First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last

DNC adopts rule that prevents independents from seeking party nomination

Post Reply
29801 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/18/18

runec wrote:


BlueOni wrote:
If Sanders caucuses with Democrats on most issues, has helped raise money for and been helped in raising money by Democrats, endorsed and campaigned for a rival Democratic presidential candidate, contributed to the Democratic Party's national platform, holds a leadership position in the Democratic National Committee (even if it is an "outreach" position), claimed 22 state primaries the last time he ran for President on the Democratic ticket, is popular with a staggering simple majority of registered Democrats (including Democrats' most reliable voting bloc among Black voters) even now, and has even registered as a Democrat whenever he sought the party's nomination at any level, that's close enough to being a Democrat to be allowed to run in Presidential primaries if you ask me. Doesn't sound like an "opportunist" at all.


Sanders was roundly criticized for not helping the party or down ticket Dems ( and indeed Clinton blew him out of the water in terms of fundraising for the party or down tickets in the 2016 election ). He also basically went kicking and screaming to that endorsement as he actively refused to help unite the party. Dragging things out all the way to the DNC despite having lost the primary and making a bitter divide in the party all the worse. Prior to 2016 he was largely critical of the party. He was still critical of it during and after 2016. He even sued the party over access to its voter data and only ended up revealing his campaign had indeed accessed unauthorized data on Hillary's campaign from the party. He blamed that on the party too.

As for Black voters. Hillary crushed Sanders on the Black vote. Sanders bungled handling those voting blocs on more than a few occasions during the campaign. He also pretty much gave up the black south vote. So that voting bloc is going to remember if he actually comes around knocking this time. Sanders and the black vote was probably one of his campaign's biggest missteps.

So yeah, the party never had and still doesn't have any real reason to warm up to Sanders. He gained immeasurably benefit from hopping on the train for 2016 but still complained about the service the entire ride.

His popularity or lack thereof is separate from his relationship with the party though.



geauxtigers1989 wrote:
I wouldn’t say Sanders has no chance; he’s polling second only to Biden right now (not that it means a whole lot this far out, but still...)


To be blunt: Biden and Sanders are wishful thinking what could have beens for moderate and progressive Dems alike. They'll both be 77-78 by the time 2020 rolls around and even Generic Dem Candidate B currently beats Trump in polling. Though between the two Biden polls significantly higher than Sanders vs Trump.

Still, those sorts of polls are fairly meaningless. Clinton polled higher than either Biden or Sanders going into 2008 and look how that turned out ( Well, okay it turned out pretty good. Just not for Clinton. ). Both of them are also untested in a general election where the real closet skeleton digging begins. Biden has definitely got baggage and Sanders never underwent the full brunt of the GOP's shit machine ( which would have half the country convinced he was a literal Nazi by November because of the dreaded S word. )

Regardless, I don't think the Dems as a party are going to get anywhere in the long term by doubling down on trying to elect the oldest and whitest dudes they can find.








Identity politics isn't the way forward because of how transparent they have been to this point. Obama won the nomination because he was a charismatic leader that spoke about bringing the parties together. Their age, ethnicity and gender shouldn't even be factors.
38563 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/17/18

runec wrote:

Sanders was roundly criticized for not helping the party or down ticket Dems ( and indeed Clinton blew him out of the water in terms of fundraising for the party or down tickets in the 2016 election ).


Oh, indeed.


“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

Wait. That's the opposite of what you said.


He also basically went kicking and screaming to that endorsement as he actively refused to help unite the party. Dragging things out all the way to the DNC despite having lost the primary and making a bitter divide in the party all the worse.


Right, It was definitely Sanders that created and sustained a rift in the Democratic base.

It was Bernie that made Hillary respond "I'm winning" when asked by Rachel Maddow what concessions she'd be making to attract Sanders' voting base. It was Bernie that made her campaign chase after Romney voters in Utah instead of blue collar labourers in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Bernie was the one who suggested holding up support from figures like George H.W. Bush and Henry Kissinger to illustrate Clinton's credibility, Bernie was the one that picked Tim Kaine for the VP slot, Bernie was the one who made her surrogates and supportive press declare seething hatred for Millennials, Bernie was the one who made her surrogates attack young feminists, Bernie was the one that made Clinton decry environmental activists questioning her record on fracking, Bernie made her declare that she didn't even want to have a "theoretical debate" about extending a national healthcare plan to all citizens of the US, Bernie made Clinton run the Wall Street speech circuit, declare that there's a "bigotry against the rich", and gleefully explain that she's got a public position she doesn't mean and a private position that reflects "how the sausage is made". None of that was Clinton. Nope. No way. She was trying to heal that divide by doing, uh, stuff. And things. Yeah.

And that he would dare, that he would dare, to run against Hillary Clinton throughout the entire primary season and only endorse her after all races had concluded is nothing short of scandalous. Why, that's the surest evidence I've ever seen that the bastard was trying to tear things down from the inside all along.


Prior to 2016 he was largely critical of the party. He was still critical of it during and after 2016. He even sued the party over access to its voter data and only ended up revealing his campaign had indeed accessed unauthorized data on Hillary's campaign from the party. He blamed that on the party too.


What? He's critical of the strategic planning of a party that's been bleeding seats throughout the US at all levels for the better part of a decade and lost an election to a game show host that no one even really likes? Goodness!

As for the data breach, here you go.


WHAT'S FALSE

The data were accessed over a lengthy period; the data were "exported" or otherwise extracted; the data were of high value to the Sanders campaign.


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-campaign-data-breach-controversy/


As for Black voters. Hillary crushed Sanders on the Black vote. Sanders bungled handling those voting blocs on more than a few occasions during the campaign. He also pretty much gave up the black south vote. So that voting bloc is going to remember if he actually comes around knocking this time. Sanders and the black vote was probably one of his campaign's biggest missteps.


Nah, I see your point.

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/HHP-August-Wave_Custom-Banners_Registered-Voters.pdf

A 73% approval rating among Black respondents is basically him being told to hit the bricks by a community that's triggered at the mention of his very name. That's not a healthy simple majority showing major gains in approval and name recognition at all. And that he's been making appearances at important events in Black politics already, receiving welcomes despite attempts by the press to spin his words against him and ignoring the actual crowd responses? Nah. That's not noteworthy at all.

You know what, I'm just going to defer to a couple of articles on this one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/12/its-time-to-end-the-myth-that-black-voters-dont-like-bernie-sanders/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9aa7791dba5b

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/many-in-milwaukee-neighborhood-didnt-vote-and-dont-regret-it.html

Nope. Not at all a community feeling used and ignored by the Democratic establishment and underwhelmed at the idea of voting for someone who couldn't even be bothered to campaign in their state. Must've been the voter ID laws. I mean, what do the people being interviewed know about why they didn't vote or why they voted the way they did, anyway?


His popularity or lack thereof is separate from his relationship with the party though.


An 80% approval rating among registered Democrats has no bearing on his relationship with the Democratic Party.



Yeah, I'm going to go watch anime now.
runec 
43137 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/17/18 , edited 6/18/18

BlueOni wrote:
Wait. That's the opposite of what you said.


I think you're misunderstanding something here. You said Bernie had helped raise money for Dems and while its true he's been involved in stumping for Dems here and there when it came to the 2016 election it was one of the first issues between him and the party. Bernie had no apparent interest in helping the party or, more critically, the down ticket. Whereas Clinton went to bat for both. Sanders didn't change his tune till after the DNC. So again, I'm not sure why the Democratic party would want to warmly embrace someone who was on their case prior to him joining, wasn't interested in the party itself after he joined them and joined them to effectively just make use of their assets to run for President.

It's not like Bernie was some innocent dove that wandered into the lion's den. There's a reason he was and is an independent and the issue at hand is that you argued he should qualify as a Democrat. Sanders joined the party so he could run for President. End of story. He needed their infrastructure to run. Without them, he'd be down with Jill Stein regardless of his message because money, reach and information are the foremost drivers of American politics. Message is secondary.



BlueOni wrote:Right, It was definitely Sanders that created and sustained a rift in the Democratic base.


Right, let's stop right there. This is not an expose on Everything Hillary Did Wrong(tm). You're drifting into Whatabout territory here and throwing out some things that drift into hyperbole/opinion rather than fact. The factors with millennials for example were and are pretty complex ( and one of the reasons the Dems need to get away from "let's find the oldest and whitest dude we can" ).

When I say divide I mean when the dust settles, a US political party needs to focus on unifying their party. The GOP is incredibly effective at this no matter how profoundly awful a human being their candidate is. The Dems not so much in the wake of 2016. Yes, Hillary fucked up more than a few times handling millennials, environmentalists, etc before her nomination but her fuck ups don't mean Sanders didn't fuck up too.

That's the divide I'm talking about. The one you need to put back together if your party is going to win the general. Hillary tried. You can debate her effectiveness all you want but she tried. Bernie dug in his feet. He refused to concede even after it was impossible for him to win and told his supporters it wasn't over even though it literally was. That was precious time the party needed to unify around its candidate before the DNC that Bernie wasted.




BlueOni wrote:And that he would dare, that he would dare, to run against Hillary Clinton throughout the entire primary season and only endorse her after all races had concluded is nothing short of scandalous. Why, that's the surest evidence I've ever seen that the bastard was trying to tear things down from the inside all along.


Irrelevant hyperbole and beside the point.



BlueOni wrote:What? He's critical of the strategic planning of a party that's been bleeding seats throughout the US at all levels for the better part of a decade and lost an election to a game show host that no one even really likes? Goodness!


I did not say "strategic planning". Sanders has criticized the Dems ( and the GOP for that matter ) for decades. Yes, he has caucused with democrats but that is largely just being practical. Even going into the 2016 election he was reluctant and uncomfortable with identifying himself as a Democrat. It's may be who he works with more often but its just not who he is. He's an independent. Always has been, always will be.




BlueOni wrote:As for the data breach, here you go.


I made no claim that is refuted by what you quote. Also;

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-dnc-lawsuit-campaign-222659



But in a separate statement, the DNC said that the independent investigation by CrowdStrike agreed upon by the Sanders campaign and the DNC “identified evidence of unauthorized access via four user accounts from the Bernie 2016 campaign. All unauthorized access occurred during a one-hour period from 10:41 to 11:42 EST on December 16, 2015.”

“During that time, the four users conducted 25 searches using proprietary Hillary for America score data across 11 states. All of the results of these searches were saved within the VoteBuilder system, with the exception of one instance where a user exported a statistical summary of a search using HFA scoring in New Hampshire,” the DNC statement said. “CrowdStrike found no evidence of unauthorized access by the Hillary for America or O’Malley for President campaigns. Today, the Sanders campaign also voluntarily dismissed the breach of contract action pending against the DNC.”


Then:


“With the investigation behind us, the campaign has withdrawn its lawsuit against the DNC today but continues to implore the DNC to address the systemic instability that remains in its voter file system,” the statement said. “It is imperative that the DNC make it a top priority to prevent future data security failures in the voter file system, failures that only serve as unnecessary distractions to the democratic process.”


It's the DNC's fault we accessed unauthorized information even though we had to fire staffers for accessing it.




BlueOni wrote:Nah, I see your point.

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/HHP-August-Wave_Custom-Banners_Registered-Voters.pdf

A 73% approval rating among Black respondents is basically him being told to hit the bricks by a community that's triggered at the mention of his very name. That's not a healthy simple majority showing major gains in approval and name recognition at all. And that he's been making appearances at important events in Black politics already, receiving welcomes despite attempts by the press to spin his words against him and ignoring the actual crowd responses? Nah. That's not noteworthy at all.


Again, irrelevant hyperbole and not what I said. Sanders lost the black vote to Clinton quite significantly. He failed to consider them till it was far too late in his campaign. Putting him in a position where he either had to shore up Vermont or write off the South. He chose to write off the South, as losing his home state would obviously look pretty bad. He had more than a few troubles engaging with black voters on the campaign trail as well.

So if you're going to hit Hillary for not even being bothered to campaign in their state you need to acknowledge Bernie doing the same thing.



BlueOni wrote:
An 80% approval rating among registered Democrats has no bearing on his relationship with the Democratic Party.


Two things: First of all, just because someone or thing has a good approval rating doesn't mean they just automatically get a spot at the table. Dems having a positive opinion of Sanders in no way changes his rocky relationship with the party itself. Dems also have a positive opinion of Oprah and Colbert for example.

Second of all, approval in a vacuum isn't votes on the table as its not a vs comparison. Sander's has 6 points up on Clinton in your link with African Americans but obviously there isn't 140% of the vote to go around.






22696 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
28 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 6/18/18 , edited 6/18/18
Can we join other democracies and move to 2 rounds of voting so third parties can potentially matter for a change?
So tired of both the Ds and Rs, some competition might force them to reform and be more likely to listen to their constituents.
I swear so many state and national elections I hate both candidates. Sometimes I hold my nose and vote for one, other times I write in a protest vote, we can do better than this.
38563 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/19/18 , edited 6/19/18

runec wrote:

I think you're misunderstanding something here. You said Bernie had helped raise money for Dems and while its true he's been involved in stumping for Dems here and there when it came to the 2016 election it was one of the first issues between him and the party. Bernie had no apparent interest in helping the party or, more critically, the down ticket. Whereas Clinton went to bat for both. Sanders didn't change his tune till after the DNC. So again, I'm not sure why the Democratic party would want to warmly embrace someone who was on their case prior to him joining, wasn't interested in the party itself after he joined them and joined them to effectively just make use of their assets to run for President.

It's not like Bernie was some innocent dove that wandered into the lion's den. There's a reason he was and is an independent and the issue at hand is that you argued he should qualify as a Democrat. Sanders joined the party so he could run for President. End of story. He needed their infrastructure to run. Without them, he'd be down with Jill Stein regardless of his message because money, reach and information are the foremost drivers of American politics. Message is secondary.


In the cited Politico piece Brazile described Clinton effectively turning the Democratic Party into a money laundering operation to circumvent campaign finance laws and extract extra donor money for her own campaign while keeping it in a sustained state of financial desperation to maintain power over it. I'm not an expert on such matters by any means, but read what she wrote. That looks to be what she's saying to me. People maxed out their donations to the campaign and then funneled extra money to it through the DNC using donations for down ballot races as a front, right? Isn't that what Brazile is saying? If that's the case then Bernie did more for the Democratic Party if he as much as gave some candidate, somewhere, a kind word.

I'll address the bit about money, messaging, and information later.


Right, let's stop right there. This is not an expose on Everything Hillary Did Wrong(tm). You're drifting into Whatabout territory here and throwing out some things that drift into hyperbole/opinion rather than fact. The factors with millennials for example were and are pretty complex ( and one of the reasons the Dems need to get away from "let's find the oldest and whitest dude we can" ).

When I say divide I mean when the dust settles, a US political party needs to focus on unifying their party. The GOP is incredibly effective at this no matter how profoundly awful a human being their candidate is. The Dems not so much in the wake of 2016. Yes, Hillary fucked up more than a few times handling millennials, environmentalists, etc before her nomination but her fuck ups don't mean Sanders didn't fuck up too.

That's the divide I'm talking about. The one you need to put back together if your party is going to win the general. Hillary tried. You can debate her effectiveness all you want but she tried. Bernie dug in his feet. He refused to concede even after it was impossible for him to win and told his supporters it wasn't over even though it literally was. That was precious time the party needed to unify around its candidate before the DNC that Bernie wasted.


No, I'm pointing out how it was in fact Hillary Clinton who created and sustained a rift in the Democratic base by flagrantly disregarding critical portions of her party's coalition in pursuit of a strategy underpinned by garnering support from her rival party's base. I've proven to you that this was her campaign's strategy and that this strategy was supported by the Democratic leadership before, so there's no way you can credibly argue that this didn't happen. It's not a matter of opinion. This is the strategy she pursued. Those are the things she did in the process. Those things pissed people off and sustained a rift between her and them throughout the primary and general elections.

Meanwhile, what did Sanders do? What would his list of "fuckups" creating and sustaining a rift look like? I don't think Bernie Sanders merely running to the end of the primary season and pointing out (not even attacking her for, just pointing out) that Clinton had apparent conflicts of interest in her relationship with Wall Street that would in the best of circumstances dampen her responsiveness to what he considered a crisis meriting a far more proactive response even constitutes a "fuckup". That's just running in an election against Hillary Clinton at all. At one point he even insisted that discussion of Clinton's e-mail server scandal was comparatively unimportant and that other, more substantive issues in his view should be allowed to take centre stage instead.

It wasn't a 50-50 balance. Clinton fucked up and was such a horrible candidate that Sanders couldn't pull her across the finish line no matter how hard he tried. It's not like his support base is composed of a bunch of robots that just do whatever he says. That's what he kept trying to impress upon people insisting that he get his base in line.


Irrelevant hyperbole and beside the point.


Except your specific complaint was that he'd stayed in the election too long and that this prevented the divide from healing somehow, so it's not beside the point at all and a rhetorically appropriate employment of hyperbole given the ridiculousness of the complaint. He had every right to run through the entire primary season, and you can't reasonably suggest that Sanders' decision to do so kneecapped Clinton's campaign. At some point the responsibility for Clinton's failure to perform had to fall on her. The blame for failure to heal that divide had to fall on her eventually. That point was when she accepted the nomination from the Democratic Party and officially became its candidate. That's the point where it became her, as in the actual candidate's, sole responsibility to attract voters.

Clinton had months of time, the full support of the Democratic Party and its press affiliates, more money than she knew what to do with, the very best political strategists and consultants her party could secure, and a full understanding of what Sanders' base wanted from her if she was to win their support. She assumed she could make up for any losses she sustained among them with Romney voters the same as Schumer, and they were both dead wrong about that. What exactly was Sanders supposed to do?


I did not say "strategic planning". Sanders has criticized the Dems ( and the GOP for that matter ) for decades. Yes, he has caucused with democrats but that is largely just being practical. Even going into the 2016 election he was reluctant and uncomfortable with identifying himself as a Democrat. It's may be who he works with more often but its just not who he is. He's an independent. Always has been, always will be.


You didn't actually enumerate any of his criticisms that concerned you, so I volunteered one I know he's frequently made and is still making so we'd have something, anything, specific to talk about. As it happens I think he's right, you're wrong, and that policy substance (not messaging, though we probably mean the same thing) should never, ever be secondary. Because if policy is secondary then there's no point in winning elections. Elections aren't games of chess that you play every so often. They're determinations for what policy agenda constituents and their representatives want to see realised through collective action. If you win an election, but do so at the expense of policy, you're engaging in political masturbation. Winning has no value that way.

If you acknowledge that he caucuses with Democrats then good, you acknowledge he's made contributions. That he has an "I" next to his name by choice doesn't nullify that in any way. He's earned his keep, his seat at the table as you later say.




I made no claim that is refuted by what you quote.


What I quoted indicates that the entire scandal was freaking devoid of substance, which is why the Sanders campaign ultimately regained access to voter data. The unsettled part of the dispute is whether the Sanders staffers involved and ultimately terminated were being honest about their intentions to verify the leak, which is what this is talking about:


Also;

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-dnc-lawsuit-campaign-222659



But in a separate statement, the DNC said that the independent investigation by CrowdStrike agreed upon by the Sanders campaign and the DNC “identified evidence of unauthorized access via four user accounts from the Bernie 2016 campaign. All unauthorized access occurred during a one-hour period from 10:41 to 11:42 EST on December 16, 2015.”

“During that time, the four users conducted 25 searches using proprietary Hillary for America score data across 11 states. All of the results of these searches were saved within the VoteBuilder system, with the exception of one instance where a user exported a statistical summary of a search using HFA scoring in New Hampshire,” the DNC statement said. “CrowdStrike found no evidence of unauthorized access by the Hillary for America or O’Malley for President campaigns. Today, the Sanders campaign also voluntarily dismissed the breach of contract action pending against the DNC.”


Then:


“With the investigation behind us, the campaign has withdrawn its lawsuit against the DNC today but continues to implore the DNC to address the systemic instability that remains in its voter file system,” the statement said. “It is imperative that the DNC make it a top priority to prevent future data security failures in the voter file system, failures that only serve as unnecessary distractions to the democratic process.”


It's the DNC's fault we accessed unauthorized information even though we had to fire staffers for accessing it.


So what they actually said was more like "We understand we have to terminate this person for having engaged in a technical violation, but we would urge the party to consider resolving vulnerabilities the staffer in question was trying to verify in the process of doing so." And considering the party has been complaining that its systems were breached by foreign actors and their documentation was disseminated in a propaganda campaign through proxies by those same actors that was actually pretty good advice if you ask me.


Again, irrelevant hyperbole and not what I said. Sanders lost the black vote to Clinton quite significantly. He failed to consider them till it was far too late in his campaign. Putting him in a position where he either had to shore up Vermont or write off the South. He chose to write off the South, as losing his home state would obviously look pretty bad. He had more than a few troubles engaging with black voters on the campaign trail as well.

So if you're going to hit Hillary for not even being bothered to campaign in their state you need to acknowledge Bernie doing the same thing.


Sanders began to stress campaigning on matters like criminal justice reform, police brutality, and nonviolent drug offences' disproportional impact on Black communities as the primary rolled on, so the parallel to Clinton never as much as visiting Wisconsin is a false one. Also, your specific claim was that Sanders would be unable to secure support among Black voters in future primary elections as a result of his negligence to campaign on their concerns in a previous one. I showed you that since the primary he has secured greater name recognition in Black communities, has a strong majority approval rating among Black respondents in polling, and noted that he's been participating in key conversations in Black politics to welcoming crowds. That's a direct response to the claim you made.


Two things: First of all, just because someone or thing has a good approval rating doesn't mean they just automatically get a spot at the table. Dems having a positive opinion of Sanders in no way changes his rocky relationship with the party itself. Dems also have a positive opinion of Oprah and Colbert for example.


No, it doesn't mean he automatically gets a spot at the table. The leadership has the power to determine that, and they've made it plain they don't want him to have one since he poses an existential threat to their position as such. It does, however, mean that most Democrats on the ground (that is, the voters) like Sanders and probably wouldn't mind his inclusion in the slightest.


Second of all, approval in a vacuum isn't votes on the table as its not a vs comparison. Sander's has 6 points up on Clinton in your link with African Americans but obviously there isn't 140% of the vote to go around.


It needn't be a vs comparison for the sake of making the claim I was. I was saying that Sanders having an 80% approval rating among Democratic voters in general and 73% of Black voters suggests he more than deserves a seat at any Democratic table. The people have spoken. They like him. They like to hear what he has to say. The party's leadership shouldn't be constructing barriers to keep him out.
runec 
43137 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/19/18 , edited 6/19/18

BlueOni wrote:
In the cited Politico piece Brazile described Clinton effectively turning the Democratic Party into a money laundering operation to circumvent campaign finance laws and extract extra donor money for her own campaign while keeping it in a sustained state of financial desperation to maintain power over it. I'm not an expert on such matters by any means, but read what she wrote. That looks to be what she's saying to me. People maxed out their donations to the campaign and then funneled extra money to it through the DNC using donations for down ballot races as a front, right? Isn't that what Brazile is saying? If that's the case then Bernie did more for the Democratic Party if he as much as gave some candidate, somewhere, a kind word.


Bernie didn't commit to the down ticket till after the DNC when he endorsed Clinton. Also, again, this isn't an expose on everything Hillary did wrong. My point is that Clinton was committed too and helped the party as a whole. Bernie only joined the party to make use of it for his Presidential run. Bernie has been offered a seat at the table in the Democratic party numerous times for years and has always declined. He had no interest in joining the Dems until he needed the party to run for President and even when he joined them to do that he wasn't interested in helping the party. He was visibly uncomfortable with even saying he was part of the party at first.

Your argument is that he deserves a spot at the table. Mine is that Bernie has a rocky relationship with the Dems and that rockiness is a two way street. He was not an innocent victim that was set upon by the big bad Dems. He didn't want to join them but he needed their resources. They weren't thrilled with him coming on board just to make use of their resources without giving anything back while, yes, pulling focus from their preferred candidate they'd been planning around for years.




BlueOni wrote:No, I'm pointing out how it was in fact Hillary Clinton who created and sustained a rift in the Democratic base by flagrantly disregarding critical portions of her party's coalition in pursuit of a strategy underpinned by garnering support from her rival party's base. I've proven to you that this was her campaign's strategy and that this strategy was supported by the Democratic leadership before, so there's no way you can credibly argue that this didn't happen. It's not a matter of opinion. This is the strategy she pursued. Those are the things she did in the process. Those things pissed people off and sustained a rift between her and them throughout the primary and general elections.


This isn't a zero sum discussion. Yes, Clinton alienated some people but by the same measure her and the party made considerable concessions to Sander's base. One of the most successful things Sanders accomplished was pushing Clinton and the party further to the left and Sanders was brought in to work on the party's platform.



BlueOni wrote:It wasn't a 50-50 balance. Clinton fucked up and was such a horrible candidate that Sanders couldn't pull her across the finish line no matter how hard he tried. It's not like his support base is composed of a bunch of robots that just do whatever he says. That's what he kept trying to impress upon people insisting that he get his base in line.


Such a horrible candidate she won the popular vote despite the sheer amount of shit going on in the election? You might not like Clinton ( hell, she even gives me a headache from time to time ) but she wasn't a weak candidate.



BlueOni wrote:Except your specific complaint was that he'd stayed in the election too long and that this prevented the divide from healing somehow, so it's not beside the point at all and a rhetorically appropriate employment of hyperbole given the ridiculousness of the complaint.


No, my criticism was that he stayed in the running despite having lost all the way up to the DNC. Which, yes, does create further problems in unifying the party around a single candidate. That is not a ridiculous complaint. That's fact of the matter political strategy. Especially if you have a particularly close or bitter primary. Sanders refused to concede. Putting himself before the party. Obviously, the party might resent that especially after he hopped on the wagon to make use of them to run in the first place.

Yes, he had every right to do it but it put his interest ahead of the party when he had no chance of winning.

I get that you loath Hillary, but frankly I think its compromising your objectivity on this topic. You're making us go through the entirety of 2016 again.





BlueOni wrote:You didn't actually enumerate any of his criticisms that concerned you, so I volunteered one I know he's frequently made and is still making so we'd have something, anything, specific to talk about. As it happens I think he's right, you're wrong, and that policy substance (not messaging, though we probably mean the same thing) should never, ever be secondary. Because if policy is secondary then there's no point in winning elections. Elections aren't games of chess that you play every so often. They're determinations for what policy agenda constituents and their representatives want to see realised through collective action. If you win an election, but do so at the expense of policy, you're engaging in political masturbation. Winning has no value that way.


This isn't about whether Sanders criticisms are right or wrong.

I am not debating the entire election over again nor am I saying Clinton, the Dems or anyone else are paragons of virtue or any such crap. My point was and still is that I don't see a problem with this rule given the rocky relationship between Sanders and the Democratic party and how Sanders used the party to run for President. That is not an opinion, that is fact. Bernie has basically had an open invitation to the Democratic party for years prior to 2016 and always consistently refused because he doesn't like the party or how they run things. He doesn't like either party. Its just the Dems are closer to his stances then the GOP. Bernie likes individuals in each party but he has decades of criticism for both parties.

If you refuse said seat at the table for a decade then suddenly plug your nose and join just to run for President, but then don't engage in supporting the party beyond your own interests, then leave afterwards, then yes. The party making a rule afterwards to prevent that situation from happening again is completely reasonable.



BlueOni wrote:What I quoted indicates that the entire scandal was freaking devoid of substance, which is why the Sanders campaign ultimately regained access to voter data. The unsettled part of the dispute is whether the Sanders staffers involved and ultimately terminated were being honest about their intentions to verify the leak, which is what this is talking about:


Yes, it was devoid of substance. The problem is its a scandal that Sander's campaign began. The intentions of the staffers are ultimately a moot point. The Dems revoked Bernie's access, he accused them of breach of contract and sued, both parties agreed to an independent investigation, that investigation turned up that yes; Bernie's camp had indeed accessed unauthorized information.





BlueOni wrote:Sanders began to stress campaigning on matters like criminal justice reform, police brutality, and nonviolent drug offences' disproportional impact on Black communities as the primary rolled on, so the parallel to Clinton never as much as visiting Wisconsin is a false one. Also, your specific claim was that Sanders would be unable to secure support among Black voters in future primary elections as a result of his negligence to campaign on their concerns in a previous one. I showed you that since the primary he has secured greater name recognition in Black communities, has a strong majority approval rating among Black respondents in polling, and noted that he's been participating in key conversations in Black politics to welcoming crowds. That's a direct response to the claim you made.


The claim I made was that Sanders didn't take the black vote seriously enough out of the gate. He expected the black community to be on board simply because he was preaching things such as justice reform. By the time he realized that was a mistake it was too late in the campaign and he ended up losing the vote considerably to Clinton. Sanders did write off the south and further dismissed afterwards. It was a critical mistake on his part.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-south-black-voters-222220

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/18/why-bernie-sanders-will-rue-his-deep-south-dismissal-of-black-voters/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/sanders-race-south/478506/





BlueOni wrote:No, it doesn't mean he automatically gets a spot at the table. The leadership has the power to determine that, and they've made it plain they don't want him to have one since he poses an existential threat to their position as such. It does, however, mean that most Democrats on the ground (that is, the voters) like Sanders and probably wouldn't mind his inclusion in the slightest.


I don't think anyone would mind his inclusion on the ground but the party itself was berned once already and is now twice shy. Sanders didn't like the party before, during or after. He didn't stick around after the dust settled ( and even tried to encourage other Dems to leave the party when he left ). So the party doesn't owe him anything let alone a seat at the table and them not wanting to extend one to him or any other independent is still reasonable given how 2016 unfolded.

If you believe Sanders would be good for the party that's perfectly fine but that was not, is not and was never my argument one way or another. My argument was that Bernie and the party itself have a bad relationship and Bernie is not innocent in said relationship. So they're under no obligation to extend him or anyone else an invitation to run. Regardless of his approval ratings.

The nature of America's shit ass two party system means neither side can afford to have the kind of problems Sanders vs Clinton brought into the equation. Party unity is the foremost weapon both sides have and from a purely strategic standpoint its intrinsically more difficult for the Dems than it is for the GOP. Because the Dems represent a wider spectrum of views and don't campaign on enraged tribalism.

It fucking sucks for Democrats ( and everyone else on the left in America ) since it means no matter what you're going to be compromising to some degree on a candidate. But the other side would vote for a three dicked walrus with a head injury if it meant they could rub it in the face of people they don't like.








First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.