Or is it that a progressive as you define it might not be as successful as you imagine?
You and others keep making this sort of claim - back it up with something other than emotion. What you perceive as a defense of the candidate is not a defense of the candidate at all - I’m perfectly comfortable acknowledging that Hillary ran a shitty race and doesn’t really have a lot of accomplishments as a public servant. She’s tried an ambitious project or two but ultimately failed. The defense is not of her personally but rather it’s a defense of the facts.
You seem to suggest that Clinton had some kind of super machine that could crush her rivals and punish them. What exactly was Hillary going to do to Jim Webb or Martin O’Malley? I mean, they ran didn’t they? They competed, right? They lost. They lost because they didn’t get votes. Hillary was even more powerful in 2007 and Obama defeated her by winning early elections and getting super delegates to defect. Her opponents in 2016 weren’t able to do that. Stubbornly clinging to some idea that the race was rigged isn’t helping. It doesn’t make democracy better. It’s just more conspiracy theorist crap and voting (or not) out of frustration with the results.
I’m sure people will call me an elitist - that’s fine. But voting or not voting out of anger and frustration isn’t helping. It makes things a lot worse, actually.
Oh, the current mindset as I put it goes back further than 2016. At least to 2010, with the initial mid-term losses. Maybe a bit earlier, say 2009, with special election losses and then there’s the losses at the state and local levels as well. It’s never that, say, Coakley was a terrible candidate twice over. Or that Grimes ran away from Obama in 2014. Or that a lot of the Blue Dogs that lost in 2010 also ran away from Obama and what success the Democrats did manage to have in the 2009-2010 Congress. Or that a lot of state-level parties can’t even be bothered to put up a candidate for an election and just concede to the incumbent. Nope, it’s always the voters and never the politicians.
In my mind I envisioned the slogan more like the delivery of Jack Nicholson’s character in “A few good men”
scene of children frolicking in a field of daisies…Soft swipe to people going to work in blue collar jobs…Business being conducted by yuppies in brightly lit conference rooms… Then hard cut to a white text on black background title screen/cue card.
Actually, you are the problem!
Paid for by the committee to elect asahi as Democratic candidate of 2020. “I am asahi and I approve this message.”
If only that were true. Current events suggest that many Democrat Party insiders aren’t ready to stop searching for an plausible explanation for their party’s recent devastating losses.
Yeah, those terrible voters, not voting for the Saint Hillary once she was Annointed One. It’s like they expect the party to put forward an appealing candidate instead of simply demanding a vote. It’s like they think we’re in a democratic republic, where voters get a choice, how DARE they disagree with the Party’s wisdom!
There’s nothing wrong with the party trying to understand recent losses.
I’m not getting your point.
I’m reminded of Jay’s line from Clerks: This job would be great if it wasn’t for the fucking customers.
Change “Party’s wisdom” to “primary voters’ wisdom.”
I do blame voters for not looking at the two candidates in the general election and enthusiastically doing whatever it takes to defeat Trump.
Not Jay, had to be Randall.
Found it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109445/quotes/qt0379311
for historical reference -
(underline added)
My point? Don’t you mean your point? First you imply that the Democrats could/should move on, and now you see nothing wrong with continuing to discuss the issue.
Personally, I believe that the Democrat collective should continue to discuss this issue until they all agree as to what actually happened.
I’m really surprised that Brazile’s grapes were so bitter, in general, or specifically that she was so willing to consider dismissing the choices of We the People and putting somebody she didn’t hate into the nomination instead. That never came across on-air (a role and an income and fame source that is about to dry up for her, of course). She’s only proving that she was no better than D W-S in the job, having no better fundraising or unification skills but a much higher capacity for spite.
Sad!
Good catch. But based on your username, it would appear you live in the area. You probably know these guys personally!! 
I’ve met Jay many times years ago, after Clerks he was working in Red Bank. Kevin Smith I only met once. But yeah, same area at least.
Nope on two counts. For one, as is being extensively discussed in this thread, Hillary did not legitimately win the primary vote, she cheated. It’s irrelevant if she could have won without getting the party to cheat to give her the win, the fact that she cheated means she doesn’t get to claim that as an actual victory. The second is that I have never heard something like “It’s her turn because the primary voters picked her”, but just “It’s her turn” or “She’s qualified because the primary voters picked her”, just “She’s qualified”.
I take the opposite track; I wish more voters looked at the candidate the party put forward, said “that candidate is unconscionable, I’m not going to vote for him/her” and followed through with it. Maybe then the Democrats would stop shoving out awful right-wing-except-for-a-couple-of-social-issues candidates like Clinton (or Gore or Kerry) and expecting people to vote for them because, ‘hey, look at the other guy’. I can tell you this, after holding my nose and voting for Clinton in 2016 and her still managing to lose, I will never vote ‘lesser of two evils’ again.
I’m left of Clinton, Gore and Kerry, but I’d hardly call them “right wing” in any respect. They’re about the same as Obama, and we had 8 pretty good years (which would have been better with a Democratic Congress). I’m not looking for a revolution, just competence.
That is being extensively claimed, yes, and you call it discussion if you want, but the facts still don’t support it.
It’s the greater evil for you, then, huh? That means the greater evil for all of us. You might want to consider that your vote, or lack of it, has real consequences.
It isn’t about *you *and whoever meets what lofty standards you put in place for being worthy of your deigning to vote for them. It’s about the country and the nation, and whose leadership puts us in the best position for the coming four years and beyond. And you know who that would have been, and why, and kindly cut the rest of the nonsense, thankyouverymuch.
Yes, if you watch Fox, it is Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. The Indictments, and such for various Trump cronies are not news. Now, if you watch CNN, it is just the opposite.
Sure, it does look like Hillary had a “in”, which since she was the front runner by far and had the largest war chest, is not suprising. The extent of her “in” seems to be she had soem access to what questions might be asked for one debate.
Not nice, but hardly a “fix”.
How foolish would it be *not *to have a response prepared for a question about water poisoning in Flint in a debate in Michigan? That Brazile thought she had to tell Clinton about it reflects mostly on Brazile.
I think it is the other way around. They thought Hillary was going to win, and they thought (IMO correctly) that Bernie would fail disastrously. Yes, the DNC had their thumb on the scales, but without that, it would have been closer but Bernie would still have lost, in the primaries and even moreso in the general election.
The more extreme partisans tend to vote in the primaries, on both sides. Even with that, Sanders never got very far, and he would have attracted approximately zero voters who went for Trump. And he would have aroused the same tepid support among blacks that Hillary did - sure, they answered polls that they supported her, but not enough to actually get out and vote. Much of Hillary’s problem was a severe lack of charisma. Compared to an elderly commie, she’s practically a centerfold.
I didn’t vote for Trump, but in a head-to-head of him vs. Trump, that is, an inexperienced buffoon vs. an actual socialist - MAGA, baby.
I hear a lot about how America is not ready for a woman President. How about not being ready for someone who thinks our economic problems stem from too many choices of deodorant?
Regards,
Shodan