The General Election

[zoogs]

Good thread: 

 

 

[RedDenver]

4 hours ago, zoogs said:

Good thread: 

 

 

Things the DNC does control:

1) laundering money to the Clinton campaign (I'm shocked that this is legal, but apparently that's just how broken campaign finance laws are)

2) superdelegates

3) number and times of debates

4) messaging from the DNC (which apparently the Clinton campaign also had control over)

5) rules for the convention (which matter because that's what actually determines who gets the nomination)

6) rules for the party members (like allowing or not allowing big money interests, dark money, Super PACs, etc.)

 

But all of that misses a bigger point of trust:

The Democratic Party now has to go convince voters that they aren't putting their finger on the scale again, regardless if they are or they aren't. Why should I even bother with voting in the Dem primaries if they can just pick whoever they want and don't even have to follow their own rules regarding neutrality?

Edited November 4, 2017 by RedDenver

[zoogs]

Brazile's hype is not standing up to scrutiny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am very on board with a leftward shift for the Democratic Party, but this wing has to demonstrate some better ideas -- and messaging -- than "the DNC stole it from us in 2016".

[RedDenver]

I agree that Donna Brazile is releasing this information for personal gain. But that doesn't change whether what she said was true (or not true if that's shown).

 

And if the Democratic establishment's argument is semantics about the word "rigged" instead of recognizing and addressing the underlying issues, then they are going to lose a LOT of progressives and/or Bernie backers. It's like saying, we bribed the refs but their calls didn't significantly affect the outcome of the game, so don't worry about us bribing refs in the next game.

Edited November 4, 2017 by RedDenver

[zoogs]

^I think there's a good deal of serious hole-poking above, and more if you read a little more of the reaction to this.

 

The only underlying issue, IMO, is that leftist politics aren't that persuasive on the whole. But I mean, it's encouraging how persuasive they already are, that was a surprise. Going forward, there should be a proactive message to keep building solidarity. The promotion of infighting in a camp that needs to stay united, well, that really serves the actual fascists. And, for example, US adversaries.

[RedDenver]

15 minutes ago, zoogs said:

^I think there's a good deal of serious hole-poking above, and more if you read a little more of the reaction to this.

 

The only underlying issue, IMO, is that leftist politics aren't that persuasive on the whole. But I mean, it's encouraging how persuasive they already are, that was a surprise. Going forward, there should be a proactive message to keep building solidarity. The promotion of infighting in a camp that needs to stay united, well, that really serves the actual fascists. And, for example, US adversaries.

It turns out that many "far-left" policies are actually popular with the majority of the American public. So I disagree with your opinion "that leftist politics aren't that persuasive on the whole".

 

And building solidarity/unity is a good goal, but I hear that a lot from the establishment side of the party who continue to ignore/minimize the problems such as the DNC being in the tank for Clinton. So what I'm hearing is that the Bernie-backers should unite with the Clinton-backers but not the other way around. It has to be a two-way street.

[Danny Bateman]

I'd like to point out that to this very day, we have Russian bots hopping wantonly on internal rifts like this to sow discord. Because that was their goal int he first place. For instance, I'm sure they were very busy with the Brazille/rigged narrative to try to further divid those on the left & I just read a story the other day they're hopping all over largely manufactured missteps affecting the Northam (D) campaign for Governor of Virginia to try to push his lobbyist, race-baiting opponent Gillespie (R) to a  win. 

Kind of off on a tangent, but the point is that wherever there exists strife in American politics, Russians are going to use social media & fake news to amplify it, because it serves their purposes of maximizing discontent & further dividing Americans. It's astounding how well their tactics work.

 

With regards to the word "rigging," I've always thought the best argument against this was Donald Trump. If political parties could actually rig primaries, Donald Trump would never have won the GOP nomination. I'm of the mind the DNC trie to swing things Clinton's way, but they were far too inept and powerless to accomplish much of anything. Bernie still came far more close to winning than they'd have chosen if they had any real sway.

[Danny Bateman]

This from Bernie's own Press Sec:

 

 

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

I'd like to point out that to this very day, we have Russian bots hopping wantonly on internal rifts like this to sow discord. Because that was their goal int he first place. For instance, I'm sure they were very busy with the Brazille/rigged narrative to try to further divid those on the left & I just read a story the other day they're hopping all over largely manufactured missteps affecting the Northam (D) campaign for Governor of Virginia to try to push his lobbyist, race-baiting opponent Gillespie (R) to a  win. 

Kind of off on a tangent, but the point is that wherever there exists strife in American politics, Russians are going to use social media & fake news to amplify it, because it serves their purposes of maximizing discontent & further dividing Americans. It's astounding how well their tactics work.

 

With regards to the word "rigging," I've always thought the best argument against this was Donald Trump. If political parties could actually rig primaries, Donald Trump would never have won the GOP nomination. I'm of the mind the DNC trie to swing things Clinton's way, but they were far too inept and powerless to accomplish much of anything. Bernie still came far more close to winning than they'd have chosen if they had any real sway.

I think we have to be careful about saying disagreements help the Russians. The entire basis for free speech and free elections is that we don't agree and that we can publicly hash out our differences. We have to grapple with what the Russians are doing to further divide us, but we can't lose our ability to disagree and voice that disagreement.

 

I think the Republican Party not having super delegates and the RNC staying more or less neutral is one of the reasons Trump won the general election. There was lots of talk about different ways the Republican Party could undermine Trump, but ultimately they let the voters decide the nominee without interference. The DNC however did interfere, which undermines their credibility both in the last primary and going forward.

3 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

This from Bernie's own Press Sec:

 

 

Again, if the argument is about the choice of the word "rigged", then that completely misses the point. Use "cheated" instead if that makes anyone feel better.

[Danny Bateman]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

I think we have to be careful about saying disagreements help the Russians. The entire basis for free speech and free elections is that we don't agree and that we can publicly hash out our differences. We have to grapple with what the Russians are doing to further divide us, but we can't lose our ability to disagree and voice that disagreement.

 

I think the Republican Party not having super delegates and the RNC staying more or less neutral is one of the reasons Trump won the general election. There was lots of talk about different ways the Republican Party could undermine Trump, but ultimately they let the voters decide the nominee without interference. The DNC however did interfere, which undermines their credibility both in the last primary and going forward.

Agree with your first paragraph. My point was just that they're artificially amplifying chaos because it serves their own ends to do so. Definitely agree we have to be able to take opposing stands on things - if that's every disallowed, we're rapidly y headed towards fascism. 

 

The RNC was NOT neutral. They put on a public face they were, but we're both well aware Republicans are great BSers. Behind the scenes, they did everything they could to stop Trump. They just didn't get outed for it because the more compelling news cycle was the Bernie/Hillary schism. Remember when the RNC refused to give anti-Trump Repubs a roll call at the convention? I do. They had flipped from anti-Trump to pro-Trump out of pure political expediency. They didn't want to embarrass him because it would be bad for the party.

 

Super delegates are interesting. It's funny how perspective shapes opinion. I saw a conversation with Bill Kristol the other day where he endorsed the advent of superdelegates to the GOP primary to avoid another Trump. I'm of the mind they'll flip to whomever is going to win the primary based on votes, but I could see why you'd think they're anti-democratic. I think you've got some legit beefs, like that & debate schedules. And I hear what you're saying about Bernie supporters feeling like they're getting swept under the rug. But I also think you've seen Bernie change the party in some significant ways, and that's nothing to shake a stick at.

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

Agree with your first paragraph. My point was just that they're artificially amplifying chaos because it serves their own ends to do so. Definitely agree we have to be able to take opposing stands on things - if that's every disallowed, we're rapidly y headed towards fascism. 

 

The RNC was NOT neutral. They put on a public face they were, but we're both well aware Republicans are great BSers. Behind the scenes, they did everything they could to stop Trump. They just didn't get outed for it because the more compelling news cycle was the Bernie/Hillary schism. Remember when the RNC refused to give anti-Trump Repubs a roll call at the convention? I do. They had flipped from anti-Trump to pro-Trump out of pure political expediency. They didn't want to embarrass him because it would be bad for the party.

 

Super delegates are interesting. It's funny how perspective shapes opinion. I saw a conversation with Bill Kristol the other day where he endorsed the advent of superdelegates to the GOP primary to avoid another Trump. I'm of the mind they'll flip to whomever is going to win the primary based on votes, but I could see why you'd think they're anti-democratic. I think you've got some legit beefs, like that & debate schedules. And I hear what you're saying about Bernie supporters feeling like they're getting swept under the rug. But I also think you've seen Bernie change the party in some significant ways, and that's nothing to shake a stick at.

I agree with everything you're saying here, although not giving a roll call to allow delegates to vote against the wishes of their own party voters isn't quite the same as what the DNC did.

 

And we are seeing some changes in the Democratic Party, but things like minimizing / not taking responsibility for the DNC cheating, Perez purging Bernie and Ellison backers from the DNC leadership, Dems harping on Bernie not being in the party even though he's in the party leadership, etc. are divisive and against unifying. I think Elizabeth Warren is taking the right stance in recognizing the cheating/rigging happened and calling for solutions such as transparency to prevent it happening again: