DNC staffer screams at Donna Brazile for helping elect Donald Trump - Polidicks

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51349661]What are the DNC's options for 2020? They could pull a Trump and push another populist now that the curse is broken, or they could get a new/rising member up. Anyone that was a major part of the DNC this election won't have a chance because of their collosal failure of running with Clinton.[/QUOTE] No one really knows at this point. Some have suggested Tulsi Gabbard but that's just a murmur.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51349562]I really wish the Bernie supporters would have called out the DNC's obvious corruption and primary rigging when it was happening. They were shunned and ignored by the media, and seemed to fall complacent. I could be wrong, but it seems like most of you guys went quietly into the night. :([/QUOTE] You are wrong. We called it out for what it was, we said it was ridiculous that Clinton got the nomination and Sanders didn't, we made what threats we could to try and get people to understand what this meant for the country... consequently, we were (to use your words) "shunned and ignored" by both the officials and our media, and a considerable number of people were more than happy to follow them along like sheep. Before that, we worked hard to try and get him elected. But the DNC had Clinton in mind already, they'd planned to have her run for years (before 2008 even I mean, but especially after Obama's election because "we'll be the party that got the first black guy elected president AND a woman too"), and that was all there was to it... so in the end, it really didn't matter what we wanted because we (Sanders included) didn't have the same degree of insider power she did. But it didn't work. There was too much opposition and unwillingness to listen. So now here we are. Which in some ways, I'm glad we are. Trump is going to be the most divisive president ever elected. The majority of Americans do not want him and are furious/scared over how the election played out. Everything, like I said months ago, is going to come to a head eventually. It cannot continue like this forever. [editline]10 November 2016[/editline] OT: People like Zach are the future. He's abso-fucking-lutely right when he calls the DNC and Brazile out for their shit. We need more people like this: people who have no faith in the establishment, who are fed up and hateful against it, and who want to do something to change it. And moreover, people who are vocal and aren't afraid to say this kind of stuff in public. The greater the level of discourse we generate about this, the more people we can get moving in the direction of revitalization and reform. Whip the people up into a frenzy and get them organized together with clear goals in mind. That's when you'll start seeing change happen. (Ideally, that's what Sanders was planning on doing with that school he was going to open to basically train progressive politicians so the system could be infiltrated; I don't think we have time for that anymore though, that method will take too long.)

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51349784]What saved Trump was staying out of the news for the last two weeks. Had the election been held on the 19th of October instead, Clinton would've (likely) won by a fair margin. Clinton lost because she had a lot of skeletons in the closet herself, and she happened to be in the news cycle the last week and a half. Basically no one liked either candidate, and it seems dementia is the only reason the vote share changed much at all. Clinton needed to be able to control what was on the news, and ironically (considering what people claim about her) she wasn't able to.[/QUOTE] You can not blame the failure of 1,5 years of campaigning on the last 2 weeks. Hillary is fucking awful, this election would've been a shoe-in had the Dems fielded a decent candidate.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51349756]The deplorables comment was the worst moment of Clintons campaign if you don't include the collapse on 9/11. Insulting your opponent is one thing, insulting the voters is just a massive political gaffe.[/QUOTE] Didn't seem to have much of an impact, but taking on DWS in her campaign showed such insane arrogance.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51349805]Didn't seem to have much of an impact, but taking on DWS in her campaign showed such insane arrogance.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if I agree with the first part of your statement, but I starred mostly because of the second part. How the fuck did she think that she could get away with shit like that without looking awful?

[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;51349801]You can not blame the failure of 1,5 years of campaigning on the last 2 weeks. Hillary is fucking awful, this election would've been a shoe-in had the Dems fielded a decent candidate.[/QUOTE] Where did I say Hillary wasn't a terrible candidate? My entire point was that both of them sucked, and whoever managed to stay clear of attention were the one who did better in the polls.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51349677]Is there actually proof of this or did r/politics just go from heavily supporting Sanders to heavily supporting Clinton because A) they are left leaning generally and B) Clinton happened to win the nomination.[/QUOTE] It's not proof by any means, but about a week ago I remember scrolling through ~7 pages of /r/politics without a single anti-Clinton or pro-Trump story despite a slew of new leaks and the reopening of the email investigation. Every single user on the front page of /r/politics (that I looked at) had submitted nothing but pro-Clinton news going back months. It was just eerie.

[QUOTE=Dr.C;51349730]We can see that the DNC fucked us but does everyone else? People voted for Hillary on name recognition and [B]even without super delegates[/B]?[/QUOTE] Now hold on just a minute buckaroo. I don't know what primaries you were a part of, but I distinctly remember in every state's primary, ABC, NYT, and NPR would report the delegates earned/total [B]including the superdelegates that pledged to her.[/B] Even in states where Bernie won by a landslide, they "reported" that she came out ahead by like 10 delegates at the minimum. So let me ask you a question: When the [I]"average american" [/I]sees this.. [img]http://i.imgur.com/wRqKqGT.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/SPC3qEY.png[/img][img]http://i.imgur.com/Ep0YfXZ.png[/img] What do you think they'll think? I'll give you a hint: you need only read many of the Dem primary threads in this section to see. Most people kept saying "lol it's impossible look at that lead."

[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;51349842]It's not proof by any means, but about a week ago I remember scrolling through ~7 pages of /r/politics without a single anti-Clinton or pro-Trump story despite a slew of new leaks and the reopening of the email investigation. Every single user on the front page of /r/politics (that I looked at) had submitted nothing but pro-Clinton news going back months. It was just eerie.[/QUOTE] Because r/politics is a leftist hugbox. I would never dispute that. I would just not assume that a rabidly pro-Sanders forum would become rabidly pro-Clinton after she won the nomination (r/politics [B]hated [/B]Clinton prior) is because people were being paid to shill.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51349865]Because r/politics is a leftist hugbox. I would never dispute that. I would just not assume that a rabidly pro-Sanders forum would become rabidly pro-Clinton after she won the nomination (r/politics [B]hated [/B]Clinton prior) is because people were being paid to shill.[/QUOTE] Is there actually any proof of r/politics shilling?

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;51349850]Now hold on just a minute buckaroo. I don't know what primaries you were a part of, but I distinctly remember in every state's primary, ABC, NYT, and NPR would report the delegates earned/total [B]including the superdelegates that pledged to her.[/B] Even in states where Bernie won by a landslide, they "reported" that she came out ahead by like 10 delegates at the minimum. So let me ask you a question: When the [I]"average american" [/I]sees this.. [img]http://i.imgur.com/wRqKqGT.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/SPC3qEY.png[/img][img]http://i.imgur.com/Ep0YfXZ.png[/img] What do you think they'll think? I'll give you a hint: you need only read many of the Dem primary threads in this section to see. Most people kept saying "lol it's impossible look at that lead."[/QUOTE] I agree completely. I think Bernie could've had a chance if the perception wasn't that he would most definitely lose. I still think Hillary would've likely won, but it'd be closer.

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;51349850]Now hold on just a minute buckaroo. I don't know what primaries you were a part of, but I distinctly remember in every state's primary, ABC, NYT, and NPR would report the delegates earned/total [B]including the superdelegates that pledged to her.[/B] Even in states where Bernie won by a landslide, they "reported" that she came out ahead by like 10 delegates at the minimum.[/QUOTE] Superdelegates shouldn't be able to support someone regardless of the popular vote. The whole superdelegate system is purpose built to prevent outsiders from running effectively against party darlings, so don't think I'm trying to defend the practice. But as long as the media makes sure to label Pledges vs Super delegates I don't really see the problem. What would cause me concern is if they just measured Delegates and included supers who in all actuality haven't even voted.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51349890]Superdelegates shouldn't be able to support someone regardless of the popular vote. The whole superdelegate system is purpose built to prevent outsiders from running effectively against party darlings, so don't think I'm trying to defend the practice. But as long as the media makes sure to label Pledges vs Super delegates I don't really see the problem. What would cause me concern is if they just measured Delegates and included supers who in all actuality haven't even voted.[/QUOTE] Please examine the images once again, because that's exactly what happened with multiple outlets.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51349890]What would cause me concern is if they just measured Delegates and included supers who in all actuality haven't even voted.[/QUOTE] Isn't that literally what they did

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51349878]Is there actually any proof of r/politics shilling?[/QUOTE] If you made a thread about anything concerning DNC corruption, you'd get instadeleted and be left with an automoderator reply to refer to the megathread. And if you have any experience with reddit megathreads, you'd know it's [i]impossible[/i] to put any new information on the table there. Only the most upvoted posts are visible, which were generally made back when the thread was made. It's basically a convenient way to sweep unwanted discussion under the rug. Many non-political subreddit mods are currently playing this card to essentially ban trump discussion without appearing authoritative.

[QUOTE=YouWithTheFace.;51349750]calling someone a CTR shill to dismiss any positive clinton story was just one of the talking point sanders supporters on /r/politics and beyond took from trump supporters during the primaries. to say that the only reason a left leaning subreddit like /r/politics supported clinton during the election was because of a massive conspiracy by CTR is delusional at best.[/QUOTE] Or because of the documented evidence of suspicious behavior, admin/mod participation and the fact that CTR has a multi-million dollar budget with the stated fucking purpose of influencing online communities through posts on major social media like Facebook and Reddit. [editline]10th November 2016[/editline] You could see the contrast the day after the election on /r/politics. It went from 24/7 "Clinton is God, slay queen yaaaas" to "FUCK DNC THEY SCAMMED US" with the flick of a switch. Weird, almost as if all the Clinton posters just.. Just disappeared! Some people use CTR as a scapegoat for any and all pro-Clinton messaging which is of course ridiculous, but you're an actual idiot if you deny the existence and influence of CTR

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;51349908]Please examine the images once again, because that's exactly what happened with multiple outlets.[/QUOTE] I'll admit to not watching much ABC but when I watched Fox and CNN they usually separated delegates from super delegates. Your original picture does separate them. What I'm saying would be the problem would be if it just said "Delegates: 500" when a lot of those are actually super-delegates. The fact that it says delegates + super delegates informs the viewer of the imbalance in numbers. And again, all of this doesn't preclude the idea that the superdelegate system is in itself flawed. [editline]10th November 2016[/editline] Oh I just noticed that the other two links aren't from ABC and are doing the exact thing that I was saying they shouldn't do. Nevermind, you are exactly right.

Tulsi Gabbard, in four years, will be a 39-year young highly liberal female Hindu combat veteran Sanders supporter. If that ain't a democrat's dream come true and a nightmare for conservatives (even despite being a combat vet and a young, relatively attractive female), I don't know what is. Let's hope the DNC doesn't fuck it up this time

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51349661]What are the DNC's options for 2020? They could pull a Trump and push another populist now that the curse is broken, or they could get a new/rising member up. Anyone that was a major part of the DNC this election won't have a chance because of their collosal failure of running with Clinton.[/QUOTE] Adapt or die. They should see that their dumbassery was completely.. dumb by now, right?

[QUOTE=Clovernoodle;51350043]Tulsi Gabbard, in four years, will be a 39-year young highly liberal female Hindu combat veteran Sanders supporter. If that ain't a democrat's dream come true and a nightmare for conservatives (even despite being a combat vet and a young, relatively attractive female), I don't know what is. Let's hope the DNC doesn't fuck it up this time[/QUOTE] I wonder if she'd be interested in running? That'd be pretty awesome.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51349711]I know they operated on Reddit but this doesn't necessarily mean r/politics shift from rabidly pro-Bernie to rabidly pro-Clinton on it's own. Like the entire point of my position is that there are people on the left that aren't in the "establishment" or "political elite" or get paid off by the corporations and it really isn't that much of a stretch that these are the people who listened to Sanders (and, I'd argue, reason) and simply picked up with Clinton where Sanders left off.[/QUOTE] IIRC there were very few pro-Hillary threads up top, mostly ones about how Trump was bad. Literally the day after the election the whole front page was "Hillary and the DNC fucked up" so I'm led to believe that it wasn't pro-Clinton as much as it was anti-Trump (and with /r/the_donald consistently having at least one thread atop r/all it's not hard to imagine redditors annoyed with Trump).

[QUOTE=Clovernoodle;51350043]Tulsi Gabbard, in four years, will be a 39-year young highly liberal female Hindu combat veteran Sanders supporter. If that ain't a democrat's dream come true and a nightmare for conservatives (even despite being a combat vet and a young, relatively attractive female), I don't know what is. Let's hope the DNC doesn't fuck it up this time[/QUOTE] If theres anything I've learned from Obama its that non-white Hawaiians with 'funny names' arent too well liked by the right

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51349509]Time to get Keith Ellison in there.[/QUOTE] Minnesota cant save everyone and everything. Our resources are strategically placed. But I'd like to see Keith rise to a good leadership position

I wish there was a video, this would have been priceless.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51349661]What are the DNC's options for 2020? They could pull a Trump and push another populist now that the curse is broken, or they could get a new/rising member up. Anyone that was a major part of the DNC this election won't have a chance because of their collosal failure of running with Clinton.[/QUOTE] Definitely Tulsi Gabbard. She is basically everything I'd want out of a Sanders presidency, minus the age, plus the experiences of a veteran. I think the important thing is that Democrats focus less on shit like #NotMyPresident and who's running in 2020, and more on organizing so we can get a majority in the House/Senate. The President needs a check on power, I don't care who they are.

I could get behind a Tulsi Gabbard candidacy. She can appeal to a very broad audience, the white working class will be hard but if she keeps the Bernie speak then she could pull some of them in.

Tulsi Grabbard especially shows promise considering how early she's starting to leak into the public eye. I feel like I was very early onto the Bernie train and I found out about him a few months before the primaries. If she does decide to promote her image and become more visible in the possible pursuit of the white house then now is a good time to start when people are still down about Sanders.

[quote]“You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”[/quote] Where can I vote for him.

I thought we agreed that HuffPo is not a reliable source.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;51350842]I thought we agreed that HuffPo is not a reliable source.[/QUOTE] They shilled the hell out of Clinton so this is unexpected. I guess they're just opportunists that go where the wind blows them and right now the prevailing wind is against Clinton and the DNC