And yet the dems can't figure out why they can't win.
They would rather have conservatives ruin the joint than run somebody that wouldn't scratch their back
I hate the politics in this goddamn country, it's all about money
Didn’t you moron politicians learn in 2016?? Bullying out the progressive got us this absolute raving idiot. Quit sabotaging yourselves!
I wish both parties would just stop.
It's not going to be terribly long before there is literally no difference between Republicans and Democrats, and I hazard it's going to be within our lifetimes.
What happens when no one votes Republican? Then it's pretty much all Democrat, companies shift their campaign contributions, and there you have it. Gotta love Citizens United...
Hey, remember the last time you had a guaranteed fucking victory and you still blew it with your own arrogance and stupidity?
Now is not the time for this shit.
They're doing this because they are choosing to put all their weight into the candidate they think stands the best chance of defeating the Republican opponent. A competitive primary doesn't mean shit when they get destroyed in the general.
Or they could be putting all their weight into that candidate because favors were owed and they stand to monetarily gain from the election of that candidate, or they have already promised their support and the candidate has already 'locked them in' to their support by ensuring their victory in a re-election campaign, or the introduction of people they know to them which stabilized their local economy, et cetera.
Just like they did for Hillary, right?
Bernie lost the primary by a huge amount.
Because having a person who generally votes in line with the Dems is better than a Republican who has polar opposite views? The Democrats could have taken the white house by running the literally most well liked US Senator in the country.
Though my point was more that the DNC is out of touch with what voters actually want, so saying they are doing this because they want the candidate who stands the best chance of winning is hilarious. Let the voters decide, without putting your finger on the scale at all, that's the entire point of primaries DNC, is it not?
It nonetheless is a poor strategy because it sends the signal, again, that they don't care what the people want
Tillemann lost to Crow 64.4 to 35.5 percent in the first qualifying vote. He'll probably lose the primary too.
The DNC wants to win back the House. They can't do that if a hyper progressive comes along, wins the primary and then gets destroyed by the general because the majority of the population isn't interested in their policies. Perhaps their calculus is entirely wrong and the progressive actually does appeal to independents in that area. I don't know anything about the district in question, I hope the DNC does.
I think Donald Trump is a great reason why I don't really have a problem with how the DNC works. The RNC had no way of combating Trump because enough voters loved him in the individual state primaries and they had no mechanism to give an advantage to the normal candidates who appealed to a larger portion of the party on a nationwide basis but always split the vote to not be a clear winner in the individual races.
You have an idealist view of how the political process should work. It'd be nice if they did but they don't. The DNC primaries are owned and controlled and set up by the DNC. They aren't an independent thing. They can put as much pressure as they want to get an outcome they think it best for the party because that's how it works. They own the democrat label and they can set it up primaries however they like.
I think the politician in question in this thread is being unfair to the party. The top democrat contenders for 2020 are being very open about progressive policies like Medicare for All, Jobs Guarantees for All, etc. I think the party is just being strategic and trying to defeat Republicans by not going hyper leftest and thereby alienating the majority of the population in areas that aren't urban progressive enclaves.
Connor Lamb won in PA because he didn't alienate his district by being too progressive. He got a lot of support from more Republican leaning people through policies that Bernie Sanders would not be a fan of. The candidate has to run based on their district and the DNC recognizes that. Some districts will be very progressive and others won't.
I mean we can look at the presidential race where all polling showed Bernie handily beating every single candidate in the race and on the flip side showed Clinton struggling against them, and then Clinton losing to the worst candidate in the race.
Just because the DNC runs the show doesn't make it any less stupid or disgusting. Their mistakes and corruption contributed in no small part to the current situation with Trump in power. So maybe you should stop bullshitting about how they do things like they have any goddamned sense or thought in what they're doing. It fucked us over. Further, polling has shown that running more progressive candidates in most areas is better than running typical democratic candidates, that people actually like those candidates.
Bernie never got heavily attacked because he was never going to be the winner of the Primary. Of course he polled better, if he beat Hillary you can be sure the GOP would've tried to destroy everything about him as much as they did to Clinton.
Trump's in power for a lot more reasons than the DNC making mistakes and the majority of those reasons were out of the DNC's control to manage. Stuff like this lets the GOP just walk all over Democrats, they're the problem. As I said, progressives can win in many places but not everywhere. This district is a suburban area full of white people. It has been swinging more democrat due to immigration of Hispanics to the area but that doesn't mean a progressive will suddenly win there when the Republicans have won every House election there for 40 years. The current incumbent has been in office since 2009 and beating him will be very difficult - hence the DNC wanting to unify the party around the strongest candidate and not having a damaging primary (Like what Bernie did to Clinton long after he knew he couldn't win).
I think it's really embarrassing that despite all this effort the "progressive" side of the Dem party has nothing to show except an increasingly convoluted list of excuses to try and wash away
every defeat they face. Talking to one of these people is like untangling Christmas lights that got put under the stairs for two years, to do that you have to buy into their inane conspiracy
theories about why the incoming progressive wave hasn't happened yet. And if you aren't informed on every dodgy fucking poll and dumb opinion article you're gonna get gish galloped to
death under unsourced claims of collusion by the DNC. Never once considering that people just won't vote for them.
So how come he didn't win the primary if he was polling so well? Why did he lose to the candidate who lost to the worst candidate in the race? I do not follow this train of logic in the slightest.
I see this brought up every single time but the republicans do this exact same thing and more viciously.
Because they rigged their own race against him, evidenced by admission from party insiders and former allies and their own communications. They actively worked to suppress him as a candidate.
Your response to my questions is more unsourced garbage, probably shouldn't have expected anything else.
Where's the proof? Where are these insiders? Where are the stuffed ballots? Where are the communications? How did they try to suppress him? Are you able to back up anything you claim?
If they had wanted a fair race, they wouldn't have allowed the electoral voters to 'vote their opinion' right out of the gate. Nobody likes an organization which promises a fair fight and begins it by declaring a victory in the first round the moment the two competitors get up on the mat.
Party Insiders didn't support a person who wasn't a member of their party
A primary is generally an election to push out the pure ideological party candidate to run for the general election, because of dislike for Bernie sanders from his own party he eventually failed to win out over the poster child Hillary Clinton, the problem with the primary in general is pushing out your pure ideological party candidate and running with it means you will likely also fail to turn votes from the other party who may not feel trust or feel like their views will be properly represented by their own parties's candidate. This was Bernie's one advantage, despite being a progressive he also had a strong rural following due to his successful tenure in Vermont. It's pointless to say now but he likely would've brought over more republicans than the amount of democrats that would've voted against him in the general election.
How did Obama win the primary then? He didn't have the support of the delegates in the beginning either.
Most voters don't care about delegates. Even without delegates Bernie wouldn't have won enough votes. He lost the popular vote too.
Bernie couldn't get black democrats to vote for him over Clinton. It would've been a disaster in the general to have had lower black turnout. That wouldn't have balanced out the few republicans that would've voted for him. I think you're putting too much faith in rural republicans voting for a communist (that's how they would see him). Vermont isn't much like the rest of the country.
Maybe, this is one thing that is really shitty about the US election system as it becomes very difficult to talk about what may have happened. But he does have things going against him as well, such as throwing Nevada into uncertain territory, and also likely freeing up republican resources in states like Florida and Pennsylvania based on primary results.
This is just based off primary results, of course. It's hard to tell for the general election especially because Republicans haven't launched their attacks against him. And rural-wise, vermont is quite an outlier when it comes to how they vote.
(also probably the bigger risk isn't democrats voting against him, but voters staying home. GE voters are also pretty different from primary voters.)
Oh hey;
A single fucking second of sourcing. There's an entire section about how they were doing a load of shit to fuck with Sanders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak#Bernie_Sanders'_campaign
People care when the first thing they see is "Bernie Sanders: 0, Hillary Clinton: 257".
Obama was a unique candidate in a unique situation. Sanders was and is not.
Are you arguing that Sanders isn't a unique candidate ?
"Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary—after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory"
Bernie was causing chaos and hurting the Democrat's heading into the General by not dropping out after it was clear he had no chance, of course the party was trying their best to get rid of him. And yes, Bernie wasn't a Democrat, the DNC was pissed at him for using their primary for his own interests. I'm not at all surprised that the DNC was not completely neutral regarding him.
He's certainly not unprecedented, unlike Obama. We've had many white men run for President. Obama ran to become the first black president; there have been many black people who have tried - but he was the first to have enough enthusiasm to get him into the news. When that happened, he surged in every direction as people seized on the idea of 'this time, we'll put a black man in the white house' as it seemed like he had a realistic chance to do so.
Also, no offense to Sanders but even though he has good charisma, he just simply doesn't have the charisma and star appeal of Obama; very few candidates for the Presidency have.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
