Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

Winning the most amount of votes is just an asinine bar to set. The American electorate is constantly increasing in size due to population growth. If you had two equally skilled candidates, one contesting 2000, the other contesting 2008, the one in 2008 will get more votes simply by virtue of there being more votes to get. If you take that logic far enough, when Chelsea Clinton gets crushed in the 2040 Presidential Elections by Trump Jr., you'll all be saying "well, she wasn't a bad candidate, she got more votes than 2008 Obama!". It's an unbelievably ill-thought chain of logic and I don't think for a second anyone with enough nous to be in a position to contest the Democratic primary would be deterred by it.

 

[thepotatoman]

Who was new to the national stage.

That's true. Maybe young people will be absolutely done with him and warren by 2020. 4 years is a long time.

If so then they would naturally just leave the national scene, since they don't have much support without young people.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Who cares if it's fucking interesting, what matters is if it's true or not. Winning Dem candidates tend to be fresh faced youngsters.

I mean, if this was the obvious iron law you describe, one has to question why on earth anyone was stupid enough to support Clinton in the first place...

 

[kirblar]

That's true. Maybe young people will be absolutely done with him and warren by 2020. 4 years is a long time.

If so then they would naturally just leave the national scene, since they don't have much support without young people.

This is where the "he was cheated" narrative comes in. Since the loss isn't viewed as legitimate to so many (white) people, they're still holding a torch for him. They're convinced he would have won because they think he's John Cena, when he's really James Ellsworth.

I mean, if this was the obvious iron law you describe, one has to question why on earth anyone was stupid enough to support Clinton in the first place...

Because elections in the wake of an outgoing admin w/ a chosen successor work differently? But yes, Obama should have intervened- his whole passive aggressive hands off nonsense the past year+ was a disaster.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Winning the most amount of votes is just an asinine bar to set. The American electorate is constantly increasing in size due to population growth. If you had two equally skilled candidates, one contesting 2000, the other contesting 2008, the one in 2008 will get more votes simply by virtue of there being more votes to get. If you take that logic far enough, when Chelsea Clinton gets crushed in the 2040 Presidential Elections by Trump Jr., you'll all be saying "well, she wasn't a bad candidate, she got more votes than 2008 Obama!". It's an unbelievably ill-thought chain of logic and I don't think for a second anyone with enough nous to be in a position to contest the Democratic primary would be deterred by it.

Of course it's not your only consideration, but someone who thinks "Hillary has fewer memes, time to run!" is a moron. Cory Booker would not beat her. Liz Warren would not beat her. Bernie Sanders lost to her by a massive amount to the point that his continued candidacy was embarrassing.

Revisionist history is ridiculous. She was a stronger candidate than you'd ever admit, which I find unsurprising from a Corbynite.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Because elections in the wake of an outgoing admin w/ a chosen successor work differently? But yes, Obama should have intervened- his whole passive aggressive hands off nonsense the past year+ was a disaster.

...he chose her as a successor, pretty implicitly. Why would he have intervened?

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Winning the most amount of votes is just an asinine bar to set. The American electorate is constantly increasing in size due to population growth. If you had two equally skilled candidates, one contesting 2000, the other contesting 2008, the one in 2008 will get more votes simply by virtue of there being more votes to get. If you take that logic far enough, when Chelsea Clinton gets crushed in the 2040 Presidential Elections by Trump Jr., you'll all be saying "well, she wasn't a bad candidate, she got more votes than 2008 Obama!". It's an unbelievably ill-thought chain of logic and I don't think for a second anyone with enough nous to be in a position to contest the Democratic primary would be deterred by it.

What does that have to do with margin of victory? People aren't talking about raw vote count in a vacuum here.

 

[kirblar]

...he chose her as a successor, pretty implicitly. Why would he have intervened?

Because he had an opinion, every knew he had an opinion, but by not saying anything, he let all the shit "DNC" narratives take hold.

He could have dissuaded her. He could have actively supported her. Instead, he did the worst of both worlds. Obama being afraid of looking "bad" has been a constant problem.

 

[PantherLotus]

It's not getting stopped.

The time to stop it was before the election.

It's happening.

The goal moving forward is to be loud enough to make Republicans (and any Democrats going along with it) pay a price.

And how do we do that? It's over man.

People were saying they were voting for Hillary because Bernie couldn't win a GE. Well, maybe(not against Trump however) that's true but a horrible reason to vote for Hillary over Bernie because Hillary couldn't win a GE either. So even though Bernie is a labeled loser...if only those who wanted to vote for him but didn't for BS reasons(see above) they believed into as well as those who wanted to vote for him but were neglected to do so because of sheer calculated fuckery/suppression (see AZ, NY, etc..). Bernie could have very well been the winner of the primary and easily beats Trump. He pulls along Feingold and McGinty at least. Dems control the Senate.

WRONG.

It's never over. Even now we could be shouting from the rooftops, 'they're going to take your healthcare!' like the tea partiers did in 2009. But naaah, y'all wanna re-litigate the DNC fuckup.

It's almost like hopelessness and depraved cowardice is baked into the party.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Of course it's not your only consideration, but someone who thinks "Hillary has fewer memes, time to run!" is a moron. Cory Booker would not beat her. Liz Warren would not beat her. Bernie Sanders lost to her by a massive amount to the point that his continued candidacy was embarrassing.

Revisionist history is ridiculous. She was a stronger candidate than you'd ever admit, which I find unsurprising from a Corbynite.

To be honest, if you think that nobody in the Democratic party could have presented themselves as a better candidate than Clinton, and she got beaten by an orange blob with tiny hands who pranced around on the national stage making allusions about the size of his penis, you're even more pessimistic about the Democratic party than I am. We may as well write 2020 off - Clinton was the best we had, folks, everyone pack up and go home.

Why is it so difficult to say: Clinton was a historically terrible candidate, who blocked out any serious competition in the primaries by pre-networking with key donors to make any kind of challenge de facto impossible purely on financial grounds, and that if she hadn't been dissuaded from doing this, America might not be looking at a Russian puppet president?

Incidentally, I'm not a Corbynite, but I find the failed presumption unsurprising from someone who backed a candidate that, again, lost to an orange blob.

 

[mo60]

Winning the most amount of votes is just an asinine bar to set. The American electorate is constantly increasing in size due to population growth. If you had two equally skilled candidates, one contesting 2000, the other contesting 2008, the one in 2008 will get more votes simply by virtue of there being more votes to get. If you take that logic far enough, when Chelsea Clinton gets crushed in the 2040 Presidential Elections by Trump Jr., you'll all be saying "well, she wasn't a bad candidate, she got more votes than 2008 Obama!". It's an unbelievably ill-thought chain of logic and I don't think for a second anyone with enough nous to be in a position to contest the Democratic primary would be deterred by it.

The problem is that the republicans vote total has been pretty stagnant since 2004 or so while the democrats vote total in presidential elections has significantly increased despite the republicans sometimes being able to win the EC.It's more like the democrats are benefiting more from a more diverse electorate in terms of the popular vote while the republicans are really not.I don't think it matters much if some random democratic candidate in 2052 gets more votes then the 2008 democratic candidate.What matters is that the increase in the electorate is not helping the republicans much in the PV right now and I don't expect that to change for another decade or two.

 

[kirblar]

WRONG.

It's never over. Even now we could be shouting from the rooftops, 'they're going to take your healthcare!' like the tea partiers did in 2009. But naaah, y'all wanna re-litigate the DNC fuckup.

It's almost like hopelessness and depraved cowardice is baked into the party.

No, it's over.

Making a sign on the streets won't fix that. Working to win the next election? That will. And getting the party on the right track for 2018 is absolutely something that needs to be talked about, because we cannot afford a Corbyn situation.

(Cabinet nominees aren't over, though, because you can actually pressure Rubio/McCain/etc.)

 

[AntraxSuicide]

To be honest, if you think that nobody in the Democratic party could have presented themselves as a better candidate than Clinton, and she got beaten by an orange blob with tiny hands who pranced around on the national stage making allusions about the size of his penis, you're even more pessimistic about the Democratic party than I am. We may as well write 2020 off - Clinton was the best we had, folks, everyone pack up and go home.

Why is it so difficult to say: Clinton was a historically terrible candidate, who blocked out any serious competition in the primaries by pre-networking with key donors to make any kind of challenge de facto impossible purely on financial grounds, and that if she hadn't been dissuaded from doing this, America might not be looking at a Russian puppet president?

Incidentally, I'm not a Corbynite, but I find the failed presumption unsurprising from someone who backed a candidate that, again, lost to an orange blob.

You backed the candidate that lost to her by millions of votes, but it was really the ignorant minorities and cheating that did that, right?

The reason I strongly groan reading your posts is because you back losers without an ounce of reflection. When I say Hillary Clinton should have campaigned in 3 states, I'm reflecting on strategy. Do you say Sanders (or any candidate with a focus on white people who "doesn't see color") should instead try to actually appeal to people of color? Do you admit that your wing of the left is smaller than people of color? That your wing is unappealing to minority voters?

Of course not. Your wing is appealing to them, but didn't get their votes because *reasons, many of which are racist in nature*.

Edit: And I've seen you defend the Labour Party often enough. You have your own blindspots, and no intent to cover them. Other people are just ignorant peasants, while your ivory tower of privilege affords you a look at the "real world." I reject your experience as out of touch.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

If you can't admit Clinton was a trash candidate, then you are just ignoring reality at this point. Some of it was decades of opposition messaging but not even close to all.

 

[thepotatoman]

Winning the most amount of votes is just an asinine bar to set. The American electorate is constantly increasing in size due to population growth. If you had two equally skilled candidates, one contesting 2000, the other contesting 2008, the one in 2008 will get more votes simply by virtue of there being more votes to get. If you take that logic far enough, when Chelsea Clinton gets crushed in the 2040 Presidential Elections by Trump Jr., you'll all be saying "well, she wasn't a bad candidate, she got more votes than 2008 Obama!". It's an unbelievably ill-thought chain of logic and I don't think for a second anyone with enough nous to be in a position to contest the Democratic primary would be deterred by it.

To her credit she has a higher percentage margin than Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, and Bush Jr did for the elections that first made them president. Theres also every single major party candidate that lost the popular vote that she did better than.

But yeah, even if she did win the popular vote by crazy numbers, it should still be a lesson to democrats to focus on the rust belt for the electoral math of it, at least until the rules are changed. And that would mean not pushing trade bills like the TPP and running a candidate whose own supporters don't believe it when she flipflops her position on it.

 

[ErasureAcer]

WRONG.

It's never over. Even now we could be shouting from the rooftops, 'they're going to take your healthcare!' like the tea partiers did in 2009. But naaah, y'all wanna re-litigate the DNC fuckup.

It's almost like hopelessness and depraved cowardice is baked into the party.

It doesn't matter. Shit is rigged. See the voting fiascos all over. If there's something to fight...it's that crap. People's registration being changed so they can't vote for our hero Bernie Sanders. total fucking bullshit.

 

[metalslimer]

It doesn't matter. Shit is rigged. See the voting fiascos all over. If there's something to fight...it's that crap. People's registration being changed so they can't vote for our hero Bernie Sanders. total fucking bullshit.

I can't tell if this is a joke post or not.

 

[Retromelon]

It doesn't matter. Shit is rigged. See the voting fiascos all over. If there's something to fight...it's that crap. People's registration being changed so they can't vote for our hero Bernie Sanders. total fucking bullshit.

If anyone else said this but you it would sound sarcastic as hell, lol

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Someone needs to calculate exactly how much money George Soros will save under the Ryan tax plan.

"Hey, WWC Trump voter: Trump just cut your Medicaid to give George Soros a tax cut of X million over 10 years."

Would work okay I think...

 

[royalan]

WRONG.

It's never over. Even now we could be shouting from the rooftops, 'they're going to take your healthcare!' like the tea partiers did in 2009. But naaah, y'all wanna re-litigate the DNC fuckup.

It's almost like hopelessness and depraved cowardice is baked into the party.

Ummm...excuse me?

Let me remind you that you do not know me, or what I do in my life when I'm not taking some time to post on a message board. Trust, there's a lot of actual work being done when I'm out in these streets. Thank you.

But for the purposes of the ongoing discussion that you stumbled in on, the subject of Bernie came up and people commented. More than that, I think it's important that there be a constant reminder that Bernie Sanders lost the primary, and he lost it for a reason. There's an undercurrent definitely trying to work to make Bernie Sanders' politics the politics of the Democratic Party as a whole, and when I'm not fighting against Trump and his axis of stupid, I will certainly be opposing that, as well.

 

[kess]

Guardian -- "Texas looks set to follow North Carolina with push for 'bathroom bill'"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/01/texas-bathroom-bill-lgbt

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You backed the candidate that lost to her by millions of votes, but it was really the ignorant minorities and cheating that did that, right?

The reason I strongly groan reading your posts is because you back losers without an ounce of reflection. When I say Hillary Clinton should have campaigned in 3 states, I'm reflecting on strategy. Do you say Sanders (or any candidate with a focus on white people who "doesn't see color") should instead try to actually appeal to people of color? Do you admit that your wing of the left is smaller than people of color? That your wing is unappealing to minority voters?

Of course not. Your wing is appealing to them, but didn't get their votes because *reasons, many of which are racist in nature*.

I'm impressed at how much this post manages to entirely miss the point.

Yes, Sanders needed to connect with minorities more. This is obvious. But Sanders was never going to win. Ever. He had no support from established donors, he had no support from key Democratic surrogates, he came from a state that wasn't remotely reflective of modern Democratic voting blocs, he had no history inside the Democratic party, and so on. Nevertheless, he won over 40% of the vote in the Democratic primary. That is absolutely staggering.

What I find depressing is this: there never should have been a Sanders. Imagine a candidate had existed who, message-wise, looks more or less like Sanders. But, unlike Sanders, he (or she!) has been a Democratic politician since way back when, had the support of key Democratic surrogates, came from a state that exposed them to modern Democratic voting blocs, had the key support of older voters. That candidate? They're my candidate, my "wing", or whatever you want to call it - not Sanders.

But that candidate doesn't exist, for a myriad reasons (that are rather interesting to discuss). And, unfortunately, in their absence, I had to support Sanders. So I'm pretty comfortable saying: there were better possibilities. Whereas you are busy arguing that Clinton was literally the best thing the Democratic party had to offer. That makes my position a much better one to be in than yours - at least in mine, the Democratic Party might win in the future.

Also, if we're playing the lazy "my opponent must be racist", fine, sure. You just don't give a shit about the poor. Never have, never will. I'm pretty disgusted by the fact you don't even have the slightest shred of empathy for them; I think it's the mark of an innately terrible human being, and I pity you for it.

Spoiler

Clue: this probably isn't a good way to approach politics.

 

[kirblar]

If you can't admit Clinton was a trash candidate, then you are just ignoring reality at this point. Some of it was decades of opposition messaging but not even close to all.

I voted Obama in '08 because I didn't think she was a good candidate.

But just because she was a bad one, doesn't make Sanders a good one- he was far worse!

 

[royalan]

I voted Obama in '08 because I didn't think she was a good candidate.

But just because she was a bad one, doesn't make Sanders a good one- he was far worse!

I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp. This is certainly my position (although I think she would have been a great president and I think calling her a "trash" candidate is extreme. But she hated campaigning and that was obvious at some points).

I don't see anyone arguing that Hillary was perfect. As big of a fan of Hillary as I am, had a more well-rounded candidate with winning qualities ran, I would have voted for that person. Alas, one did not.

 

[ErasureAcer]

I voted Obama in '08 because I didn't think she was a good candidate.

But just because she was a bad one, doesn't make Sanders a good one- he was far worse!

All the polls had Bernie way ahead of Trump. The polls with Clinton winning the popular vote by 1-2 percent back in March were accurate to the final results. Bernie would have beaten Trump by double digits in the popular vote. Is it even possible for him to lose the EC with a double-digit lead? NO. Bernie would have been Pres.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Only Dem nominees that can win are Warren or Sanders. I'm going with the Simpsons timeline where a woman takes over after Trump leaves us bankrupt(in all possible ways, most likely).

I don't think Bernie will run. I think he will encourage Elizabeth to run. If she doesn't decide to run then I think it's likely he will find someone else suitable to run and if he can't find them (they don't exist from the current crop)...then he'll run again himself.

It would definitely depend on what kind of anti-Trump/anti-establishment campaign she ran plus how Trump performs. She obviously won't be perceived as a shill and can offer more substance than Bernie due to her background. Fiscal policy views could be her Achilles heel. If she tries to cancel out what she wants to do with tax increases and spending cuts, then stick a fork in her. Unless Trump's term is a total disaster...

In addition, age and her time as a public figure could be trouble. Although, I like that she had a change of heart when she saw the GOP selling out which displays some authenticity behind her message. I'd be interested in her trying and seeing what the base thinks of her if I was a liberal.

 

[JesseEwiak]

All the polls had Bernie way ahead of Trump. The polls with Clinton winning the popular vote by 1-2 percent back in March were accurate to the final results. Bernie would have beaten Trump by double digits in the popular vote. Is it even possible for him to lose the EC with a double-digit lead? NO. Bernie would have been Pres.

"Crazy Bernie wants to raise your taxes and take away your health care you worked for and make you and your kids wait in line behind criminal and illegal immigrants who will get it for free!"

 

[PantherLotus]

Ummm...excuse me?

Let me remind you that you do not know me, or what I do in my life when I'm not taking some time to post on a message board. Trust, there's a lot of actual work being done when I'm out in these streets. Thank you.

But for the purposes of the ongoing discussion that you stumbled in on, the subject of Bernie came up and people commented. More than that, I think it's important that there be a constant reminder that Bernie Sanders lost the primary, and he lost it for a reason. There's an undercurrent definitely trying to work to make Bernie Sanders' politics the politics of the Democratic Party as a whole, and when I'm not fighting against Trump and his axis of stupid, I will certainly be opposing that, as well.

yeah you took that WAY more personally than i intended. i'm just saying it's kinda depressing seeing so much passion from you and the entire thread just going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about fucking Bernie vs Hillary. It's equally depressing seeing all the responses of people just laying down.

Does anyone know what Mitch McConnell was doing in January 2009? There's no reason we can't do the same. Not if we actually care about stopping Trump.

 

[metalslimer]

Guardian -- "Texas looks set to follow North Carolina with push for 'bathroom bill'"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/01/texas-bathroom-bill-lgbt

With how big a sports state Texas is this seems like a terrible idea. It will certainly pass. I'm getting the fuck out of this state as soon as I finish school.

 

[royalan]

What I find depressing is this: there never should have been a Sanders. Imagine a candidate had existed who, message-wise, looks more or less like Sanders. But, unlike Sanders, he (or she!) has been a Democratic politician since way back when, had the support of key Democratic surrogates, came from a state that exposed them to modern Democratic voting blocs, had the key support of older voters. That candidate? They're my candidate, my "wing", or whatever you want to call it - not Sanders.

Honest question, Crab, and not solely aimed at you because I see this everywhere...

Who does this politician look like, and why isn't it Hillary Clinton?

Because I am not arguing that Hillary was a perfect candidate. She wasn't. But all my criticisms of Hillary and how she ran her campaign are largely on presentation and strategy. But the policies she pushed, the platform she ran on, was incredibly progressive. The most progressive platform a major nominee for the Presidency has ever run on in this country. And I truly, honestly, do not believe that a more leftist platform would have been palatable to the country as a whole. Especially when Republicans start going nuclear on the tax increases. To me, that's the other lesson from this election that people like to ignore: the US is still very much a centrist nation.

 

[kirblar]

All the polls had Bernie way ahead of Trump. The polls with Clinton winning the popular vote by 1-2 percent back in March were accurate to the final results. Bernie would have beaten Trump by double digits in the popular vote. Is it even possible for him to lose the EC with a double-digit lead? NO. Bernie would have been Pres.

Serious question- how old are you?

As an aside, remember that when people talk about Hillary Clinton "talking too much about minorities" - remember that her rallies barely got coverage.

People aren't tlaking about her. They're talking about Kaepernick and the past year of BLM stuff.

 

[Lord_Byron28]

yeah you took that WAY more personally than i intended. i'm just saying it's kinda depressing seeing so much passion from you and the entire thread just going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about fucking Bernie vs Hillary. It's equally depressing seeing all the responses of people just laying down.

Does anyone know what Mitch McConnell was doing in January 2009? There's no reason we can't do the same. Not if we actually care about stopping Trump.

Yes, I agree. I checked out of Poligaf towards the end of primary season because of how ugly and depressing it was. It's now gotten much worse after the election. I'm not sure why we are still fighting so badly amongst each other. I would've figured Trump would've united the left. However, it seems Putin, Trump and the GOP are getting their wish and watching Democrats infighting destroy each other and distract themselves from doing anything against other issues.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

All the polls had Bernie way ahead of Trump. The polls with Clinton winning the popular vote by 1-2 percent back in March were accurate to the final results. Bernie would have beaten Trump by double digits in the popular vote. Is it even possible for him to lose the EC with a double-digit lead? NO. Bernie would have been Pres.

Surely you realize that if Bernie were the nominee he would have been relentlessly attacked and polls done during the primary aren't accurate?

He lost. And so did Hillary. It's time to accept that and move on.

 

[ErasureAcer]

What I find depressing is this: there never should have been a Sanders. Imagine a candidate had existed who, message-wise, looks more or less like Sanders. But, unlike Sanders, he (or she!) has been a Democratic politician since way back when, had the support of key Democratic surrogates, came from a state that exposed them to modern Democratic voting blocs, had the key support of older voters. That candidate? They're my candidate, my "wing", or whatever you want to call it - not Sanders.

But that candidate doesn't exist, for a myriad reasons (that are rather interesting to discuss). And, unfortunately, in their absence, I had to support Sanders. So I'm pretty comfortable saying: there were better possibilities. Whereas you are busy arguing that Clinton was literally the best thing the Democratic party had to offer. That makes my position a much better one to be in than yours - at least in mine, the Democratic Party might win in the future.

Also, if we're playing the lazy "my opponent must be racist", fine, sure. You just don't give a shit about the poor. Never have, never will. I'm pretty disgusted by the fact you don't even have the slightest shred of empathy for them; I think it's the mark of an innately terrible human being, and I pity you for it.

Spoiler

Clue: this probably isn't a good way to approach politics.

You described Dennis Kucinich. Oh, where were all of you back then? Towing the establishment line.

This is all about establishment vs. non-establishment. The system doesn't work. I blame it on the system itself, Capitalism...how else could Democrats/Republicans all enter power (remember 59 Dem aligned Senators and Joe Lieberman) and shit continues to be fucked up? You are all believing into the lie. The problem is Capitalism itself. Nothing more nothing less. Bernie Sanders said, hey...Capitalism has gotten us this far but if we want to better our lives individually and collectively we need to change course. Kucinich said pretty much all the same shit Sanders said and he was a Democrat. Your argument doesn't hold weight.

I was there for Kucinich. Were you? No. You don't believe your own argument, as you shouldn't cuz that's not the issue. The issue is Capitalism is Slavery. There's no common bond(on the earthly plain) between Americans other than slavery to the 1%.

 

[kirblar]

You described Dennis Kucinich. Oh, where were all of you back then? Towing the establishment line.

This is all about establishment vs. non-establishment. The system doesn't work. I blame it on the system itself, Capitalism...how else could Democrats/Republicans all enter power (remember 59 Dem aligned Senators and Joe Lieberman) and shit continues to be fucked up? You are all believing into the lie. The problem is Capitalism itself. Nothing more nothing less. Bernie Sanders said, hey...Capitalism has gotten us this far but if we want to better our lives individually and collectively we need to change course. Kucinich said pretty much all the same shit Sanders said and he was a Democrat. Your argument doesn't hold weight.

I was there for Kucinich. Were you? No. You don't believe your own argument, as you shouldn't cuz that's not the issue. The issue is Capitalism is Slavery. There's no common bond(on the earthly plain) between Americans other than slavery to the 1%.

Because the senate requires 60 votes for a fillibuster proof majority. Holy shit. How do you not know this?

 

[ErasureAcer]

Because the senate requires 60 votes for a fillibuster proof majority. Holy shit. How do you not know this?

They had 59 and Joe Lieberman. 60.

My fucking vote helped Al(the 60th) Franken into office.

Holy shit. How did you know they didn't have 60 votes in name only?

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Joe Lieberman is a piece of shit.

 

[kirblar]

They had 59 and Joe Lieberman. 60.

My fucking vote helped Al(the 60th) Franken into office.

And then Ted Kennedy DIED. They had 59.

(And yes, Lieberman is crap.)

 

[Grexeno]

They had 59 and Joe Lieberman. 60.

My fucking vote helped Al(the 60th) Franken into office.

And it turns out Joe Lieberman was a Republican

 

[JesseEwiak]

They had 59 and Joe Lieberman. 60.

My fucking vote helped Al(the 60th) Franken into office.

Holy shit. How did you know they didn't have 60 votes in name only?

You have two choices - a filibuster proof majority _or_ a left-wing Senate. You can't get both.

And it turns out Joe Lieberman was a Republican

No, it turned out Joe Lieberman was an asshole _and_ from a state where lots of insurance companies are headquartered.

 

[metalslimer]

Yeah if we just get rid of the establishment well get 60 Bernie votes in the senate. It all makes sense guys.

 

[ErasureAcer]

No, it turned out Joe Lieberman was an asshole _and_ from a state where lots of insurance companies are headquartered.

Capitalism my friends. It's all about money. Not about you.

 

[royalan]

yeah you took that WAY more personally than i intended. i'm just saying it's kinda depressing seeing so much passion from you and the entire thread just going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about fucking Bernie vs Hillary. It's equally depressing seeing all the responses of people just laying down.

Does anyone know what Mitch McConnell was doing in January 2009? There's no reason we can't do the same. Not if we actually care about stopping Trump.

I will share why I continuously and willingly engage in the Hillary vs. Bernie conversation, both online and in real life, because there is a reason.

I'm not too old yet, but in the short time in my life that I've been politically engaged, I saw something this election that terrified me almost more than Trump: the real possibility for a tea party-esque uprising on the Left.

A small but concrete contingent of extremists, loud as shit and utterly fact free. And like the tea party, that crowd thrives on being laughed off and ignored until you look up one day and realize they've hijacked your entire party.

I think there's a very important debate happening in the Democratic party right now (and I'm not the only one), and I'm not sure if I like the potential future for the Democratic Party if that debate becomes one-sided because one side finds the conversation "unproductive" while the other side continues to rage.

A few days ago, somebody in here asked why Pantsuit Nation (the largest Hillary for President Facebook group with millions of members) was a private group. This was why, and it was a mistake.

So long as the Bernie wing continues to argue that Bernie's policies (and ONLY Bernie's policies) are the way forward, I think the Hillary wing should answer (after all, there are more of us), and let a revitalized party arise from the ashes.

 

[Retromelon]

Erasureacer making sense and talking truth to establishment poligaf like always

 

[JesseEwiak]

Capitalism my friends. It's all about money. Not about you.

Right, so when a middle class insurance claims adjuster loses her job because of government policy, it's a good thing because it's good for the country as a whole. But when a real American working in a plant loses his job, it's a bad thing and must be rectified, even if it's good for the country as a whole.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Bernie Sanders is an establishment politician

Just throwing that out there. He's been in politics for over three decades and votes with the same party 90% of the time. If that isn't establishment I don't know what is.

 

[kess]

And it turns out Joe Lieberman was a Republican

Aaaaaaand that is why the Buckley family bankrolled him.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Erasureacer making sense and talking truth to establishment poligaf like always

They can change the names all they want. The same story plays out as it has throughout this nation's history. We're all cattle going to be slaughtered so the rich can eat. Keep working on your identity politics crap of who can best win by appealing to certain groups...that doesn't matter.

You can win(sometimes) for nothing. That's not a winning strategy. But therein lies the problem. Strategy. This isn't a game. You have to believe in something.

Have y'all seen the movie Glory? Watched it many times as a kid. Heartbreaking. Beautiful. Epic. Return to it from time to time. Remember the scene where Colonel Robert Gould Shaw takes his pay and rips it up because the black men weren't given what they were promised when they enlisted? Yeah, that's a fucking leader. Here's the scene. Of course, the enlistees are the true leaders. The Colonel only solidifies his leadership when he follows the people. It's bottom up. Not top down. Anyone preaching top down anything is preaching establishment shit. Whether it be trickle-down economics. Or super delegate bullcrap. It's all the same.

Did all these events happen as told in the movie? Who knows. But nevertheless this spoke to my soul. This is what the Democratic party should be. But the fucking people in charge sacrifice nothing. They are not leaders. They want you to compromise for $12 and not $15. They are not Robert Gould Shaw.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Bernie Sanders is an establishment politician

Just throwing that out there. He's been in politics for over three decades and votes with the same party 90% of the time. If that isn't establishment I don't know what is.

Sure. But he leverages anti-establishment rhetoric and genuinely means he wants to do x, y, and z. The problem with Bernie is that he was no Elizabeth Warren on his signature issues. Bernie was like a professional protester for decades that got things done until people finally started taking him seriously. His heart has always been in the right place so in a sense I'm happy he finally received some respect after years of being out there fighting the good fight.

 

[Kevitivity]

Happy New Year all!

My prediction for 2017: The experts got it all wrong last year and they'll get it all wrong this year too. It's going to be fun to watch.