DNC Restructuring

[Salodin]

...make her responsible for the Russians hacking her and the Russians trying to help Trump?

Say it out loud and you'd see how ludicrous that is.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Talint]

That's not what he's saying though?

[Deftscythe]

Can we please, please stop debating 2016? It's been 15 months since the election and even longer since the primaries. Let go.

The only aspect of that election that is relevant now is whether any Americans aided the Russians and how we prevent the Russians from pulling off the same shit again.

[Day]

bernie would have won

[Talint]

Among the evidence the indictment cites is a message from the day after Sanders and Trump won their New Hampshire primaries. "Specialists were instructed to post content that focused on ‘politics in the USA’ and to ‘use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them.),” the document read.

Nowhere in the article does it say anything even remotely about Podesta giving his password away lol

Can we please, please stop debating 2016? It's been 15 months since the election and even longer since the primaries. Let go.

The only aspect of that election that is relevant now is whether any Americans aided the Russians and how we prevent the Russians from pulling off the same shit again.

We have to religitate 2016 forever, because these people simply cannot accept that they were completely wrong and got dunked on by a fat, old, balding game show host.

If Russia is a genuine threat, then the democrats really don't ever have to change. It was, like what seems to be everything Hillary related, everybody else's fault.

[Fiye]

For every blue collar democrat we lost we got two republicans or someshit amirite?

[Deftscythe]

We don't need 2016 to identify the failure of the Democratic party. They've lost over 1000 seats since 2008.

[archibaldcrane]

Can we please, please stop debating 2016? It's been 15 months since the election and even longer since the primaries. Let go.

The only aspect of that election that is relevant now is whether any Americans aided the Russians and how we prevent the Russians from pulling off the same shit again.

I mean, we know Mitch McConnell aided the Russians.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...n-interference

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Deftscythe]

I mean, we know Mitch McConnell aided the Russians.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...n-interference

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I hadn't seen this story, but this is par for the turtle course. Ambitious and unscrupulous.

[Gredival]

That's not what he's saying though?

Here's the full exchange

----

M: Let's take support out of it, because support is a charged word. If you and your campaign knew that there was Russian meddling, and that it was trying to sow divisions, why not take this to your supporters? Many of whom really hung on your very word as you know?

BS: I would say the real question to be asked is what was the Clinton campaign (doing). They had more information than we did and at this point we were working with them.

M: Did the Clinton campaign say don't talk about it?

BS: No, of course not. I mean, you know. But who do you think should be raising that issue?"

----

So he was asked directly and point blank why HE didn't take it to the idiots supporting him because they would only believe things out of his own mouth (because of the way he had campaigned)... then he redirects and asks what the Clinton campaign was doing.

We don't need 2016 to identify the failure of the Democratic party. They've lost over 1000 seats since 2008.

A lot of that is structural advantage (gerrymandering) plus the inherent advantage the GOP has in being able to claim victory from doing nothing (vote against Obama, blame Obama, ???, profit)

And it's not just about 2016, it's about identifying what went wrong in order to identify the best path forward. Placing everything at the feet of Hillary is a leftist tactic to ignore any and all pitfalls of a hard left strategy. Placing blame at the feet of Bernie can be, depending on the person doing it, a) a similar a tactic to ignore the mistakes of Hillary in her own defeat and/or b) identifying aforementioned pitfalls of a hard left strategy.

This is an actual important debate proven by the fact we still have to have it because you have people like Talint that will attribute only blame (Ossoff) but no credit (Doug Jones) whenever the establishment does something but hold the left blameless (the leftists being beaten in their special elections by wider margins than Ossoff) and give them all the credit to leftism rather than anti-Trumpism (VA races)

Comparatively no one that supported Hillary here has claimed she is blameless, merely that the priority should be the total amount of seats, not the hue of blue, and that there ARE in fact seats that are winnable the more purple the candidate.

[Deftscythe]

A lot of that is structural advantage (gerrymandering) plus the inherent advantage the GOP has in being able to claim victory from doing nothing (vote against Obama, blame Obama, ???, profit)

While there is obviously a snowball effect, those structural advantages are caused by loss of Democratic control, not the cause of it.

And it's not just about 2016, it's about identifying what went wrong in order to identify the best path forward. Placing everything at the feet of Hillary is a leftist tactic to ignore any and all pitfalls of a hard left strategy. Placing blame at the feet of Bernie can be, depending on the person doing it, a) a similar a tactic to ignore the mistakes of Hillary in her own defeat and/or b) identifying aforementioned pitfalls of a hard left strategy.

No one thing caused Hillary to lose. Placing blame is useless. There might be value in examining ground-level outreach or messaging but I don't know how much there would be to learn there that could not be learned (or ignored) from all the other failed Democratic elections over the past ten years.

This is an actual important debate proven by the fact we still have to have it because you have people like Talint that will attribute only blame (Ossoff) but no credit (Doug Jones) whenever the establishment does something but hold the left blameless (the leftists being beaten in their special elections by wider margins than Ossoff) and give them all the credit to leftism rather than anti-Trumpism (VA races)

You and Talint are both equally dismissive of each other's arguments. I agree that it's important to debate the direction of the party, but that debate isn't going to happen here.

[Byrthnoth]

Bernie was/is the closest the left has gotten to a Trump-esque all flash and no substance candidate running on "get off my lawn" grumpy old man personality.

He was and is trash.

[Salodin]

Bernie was/is the closest the left has gotten to a Trump-esque all flash and no substance candidate running on "get off my lawn" grumpy old man personality.

He was and is trash.

Nah man, didn't you get the memo? We blame Hillary round these parts.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Headspace]

Bernie was/is the closest the left has gotten to a Trump-esque all flash and no substance candidate running on "get off my lawn" grumpy old man personality.

He was and is trash.

I’d argue the establishment democrats are all flash and no substance. Well besides mean tested garbage policies that get dismantled the second they leave office.

[Salodin]

I’d argue the establishment democrats are all flash and no substance. Well besides mean tested garbage policies that get dismantled the second they leave office.

You're just too young to remember previous democrats. You became politically aware around the end of Clinton, start of Bush, but after that it was all Obama and an obstructionist Congress. You don't have nearly the sample size needed to make a statement like this, which alarms me cause ain't you trying to be a doctor? You should recognize things like this buddy, don't strive to be one of those ignorant doctors plz

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Fiye]

You're just too young to remember previous democrats. You became politically aware around the end of Clinton, start of Bush, but after that it was all Obama and an obstructionist Congress. You don't have nearly the sample size needed to make a statement like this, which alarms me cause ain't you trying to be a doctor? You should recognize things like this buddy, don't strive to be one of those ignorant doctors plz

You don't have nearly the sample size needed to make a statement like this, which alarms me cause ain't you trying to be a doctor?

You don't have nearly the sample size needed to make a statement like this

[Salodin]

You telling me he's picked up a book and researched history's democratic presidents? I sincerly doubt it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Gredival]

You and Talint are both equally dismissive of each other's arguments. I agree that it's important to debate the direction of the party, but that debate isn't going to happen here.

When he stands pat at complete rejection of the establishment whereas archi, Byrthnoth, me, and every other Hillary supporter is at "Challenge from the left only where its safe," then I feel being dismissive is warranted.

I mean his stance was that we would have an easier time winning AL if Jones wasn't so moderate, when literally the only reason "center-right" GOP voters (and I say that term with all the necessary qualifications for the relativity of center-right) weren't jumping ship was that "Baby killers ain't any better than child predators."

[Deftscythe]

When he stands pat at complete rejection of the establishment whereas archi, Byrthnoth, me, and every other Hillary supporter is at "Challenge from the left only where its safe," then I feel being dismissive is warranted.

I mean his stance was that we would have an easier time winning AL if Jones wasn't so moderate, when literally the only reason "center-right" GOP voters (and I say that term with all the necessary qualifications for the relativity of center-right) weren't jumping ship was that "Baby killers ain't any better than child predators."

I think trying to take any lesson away from Jones' victory other than "dig very hard into Republican backgrounds" is pretty ridiculous. Jones won because his opponent was a literal child molester, and there's little reason to think he'll maintain his seat once the GOP find a regular candidate to run against him.

Likewise, 2016 was too full of unique factors to really be instructive for this year's mid-terms. Continuing to debate the serves no purpose. Honestly, at this point, what more is there to say?

[Gredival]

You telling me he's picked up a book and researched history's democratic presidents? I sincerly doubt it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Even if the comparison of Obama to Trump wasn't proof enough that establishment Democrats are better than letting the Rs walk over us, he clings to the narrative that veering left would be all we need to win despite all the evidence to the contrary.

1. Didn't get Bernie the nomination
2. Didn't get Gephardt the win in the national race
3. Didn't get the special election candidates a win (or even a loss with a closer margin)

I think trying to take any lesson away from Jones' victory other than "dig very hard into Republican backgrounds" is pretty ridiculous. Jones won because his opponent was a literal child molester, and there's little reason to think he'll maintain his seat once the GOP find a regular candidate to run against him.

I think had Jones been more conservative it would have been an easier grab, though I doubt it matters to holding the seat. Had he been more liberal he might have lost.