Aaron Strife
Banned
I mean did you really expect her to be like "Yeah fuck that bitch"?
https://twitter.com/errolbarnett/status/757312748321726464
If this is true, Hillary deserves to lose.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT8| No, Donald. You don't.
- Thread starter ampere
- Start date
- Status
https://twitter.com/errolbarnett/status/757312748321726464
If this is true, Hillary deserves to lose.
Why?
Debbie is a good friend of Hillary's, has worked for her personally and for the DNC for years, and is ONLY guilty of generating some really bad optics at this worst possible time.
It's clear Hillary/DNC had to do something, but if you were expecting them to string her up as a heretic or something...
This gets her out of the way while preserving her dignity.
User 463088
Banned
Also, she was honorary chair of the 50 state thing since like January, I think. It something like that.
The statement is 100% fine if you remove everything about her joining the campaign. Even saying she'll be a surrogate in Florida is fine.
Coriolanus
Banned
If discussing optics, it's the optics of doing that vs the optics of leaving someone that helped you high and dry as soon as it is convenient.
If one doesnt wanna be stabbed in the back further down the line, one picks the first every single time.
It's an honorary position. It is meaningless.
User 463088
Banned
Again, this isn't a new joining thing. I'm pretty sure she was chair of the 50 state thing before this.
Well if she was then I'll admit I was wrong. I mean the excerpt specifically says joining; as if she's new to that position.
I also have no problem with her getting some stupid position in itself. I just feel like this will give more fuel to the fire for the Bernie's to freak out about and drag this crap on even more.
Officerrob
Banned
Bernie delegate on MSNBC, "It's too late (DWS stepping down), Hillary needs to step down."
These people...
These people...
Dominican Power
Member
It's called fucking loyalty. Of course they're gonna have to dismiss her to nip this shit in the bud.
Some people will never be satisfied until Bernie is the nominee. They are not relevant.
ElectricThunder
Member
Wow, that's weird in DNC doings. Hmm...somebody help me out, am I remembering right that Donna went on Maher's show somewhere in this past season tied to this very subject matter? I want to say I'm remembering this right and she did well(I mean, she's always been cool on the show whenever she pops on) on it but I could be getting here confused with somebody else.
User 463088
Banned
Exactly.
The people that are still bitching aren't Democrats. They are irrelevant. They didn't get their way because they have been on the outside for the six minutes they've decided to pay attention to politics. They were never voting Democrat, and they won't make an ounce of difference anyway. Who cares.
The people that are still bitching aren't Democrats. They are irrelevant. They didn't get their way because they have been on the outside for the six minutes they've decided to pay attention to politics. They were never voting Democrat, and they won't make an ounce of difference anyway. Who cares.
You generally see her as a guest on CNN politics panels representing Dems.
metalslimer
Member
They just had someone on saying that the only way to fix this is for Clinton to resign. There is no placating some people
https://twitter.com/errolbarnett/status/757312748321726464
If this is true, Hillary deserves to lose.
Thanks for not caring about Nazis taking over America because of one congressperson you don't think is very effective!
So you say that the DNC shouldn't play favorites, that they played favorites, and that they weren't against Sanders for arbitrary reasons but because it was in their interest to be against him. This seems to me to be exactly what the Sanders people are unhappy about. They think that the DNC should be neutral in something like the way that the federal and state governments running elections and the committee on presidential debates should be neutral between Clinton and Trump, even though Trump wants to destroy the country. Or substitute a hypothetical Ted Cruz campaign if you want someone who's more openly about destroying the institutions that are in a position to be fair or unfair towards him. It'd be a problem if a state moved polling places around to try to maximize Clinton's vote share. People working for the government have an obligation to act (in their official capacities) as if they don't have a stake in the outcome even though Cruz has promised to fire them if elected. Or, like, it'd be absolutely terrible if the police in many states did something in their official capacity to try to get Trump elected because they see Clinton as a threat.
I think this is just the "can the parties determine their own rules because they're private organizations or are they severely constrained by their role in our democratic system?" issue again.
And then the obvious response to "Doesn't it seem fair that the candidate that works harder and spends more time preparing should have a better chance of winning? Isn't that how we want life to work?" is just that, no, when we're talking about high elected office we're much more interested in giving the job to the person who will be best for the country rather than to the person who is in some sense most deserving, and the point of having "fair" elections is to give the people a chance to weigh in on that. I mean, it's not like I'd want Ted Cruz to have a better chance of winning the general than Bernie Sanders if they'd each won the nomination, even though I think Cruz tries harder. The structure of the general election should not necessarily favor candidates that try harder (by getting cozy with government officials and the like, at least) and by analogy the primary elections should be the same.
jack_package_200
Banned
Its about sending a message!
Dominican Power
Member
And of course The DNC are gonna privately hate on Bernie and his campaign. Bernie hasn't done shit for the deemocrats and here he comes demanding shit like he's been putting in work for the dems since day 1. I'd shit on him too, like we've all been doing. Bernie was sitting on his moral perch in the senate from a majority white state while the dems and the president were besieged by these crazy republicans for 8 years.
The big story should be the release of credit card and SSNs, but no. It's about how the DNC abused Bernie.
The fact that Clinton is so much better at coalition building demonstrates that she is best for the country. She won because she, and her team, were better at doing the things that an effective president has to be able to do. Bernie is an ideologue and ran his campaign similar to one. Ideologues tend not to be as effective at actually governing.
User 85168
Banned
Bernie's statement
Dominican Power
Member
Why does media never call out Bernie for sitting on the sidelines all these years?
Voysa Reezun
Banned
Bernie needs to learn how to take an L. "Something which did not occur this year." Fuck right off, dude.
Officerrob
Banned
DWS is toxic right now, the Hillary campaign is trying to be cute and have it both ways
8 X 11 Printer Paper
Member
Yeah, really not understanding why they are still trying to associate with DWS. It makes little sense.
metalslimer
Member
No, apparently some people won't be happy until DWS is crushed underneath a boulder.
GoldenEye 007
Member
What is honorary chair?
Officerrob
Banned
Nah, I get the complaints this time.
Sure, that's plausible, but the question seems to me to be whether that means that the Democratic Party as an organization and people employed by it (in their official capacity) should try to help Clinton win, and that doesn't follow from them believing Clinton to be the better candidate for them. As I pointed out, we pretty much all believe that in a pretty similar-looking election - the general election - we believe that the people running the election should absolutely not be using their positions to help one candidate.
I took pigeon to be granting that that was what happened and defending it, without confronting head on the reasons why people might think the DNC should be neutral. Like I said, it's the "can the parties determine their own rules because they're private organizations or are they severely constrained by their role in our democratic system?" issue. The one that comes up when we're talking about whether the parties have an obligation to open their primaries to independent voters.
Oh I'm not taking about people on twitter/reddit. They won't ever be satisfied. I meant people like Nina Turner and Ben Jealous.
Officerrob
Banned
They are both on board
An honorary thing is typically a symbolic gesture meant to thank or reward a person for a history of service. For example, an honorary degree, which is bestowed on a person for work in a particular field without that person having necessarily completed the requirements. An honorary chairman is...to put this in terms that gamers would understand...what happened to Ken Kutaragi after the PS3 bombed.
metalslimer
Member
They are fine. Most of the public figures that are behind Bernie will be happy, and will be even happier after Bernie's speech tomorrow. Basically, just have to survive until the DNC starts tomorrow and hope the Bernie or Busters don't actually cause any chaos
GoldenEye 007
Member
If that context is correct, then I can get over that. She should have no decision-making ability here.
User 463088
Banned
Because, literally, anyone who is suddenly upset about DWS being an honorary chair of something that is basically a talking point is going to be pissed anyway. You throw some generic "She's great" shit at her. She'll disappear, and we'll never hear from her again this election season. Part of being a nominee, a leader of a party, is learning how to be magnanimous and not die on the alter of purity.
I have to say that I'm very impressed with how Bernie and his campaign have been responding to this mess today.
Bernie acknowledged that this confirmed what he's been saying all along (I think that's bullshit, but its what his supporters need to hear). But he and his surrogates have been very good at keeping the ire focused on DWS and emphasizing that need for unity under Clinton. MSNBC almost doesn't seem to know how to respond, they keep fishing for more attack lines.
Good job, Bernie!
Bernie acknowledged that this confirmed what he's been saying all along (I think that's bullshit, but its what his supporters need to hear). But he and his surrogates have been very good at keeping the ire focused on DWS and emphasizing that need for unity under Clinton. MSNBC almost doesn't seem to know how to respond, they keep fishing for more attack lines.
Good job, Bernie!
Officerrob
Banned
It's giving the media a narrative to push though, Chuck Todd is doing it right now. This is an unforced error. If an honorary position is worthless, don't be cute and do that today
metalslimer
Member
For a day and then they'll forget about it after tomorrow night. If they are still covering it tomorrow night, or if the protestors cause chaos then it will be a problem.
It's also Sunday and there is literally nothing else to talk about
Officerrob
Banned
But it didn't need to be done at all. If the RNC/Trump campaign was being cute and stupid like this, we would call them out
metalslimer
Member
If it was the quickest way to get DWS to step down, then so be it.
They're going to talk about it anyway. If she threw her under the bus here, they'd be talking about disloyalty. She can't WIN here, so she might as well not hurt a longtime friend and ally. The media LOVES controversy, and they will desperately hype up anything that goes even a little bit wrong during the DNC to try and be "objective" after they trashed on the RNC all last week. It doesn't matter if it's not a trainwreck. The media has an interest in making it seem as close to the RNC disaster as they possibly can.
What else were they going to say?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked