Support NeoGAF

[IAmAnAgnostic]

Happy 2017! Next year midterms will be here! It looks to be quite the challenge.

 

[Poodlestrike]

The issue with pot isn't that it's a bad issue, it's that it's perceived as just not being a serious one. Thus every time legalization comes up, you get a slew of stoner jokes from the talking heads.

Still, considering how well it does in referendums, I'm inclined to think that we'd pick up more support from adopting it than we'd lose, assuming nobody does anything really goddamn stupid during the primaries like lashing out and delegitimizing their opponent for changing stances on it.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

We're at a point where my local radio needs to spend 3 minutes during a break to give a tutorial on identifying fake news...

 

[Wag]

We're at a point where my local radio needs to spend 3 minutes during a break to give a tutorial on identifying fake news...

Mine needs to get one. That's why I just listen to public radio (NPR).

 

[geomon]

Trump's presidency is going to hurt Americans' wallets in a big way

Could Trump-touting financial experts—like, ahem, possible Trump appointee Larry Kudlow—be right that the president-elect’s proposed tax cuts will ensure that “everyone’s a winner”?

Uh, no.

The wealthiest among us may do just fine thanks to stock-market gains and tax cuts. And, yes, the overall economy itself might continue to chug along, allowing Trump to take credit for economic improvements that occurred during Barack Obama’s administration. But many of us could lose out, thanks to changes the incoming administration plans to make to Obama-era policies and initiatives—changes whose primary beneficiaries will be Trump’s wealthy peers, to the detriment of everyone else.

Remember Trump’s promises to protect the safety net? “I’m going to save Social Security,” he said during one Republican debate. “It is my intention to leave Social Security as it is,” he said at another. “We will not cut Medicare or Social Security benefits,” he told CNN. Consider this one of those Trump stands we were supposed to take neither seriously nor literally.

Congressional Republicans can’t even wait until Trump takes office to get going. Texas Rep. Sam Johnson, the chair of the House subcommittee for Social Security, already introduced a plan that would reduce benefits for the majority of recipients, with Think Progress reporting that a worker with an average annual income of $60,000 would see a stipend cut of approximately one-third.

Remember: About half of American seniors would live in poverty without Social Security. A large minority of baby boomers and a full-on majority of Generation X do not even come close to having enough money set aside for their post-work lives. And Fidelity approximates that a couple retiring this year will need an estimated $260,000 to pay for its future health care expenses, and that’s with the Medicare system we have now. If the Republicans get their way, seniors will pay more money for less coverage.

Trump advocated during the campaign for a “delay” or “carve-out” for small-business owners. Trump’s pick for secretary of labor, Andy Puzder, is a vocal opponent of the new overtime regs.

Writing in Forbes last spring, he claimed the salary boost, if it went though, would reduce “opportunities, bonuses, benefits, perks, and promotions,” adding, “Most salaried employees recognize that in exchange for the opportunity, prestige and financial benefits that come with a salaried position and a performance-based bonus, they’re expected to have an increased sense of ownership and stay until the job gets done.” Maybe. But as millions of workers will continue to learn, you can’t eat prestige.

So who wins? Easy. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that about half the tax cuts proposed in Trump’s tax-reform plan would go to the top 1 percent of earners. A millionaire can expect to save more than $300,000 on average, according to Lily Batchelder, a visiting fellow at the Tax Policy Center.* That’s a nice chunk of change. Pity it’ll go to the people who need it the least.

Happy New Year, America.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Mine needs to get one. That's why I just listen to public radio (NPR).

This was public radio. Local jazz and blues station sponsored by a high school

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Actual comment on my FB feed after someone posted Trump's lovely New Year tweet:

"Let's be honest. Who really BELIEVES its actually him tweeting?"

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Couple hot takes:

-Hillary was right to do regime change in Libya.
-Hillary didn't lose because of anything policy or strategy related with her or Trump but because the media and deep state disliked her. Cory Booker would have won by 6-7 points.

 

[Wilsongt]

Couple hot takes:

-Hillary was right to do regime change in Libya.
-Hillary didn't lose because of anything policy or strategy related with her or Trump but because the media and deep state disliked her. Cory Booker would have won by 6-7 points.

For all intents and purposes, given different circumstances, Hillary would have won. People make it out that she lost by a million votes across multiple states and that makes her the most terrible Democratic candidate ever.

She lost by less than 60K votes across three key states.

Bernie would have lost even worse, as he wouldn't even have gotten those votes in the south towards the popular vote, I don't think.

 

[Plinko]

For all intents and purposes, given different circumstances, Hillary would have won. People make it out that she lost by a million votes across multiple states and that makes her the most terrible Democratic candidate ever.

She lost by less than 60K votes across three key states.

Bernie would have lost even worse, as he wouldn't even have gotten those votes in the south towards the popular vote, I don't think.

"Different circumstances?"

 

[Wilsongt]

"Different circumstances?"

Comey not being a dick. A gop candidate not slobbing Putin's nob

 

[Already Torn]

The Marist College marching band and one of my local high school bands have to march in the Inauguration Parade. Why would a school bring that kind of shame on itself?

 

[MIMIC]

Well, into 2017 and BernieBros just won't give up.
Good rebuttal by the way, I hope you don't have kids (good luck never favoring one over the other). Then again, maybe you will only have one and name him Bernie! Solves that problem.

I love the last time I asked this question, the response was "Oh the Debate Schedule!" which was set before Sanders entered the race. Nobody can point to any actions of tipping the scale, and you get posts like Mimic made here.
We have a whole set of emails that were not supposed to be made public, and no proof can be provided that they "cheated for Her Majesty". I don't think BernieBros will ever give up their delusion that the DNC did. It's pathetic.

You're right. That's not cheating. That just makes Hillary smart.

 

[Wilsongt]

You're right. That's not cheating. That just makes Hillary smart.

Trump’s new press secretary, Sean Spicer, is deflecting questions about the influence of Russian hacking on the 2016 election — arguing instead that people should talk about on “punishing” Hillary Clinton for trying to “influence the election.”

Spicer was asked if President-elect Trump accepts the conclusion of seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia was responsible for the hacks that sought to damage Clinton’s bid for the presidency.

“Why aren’t we talking about the other influences on the election? Why aren’t we talking about Hillary Clinton getting debate questions ahead of time?” Spicer said in response.

“No one is asking those questions. The fact is that everyone wants to make Donald Trump admit to certain things. When do we talk about the other side, which is what did Hillary Clinton do to influence the election? Is she being punished?”

Just for you, MIMIC. 😘😘

 

[royalan]

When did the DNC show Hillary Clinton favoritism?

Was it in when they gave Bernie Sanders more delegate representation on the rules committee than they had given any other losing candidate?

Was it when they fired DWS?

Was it when they continued to give Bernie Sanders' campaign access to the DNC voter data after it was proven that Bernie's campaign had hacked into the Clinton campaign's data and then lied about it?

Like, I'm failing to see actual favoritism shown in anything other than an email. The DNC weren't showing Hillary favoritism just because they didn't get on one knee and kiss Bernie's ring.

 

[Wilsongt]

When did the DNC show Hillary Clinton favoritism?

Was it in when they gave Bernie Sanders more delegate representation on the rules committee than they had given any other losing candidate?

Was it when they fired DWS?

Was it when they continued to give Bernie Sanders' campaign access to the DNC voter data after it was proven that Bernie's campaign had hacked into the Clinton campaign's data and then lied about it?

Like, I'm failing to see actual favoritism shown in anything other than an email. The DNC weren't showing Hillary favoritism just because they didn't get on one knee and kiss Bernie's ring.

Because all of the superdelegates broke for Hillary without even considering Birdie and because Donna gave Hillary a question about Flint, MI for a debate in fucking Flint, MI.

 

[Frank the Great]

It's 2017 and we are still taking about Bernie and the DNC and favoritism and fuuuuuuck

 

[Crocodile]

Besides being inherent bullshit, the "debate" about whether or not the primary was "rigged" and "how rigged it was" has to be the most meaningless waste of time and energy right now on the face of the planet. Trump is president and the GOP has the levers of power. Can we focus on getting Democrats elected and using public protest in organized, efficient means to stymie the GOP rather than on stupid primary bullshit?

Also Happy New Year! May it not be as disastrous as the last one :/

 

[MIMIC]

Just for you, MIMIC. 😘😘

“Why aren’t we talking about the other influences on the election? Why aren’t we talking about Hillary Clinton getting debate questions ahead of time?” Spicer said in response.

I can do both.

Besides being inherent bullshit, the "debate" about whether or not the primary was "rigged" and "how rigged it was" has to be the most meaningless waste of time and energy right now on the face of the planet. Trump is president and the GOP has the levers of power. Can we focus on getting Democrats elected and using public protest in organized, efficient means to stymie the GOP rather than on stupid primary bullshit?

Also Happy New Year! May it not be as disastrous as the last one :/

That's kinda how Trump got elected: a plea to ignore legitimate concerns and just focus on Trump.

THERE IS A PROBLEM. A BIG PROBLEM. With the country as a whole and on the Democrats side. And people aren't just going to ignore it. People don't ever ignore problems and grievances they have.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I can do both.



That's kinda how Trump got elected: a plea to ignore legitimate concerns and just focus on Trump.

THERE IS A PROBLEM. A BIG PROBLEM. With the country as a whole and on the Democrats side. And people aren't just going to ignore it. People don't ever ignore problems and grievances they have.

So how many DNC staffer should have to commit seppuku in front of Bernie for you to be convince enough people have been purged?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

That's kinda how Trump got elected: a plea to ignore legitimate concerns and just focus on Trump.

THERE IS A PROBLEM. A BIG PROBLEM. With the country as a whole and on the Democrats side. And people aren't just going to ignore it. People don't ever ignore problems and grievances they have.

If you care more about some pathetically generic debate questions being leaked than the lives which will be impacted by a Trump presidency, you are the problem.

 

[Valdfellgar]

If you care more about some pathetically generic debate questions being leaked than the lives which will be impacted by a Trump presidency, you are the problem.

Yeah this. Sorry, MIMIC, I know you felt persecuted during the primary and general, and sometimes while I lurked I felt, yeah, maybe people on here were too blindly pro-hillary, or treated you with too much contempt, but at this point it looks like you cannot let go, even in the face of Trump, someone who'll do far more damage than the primary 'shenanigans.' You really need to refocus your priorities, and while I'm confident most people will find Trump's actions as President a wake up call, I'm getting the impression you've dug yourself into a deep hole and you don't want to climb out.

 

[MIMIC]

So how many DNC staffer should have to commit seppuku in front of Bernie for you to be convince enough people have been purged?

Brazile is still the chair. I'd say that getting rid of her would be great. But the DNC seems to be perfectly fine with her up there. After all, she "did her job" and no one batted an eye.

Or maybe she and everyone else can just keep the DNC while something else gets started.

If you care more about some pathetically generic debate questions being leaked than the lives which will be impacted by a Trump presidency, you are the problem.

False dilemma. Like I told Wilsongt, I can do both.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

False dilemma. Like I told Wilsongt, I can do both.

Clinton supporters can bring up the fact that Bernie's campaign got illegitimate access to Clinton voter data during the campaign and lied about it. Which is frankly a much bigger deal than Donna Brazile leaking a couple debate questions.

But we don't because we recognize it is time to move on from these two losers and look towards the future. Why can't you do the same?

edit: Also, the DNC is clearly not fine with Brazile as Chair. She's the interim chair, which by definition means she's temporary. Have you missed the fact that they will be looking for a new permanent chair?

 

[Pixieking]

Couple hot takes:

-Hillary was right to do regime change in Libya.
-Hillary didn't lose because of anything policy or strategy related with her or Trump but because the media and deep state disliked her. Cory Booker would have won by 6-7 points.

At some point - soon - US politicians and media have to start a big discussion on what America's place is in the moral patchwork of the world. Regime change against obviously evil men like Assad is a moral imperative, whether it be through the UN, multiple countries siding against evil dictators, or a single country against a dictator. The issue the US has is that its history in this is murky and laughable in places. The UN ought to be fighting this moral war, but as was seen with the recent Israel/UNSC Resolution, so much of what the organisation does is heavily politicised. So, does the US sit back and watch governments slaughter their people? It's debatable whether regime change affect any real change. The US and U.K went into Iraq and Afghanistan to fight Saddam, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. The first was essentially an old writer, the second has been replaced by Daesh/ISIS, and the third has been accepted by the West. But none of that should mean the US should stop fighting against genocide in countries around the world.

Or, in short, I agree.

 

[Vixdean]

Oh my god guys, did you hear that rank and file members of the DEMOCRATIC national committee preferred that a DEMOCRAT would win the DEMOCRATIC primary instead of an INDEPENDENT who changed his party affiliation 30 minutes before the start of the campaign? Also, they were angry that said INDEPENDENT was co-opting REPUBLICAN attacks against the DEMOCRAT who'd already locked up the nomination months before the convention? What a scandal! So unfair!

 

[Plinko]

Teen Vogue yet again doing the work that the traditional media should be doing. Unreal.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

At some point - soon - US politicians and media have to start a big discussion on what America's place is in the moral patchwork of the world. Regime change against obviously evil men like Assad is a moral imperative, whether it be through the UN, multiple countries siding against evil dictators, or a single country against a dictator. The issue the US has is that its history in this is murky and laughable in places. The UN ought to be fighting this moral war, but as was seen with the recent Israel/UNSC Resolution, so much of what the organisation does is heavily politicised. So, does the US sit back and watch governments slaughter their people? It's debatable whether regime change affect any real change. The US and U.K went into Iraq and Afghanistan to fight Saddam, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. The first was essentially an old writer, the second has been replaced by Daesh/ISIS, and the third has been accepted by the West. But none of that should mean the US should stop fighting against genocide in countries around the world.

Or, in short, I agree.

I agree as well. The US is basically the only nation in the world with the military strength to engage brutal dictators to end conflict. And since I don't really see the point in maintaining borders most of the time (all people deserve the same access, regardless of nationality), I don't really care for non-intervention arguments since, in this age, they amount to "I have the physique of The Rock, but I will not assist if someone is getting beaten up near me."

It is morally repugnant to me to pretend we don't have the military strength we do. Either use it or scrap it.

 

[kirblar]

When did the DNC show Hillary Clinton favoritism?

Was it in when they gave Bernie Sanders more delegate representation on the rules committee than they had given any other losing candidate?

Was it when they fired DWS?

Was it when they continued to give Bernie Sanders' campaign access to the DNC voter data after it was proven that Bernie's campaign had hacked into the Clinton campaign's data and then lied about it?

Like, I'm failing to see actual favoritism shown in anything other than an email. The DNC weren't showing Hillary favoritism just because they didn't get on one knee and kiss Bernie's ring.

Bernie wasn't a democrat, isn't a democrat, and is going to be a rotting parasite on the party for years to come.

 

[Retromelon]

Man the way Bernie is being slandered in here you'd think it was his loss that put us in our present situation

 

[Wilsongt]

Man the way Bernie is being slandered in here you'd think it was his loss that put us in our present situation

Well............... Maybe a little.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

The primary wasn't "rigged" against Bernie but it's clear that the DNC cleared the field for Clinton such that the only other serious contender was someone they had zero institutional control over. If Bernie had been involved with the Democrats long enough to have more institutional support he probably wouldn't have run in the first place!

Bernie wasn't a democrat, isn't a democrat, and is going to be a rotting parasite on the party for years to come.

This is an excellent attitude that will certainly help the party's success in future elections!

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Bernie wasn't a democrat, isn't a democrat, and is going to be a rotting parasite on the party for years to come.

What a ridiculously garbage tribal statement.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

The primary wasn't "rigged" against Bernie but it's clear that the DNC cleared the field for Clinton such that the only other serious contender was someone they had zero institutional control over. If Bernie had been involved with the Democrats long enough to have more institutional support he probably wouldn't have run in the first place!

This is an excellent attitude that will certainly help the party's success in future elections!

Joe Biden absolutely would have been a serious contender, but we all know why we didn't run. And it wasn't the DNC's fault.

Like, sorry I guess that Martin O'Malley wasn't popular enough to pose a challenge to Clinton? The DNC didn't clear the field for Clinton - she was just the most well-known and popular candidate in the party. Obviously she would receive overwhelming support.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Assuming Biden didn't run because of Beau (totally reasonable assumption), why didn't Booker, Warren, or any other high profile Democrat run? Why were the only challengers two people who've spent most of their political careers not as Democrats, a nobody governor who would obviously lose, and fucking Jim Webb? Like, I'm not blaming Hillary for this because it's part of the game that you play, but I doubt Warren wasn't interested in being president but was highly interested in being VP.

Hillary won the invisible primary just like Gore did. That's a part of the game but let's not act that Booker wouldn't have been interested in running because he was afraid of losing to Hillary or whatever.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Man the way Bernie is being slandered in here you'd think it was his loss that put us in our present situation

The thing is, there was absolutely nothing that could have prevented his loss, even the DNC. He's tone-deaf to the point of ignoring southern states. He feels entitled. White privilege.

 

[kirblar]

What a ridiculously garbage tribal statement.

It's not a garbage tribal statement. He's an opportunistic parasite with no leadership capabilities, work productively towards building change, or make any of the compromises required to actually make a political party work. He joined only to run for president, and when that failed, he did his very best to ensure he sandbagged his opponent as much as possible.

He's spent his entire career sniping from the sidelines. We saw his PAC fall apart almost immediately, which shouldn't have been a surprise - destroyers aren't builders.

This is why the absolute best thing he can do for the country is to shut up, get out of the way, and let Ellison work on rebuilding the 50-state program. But he won't, because he is even less self-aware than Hillary.

 

[royalan]

Assuming Biden didn't run because of Beau (totally reasonable assumption), why didn't Booker, Warren, or any other high profile Democrat run? Why were the only challengers two people who've spent most of their political careers not as Democrats, a nobody governor who would obviously lose, and fucking Jim Webb? Like, I'm not blaming Hillary for this because it's part of the game that you play, but I doubt Warren wasn't interested in being president but was highly interested in being VP.

Hillary won the invisible primary just like Gore did. That's a part of the game but let's not act that Booker wouldn't have been interested in running because he was afraid of losing to Hillary or whatever.

There's no invisible primary. Hillary Clinton, just like Gore at his time, was the Dem with the biggest name.

The way doesn't need to be cleared. These are politicians, their decision to run is weighed against their chancess of losing. When there's somebody in the race with a name as big as Hillary Clinton, who had only GROWN in stature from the first time she ran by being Secretary of State, it's obvious that a lot of politicians would opt not to run.

Guys, like, this ain't hard.

It's not a garbage tribal statement. He's an opportunistic parasite with no leadership capabilities, work productively towards building change, or make any of the compromises required to actually make a political party work. He joined only to run for president, and when that failed, he did his very best to ensure he sandbagged his opponent as much as possible.

He's spent his entire career sniping from the sidelines. We saw his PAC fall apart almost immediately, which shouldn't have been a surprise - destroyers aren't builders.

This is why the absolute best thing he can do for the country is to shut up, get out of the way, and let Ellison work on rebuilding the 50-state program. But he won't, because he is even less self-aware than Hillary.

Yep.

Frankly, Bernie showed his true colors (again) when he abandoned his failed Revolution PAC in order to continue attacking Democrats when Hillary lost.

 

[Prof. Bathtub]

These kinds of conversations were tiresome a year ago. Sanders did eventually come around, but he's not the coordinated sort.

 

[Good Job Bob]

Yep, the best thing one of the very, very few nationally prominent Democratic/left politicians can do in the era of Trump is shut up and get out of the way

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

There's no invisible primary. Hillary Clinton, just like Gore at his time, was the Dem with the biggest name.

The way doesn't need to be cleared. These are politicians, their decision to run is weighed against the their chances at losing. When there's somebody in the race with a name as big as Hillary Clinton, who had only GROWN in stature from the first time she ran by being Secretary of State, it's obvious that a lot of politicians would opt not to run.

Guys, like, this ain't hard.

Why were there a bunch of actually serious contenders in 2008 then? Biden, Edwards, Obama, Dodd, these are all big names and the smallest one won the primary. Booker and Warren both have big profiles and have been in office about as long as Obama had been, why wouldn't they run?

Like, if the Democratic Primary didn't have institutional control over its elected officials we should have seen SOMEONE other than O'Malley that has some sort of future run. The DNC can't touch Sanders, Chafee, or Webb because what are they going to do to them?

Pretending the invisible primary doesn't exist or that the way wasn't cleared and that only Sanders obstructed it because he circumvented the barriers that existed to other candidates because he was an independent who raised all his own money is digging your head in the sand.

 

[kirblar]

Why were there a bunch of actually serious contenders in 2008 then? Biden, Edwards, Obama, Dodd, these are all big names and the smallest one won the primary. Booker and Warren both have big profiles and have been in office about as long as Obama had been, why wouldn't they run?

Like, if the Democratic Primary didn't have institutional control over its elected officials we should have seen SOMEONE other than O'Malley that has some sort of future run. The DNC can't touch Sanders, Chafee, or Webb because what are they going to do to them?

Pretending the invisible primary doesn't exist or that the way wasn't cleared and that only Sanders obstructed it because he circumvented the barriers that existed to other candidates because he was an independent who raised all his own money is digging your head in the sand.

Because Clinton has been the presumed candidate for 8 years. She was effectively the "VP" of the Obama admin.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Because Clinton has been the presumed candidate for 8 years. She was effectively the "VP" of the Obama admin.

So, essentially, it was her turn?

 

[Plinko]

Trump spokesman: We need to talk about ‘punishing’ Clinton for ‘trying to influence the election’
The incoming White House Press Secretary says there has been too much focus on Russia

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-spo...-on-punishing-clinton-c41f54ade530#.rb21b0rav

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

 

[kirblar]

So, essentially, it was her turn?

After 8 years of an administration, there is usually a successor candidate, yes.

This is how things work.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Yep, the best thing one of the very, very few nationally prominent Democratic/left politicians can do in the era of Trump is shut up and get out of the way

So you think Hillary should stick around too?

 

[JesseEwiak]

Why were there a bunch of actually serious contenders in 2008 then? Biden, Edwards, Obama, Dodd, these are all big names and the smallest one won the primary. Booker and Warren both have big profiles and have been in office about as long as Obama had been, why wouldn't they run?

Like, if the Democratic Primary didn't have institutional control over its elected officials we should have seen SOMEONE other than O'Malley that has some sort of future run. The DNC can't touch Sanders, Chafee, or Webb because what are they going to do to them?

Pretending the invisible primary doesn't exist or that the way wasn't cleared and that only Sanders obstructed it because he circumvented the barriers that existed to other candidates because he was an independent who raised all his own money is digging your head in the sand.

Well, first of all, other than Obama and Edwards, none of the other people that ran were actually serious contenders. I love Biden, but other than the "noun, verb, and 9/11" line at a debate, he didn't mean anything in that primary.

Plus, there's a difference between a completely open primary when you're not the incumbent party and one where you're the incumbent party.

The actual primary you want to look at is not the 2008 DNC, but the 1992 GOP one. The only people that seriously ran in it was the obvious successor to the President (Bush I) and an insurgent radical (Buchanan). Oh, and David Duke. Other than that, there weren't even any O'Malley's or Webbs.

The truth is, the vast majority of Senator's, Congresspeople, and Governors thought Hillary would be the best candidate and even if they didn't, they knew they had no reasonable chance against Hillary because of her campaign, fundraising ability, and organization. Why take the obvious L in 2016 when you can run in 2024 if Hillary is successful or is she loses, 2020 will be a wide open race.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Let's look at how running the successor to a president goes then and see how effective this strategy seems to be.

Humphrey: lost but was actually pretty close considering his party was about to collapse
Mondale: lol
Bush: the only actual winner, highly benefited from running against a block of wood
Gore: Admittedly only lost because his rival's brother and SCOTUS stole the election for him
Clinton: The Democrat's biggest loss since the aforementioned block of wood

Maybe we should avoid having a single contender consolidate all of the support before the primaries?

Well, first of all, other than Obama and Edwards, none of the other people that ran were actually serious contenders. I love Biden, but other than the "noun, verb, and 9/11" line at a debate, he didn't mean anything in that primary.

Plus, there's a difference between a completely open primary when you're not the incumbent party and one where you're the incumbent party.

The actual primary you want to look at is not the 2008 DNC, but the 1992 GOP one. The only people that seriously ran in it was the obvious successor to the President (Bush I) and an insurgent radical (Buchanan). Oh, and David Duke. Other than that, there weren't even any O'Malley's or Webbs.

The truth is, the vast majority of Senator's, Congresspeople, and Governors thought Hillary would be the best candidate and even if they didn't, they knew they had no reasonable chance against Hillary because of her campaign, fundraising ability, and organization. Why take the obvious L in 2016 when you can run in 2024 if Hillary is successful or is she loses, 2020 will be a wide open race.

Do you mean 1988? Because in 92 Bush was the incumbent president and that's a totally different situation, but in 88 (when Bush won) there was some actual competition including Dole, who lost but won some states including Iowa.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Let's look at how running the successor to a president goes then and see how effective this strategy seems to be.

Humphrey: lost but was actually pretty close considering his party was about to collapse
Mondale: lol
Bush: the only actual winner, highly benefited from running against a block of wood
Gore: Admittedly only lost because his rival's brother and SCOTUS stole the election for him
Clinton: The Democrat's biggest loss since the aforementioned block of wood

Maybe we should avoid having a single contender consolidate all of the support before the primaries?

Is this because there is a "successor candidate" or because the American people are fickle and like to change up the party in charge? I'm inclined to think the latter.

 

[royalan]

Yep, the best thing one of the very, very few nationally prominent Democratic/left politicians in the era of Trump is shut up and get out of the way

Yes. Sorry if this hurts feelings, but I firmly fucking believe this.

If Bernie Sanders doesn't change his act, he needs to shut up and get the fuck out of the way while rational people try to keep the party together.

Here's why:

Bernie Sanders, for better or worse, has a huge following composed largely of young millennials mostly inexperienced with politics. That being what it is, in my honest opinion, it was Bernie Sanders' responsibility as a public servant with a huge following to educate his followers about the political process instead of only encouraging them to attack it.

But he largely didn't do this. Instead, He instigated purity tests by attacking institutions of our government that didn't roll over for him. He attacked vulnerable organizations like Planned Parenthood under the guise of being anti-establishment (except for the parts of the establishment that endorsed him, of course). He let his campaign fuel bullshit and easily disproved conspiracy theories about result rigging in almost every state he lost. He attacked the media and questioned established facts that didn't suit his narrative almost as blindly as Trump. He displayed near complete and total ignorance in regards to how he would implement ANY of the ideas he pushed (and mostly got a pass from the media for this until the end of the primary when it just got ridiculous). And he demonized any politician who has so much as driven down Wall Street.

The end result is a surprisingly large group of young, leftist voters who have gone through an election year and come out the other side just as ignorant of how the process works, only now more prone to attack it.

I don't care if he's on my side. I will never respect politicians who breed and push misinformation and discourage critical thinking.