Dem Party
Comments
-
Eric Schneiderman needs to go.
“What do you do if your abuser is the top law-enforcement official in the state?”
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/four-women-accuse-new-yorks-attorney-general-of-physical-abuse
Post edited by JimmyV on___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
And... he's gone.
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
My focus and discussion is specific to "primaries". Every post that I have made refers specifically to the DCCC and the Democratic party and their treatment of progressive voices/choices in the primaries.benjs said:
I don't think I'm ignoring anything. With the current government structure in the US government, within the context of the federal republic, the democratic-ness of the system is defined by how much gatekeeping is done by the parties. As the gatekeeping functions of the parties are reduced (and please don't make it sound like ignoring progressive voices to assure a singular voice is an exclusively DNC affair), the democratic impact is heightened, and vice-versa.JC29856 said:
Aren't you ignoring the point that the Democratic party leadership is shutting out progressive voices? Or do you think it is just coincidental that the progressives are rarely if ever backed (I posted a few examples, see Ironstache vs Myers, the guardian did an entire piece).benjs said:
In determining candidates, if I had to choose between a self-serving select few and the largely uneducated and/or ignorant population - I don't know which is less bad. Why do you feel the population is the lesser of two evils?JC29856 said:should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers?
For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!)
We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what?
The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON!
Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
I don't feel the population is the lesser of two evils, what make you assume that?
If you want a "system" whereby the primary candidates are chosen by a select few, for example a board, then describe how it would work and we can discuss it. I'm addressing the current system in place, whereby candidates run in a primary and the winner as determined by the voters runs against the "opposing" party(s) in the general.
If voters are too uneducated and ignorant for a thriving democracy, then have the Democratic party become a public company, that way shareholders have their say and the board of directors can choose the primary candidate (on behalf of their shareholders).
This will do away with the charade of holding "democratic" primary elections and better yet save money on the primary elections while raising capital (publicly traded) for the party.
The "Board of Directors" model you're referring to effectively is the DNC with its superdelegates (arguably your biggest problem with the system), so I'm not sure why you think that'd be preferable.
On the other side of the coin, the absence of the "Board of Directors" model is closer to the GOP with their lack of superdelegates.
Model A produced Hillary Clinton as a candidate. Model B produced Donald Trump as a candidate.
I'm not sure how anyone would read your lines and your disproportionate criticism of the DNC and its members, when compared to your hard-to-find GOP criticism, and disagree with my conclusion that you feel that the population is the lesser of two evils.
In my opinion, all roads lead to destruction.
Before I say anything else I must question your definition/opinion of the "democratic-ness" of US voting in primaries. Are you saying that gate-keeping by appointed party heads (not super-delegates) is more "democratic" than individuals with an equal vote in a system that represents all citizens? If so, your opinion is in a very very small minority.
0 -
Here are the same geniuses that dont trust uneducated and/or ignorant voters that decided it was a good idea to "elevate Trump" currently running on Russia Russia Russia, Stormy Daniel and in peach mints!
Its has been and is still working out so well (1,000 seats and Trump)
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/politics/cnn-poll-generic-ballot-narrows/index.html
Who said "its the economy stupid"?
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/05/09/rel5d.-.2018.pdf
Post edited by JC29856 on0 -
.0
-
James Carville said it in 1992...JC29856 said:Here are the same geniuses that dont trust uneducated and/or ignorant voters that decided it was a good idea to "elevate Trump" currently running on Russia Russia Russia, Stormy Daniel and in peach mints!
Its has been and is still working out so well (1,000 seats and Trump)
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/politics/cnn-poll-generic-ballot-narrows/index.html
Who said "its the economy stupid"?
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/05/09/rel5d.-.2018.pdf
I thought we didn't trust the crooked polls? Which is it?
Something about polls that is important.. it is using traditional turnout numbers as its baseline. So if either side turns out better or worse than traditionally, the actuals will move. That is why the state level 2016 numbers were wrong; the unlikely voters ended up voting. I wouldn't get too caught up in any polls this far out. The events of September and October will be more important than April and June. What we know so far is the Dem turnout numbers have been very strong in the elections (not primaries) that have taken place over the last several months.0 -
Just to clarify a few things:benjs said:
I don't think I'm ignoring anything. With the current government structure in the US government, within the context of the federal republic, the democratic-ness of the system is defined by how much gatekeeping is done by the parties. As the gatekeeping functions of the parties are reduced (and please don't make it sound like ignoring progressive voices to assure a singular voice is an exclusively DNC affair), the democratic impact is heightened, and vice-versa.JC29856 said:
Aren't you ignoring the point that the Democratic party leadership is shutting out progressive voices? Or do you think it is just coincidental that the progressives are rarely if ever backed (I posted a few examples, see Ironstache vs Myers, the guardian did an entire piece).benjs said:
In determining candidates, if I had to choose between a self-serving select few and the largely uneducated and/or ignorant population - I don't know which is less bad. Why do you feel the population is the lesser of two evils?JC29856 said:should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers?
For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!)
We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what?
The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON!
Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
I don't feel the population is the lesser of two evils, what make you assume that?
If you want a "system" whereby the primary candidates are chosen by a select few, for example a board, then describe how it would work and we can discuss it. I'm addressing the current system in place, whereby candidates run in a primary and the winner as determined by the voters runs against the "opposing" party(s) in the general.
If voters are too uneducated and ignorant for a thriving democracy, then have the Democratic party become a public company, that way shareholders have their say and the board of directors can choose the primary candidate (on behalf of their shareholders).
This will do away with the charade of holding "democratic" primary elections and better yet save money on the primary elections while raising capital (publicly traded) for the party.
The "Board of Directors" model you're referring to effectively is the DNC with its superdelegates (arguably your biggest problem with the system), so I'm not sure why you think that'd be preferable.
On the other side of the coin, the absence of the "Board of Directors" model is closer to the GOP with their lack of superdelegates.
Model A produced Hillary Clinton as a candidate. Model B produced Donald Trump as a candidate.
I'm not sure how anyone would read your lines and your disproportionate criticism of the DNC and its members, when compared to your hard-to-find GOP criticism, and disagree with my conclusion that you feel that the population is the lesser of two evils.
In my opinion, all roads lead to destruction.
I don't prefer the Board of Director model, I beleive the voters should decide the candidate no matter how stupid or ignorant. Its simple, if the DNC is operating in that BOD fashion as described then change the structure/rules and do away with the charade of primary voting.
Model A anointed Hillary the day she conceded to Obama, Model A also helped in producing Trump.
Model B (the will of the voters) produced Trump.
My criticism or lack of criticism of either party has nothing to do with systemic rot in the DNC that shuts down progressive voices and choices.
A better example then the one you gave (again were talking about primaries not generals) is to look at the previous primary with Obama and Hillary, where the VOTERS/THE PEOPLE chose Obama. With the will of the VOTERS/THE REPUBLIC at Obamas back he landslided McCain/Palin with record voter turnout. Party heads anointing Hillary only lead to a fractured party and disenfranchised voters where most in the general preferred to stay home vs bringing themselves to vote for Hilliary(take a look at voter turnout, I've posted them somewhere on here).
0 -
What a crock of shit and selective analysis. The voters chose Obama and then the super delegates went with them. The voters also chose HRC and the super delegates went with them. The difference between the two is that the Hillary voters in 2008 were mature enough to respect the decision of the AGREED UPON PROCESS.. you know, the one that has been in place for years. The Bernie voters at the convention, in particular, refused to accept the agreed upon process.
In fact, in 2008, HRC garnered MORE votes than Obama. In 2016, HRC had 3 MM votes more than Sanders. But again, HRC respected the process. Your analysis is complete bullshit.0 -
The super delegates went with Clinton long before the voters chose her.
Don't blame Bernie's supporters for HRC's inability to win people over. For years we heard how electable she was. It was bullshit all along and the people who peddled that bullshit should look in a mirror and accept the role they played in bringing Donald Trump to power. Scapegoating Bernie supporters is just denial and avoidance.
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
Super delegates committed to HRC in 2008, but then pulled back and voted for Obama. Super delegates also committed to Obama well before the convention. I'm not arguing that Hillary was the best candidate for the general (Biden was), but what I am saying is that the process was set and played out, and it was respected in 2008. It was not in 2012.JimmyV said:The super delegates went with Clinton long before the voters chose her.
Don't blame Bernie's supporters for HRC's inability to win people over. For years we heard how electable she was. It was bullshit all along and the people who peddled that bullshit should look in a mirror and accept the role they played in bringing Donald Trump to power. Scapegoating Bernie supporters is just denial and avoidance.
Are you arguing that the super delegates should have voted for Sanders even though he won 11 fewer states and received 3 million few votes? Is THAT your argument?0 -
My argument is that super delegates going with Clinton had nothing at all to do with voters. HRC was their choice early, often and throughout. It has nothing at all to do with Bernie.mrussel1 said:
Super delegates committed to HRC in 2008, but then pulled back and voted for Obama. Super delegates also committed to Obama well before the convention. I'm not arguing that Hillary was the best candidate for the general (Biden was), but what I am saying is that the process was set and played out, and it was respected in 2008. It was not in 2012.JimmyV said:The super delegates went with Clinton long before the voters chose her.
Don't blame Bernie's supporters for HRC's inability to win people over. For years we heard how electable she was. It was bullshit all along and the people who peddled that bullshit should look in a mirror and accept the role they played in bringing Donald Trump to power. Scapegoating Bernie supporters is just denial and avoidance.
Are you arguing that the super delegates should have voted for Sanders even though he won 11 fewer states and received 3 million few votes? Is THAT your argument?
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
Fuck the supers. That's a false argument here. Hillary won 3 million more voters and 11 more states. Bernie competed in every contest until the end. He didn't concede. If there were no supers, Hillary wins still. The only argument is that somehow the super delegates that committed somehow convinced voters that would otherwise vote for Bernie, to vote for Hillary. And not only is that un-provable, but it also stretches credulity.JimmyV said:
My argument is that super delegates going with Clinton had nothing at all to do with voters. HRC was their choice early, often and throughout. It has nothing at all to do with Bernie.mrussel1 said:
Super delegates committed to HRC in 2008, but then pulled back and voted for Obama. Super delegates also committed to Obama well before the convention. I'm not arguing that Hillary was the best candidate for the general (Biden was), but what I am saying is that the process was set and played out, and it was respected in 2008. It was not in 2012.JimmyV said:The super delegates went with Clinton long before the voters chose her.
Don't blame Bernie's supporters for HRC's inability to win people over. For years we heard how electable she was. It was bullshit all along and the people who peddled that bullshit should look in a mirror and accept the role they played in bringing Donald Trump to power. Scapegoating Bernie supporters is just denial and avoidance.
Are you arguing that the super delegates should have voted for Sanders even though he won 11 fewer states and received 3 million few votes? Is THAT your argument?0 -
What stretches credulity is to pretend, as you did, that the super delegates in 2016 were simply reflecting the will of the voters.mrussel1 said:
Fuck the supers. That's a false argument here. Hillary won 3 million more voters and 11 more states. Bernie competed in every contest until the end. He didn't concede. If there were no supers, Hillary wins still. The only argument is that somehow the super delegates that committed somehow convinced voters that would otherwise vote for Bernie, to vote for Hillary. And not only is that un-provable, but it also stretches credulity.JimmyV said:
My argument is that super delegates going with Clinton had nothing at all to do with voters. HRC was their choice early, often and throughout. It has nothing at all to do with Bernie.mrussel1 said:
Super delegates committed to HRC in 2008, but then pulled back and voted for Obama. Super delegates also committed to Obama well before the convention. I'm not arguing that Hillary was the best candidate for the general (Biden was), but what I am saying is that the process was set and played out, and it was respected in 2008. It was not in 2012.JimmyV said:The super delegates went with Clinton long before the voters chose her.
Don't blame Bernie's supporters for HRC's inability to win people over. For years we heard how electable she was. It was bullshit all along and the people who peddled that bullshit should look in a mirror and accept the role they played in bringing Donald Trump to power. Scapegoating Bernie supporters is just denial and avoidance.
Are you arguing that the super delegates should have voted for Sanders even though he won 11 fewer states and received 3 million few votes? Is THAT your argument?
"The voters chose Obama and then the super delegates went with them. The voters also chose HRC and the super delegates went with them."
Clinton was the party's choice long before you or I cast our primary vote. That has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders.
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
What is this process that your refer to? I would love to learn more about it.
Anyone who thinks that:
1. Hilliary wasn't "the chosen one" back in 2007
2. The Supers follow voters (many of which pledge before a vote is cast!)
3. That "the process" was NOT the very reason voters were disenfranchised
is
1. lying to themselves
2. knows it to be true but is "dishonest"
3. A Hill-bot/Brock-bot
0 -
It also has nothing to do with Hillary being the candidate. The SD's were created, wisely, to avoid another McGovern disaster. Using 2008 as an easy reference, when Obama started winning the primaries, the SD's flowed over to him. Had Sanders been winning primaries at the same clip, there's no reason to believe they would not have moved to Sanders. We have evidence and a historical precedent. None of what you say changes the fact that the majority of states and actual voters went with HRC.JimmyV said:
What stretches credulity is to pretend, as you did, that the super delegates in 2016 were simply reflecting the will of the voters.mrussel1 said:
Fuck the supers. That's a false argument here. Hillary won 3 million more voters and 11 more states. Bernie competed in every contest until the end. He didn't concede. If there were no supers, Hillary wins still. The only argument is that somehow the super delegates that committed somehow convinced voters that would otherwise vote for Bernie, to vote for Hillary. And not only is that un-provable, but it also stretches credulity.JimmyV said:
My argument is that super delegates going with Clinton had nothing at all to do with voters. HRC was their choice early, often and throughout. It has nothing at all to do with Bernie.mrussel1 said:
Super delegates committed to HRC in 2008, but then pulled back and voted for Obama. Super delegates also committed to Obama well before the convention. I'm not arguing that Hillary was the best candidate for the general (Biden was), but what I am saying is that the process was set and played out, and it was respected in 2008. It was not in 2012.JimmyV said:The super delegates went with Clinton long before the voters chose her.
Don't blame Bernie's supporters for HRC's inability to win people over. For years we heard how electable she was. It was bullshit all along and the people who peddled that bullshit should look in a mirror and accept the role they played in bringing Donald Trump to power. Scapegoating Bernie supporters is just denial and avoidance.
Are you arguing that the super delegates should have voted for Sanders even though he won 11 fewer states and received 3 million few votes? Is THAT your argument?
"The voters chose Obama and then the super delegates went with them. The voters also chose HRC and the super delegates went with them."
Clinton was the party's choice long before you or I cast our primary vote. That has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders.
0 -
The irony, of course, is the SD's were the only way Sanders could possibly win. Yet, if they SD's went with Sanders (despite the the popular vote and majority of victories), that would be very anti-Democratic process that is being decried.0
-
Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.
As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.
If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.JimmyV said:Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.
As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.
If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.0 -
For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.mrussel1 said:
It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.JimmyV said:Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.
As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.
If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
Then what, precisely is it about? What are you advocating for here?JimmyV said:
For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.mrussel1 said:
It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite. I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process. I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.JimmyV said:Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.
As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.
If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help