To say I’m not a fan of Hillary would be an understatement. Having said that, the Clintons have been the de facto heads of the Democratic party since 1992. That’s 24 years by my calendar (to 2016). To expect the party to withhold judgement on who to support, when it was between Clinton and a fringe element of the party would be silly and very naive.
For Brazile to say that she wouldn’t have taken the job had she known this is revisionist history in my opinion. She wanted to be on the bandwagon with everyone else.
Bah, why hold your tongue? Now’s the time to air your grievances. The spiteful get their say, the guilty get their dinner-of-crow, the cynics get their publicly/cash, the reformers get their momentum, and the audience gets their entertainment.
They’ll all be irrelevant soon enough, in due time, when** real** election hopefuls come in and steal the spotlight away. But, for now, air out all that dirty laundry. The more sordid and juicy the better!
Oh lord, please DNC, move on from HRC. Find a good solid Governor to knock Trump out in 2020. Too few people like HRC and less trust her. It is a terrible position to start from.
It’s not that this blows up the Party writ large, but it exposes and deepens divisions within Democratic Party management. Tom Perez came from the Clinton camp; Keith Ellison didn’t. If there are factions within the party structure sniping at one another, and Brazile’s article makes that worse, it hinders the larger mission.
On the other hand, I suppose that if an article like this can help force a reckoning and reconciliation, then I guess its impact is salutary overall. Too soon to tell.
You mean like the “observed result” that she got 3 million more votes? Not too shabby for a terrible, horrible, no good candidate. Unless the other candidate was even more terrible, horrible, and no good? Fair case could be made for that, if that is what you are doing.
Another observable result is Trump claiming that three to five million votes were illegally cast for HRC. That is observable, because he did claim that. The actual fact of it remains un-observable, because he is too shy and coy to give us evidence.
I can claim that herds of wild unicorn roam the nation, and that would be observable, in that I claim it. The unicorns themselves would not be any more observable. Because, like, not there. To observe.
So, unless you tell us what results you are observing, you are not saying much of anything. You insinuate mountains, and the level plains stretch far away.
I don’t agree with all this Hillary-bashing. If I had to guess I would put her as slightly more “corrupt” (in a “legal graft” way) than the average politician but not by much. She had more opportunities to do the types of things that she did than most politicians do, but many others do the same types of things when given similar opportunities.
And I also don’t think she ran a bad campaign. She ran a conventional campaign, based on the conventional notions of what worked and what didn’t. She failed to realize that a complete left-field out-of-the-box guy like Trump could actually win in the manner that he did, but virtually no one else did either. What with the zillions of voices out there, you can always look back and find some guy who turned out to be prescient, no matter what happens. But it’s not like Clinton defied the consensus view of seasoned political experts in running the campaign she did - what she did is in line with what the Best and Brightest in the field were advocating.
ISTM that while all losing candidates take a reputational hit, Clinton is getting it worse than most because she lost to a guy like Trump. So she faces both Republicans who disliked her all along, and now Democrats who are bitter and frustrated that she could lose a race to a guy like that.
Please, stop deliberately misrepresenting what I said. At no point did I suggest the Party was about to blow-up. I quite obviously implied that the controversy is in its early stages. This story will not be limited to “an inside the beltway matter” for long. I see Elizabeth Warren has weighed in already. It begins.
Is anybody willing to state just *how *the DNC kept Sanders from winning? If the election was rigged, how was it rigged? What is the link between Clinton’s money and Sanders’ vote totals?
The Democrats supported the Democrat, duh. Maybe Bernie should have tried being one too.
Indeed, Brazile devoted resources to Chicago and New Orleans late in the campaign, “out of fear that Trump would win the popular vote while losing the electoral vote.”
Please stop accusing me of deliberately misrepresenting what you said. You said that controversy was going to blow up and spread across the country throughout the Democratic Party. I’m not seeing a substantive difference between those two statements.
That’s why I gave you 6 months. You said it would spread “very quickly”. Would you like a longer time?
Would you prefer this thread topic: Resolved, the Donna Brazile controversy has “blown up” and spread to local level Democratic Party politics across the country?
Yeah, but – look, if you want to tell that story about the Republicans he beat, for the nomination, okay: they campaigned conventionally, based on conventional notions, and they failed to realize that Trump could actually win in the manner that he did; and so maybe we should fault them for that, but maybe we should give them a pass because, hey, virtually no one else really saw that coming.
But, by contrast, Hillary had already seen him do that: she’d seen what he’d done at those debates, and she’d seen it work; before she was putting the finishing touches on her big accept-the-nomination speech, before she’d announced a running mate, before she actually began her campaign in earnest, she’d spent months watching experienced politicians get unexpectedly skunked by Trump.
I get how earlier campaigns have an excuse for not seeing it coming; what’s the excuse for not seeing that it had already shown up and made itself at home?
