 

[Androidsleeps]

Are these votes for Colin Powell somehow for the EMAILZZSS thing?? Jesus fuck.

 

[pigeon]

It's disingenuous to ask for information that you already know you won't be able to obtain.

I mean, it's disingenuous to make a claim you can't defend and say that the onus is on the other party to disprove it using information that doesn't exist.

I am sympathetic to your general position -- I think I've made clear that if the Democrats abandon people of color, I believe we should abandon the Democrats. I assume that's what you mean about "Bernie's wing," although Keith Ellison and others seem to be taking the right tack right now. But I don't think it's particularly sensible to assert that Bernie voters abandoning Hillary caused her to lose without any evidence that this is the case.

 

[JP_]

The trouble is which states do you persuade to do this? Republican-controlled state legislatures aren't going to implement any legislation that harms their EC advantage. Almost every state this passed in had a Democratic trifecta at the time of passing. I detest the EC, but I think the chances of it ever disappearing are incredibly slim.

Even if we somehow convinced enough states to sign the compact, my understanding is that the constitutionality of states being able to dictate how electors vote is dubious already. The compact would be just as weak as the state laws requiring them to vote faithfully, which are basically expected to fold as soon as they're challenged at the Supreme Court.

 

[Vixdean]

Good for him.



It's also 2.85 million, but.

Why didn't he say this to his shit stain supporters who wanted to ignore the results of the primary despite Hillary winning nearly 4 million more votes than him? He needs to shut the fuck up and go back to doing nothing in Senate, like he spent most his career.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Two more faithless electors and it'll be the record for most faithless votes for living presidential candidate since 1796.

 

[Plinko]

Should show people how scarily good the Republicans are getting everybody to vote party ticket as a solid block. Democrats are still herding cats

Leadership, leadership, leadership.

 

[pigeon]

You say that, but there were a surprising number of Democrats willing to tolerate the EC in the pre-election thread on the subject. Our very own pigeon, for one. Might not be a bad idea to make sure every Democrat is on board for abolishing it at the very least.

I was clearly wrong, and I said so. I didn't anticipate the situation that occurred

The trouble is which states do you persuade to do this? Republican-controlled state legislatures aren't going to implement any legislation that harms their EC advantage. Almost every state this passed in had a Democratic trifecta at the time of passing. I detest the EC, but I think the chances of it ever disappearing are incredibly slim.

Republicans don't have an EC advantage in general, any more than Democrats had an EC advantage four years ago when everybody was talking about their insurmountable EC advantage. And obviously if we eventually have a Democratic president again (if we ever have elections again) they'll have to win enough states to pass the NPVIC.

I'm more concerned that it might be unconstitutional.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Even if we somehow convinced enough states to sign the compact, my understanding is that the constitutionality of states being able to dictate how electors vote is dubious already. The compact would be just as weak as the state laws requiring them to vote faithfully.

I don't think so - there's a distinction. States have the right to determine how their electoral college votes are allocated, quite clearly set out in the constitution, but it isn't clear that they have the right to determine how their electoral college votes are cast. The NPVIC is drafted quite carefully with that in mind. It doesn't say that each signatory state's electors must vote for the popular vote winner, it says that each state shall allocate all its electoral votes to the candidates pledged to the national popular vote winner. So it avoids the potential unconstitutionality of faithless elector laws.

But this is all pretty academic because there is no way that it will ever pass in enough states.

 

[JP_]

Leadership, leadership, leadership.

Well, also homogeneity.

 

[JP_]

I don't think so - there's a distinction. States have the right to determine how their electoral college votes are allocated, quite clearly set out in the constitution, but it isn't clear that they have the right to determine how their electoral college votes are cast. The NPVIC is drafted quite carefully with that in mind. It doesn't say that each signatory state's electors must vote for the popular vote winner, it says that each state shall allocate all its electoral votes to the candidates pledged to the national popular vote winner. So it avoids the potential unconstitutionality of faithless elector laws.

But this is all pretty academic because there is no way that it will ever pass in enough states.

Ah, yeah that's a worthwhile distinction. The electors chosen would follow the popular vote. They could still vote whatever, but less likely considering they'd already align with the party with popular vote.

 

[Plinko]

Well, also homogeneity.

True. Democrats need to unite over most important issues and learn to agree to disagree on others. Develop a disdain for the other side instead of an apathy.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Democrats will still need to win through swing states though. Ergo the compact and winning 270 don't go hand in hand. Florida doesn't want to give up that power.

 

[213372bu]

So wait, are we rooting for people to go faithless and act how they personally want or are we rooting to fine them and try increasing the penalty?

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

And people think i'm silly when I say that both the Dems/DNC are in a messy state and will not be winning elections until they sort themselves out.

Aren't you the guy who went Bernie -> Johnson?

 

[Cybit]

I stand by my statements. Rolling over for whomever the Bernie folks pick isn't in my interests.

That's not how you run a party. There should be compromise. There should be the ability to hold legitimate disagreements based on policy. It shouldn't be, "Pick who I want, otherwise I'll take my ball and go home."



Ok, do you think that data will be released?

Odrion was probably looking for something publicly available.

I suspect by 2018 you'll have the data publicly available / available to academics at the least. Though I suspect the Dem Party already has those numbers and they're a nothingburger, because I think had they been anomalous in either route, that it would have gotten out (especially as the fight for the head of the DNC revs up).

I mean, it's disingenuous to make a claim you can't defend and say that the onus is on the other party to disprove it using information that doesn't exist.

I am sympathetic to your general position -- I think I've made clear that if the Democrats abandon people of color, I believe we should abandon the Democrats. I assume that's what you mean about "Bernie's wing," although Keith Ellison and others seem to be taking the right tack right now. But I don't think it's particularly sensible to assert that Bernie voters abandoning Hillary caused her to lose without any evidence that this is the case.

More or less this - I don't think Clinton wins the pop vote by 2.8 million or whatnot as well as gets pretty close to winning the election with a mass defection of Sanders voters. Heck, I suspect that Trump lost more Republican primary voters than Clinton lost Democratic primary voters.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Republicans don't have an EC advantage in general, any more than Democrats had an EC advantage four years ago when everybody was talking about their insurmountable EC advantage.

"Everybody" four years ago was wrong. The EC institutionally overrepresents small states. Small states vote Republican. Ergo the EC institutionally overrepresents Republicans. If you look at Nate Silver's analysis of 2012, he actually gave Romney a higher chance of an EC win/PV loss than Obama. Obama had an EC advantage in the sense that he had easily 300 EVworth of states locked away, but it was never an advantage in the sense that Obama was more likely to get an EC win/PV loss than Romney. That just isn't true.

And obviously if we eventually have a Democratic president again (if we ever have elections again) they'll have to win enough states to pass the NPVIC.

What? This is nonsense. You will almost certainly need a Democratic trifecta in a state legislature to pass the NPVIC. A Democratic candidate winning the presidency does absolutely not guarantee in any way at all the Democrats win a trifecta in all the states that Democratic candidate won - I mean for starters, state elections are often deliberately asynchronous with presidential ones.

I'm more concerned that it might be unconstitutional.

I don't think it will ever get far enough to find out.

 

[JP_]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/upshot/why-trump-had-an-edge-in-the-electoral-college.html

I was under the impression that small states leaned red and gave republicans a slight EV advantage, but in 2016 it seems to be more about the existence of big swing states.

 

[Odrion]

If the point is to turn the Democratic party into Bernie Sanders hero worship, I'm against that entirely. That's something I can fight against much more easily than I can against Donald Trump.

you are trying to slander your allies with unsubstantiated claims and want to obstruct dnc revitalizing efforts in honor of your fallen queen. you've become the thing you hate, congrats.

I will fight as long as Sanders supporters continue to do the following:

1. Blame Hillary for Trump.
2. Blame the Democratic Party.
3. Then maybe start looking at Trump.
4. Continue to handwave away Russia. Instead pivot to blaming Hillary.

your abeula lost to a flatuent pumpkin and the DNC lost control of the senate and congress. no, something is very flawed in the DNC and if their takeaway from this is nothing but "blame russia!" then we're going to lose 2018 and 2020.

We know, and you know, that no one is keeping this data.

I appreciate that you're picturing me as calculative and insincere but I expect the data to exist. I mean, it's fucking election polling statistics, there's gotta be the data. And I'm going to hold people to their statements because this post-truth bullshit cannot infect us too.

Ah yes, name calling.

1. You asked for a significant amount of support. I never stated those words. Those were your words. You don't get stuff my words in my mouth and then ask me to prove your premise.

your own words:

Sanders supporters aren't the same. They are about Bernie, first and foremost. Then, Tulsi Gabbard. It's not about policies. It's about who supports Bernie.

you said that bernie supporters only care about Bernie Sanders and then next in line the bigoted Tulsi. if you don't like being called a liar, don't be a liar you liar.

2. You never specified what you were looking for at all, until I pointed it out to you. Then you slammed what I sent you, and now you are calling me a liar for not holding up to standards that you didn't present at the start.

And yes, asking for "evidence" is cute. It's a nice way to move the goal posts on something that right now exists solely as speculation for every candidate.

I didn't even ask for proof of your claim that Bernie Sander supporters only care about Bernie, then Tulsi. I asked for proof that there is a strong support from Bernie Sander supporters for Tulsi, I moved the goal posts closer to you and all you could give me is a article about speculative runners for the 2020 election. Then I made a comparison with how Sander supporters are really pushing Ellison for the DNC chair, because that's a very clear thing we're seeing happen. So if Tulsi is the "Bernie Bros" #2, then it should be easy to prove.

we know what you were trying to do. you're trying to drive a narrative that those darn "bernie bros" are white supremacists and that socialism is tied to white nationalism because you're bitter about hillary losing and her wing of the DNC being rejected. doesn't matter if it's not the truth, you just want to lash out.

 

[mo60]

I suspect by 2018 you'll have the data publicly available / available to academics at the least. Though I suspect the Dem Party already has those numbers and they're a nothingburger, because I think had they been anomalous in either route, that it would have gotten out (especially as the fight for the head of the DNC revs up).



More or less this - I don't think Clinton wins the pop vote by 2.8 million or whatnot as well as gets pretty close to winning the election with a mass defection of Sanders voters. Heck, I suspect that Trump lost more Republican primary voters than Clinton lost Democratic primary voters.

We do have some evidence of trump getting hurt more by republicans voting for third parties in some states like CA for example. Trump did like 400k worse then Romney while hilary did like 900k better then Obama in 2012 in CA because some traditional republican voters in CA switched to vote for hilary and third parties. New voters also probably went to mostly hilary to. This is despite trump doing better in some parts of Northern California compared to romney and McCain.

 

[Hillary Clinton]

your abeula lost to a flatuent pumpkin and the DNC lost control of the senate and congress. no, something is very flawed in the DNC and if their takeaway from this is nothing but "blame russia!" then we're going to lose 2018 and 2020.

Talking about Russia is both a political move on the Democrats' part to put Trump's legitimacy in question before he even takes office and also a call for proportionate response to what amounts to a tangible infringement of our national sovereignty by a foreign power. It is not the "takeaway".

 

[Sirpopopop]

I mean, it's disingenuous to make a claim you can't defend and say that the onus is on the other party to disprove it using information that doesn't exist.

I am sympathetic to your general position -- I think I've made clear that if the Democrats abandon people of color, I believe we should abandon the Democrats. I assume that's what you mean about "Bernie's wing," although Keith Ellison and others seem to be taking the right tack right now. But I don't think it's particularly sensible to assert that Bernie voters abandoning Hillary caused her to lose without any evidence that this is the case.

That's fair enough.

All we have is anecdotal evidence right now: That being the rise in third party vote totals towards Stein & Johnson. The fact that Clinton had a surge in faithless electors from what should be some of the strongest pro-party members out there.

If the party data is available that would be clear. I'm not sure there would be smoke blown if it was more consequential. The party has a vested interest in trying to keep the peace.

 

[whyamihere]

Talking about Russia is both a political move on the Democrats' part to put Trump's legitimacy in question before he even takes office and also a call for proportionate response to what amounts to a tangible infringement of our national sovereignty by a foreign power. It is not the "takeaway".

Whoa, welcome to the thread, Hill! Huge fan here.

 

[Odrion]

Talking about Russia is both a political move on the Democrats' part to put Trump's legitimacy in question before he even takes office and also a call for proportionate response to what amounts to a tangible infringement of our national sovereignty by a foreign power. It is not the "takeaway".

http://time.com/4604955/hillary-clinton-election-james-comey-vladimir-putin/

she very much blames russia

 

[plagiarize]

Jesus guys. Could you infight any more?

We don't have to agree on whether Bernie or Clinton were terrible candidates to move forwards. Clinton and Bernie are highly unlikely to be running for the nomination next time out.

I promise I won't support her next time if she runs against Bernie.

I'm still not going to support bullshit purity tests.

http://time.com/4604955/hillary-clinton-election-james-comey-vladimir-putin/

she very much blames russia

So? What do you expect her to say? "I was awful. Shit!" What can we learn from that?

Russia may have had an influence and are almost certainly going to try again. So we shouldn't try and protect ourselves from that? Whether or not they cost us enough votes to let Trump win, we shouldn't just ignore it and say 'well if Clinton had been really disliked it wouldn't have mattered, so who cares that Russia tried to tilt things to Trump through illegal means'.

Numerous factors cost us. NUMEROUS. We need to look at all of them. Stop trying to shut down discussion of valid reasons, by insisting we only talk about how Clinton was a terrible candidate. Great. Lets say she was. Who cares? There is no Clinton 2.0 that will be trying to get the nomination in 2020. So what does it matter? There will still likely be Putin trying to ensure Trump stays in power. Or at the vary least weaken us as a country. So I think... you know... maybe we should look at that.

And even if Clinton wrote you a formal personal apology... how does that help us win in 2020? Yes, she's going to point to the factors that went against her, rather than looking at herself. That doesn't make those factors not factors.

 

[Plinko]

Jesus guys. Could you infight any more?

We don't have to agree on whether Bernie or Clinton were terrible candidates to move forwards. Clinton and Bernie are highly unlikely to be running for the nomination next time out.

I promise I won't support her next time if she runs against Bernie.

I'm still not going to support bullshit purity tests.

True, but we need to agree on WHY they were terrible candidates in the eyes of voters.

 

[JP_]

That's fair enough.

All we have is anecdotal evidence right now: That being the rise in third party vote totals towards Stein & Johnson. The fact that Clinton had a surge in faithless electors from what should be some of the strongest pro-party members out there.

If the party data is available that would be clear. I'm not sure there would be smoke blown if it was more consequential. The party has a vested interest in trying to keep the peace.

The responsibility falls on both sides. Left voters shouldn't have split their vote, but dems also shouldn't have pushed for such an amazingly unpopular candidate that made people want to vote third party. The party and the campaign dropped the ball, but so did voters. Narratives putting all the blame on one or the other are just divisive.

 

[mo60]

Russia is a part of the reason to why hilary lost. It's not the only reason.It's likely hilary campaign would not have been thrown off balance if russiaa and/or comney did not end up influencing the election,but it would have been hard to say if she would have won by much without comney or russia.

 

[JP_]

Russia is a part of the reason to why hilary lost. It's not the only reason.It's likely hilary campaign would not have been thrown off balance if russiaa and/or comney did not end up influencing the election,but it would have been hard to say if she would have won by much without comney or russia.

When things were this close, almost everything can be credited with tipping the scales. I think it's true to say Clinton would have won if left ppl didn't vote for stein. It's probably also true that Clinton would have won if they campaigned smarter in the rusty swing states. And she would have probably won without the hacking. Or the FBI bullshit. It's not one thing, but when it's this close, it highlights how everything can matter.

 

[Sirpopopop]

you are trying to slander your allies with unsubstantiated claims and want to obstruct dnc revitalizing efforts in honor of your fallen queen. you've become the thing you hate, congrats.

As I've said before, you aren't my ally.

I vote for the Democratic party. I wasn't 18 so I couldn't vote in 2000. Otherwise I probably would have voted for Bradley over Gore. In 2004, I voted for Edwards over Kerry. I voted Obama over Clinton in 2008. I voted Clinton over Sanders in 2016. Other than 2016, we didn't have to deal with this faithless elector syndrome. We didn't have this level of recrimination going on within the party after an election loss as far as I can remember.

This election wasn't close. It was also the most vitriolic election I've seen. It had no right to be as vitriolic as it turned out to be.

I see your side as the Democratic version of the Tea Party. I'm not sure what you stand for, at all.

your abeula lost to a flatuent pumpkin and the DNC lost control of the senate and congress. no, something is very flawed in the DNC and if their takeaway from this is nothing but "blame russia!" then we're going to lose 2018 and 2020.

This is my exact problem right here. I've never seen a Democratic candidate described as mockingly as you describe Hillary here during my time.

I've never used that tone to describe Bernie himself during this election.

 

[plagiarize]

True, but we need to agree on WHY they were terrible candidates in the eyes of voters.

We don't.

Clinton was highly disliked. Whether deservedly so or not.

That was definitely something that cost us. So all we have to do is not pick someone that's had decades of smear campaigns aimed at them.

Can you think of anyone that could plausibly run in 2020 that has had decades of smear campaigns run against them?

For better or worse, Clinton isn't going to run again, and there isn't anyone else with the same career and the same baggage. So...

 

[Sirpopopop]

The responsibility falls on both sides. Left voters shouldn't have split their vote, but dems also shouldn't have pushed for such an amazingly unpopular candidate that made people want to vote third party. The party and the campaign dropped the ball, but so did voters. Narratives putting all the blame on one or the other are just divisive.

The amazingly unpopular candidate should have lost then in the primaries.

That's what amazingly unpopular things do...

I think you have a better argument with pointing out that this was a death by a thousand cuts scenario, and that it was very easy to mark Hillary with a thousand cuts.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

All of politics is purity tests. I don't think you'd be willing to vote for a racist Democratic candidate, or a Democratic candidate who was against abortion. Some people aren't willing to vote a a Democratic candidate who is unwilling to fight for the poorest. All three of these are purity tests. The question is which purity tests do we value, and which purity tests will the wider electorate impose.

 

[Debirudog]

I think most people agree that Clinton wasn't the right candidate and that she had flaws she could not overcome. That doesn't mean they would instantly support a populist like Sanders though for a myriad of reasons that I'll rather not go into an argument over with since it's been beaten to death.

 

[plagiarize]

The amazingly unpopular candidate should have lost then.

That's what amazingly unpopular things do...

The worst part about it being so close, is everyone can just blame the thing they want and they're probably not wrong.

In retrospect, nominating a candidate that was massively disliked cost us. Not campaigning in the rust belt cost us. The FBI moves cost us. The media coverage cost us. Far left voters who cared more about moral purity than stopping Trump cost us.

Whatever you want to blame it on, you're probably right that if not for that thing, this wouldn't have happened.

But the need for apologies for a pound of flesh does no one any good. What can we control. How can we do better next time?

 

[pigeon]

I'm comfortable with the position that Clinton was a terrible candidate that we selected because she was the best candidate available. Fits all the available evidence.

 

[Odrion]

So? What do you expect her to say? "I was awful. Shit!" What can we learn from that?

Russia may have had an influence and are almost certainly going to try again. So we shouldn't try and protect ourselves from that? Whether or not they cost us enough votes to let Trump win, we shouldn't just ignore it and say 'well if Clinton had been really disliked it wouldn't have mattered, so who cares that Russia tried to tilt things to Trump through illegal means'.

Numerous factors cost us. NUMEROUS. We need to look at all of them. Stop trying to shut down discussion of valid reasons, by insisting we only talk about how Clinton was a terrible candidate. Great. Lets say she was. Who cares? There is no Clinton 2.0 that will be trying to get the nomination in 2020. So what does it matter? There will still likely be Putin trying to ensure Trump stays in power. Or at the vary least weaken us as a country. So I think... you know... maybe we should look at that.

And even if Clinton wrote you a formal personal apology... how does that help us win in 2020? Yes, she's going to point to the factors that went against her, rather than looking at herself. That doesn't make those factors not factors.

I agree with all of this and I am not looking for some weird catharsis by Hillary groveling at our feet. We can not just walk away from this and think everything was fine except for the damn Russians and FBI. Even if we won by slim margins we should've never gotten that close to losing to a rotten tangerine. I mean shit, was there a possibility that Hillary could've won and we still would not have gotten the Senate back?

just blaming comey and russia for losing is like blaming the swift boaters for the kerry loss.

This is my exact problem right here. I've never seen a Democratic candidate described as mockingly as you describe Hillary here during my time.

I've never used that tone to describe Bernie himself during this election.

i called her by a goddamn title she ran with in her campaign

I got a christmas pageant to go to, I wish you peace of mind.

 

[Diablos]

I kind of just had a panic attack thinking Trump is going to litter the intelligence community with conspiracy theorists.

Legitimately fearful for our safety.

 

[Hillary Clinton]

Whoa, welcome to the thread, Hill! Huge fan here.

Thank you. I heard you all lent me your "energy" on election night and someone from this site sent me an animated picture of what that means:

Unfortunately I have never seen the cartoon One Piece so I must say that the reference escapes me. In any case I wanted to see where all my website's traffic was coming from so here I am.

http://time.com/4604955/hillary-clinton-election-james-comey-vladimir-putin/

she very much blames russia

Of course I blame Russian interference and Comey for changing the narrative the week prior to the election. Those things happened. If I could be locked in a room with Comey for five minutes it would make Vince Foster look like he got out easy. But there is also something to be said about the fact that our campaign was not robust against these incidents, and nowhere do I state in that interview that my vision for the future of this party is tied to Moscow in any way. Besides - I'm not in charge of the party anymore. It's up to you all.

 

[benjipwns]

Not only were ~3 million votes not heard, but 1/3 of the Washington votes were not represented. Democracy, ya'll.

Only 54% of Washington voters voted for the Democratic Party's electors. That's nearly 1.5 million votes not heard or voters represented!

More people nationally voted for not-Hillary than voted for Hillary.

Democracy, ya'll.

 

[plagiarize]

All of politics is purity tests. I don't think you'd be willing to vote for a racist Democratic candidate, or a Democratic candidate who was against abortion. Some people aren't willing to vote a a Democratic candidate who is unwilling to fight for the poorest. All three of these are purity tests. The question is which purity tests do we value, and which purity tests will the wider electorate impose.

Refusing to compromise on the level the tea party do, is going too far. Painting someone like Clinton as center right when on the US scale she is anything but.

The bullshit purity test was the 'voted to Bernies right on at least one issue there for you aren't a progressive'. That's the bullshit one. We shouldn't be warring over who is the most far left progressive if the goal is being able to stop Trump. Because if we keep on doing that, then we may be able to feel good about supporting what's left of the Democrats, but what's left of them won't be able to do shit to stop the republicans.

I do not want what has happened to the labour party to happen here. Because I don't want to hand control of the country over to the GOP for the next decade. That's why I'm prepared to compromise. But we both have to be prepared to do that.

Bernie lost the primaries. Clinton lost the general.

How do we ensure a candidate who can beat Trump wins the primaries?

I don't think it's by going far left, on either count. Am I wrong?

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

This is my exact problem right here. I've never seen a Democratic candidate described as mockingly as you describe Hillary here during my time.

I've never used that tone to describe Bernie himself during this election.

People call Gore and Kerry terrible all the time even though they had much better EC performance, even in this thread. I like Gore and I think he's boring af

And people did call Sanders all sorts of shit. They called all of his supporters Bernie Bros and Poligaf loved shitting on him. Sometimes, so did I! Remember how every time things started to look south during the general election that people decided it was a good time to start blaming Sanders?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Who isn't willing to vote for a Democrat that will fight for the poor...? :s

 

[plagiarize]

People call Gore and Kerry terrible all the time even though they had much better EC performance, even in this thread. I like Gore and I think he's boring af

And people did call Sanders all sorts of shit. They called all of his supporters Bernie Bros and Poligaf loved shitting on him. Sometimes, so did I! Remember how every time things started to look south during the general election that people decided it was a good time to start blaming Sanders?

You know the white guys who still won't let it go that he lost the primaries?

Those are the Bernie Bros. The people who didn't put their moral superiority in front of doing something they didn't want to do for the greater good... the majority of Sanders supporters who ended up voting Clinton whether they liked her or not?

Those aren't Bernie Bros.

But Bernie Bros remain a real thing. I'm still dealing with them on facebook most days. If you don't know any of the people who started yelling 'rigged' when a few insignificant coin flips didn't go their way, and who are still doing it today... good for you.

 

[mo60]

Refusing to compromise on the level the tea party do, is going too far. Painting someone like Clinton as center right when on the US scale she is anything but.

The bullshit purity test was the 'voted to Bernies right on at least one issue there for you aren't a progressive'. That's the bullshit one. We shouldn't be warring over who is the most far left progressive if the goal is being able to stop Trump. Because if we keep on doing that, then we may be able to feel good about supporting what's left of the Democrats, but what's left of them won't be able to do shit to stop the republicans.

I do not want what has happened to the labour party to happen here. Because I don't want to hand control of the country over to the GOP for the next decade. That's why I'm prepared to compromise. But we both have to be prepared to do that.

Bernie lost the primaries. Clinton lost the general.

How do we ensure a candidate who can beat Trump wins the primaries?

I don't think it's by going far left, on either count. Am I wrong?

No the democrats don't need to go to the far left to win the next presidential election. I think they need someone that can appeal to the base better then hilary did(i.e. someone that is charismatic, likeable and etc like Obama and Notley and Trudeau in Canada).

 

[kadotsu]

Anyone from California that is presidential enough to run?

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

You know the white guys who still won't let it go that he lost the primaries?

Those are the Bernie Bros. The people who didn't put their moral superiority in front of doing something they didn't want to do for the greater good... the majority of Sanders supporters who ended up voting Clinton whether they liked her or not?

Those aren't Bernie Bros.

But Bernie Bros remain a real thing. I'm still dealing with them on facebook most days. If you don't know any of the people who started yelling 'rigged' when a few insignificant coin flips didn't go their way, and who are still doing it today... good for you.

I saw those people, got annoyed and rolled my eyes at them, and watched them (at different speeds) coalesce around Clinton even while knowing their vote was probably meaningless because of where they lived.

Now if they're mad because she lost, which is not the most unreasonable of reactions to have when told your candidate's biggest issues are his electability.

I caucused for Clinton! I have a Hillary sticker on my laptop I'm typing this on, and I dedicated 10-15 hours a week from August to November doing field work to try and get Democrats to vote. If they didn't vote or voted third party, sure, fuck 'em, but it's not like Bernie people were the only nasty ones during the primary.

 

[Hillary Clinton]

Anyone from California that is presidential enough to run?

I think she's got what it takes.

 

[Crocodile]

All of politics is purity tests. I don't think you'd be willing to vote for a racist Democratic candidate, or a Democratic candidate who was against abortion. Some people aren't willing to vote a a Democratic candidate who is unwilling to fight for the poorest. All three of these are purity tests. The question is which purity tests do we value, and which purity tests will the wider electorate impose.

The issue is that there is no reasonable purity test that either Clinton or Sanders fails within the context of the GE and given the stakes/opponent. That's what people take issue with. A preference is fine but when push comes to shove - put up!

I'm comfortable with the position that Clinton was a terrible candidate that we selected because she was the best candidate available. Fits all the available evidence.

In the end I don't disagree with this assessment though I will be perpetually frustrated since a non-insignificant amount of hate that came Clinton's way wasn't deserved and her opponent was a worse candidate. Republicans held their nose and turned out anyway. Democrats didn't (as much since there are clearly more Democrats in the country than Republicans).