KING: Obama, Clintons still have no idea why Dems lost election
The premise of the article may have some accuracy (even if it's not particularly profound at this point), but the so called progressive populism campaign that he espouses would NOT have won Michigan, WI or OH. He says that Obama and Clinton are disconnected from populists and says that BLM and Dakota pipeline would won over voters in the Midwest? Sorry, but I just couldn't read much more after that load of crap.
It's all very strange considering she won almost 3 MM more votes. She lost because she lost in the wrong place, not because Trump's message resonated with more Americans vs hers. Let's be crystal clear about that. If it were true, he would have won the popular vote. The re-formation of a strategy is how to take a message that resonates with a MAJORITY of Americans and apply it to a few key swing states.
Fly in your ointment is the popular vote margin in 3 counties in Cali and NY. Edit post accordingly
What's your point? Do those people count for less because of their county?
You're takin about popular vote, popular vote man, which is meaningless as I've stated many times why you were on sabbatical. Marathon runners don't train for sprints and vice vs. I can spew the number of counties won the square footage and etc or I can quote your posts about the science of winning elections. I don't recall those talking about popular vote, man, talkin about popular vote.
I'm not arguing that the election was unfair. I've said precisely the opposite. But don't act like it was a complete retribution of the D message or that it was a landslide. It wasn't. I said several times that the D's have a region issue now and have to figure out how to appeal to a Midwest that is increasingly white and older.
More specifically, a message that appeals to fearful whites in the Midwest. Trump used racism to work that angle. Dems will have to do better than that.
What should we do to cater our message to the Rust Belt? Lie to them and tell them their jobs are coming back? Use more dog-whistle? Maybe find a new minority to demonize? That coal is suffering due to regulations, not competition from natural gas? That providing basic necessities like education, health care, housing and food are not a burden to society; but the purpose of society. These people need to be socially isolated. Maybe then they'll understand that supporting all the horrible sh*t that Trump stands for has real life consequences. Let them live in an echo chamber because they deserve it.
Trump lied but Hillary's campaign painted mid-westerners as deplorables and racists and privileged and dumb rednecks ... maybe that wasn't the best strategy.
It's all very strange considering she won almost 3 MM more votes. She lost because she lost in the wrong place, not because Trump's message resonated with more Americans vs hers. Let's be crystal clear about that. If it were true, he would have won the popular vote. The re-formation of a strategy is how to take a message that resonates with a MAJORITY of Americans and apply it to a few key swing states.
Fly in your ointment is the popular vote margin in 3 counties in Cali and NY. Edit post accordingly
What's your point? Do those people count for less because of their county?
You're takin about popular vote, popular vote man, which is meaningless as I've stated many times why you were on sabbatical. Marathon runners don't train for sprints and vice vs. I can spew the number of counties won the square footage and etc or I can quote your posts about the science of winning elections. I don't recall those talking about popular vote, man, talkin about popular vote.
I'm not arguing that the election was unfair. I've said precisely the opposite. But don't act like it was a complete retribution of the D message or that it was a landslide. It wasn't. I said several times that the D's have a region issue now and have to figure out how to appeal to a Midwest that is increasingly white and older.
More specifically, a message that appeals to fearful whites in the Midwest. Trump used racism to work that angle. Dems will have to do better than that.
What should we do to cater our message to the Rust Belt? Lie to them and tell them their jobs are coming back? Use more dog-whistle? Maybe find a new minority to demonize? That coal is suffering due to regulations, not competition from natural gas? That providing basic necessities like education, health care, housing and food are not a burden to society; but the purpose of society. These people need to be socially isolated. Maybe then they'll understand that supporting all the horrible sh*t that Trump stands for has real life consequences. Let them live in an echo chamber because they deserve it.
Trump lied but Hillary's campaign painted mid-westerners as deplorables and racists and privileged and dumb rednecks ... maybe that wasn't the best strategy.
Ah yes, I remember when Hillary stopped by MSP airport and demonized the local Somali refugee population.
And for the record, a fair amount of Midwesterners are deplorable racist dumb privileged rednecks.
This is a Hillary thread in the article does have to do with Hillary...
I found this interesting:
Even now, as the Democratic establishment seems hell-bent on not choosing Keith Ellison as the leader of the DNC — in spite of widespread progressive support for him. I've never seen anything like it. Hundreds of thousands of people have come forward to say they want Keith to lead the party, but the party stalls and stalls and stalls, and seems determined to do anything other than pick the progressive choice.
If the Democratic Party is going to have any success moving forward, it must lean into progressive populism and not away from it. So far, I don't see this happening and the Obamas and Clintons don't seem to be taking us there.
This is a Hillary thread in the article does have to do with Hillary...
I found this interesting:
Even now, as the Democratic establishment seems hell-bent on not choosing Keith Ellison as the leader of the DNC — in spite of widespread progressive support for him. I've never seen anything like it. Hundreds of thousands of people have come forward to say they want Keith to lead the party, but the party stalls and stalls and stalls, and seems determined to do anything other than pick the progressive choice.
If the Democratic Party is going to have any success moving forward, it must lean into progressive populism and not away from it. So far, I don't see this happening and the Obamas and Clintons don't seem to be taking us there.
It's no longer up to the Obamas or Clintons to take us anywhere. That's what's wrong with that logic. The voters rejected Clinton and Obama. Why are they now looking for them to lead?
This is a Hillary thread in the article does have to do with Hillary...
I found this interesting:
Even now, as the Democratic establishment seems hell-bent on not choosing Keith Ellison as the leader of the DNC — in spite of widespread progressive support for him. I've never seen anything like it. Hundreds of thousands of people have come forward to say they want Keith to lead the party, but the party stalls and stalls and stalls, and seems determined to do anything other than pick the progressive choice.
If the Democratic Party is going to have any success moving forward, it must lean into progressive populism and not away from it. So far, I don't see this happening and the Obamas and Clintons don't seem to be taking us there.
It's no longer up to the Obamas or Clintons to take us anywhere. That's what's wrong with that logic. The voters rejected Clinton and Obama. Why are they now looking for them to lead?
I'm looking for some kind of confirmation or indication that the Clinton machine has stepped aside. Ellison would be an indication of that.
The voters rejected Clinton but the establishment installed Clinton. The establishment remains. It needs to earn back the trust and goodwill of the voters.
There is not much of an establishment left at the DNC. If the progressives have the widespread support they claim they have, the DNC ought to hire him. That has not been decided yet, so I'm not sure why it's a point. I have not heard Obama or Clinton make one claim about any of it, so I'm interested in seeing that writer's source about their endorsements. Of course, Obama's Labor Secretary is also a candidate. I'm not sure why he wouldn't support his own Labor Secretary. Either way, it's not really a sitting president's job to choose sides in political squabbles, in my view. I'd rather Obama stay silent, and Hillary, too. People want them to go away, and they are. Now people want them back. Doesn't make sense to me.
There absolutely is an establishment left in the Democratic party. The same people who force fed us Clinton now want us to "move on" and let them decide who and what comes next. If Democrats are OK with that, that is their choice. I'm not.
It's all very strange considering she won almost 3 MM more votes. She lost because she lost in the wrong place, not because Trump's message resonated with more Americans vs hers. Let's be crystal clear about that. If it were true, he would have won the popular vote. The re-formation of a strategy is how to take a message that resonates with a MAJORITY of Americans and apply it to a few key swing states.
I can't get over it....she lost by 77,000 votes (combined) in the three states that tilted the election yet she won the overall majority vote by 3,000,000....fucking insane
She lost. Admit it, move on.
Thanks Captain Obvious
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!! this place is a great source of entertainment.
The problem for Hillary will always be that Putin didn't swing this election against her. I absolutely believe the Russians inserted themselves in this election. I am pretty convinced the goal by election day had become to elect Trump. But I don't believe this Russian influence was somehow more pervasive in the Midwest than it was in California. I don't believe it was more effective in Pennsylvania than it was in New Jersey. She was a flawed candidate with an ineffective message and campaign that believed it owned the votes of a winning coalition the guy before them had built. They were wrong in many ways and that, not Vladimir Putin, is why she lost so many states Barack Obama won twice.
So I don't really want to hear Hillary Clinton or John Podesta or Jennifer Palmieri complaining about Russia or Comey or Wiki. I want to hear them take responsibility for the role their mistakes and missteps played in this defeat. And then I want them to get off the stage and let the next generation of Democrats rise up to fix this mess.
How friggin long will it take for them to take responsibility?? And then get the Dem party functioning? Enough already!!
Yeah, a functioning and decent party to come back from defeat doesn't happen overnight, but admitting defeat and taking responsibility actually does. 5 weeks already!
it's a classic example of a few of the things wrong with the dem party, so hungry for power and control they are beside themselves with anger and fear.
This makes no fucking sense whatsoever. You just strung together some words that are not connected by any concrete examples. Please explain how the deomocrats on this board are so hungry for power that we are besides ourselves with fear. What that fuck does that even mean?
Are you aware that you are asking the poster formerly known as Godfather to make sense of one of his innane posts.
The problem for Hillary will always be that Putin didn't swing this election against her. I absolutely believe the Russians inserted themselves in this election. I am pretty convinced the goal by election day had become to elect Trump. But I don't believe this Russian influence was somehow more pervasive in the Midwest than it was in California. I don't believe it was more effective in Pennsylvania than it was in New Jersey. She was a flawed candidate with an ineffective message and campaign that believed it owned the votes of a winning coalition the guy before them had built. They were wrong in many ways and that, not Vladimir Putin, is why she lost so many states Barack Obama won twice.
So I don't really want to hear Hillary Clinton or John Podesta or Jennifer Palmieri complaining about Russia or Comey or Wiki. I want to hear them take responsibility for the role their mistakes and missteps played in this defeat. And then I want them to get off the stage and let the next generation of Democrats rise up to fix this mess.
How friggin long will it take for them to take responsibility?? And then get the Dem party functioning? Enough already!!
Yeah, a functioning and decent party to come back from defeat doesn't happen overnight, but admitting defeat and taking responsibility actually does. 5 weeks already!
it's a classic example of a few of the things wrong with the dem party, so hungry for power and control they are beside themselves with anger and fear.
This makes no fucking sense whatsoever. You just strung together some words that are not connected by any concrete examples. Please explain how the deomocrats on this board are so hungry for power that we are besides ourselves with fear. What that fuck does that even mean?
Are you aware that you are asking the poster formerly known as Godfather to make sense of one of his innane posts.
insane posts ? oh, you mean I'm not a crying liberal who believes the democratic way of thinking is flawed ? so kind of you, thanks !
There absolutely is an establishment left in the Democratic party. The same people who force fed us Clinton now want us to "move on" and let them decide who and what comes next. If Democrats are OK with that, that is their choice. I'm not.
Name these "same people." The same people who put Bernie in charge of outreach -- in charge of what the DNC does? You undermine your own influence. Either the progressives have widespread support, or they don't. If they do, their candidate wins the slot. If they don't, maybe it's because they don't have widespread support. More people voted for Clinton than those who didn't, after all. You're asking a swath of the population to get behind the people who didn't bother to get out and vote. Rejection and obstinance is a hard leadership model to swallow. Turn to Bernie Sanders to lead us out of that. I'm still not sure why you are looking to Clinton to do it. Nobody I know is doing that.
The problem for Hillary will always be that Putin didn't swing this election against her. I absolutely believe the Russians inserted themselves in this election. I am pretty convinced the goal by election day had become to elect Trump. But I don't believe this Russian influence was somehow more pervasive in the Midwest than it was in California. I don't believe it was more effective in Pennsylvania than it was in New Jersey. She was a flawed candidate with an ineffective message and campaign that believed it owned the votes of a winning coalition the guy before them had built. They were wrong in many ways and that, not Vladimir Putin, is why she lost so many states Barack Obama won twice.
So I don't really want to hear Hillary Clinton or John Podesta or Jennifer Palmieri complaining about Russia or Comey or Wiki. I want to hear them take responsibility for the role their mistakes and missteps played in this defeat. And then I want them to get off the stage and let the next generation of Democrats rise up to fix this mess.
How friggin long will it take for them to take responsibility?? And then get the Dem party functioning? Enough already!!
Yeah, a functioning and decent party to come back from defeat doesn't happen overnight, but admitting defeat and taking responsibility actually does. 5 weeks already!
it's a classic example of a few of the things wrong with the dem party, so hungry for power and control they are beside themselves with anger and fear.
This makes no fucking sense whatsoever. You just strung together some words that are not connected by any concrete examples. Please explain how the deomocrats on this board are so hungry for power that we are besides ourselves with fear. What that fuck does that even mean?
Are you aware that you are asking the poster formerly known as Godfather to make sense of one of his innane posts.
insane posts ? oh, you mean I'm not a crying liberal who believes the democratic way of thinking is flawed ? so kind of you, thanks !
There absolutely is an establishment left in the Democratic party. The same people who force fed us Clinton now want us to "move on" and let them decide who and what comes next. If Democrats are OK with that, that is their choice. I'm not.
Name these "same people." The same people who put Bernie in charge of outreach -- in charge of what the DNC does? You undermine your own influence. Either the progressives have widespread support, or they don't. If they do, their candidate wins the slot. If they don't, maybe it's because they don't have widespread support. More people voted for Clinton than those who didn't, after all. You're asking a swath of the population to get behind the people who didn't bother to get out and vote. Rejection and obstinance is a hard leadership model to swallow. Turn to Bernie Sanders to lead us out of that. I'm still not sure why you are looking to Clinton to do it. Nobody I know is doing that.
I'm not looking to Clinton to do anything other than to own her mistakes, which she thus far has not done. Then I'm looking for her machine to get out of the way, which I don't believe it has. As I said, Ellison would be an indication of that. Not a messiah as he had his own faults certainly but a start. I'm not advocating the party take a sharp turn to the left. I'm advocating for fresh blood and new faces at the top.
Unsure why you keep going on about Bernie Sanders, but so be it. He was given a position and can do some good but he's not in a position to lead the party.
In 2016 the Democrats operated top down and lost. The GOP, in spite of themselves, operated bottom up and won. The Dems can either learn from that or move on and pretend it didn't happen. But, if four years from now we get a Terry MacAullife or a Chelsea Clinton at the top of the ticket, Democrats won't have anyone but themselves to blame when they lose again.
The problem for Hillary will always be that Putin didn't swing this election against her. I absolutely believe the Russians inserted themselves in this election. I am pretty convinced the goal by election day had become to elect Trump. But I don't believe this Russian influence was somehow more pervasive in the Midwest than it was in California. I don't believe it was more effective in Pennsylvania than it was in New Jersey. She was a flawed candidate with an ineffective message and campaign that believed it owned the votes of a winning coalition the guy before them had built. They were wrong in many ways and that, not Vladimir Putin, is why she lost so many states Barack Obama won twice.
So I don't really want to hear Hillary Clinton or John Podesta or Jennifer Palmieri complaining about Russia or Comey or Wiki. I want to hear them take responsibility for the role their mistakes and missteps played in this defeat. And then I want them to get off the stage and let the next generation of Democrats rise up to fix this mess.
How friggin long will it take for them to take responsibility?? And then get the Dem party functioning? Enough already!!
Yeah, a functioning and decent party to come back from defeat doesn't happen overnight, but admitting defeat and taking responsibility actually does. 5 weeks already!
it's a classic example of a few of the things wrong with the dem party, so hungry for power and control they are beside themselves with anger and fear.
This makes no fucking sense whatsoever. You just strung together some words that are not connected by any concrete examples. Please explain how the deomocrats on this board are so hungry for power that we are besides ourselves with fear. What that fuck does that even mean?
Are you aware that you are asking the poster formerly known as Godfather to make sense of one of his innane posts.
insane posts ? oh, you mean I'm not a crying liberal who believes the democratic way of thinking is flawed ? so kind of you, thanks !
innane. not insane. look it up.
Thanks for the back up Not everyone is good with the whole reading comprehension thing
The problem for Hillary will always be that Putin didn't swing this election against her. I absolutely believe the Russians inserted themselves in this election. I am pretty convinced the goal by election day had become to elect Trump. But I don't believe this Russian influence was somehow more pervasive in the Midwest than it was in California. I don't believe it was more effective in Pennsylvania than it was in New Jersey. She was a flawed candidate with an ineffective message and campaign that believed it owned the votes of a winning coalition the guy before them had built. They were wrong in many ways and that, not Vladimir Putin, is why she lost so many states Barack Obama won twice.
So I don't really want to hear Hillary Clinton or John Podesta or Jennifer Palmieri complaining about Russia or Comey or Wiki. I want to hear them take responsibility for the role their mistakes and missteps played in this defeat. And then I want them to get off the stage and let the next generation of Democrats rise up to fix this mess.
How friggin long will it take for them to take responsibility?? And then get the Dem party functioning? Enough already!!
Yeah, a functioning and decent party to come back from defeat doesn't happen overnight, but admitting defeat and taking responsibility actually does. 5 weeks already!
it's a classic example of a few of the things wrong with the dem party, so hungry for power and control they are beside themselves with anger and fear.
This makes no fucking sense whatsoever. You just strung together some words that are not connected by any concrete examples. Please explain how the deomocrats on this board are so hungry for power that we are besides ourselves with fear. What that fuck does that even mean?
thank you for your conformation on my statement, I didn't mean to confuse you with the painful truth.
This is a Hillary thread in the article does have to do with Hillary...
I found this interesting:
Even now, as the Democratic establishment seems hell-bent on not choosing Keith Ellison as the leader of the DNC — in spite of widespread progressive support for him. I've never seen anything like it. Hundreds of thousands of people have come forward to say they want Keith to lead the party, but the party stalls and stalls and stalls, and seems determined to do anything other than pick the progressive choice.
If the Democratic Party is going to have any success moving forward, it must lean into progressive populism and not away from it. So far, I don't see this happening and the Obamas and Clintons don't seem to be taking us there.
The problem for Hillary will always be that Putin didn't swing this election against her. I absolutely believe the Russians inserted themselves in this election. I am pretty convinced the goal by election day had become to elect Trump. But I don't believe this Russian influence was somehow more pervasive in the Midwest than it was in California. I don't believe it was more effective in Pennsylvania than it was in New Jersey. She was a flawed candidate with an ineffective message and campaign that believed it owned the votes of a winning coalition the guy before them had built. They were wrong in many ways and that, not Vladimir Putin, is why she lost so many states Barack Obama won twice.
So I don't really want to hear Hillary Clinton or John Podesta or Jennifer Palmieri complaining about Russia or Comey or Wiki. I want to hear them take responsibility for the role their mistakes and missteps played in this defeat. And then I want them to get off the stage and let the next generation of Democrats rise up to fix this mess.
How friggin long will it take for them to take responsibility?? And then get the Dem party functioning? Enough already!!
Yeah, a functioning and decent party to come back from defeat doesn't happen overnight, but admitting defeat and taking responsibility actually does. 5 weeks already!
it's a classic example of a few of the things wrong with the dem party, so hungry for power and control they are beside themselves with anger and fear.
This makes no fucking sense whatsoever. You just strung together some words that are not connected by any concrete examples. Please explain how the deomocrats on this board are so hungry for power that we are besides ourselves with fear. What that fuck does that even mean?
thank you for your conformation on my statement, I didn't mean to confuse you with the painful truth.
It must be hard to use a flip phone to comment on here.
There is not much of an establishment left at the DNC. If the progressives have the widespread support they claim they have, the DNC ought to hire him. That has not been decided yet, so I'm not sure why it's a point. I have not heard Obama or Clinton make one claim about any of it, so I'm interested in seeing that writer's source about their endorsements. Of course, Obama's Labor Secretary is also a candidate. I'm not sure why he wouldn't support his own Labor Secretary. Either way, it's not really a sitting president's job to choose sides in political squabbles, in my view. I'd rather Obama stay silent, and Hillary, too. People want them to go away, and they are. Now people want them back. Doesn't make sense to me.
Someone needs to take ownership and lead. The current leaders are not doing anything like you said. Then get out-of-the-way! Find someone who actually make decent change like Sanders, and establishment dams need to step aside from their anti-progressive values.
There is not much of an establishment left at the DNC. If the progressives have the widespread support they claim they have, the DNC ought to hire him. That has not been decided yet, so I'm not sure why it's a point. I have not heard Obama or Clinton make one claim about any of it, so I'm interested in seeing that writer's source about their endorsements. Of course, Obama's Labor Secretary is also a candidate. I'm not sure why he wouldn't support his own Labor Secretary. Either way, it's not really a sitting president's job to choose sides in political squabbles, in my view. I'd rather Obama stay silent, and Hillary, too. People want them to go away, and they are. Now people want them back. Doesn't make sense to me.
Someone needs to take ownership and lead. The current leaders are not doing anything like you said. Then get out-of-the-way! Find someone who actually make decent change like Sanders, and establishment dams need to step aside from their anti-progressive values.
I belong to every Democratic Party list there is. None of the information I receive says anything about the Clintons. The people who are talking about the Clintons are themselves and the people who don't like them. The rest of us are moving on, which is a good thing. Everyone agrees that's a good thing. We don't agree that we have moved away from our progressive values. Unfortunately that's a meme from the left that is just not true. Sanders won the platform, and we fought for the platform. The people who stayed home didn't.
The problem for Hillary will always be that Putin didn't swing this election against her. I absolutely believe the Russians inserted themselves in this election. I am pretty convinced the goal by election day had become to elect Trump. But I don't believe this Russian influence was somehow more pervasive in the Midwest than it was in California. I don't believe it was more effective in Pennsylvania than it was in New Jersey. She was a flawed candidate with an ineffective message and campaign that believed it owned the votes of a winning coalition the guy before them had built. They were wrong in many ways and that, not Vladimir Putin, is why she lost so many states Barack Obama won twice.
So I don't really want to hear Hillary Clinton or John Podesta or Jennifer Palmieri complaining about Russia or Comey or Wiki. I want to hear them take responsibility for the role their mistakes and missteps played in this defeat. And then I want them to get off the stage and let the next generation of Democrats rise up to fix this mess.
How friggin long will it take for them to take responsibility?? And then get the Dem party functioning? Enough already!!
Yeah, a functioning and decent party to come back from defeat doesn't happen overnight, but admitting defeat and taking responsibility actually does. 5 weeks already!
it's a classic example of a few of the things wrong with the dem party, so hungry for power and control they are beside themselves with anger and fear.
This makes no fucking sense whatsoever. You just strung together some words that are not connected by any concrete examples. Please explain how the deomocrats on this board are so hungry for power that we are besides ourselves with fear. What that fuck does that even mean?
thank you for your conformation on my statement, I didn't mean to confuse you with the painful truth.
your criteria for "conformation" seem to be quite low, if not totally non-existent and nonsensical.
The problem for Hillary will always be that Putin didn't swing this election against her. I absolutely believe the Russians inserted themselves in this election. I am pretty convinced the goal by election day had become to elect Trump. But I don't believe this Russian influence was somehow more pervasive in the Midwest than it was in California. I don't believe it was more effective in Pennsylvania than it was in New Jersey. She was a flawed candidate with an ineffective message and campaign that believed it owned the votes of a winning coalition the guy before them had built. They were wrong in many ways and that, not Vladimir Putin, is why she lost so many states Barack Obama won twice.
So I don't really want to hear Hillary Clinton or John Podesta or Jennifer Palmieri complaining about Russia or Comey or Wiki. I want to hear them take responsibility for the role their mistakes and missteps played in this defeat. And then I want them to get off the stage and let the next generation of Democrats rise up to fix this mess.
How friggin long will it take for them to take responsibility?? And then get the Dem party functioning? Enough already!!
Yeah, a functioning and decent party to come back from defeat doesn't happen overnight, but admitting defeat and taking responsibility actually does. 5 weeks already!
it's a classic example of a few of the things wrong with the dem party, so hungry for power and control they are beside themselves with anger and fear.
This makes no fucking sense whatsoever. You just strung together some words that are not connected by any concrete examples. Please explain how the deomocrats on this board are so hungry for power that we are besides ourselves with fear. What that fuck does that even mean?
Are you aware that you are asking the poster formerly known as Godfather to make sense of one of his innane posts.
I did not realize that was Godfather... Now I know better.
There is not much of an establishment left at the DNC. If the progressives have the widespread support they claim they have, the DNC ought to hire him. That has not been decided yet, so I'm not sure why it's a point. I have not heard Obama or Clinton make one claim about any of it, so I'm interested in seeing that writer's source about their endorsements. Of course, Obama's Labor Secretary is also a candidate. I'm not sure why he wouldn't support his own Labor Secretary. Either way, it's not really a sitting president's job to choose sides in political squabbles, in my view. I'd rather Obama stay silent, and Hillary, too. People want them to go away, and they are. Now people want them back. Doesn't make sense to me.
Someone needs to take ownership and lead. The current leaders are not doing anything like you said. Then get out-of-the-way! Find someone who actually make decent change like Sanders, and establishment dams need to step aside from their anti-progressive values.
I belong to every Democratic Party list there is. None of the information I receive says anything about the Clintons. The people who are talking about the Clintons are themselves and the people who don't like them. The rest of us are moving on, which is a good thing. Everyone agrees that's a good thing. We don't agree that we have moved away from our progressive values. Unfortunately that's a meme from the left that is just not true. Sanders won the platform, and we fought for the platform. The people who stayed home didn't.
Here here!
I'll repeat what I said earlier... making BLM and Dakota pipeline as the centerpiece of your populist reform would be dumB. Shaun King lives in the very bubble he is trying to deride. Someone, for the love of God, give me a real populist Democratic reform that would also be supported by the socially liberal, economically moderate coastal Democrats who are the very backbone of the party today. That's the gap that needs to be filled.
There is not much of an establishment left at the DNC. If the progressives have the widespread support they claim they have, the DNC ought to hire him. That has not been decided yet, so I'm not sure why it's a point. I have not heard Obama or Clinton make one claim about any of it, so I'm interested in seeing that writer's source about their endorsements. Of course, Obama's Labor Secretary is also a candidate. I'm not sure why he wouldn't support his own Labor Secretary. Either way, it's not really a sitting president's job to choose sides in political squabbles, in my view. I'd rather Obama stay silent, and Hillary, too. People want them to go away, and they are. Now people want them back. Doesn't make sense to me.
Someone needs to take ownership and lead. The current leaders are not doing anything like you said. Then get out-of-the-way! Find someone who actually make decent change like Sanders, and establishment dams need to step aside from their anti-progressive values.
I belong to every Democratic Party list there is. None of the information I receive says anything about the Clintons. The people who are talking about the Clintons are themselves and the people who don't like them. The rest of us are moving on, which is a good thing. Everyone agrees that's a good thing. We don't agree that we have moved away from our progressive values. Unfortunately that's a meme from the left that is just not true. Sanders won the platform, and we fought for the platform. The people who stayed home didn't.
Exactly....it's right wing bullshit.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
There is not much of an establishment left at the DNC. If the progressives have the widespread support they claim they have, the DNC ought to hire him. That has not been decided yet, so I'm not sure why it's a point. I have not heard Obama or Clinton make one claim about any of it, so I'm interested in seeing that writer's source about their endorsements. Of course, Obama's Labor Secretary is also a candidate. I'm not sure why he wouldn't support his own Labor Secretary. Either way, it's not really a sitting president's job to choose sides in political squabbles, in my view. I'd rather Obama stay silent, and Hillary, too. People want them to go away, and they are. Now people want them back. Doesn't make sense to me.
Someone needs to take ownership and lead. The current leaders are not doing anything like you said. Then get out-of-the-way! Find someone who actually make decent change like Sanders, and establishment dams need to step aside from their anti-progressive values.
I belong to every Democratic Party list there is. None of the information I receive says anything about the Clintons. The people who are talking about the Clintons are themselves and the people who don't like them. The rest of us are moving on, which is a good thing. Everyone agrees that's a good thing. We don't agree that we have moved away from our progressive values. Unfortunately that's a meme from the left that is just not true. Sanders won the platform, and we fought for the platform. The people who stayed home didn't.
No, you're not moving on. You have moved away from your progressive values. There has been nothing done by the Democratic Party except pointing fingers at somewhere else. Even SNL has brought it into their skits! Enough with the wallowing in lead for god sakes. Who is leading exactly? Where is Nina turner? Are the establishment Dems gonna block her like they did at the convention?
Comments
KING: Obama, Clintons still have no idea why Dems lost election
This is a Hillary thread in the article does have to do with Hillary...
And for the record, a fair amount of Midwesterners are deplorable racist dumb privileged rednecks.
Even now, as the Democratic establishment seems hell-bent on not choosing Keith Ellison as the leader of the DNC — in spite of widespread progressive support for him. I've never seen anything like it. Hundreds of thousands of people have come forward to say they want Keith to lead the party, but the party stalls and stalls and stalls, and seems determined to do anything other than pick the progressive choice.
If the Democratic Party is going to have any success moving forward, it must lean into progressive populism and not away from it. So far, I don't see this happening and the Obamas and Clintons don't seem to be taking us there.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The voters rejected Clinton but the establishment installed Clinton. The establishment remains. It needs to earn back the trust and goodwill of the voters.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
www.headstonesband.com
Unsure why you keep going on about Bernie Sanders, but so be it. He was given a position and can do some good but he's not in a position to lead the party.
In 2016 the Democrats operated top down and lost. The GOP, in spite of themselves, operated bottom up and won. The Dems can either learn from that or move on and pretend it didn't happen. But, if four years from now we get a Terry MacAullife or a Chelsea Clinton at the top of the ticket, Democrats won't have anyone but themselves to blame when they lose again.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Not everyone is good with the whole reading comprehension thing
www.headstonesband.com
I'll repeat what I said earlier... making BLM and Dakota pipeline as the centerpiece of your populist reform would be dumB. Shaun King lives in the very bubble he is trying to deride. Someone, for the love of God, give me a real populist Democratic reform that would also be supported by the socially liberal, economically moderate coastal Democrats who are the very backbone of the party today. That's the gap that needs to be filled.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana