2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNominating Clinton is a huge mistake.
Bernie would be by far the stronger GE candidate and his policies are right for the country. Hillary Vs Trump is a horrible matchup for us. Her weaknesses feed right into his strengths and the country across the political spectrum is making it very clear the status quo is not working. Even if she pulls off the win nothing improves for the better- and for a huge number of us that's intolerable.
Enjoy your gloating while you can- this is bad for the party and the country.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)And more delegates!
Broward
(1,976 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)padfun
(1,786 posts)do we have accurate counts for the caucuses? If not, then any number is moot.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)elleng
(130,964 posts)some here appear to be satisfied to ignore this fact.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)TDale313
(7,820 posts)I've been a Democrat my whole voting life. I've never been this close to saying they've left me.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)A Democrat since JFK... The party has left us. I am done and will not vote for the not-so-lesser of two evils in November
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)of letting our feelings steal the progress that has brought people healthcare and equal protection under the law.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)a person of color as are my husband, cousin, sister, in-laws, son, niece, nephew... and we all loathe what HRC stands for and will not vote for her
azmom
(5,208 posts)We will be going green. We will not vote for Clinton or Trump.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)a fellow POC who hasn't been snookered by the Clintons. I have relatives and friends who think of the 1990s as the good old days but have no understanding of the legacy of Clinton policies like the Crime Bill, the Welfare Reform Bill and the reversal of Glass-Steagall. The don't know of or haven't read Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow and don't seem to care about Bernie's history of being on the right side of Civil Rights back in the day and more recently about wasteful, destructive, debt producing wars. And they are all amnestic about $hillary's racist 2008 primary campaign especially in the south and rust belt. They get all their info from TV and are onboard with the bought and paid for Congressional Black Caucus that has lined up behind HRC.
Anyway, I am soooo glad to meet other, informed POCs
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)history and how our government works (the three branches) and understand the basics of political science. This does not diminish what Bernie was trying to do but in the real world we don't burn the whole house down to bring about something that can't happen unless we win BIG all the way down ticket to the dog catcher.
Change is hard and complicated with hills and valleys. Staying home is not an option simply because your candidate of choice didn't get the nomination. Hillary is not running to be our bestie. She's running for POTUS. I don't want her to be my bestie. I just want her to build on the legacy of President Obama.
If you can't see beyond your feelings then we're going to need someone to stand in the gap for you and your family. You and your family are everything to me. I'm not mad at you. I'm just being real about what's at stake here. If you haven't done so yet, you may want to pick up a copy of THE WARMTH OF OTHER SUNS. It's about the GREAT MIGRATION of blacks out of the south and it's instructive.
Everyone has appropriated our language and norms regarding the fight for social and economic justice. We're it. We're not voting just for ourselves, we're voting for everyone who still struggles for justice.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)about our tri-cameral government and the inherent checks and balance that the Founders intended. But all of that has been corrupted by BIG $$$ and the corporations that own politicians. And that is precisely why I find Hillary abhorrent. This is her history:
HRC rode Bill's coat tails to power. He had the intellect (Georgetown Univ, Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law), charisma, gift of gab, and natural ability to connect with people. She was smart, too (Wellesley, Yale Law). So, after law school, she went to DC to work on the Nixon impeachment committee, but her stint there did not last long because, among other reasons, she did not pass the DC bar. She tells the story that she went to work for the Children's Defense Fund (CDF) founded by Marian Wright Edelman as evidence of her advocacy for children and that's true... some 20 plus years ago. But recall that Marians husband, Peter Edelman who became Bill Clintons Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, resigned in protest over the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act better known as Welfare Reform because of the dire effects it would have on the poor, especially women, children and POCs. HRC supported Bill and the bill; but Peter Edelman was right.
After leaving DC, what did HRC do? She ran off to Arkansas! This dynamo of feminism whom so many women say could have done anything, been anything on her own
did not go back to her native Chicago, did not go back to New England (MA, CT) where she was educated. No, she ran off to Arkansas. She chased after Bill because she recognized his rising star. He had the talent to go along with the intellect. He had held leadership positions nearly all his life: high school (Boys State) and college (class president for 2 years, etc.). He became Governor, chaired the National Governors Association and finally became POTUS. It was only through him that she was introduced to the nation and even then, it was rocky because of her abrasive, snarky remarks about baking cookies.
When she ran for POTUS in 2008, she cited her 20 years of experience. Really? First Lady of AK for 12 years and FLOTUS for 8 years. Oh, and she was a corporate lawyer at the Rose Law Firm where her client was Walmart that champion of poor people. She represented corporate interests early on in her career, but don't let that get in the way of her pandering that she has always been a champion of the people.
She could never have carpet bagged her way to the NY Senate seat had she not been FLOTUS. And once in the Senate, what did she DO? What legislation or amendments to legislation illustrate her initiative or activism on behalf of the people. She voted aye on IWR, the Patriot Acts 1 & 2 and Bush's Bankruptcy bill (google Elizabeth warren on that turnabout).
And let's talk about that IWR vote in depth because there was, and remains, no excuse or justification for it and here's why
Reason 1: Iraq did not attack the US; fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis while the other four were from the UAE, Egypt, Yemen. They learned to fly here in the States (Florida, Arizona). Bin Laden was also Saudi!
Reason 2: Iraq had been under horrific UN sanctions since the first Bush war on Iraq in 1991; so how could it have morphed into an imminent threat to the US in 2002 when IWR was being peddled
Reason 3: W's administration introduced IWR and demanded a vote on it right before the 2002 midterm elections. Wise men and women questioned the timing and the rush, but not those who voted aye... they had their eyes on being POTUS and cast calculating votes that reeked of political and moral cowardice.
Reason 4: Anyone who was paying attention knew about PNAC and therefore knew how the Bush cabal and Carlyle group had their eyes on carving up Iraq's oil fields. Clinton sure knew because the signers of PNAC policy papers wrote Bill seeking pre-emptive action while he was POTUS.
Reason 5: the Bush cabal STOLE the White House in 2000 because they had their PNAC plans. Then, they ignored all the warnings/chatter leading up to 9/11 including the August 6th PDB. They allege they were blindsided and could not have foreseen such an attack. But that flies in the face of the fact that the airspace had to be closed around the G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy in July 2001 precisely because of terrorists' threats to fly planes into buildings! So therefore, why would any sentient 'leader' of the opposition party trust or "have good faith" in ANYTHING proposed by W
Reason 6: Anyone who knew history, knew that Reagan sold WMDs to Saddam/Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war (recall the photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand). So when Cheney took to the airwaves in 2002 talking about WMDs and said he knew where they were and how they'd been used against the Kurds, he was telling the truth... about 1988. He was using his dirty past to foment a new war for oil
Reason 7: the Bush cabal withdrew the weapons inspectors because they were not finding anything. Scott Ritter (who was smeared) and his fellow inspectors' findings would not/did not conform to the desired Bush narrative, so Colin Bowel sold his soul and did his 'tube' presentation to the UN
Reason 8: Citing the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, Robert Byrd gave an eloquent and passionate speech about lies that lead to war, about the waste of war, about the unintended consequences of war... and he challenged the rush to war. Bob Graham (who actually read the documents available to Congress) and Ted Kennedy spoke as well. Why didn't HRC listen to them rather than Bush or Cheney? No, she gave Bush bipartisan cover with her aye vote, and so she has blood on her hands, too!
Clearly the rationale for IWR was all a LIE, and if millions of citizens could see all this THEN, why not Clinton?! She voted aye, ran for POTUS and lost in large measure because of that vote. Votes have consequences and there is no apology large enough to cover a cowardly, finger-in-the-wind vote that has caused so much death, debt, destruction and destabilization (ISIS)!
Back to the narrative. Then there was her abysmal management and nasty conduct during the 2008 primary campaign. She had the money, she had the name, she was entitled, she was "in it to win it" and so arrogant that she claimed it would be over by Super Tuesday. But when it wasn't and she was losing, she resorted to the gutter. She praised McCain and derided Obama as someone who only gave pretty speeches. She even planted the seed that he was Muslim! And when the Party urged her to bow out gracefully, she said that she was going to stay in the race through the CA primary because "you never know... remember Bobby Kennedy..." Her insinuation (a veiled wish?) that Obama might be assassinated like RFK was beyond classless and tasteless. It was evil (google Keith Olbermann on that atrocity). And when she finally, gracelessly bowed out, she did so on condition that the Obama organization and DNC pay off her campaign debt. Some management skills, just like her Wall Street benefactors who screw things up, then expect others to pay for the disaster they created.
On to SOS, where Obama selected her because he'd been inspired by Lincoln's team of rivals and wanted to keep her busy and away so she couldn't be a quasi-backbencher sniping at him. In the end, she was also terrible in that position. Her Honduras regime change led many men, women and children (some alone and as young as 5), to flee the disaster that nation subsequently became. Same with Libya and Syria. HRC, the consummate pro-MIC corporatist, never saw a war she didn't like. So while, we the people do the dying (being maimed, suffering PTSD) for these corporate wars, Hillary and her ilk profit mightily. While at State, she also was a big arms dealer, selling weapons to Saudi Arabia (home of bin laden and most of the 9/11 hijackers) while the Saudis donated to that slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation.
Then she is part of the Clinton legacy (the two for one, the 8 years of reflected experience derived from Bill). She helped found the DLC and fully supported: NAFTA, the Telecommunications Bill of 1996, Welfare Reform (not), and overturning Glass-Steagall. She and Bill kept Alan Greenspan at the Fed, placed the then Mr. Goldman Sucks himself Robert Reuben as head of Treasury and hired as financial advisor that abominable Wall Streeter Larry Summers (who lost a $1.8 billion from Harvard's endowment!). This Clinton triumvirate wrecked the economy for main street, but saved Wall Street, especially Goldman-Sachs which has subsequently paid her handsomely. And as DUer tularetom once said: "They didn't pay her that kind of money because of her oratorical skills, her charismatic personality or her insight into current events. She has none of the first two and very little of the third."
We, the people, reaped the whirlwind of that 1999 Glass-Steagall reversal for which every repuke in the Senate voted AYE while every Dem -- save one -- voted NAY. Bill signed it into law anyway, paying no heed to the canary-in-the-mine Democrats who warned that this dastardly new law would lead to disaster 10 years hence. Sure enough it did, harming families throughout the land. And Wall Street, Hillary's BFF, continues to be the big winner with no REAL regulation and paltry, if any, consequences for jeopardizing the nation and the world's economy.
Then there is fracking, the TPP (what she called the gold standard), the Keystone XL pipeline... This is HRC's history. She promotes incremental change and a record of getting things done to the gullible sheeple. But her history tells another story. What she has DONE that is positive or constructive? She's in it for herself, she plays sexist gender politics, she lies about her awful record, she changes her mind with the political winds, she panders, and she pads her pockets. If you don't dream big, nothing changes. Thank God for FDR (SS and so much more), JFK (Peace Corps, Alliance for Progress, the Moon) and LBJ (Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Head Start, Medicare & Medicaid).
So again, please don't preach to me about history. I know history and Hillary has consistently been on the wrong side of it.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)and if there were going to be any serious effort by the power brokers to attract them there would be no issue on the left flank anyway.
Plus, I think you are counting some of us twice at least.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Yeah, that makes sense...
gollygee
(22,336 posts)She got more votes. That's the way it works.
I think either one of them could easily beat Trump. There are enough wackos in the Republican Party to give him the nomination, but there aren't enough for him to win a general election. Just about anyone could beat him.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)I think more people will but his shtick than I'd like to believe.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)They just kept it a bit more under wraps because they knew they needed independents and leftist Democrats to vote the LOTE.
Now they think that because the Machine is in place that they no longer need us.
Sure y'all run with that.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That post proves it. We'll have to make our own way.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If Hillary succeeds in reinforcing the Third Way, center-right stranglehold on the party, then it may be time for progressives to abandon it.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)jimlup
(7,968 posts)this is the end of any real chance (I don't really know that yet). Then I agree but we have to deal with it I think. Hillary is the old guard and God help us (and her!) if it is her versus Trump.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Or I would be voting for him. I think he'd get creamed in the GE.
BayouBengal07
(1,486 posts)I think a good chunk of his message is the future of the party. But it's better off being carried by a messenger who isn't running on a " I will raise middle class taxes" and "I am not a capitalist" platform.
LexVegas
(6,067 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)now I just sit and smile
TDale313
(7,820 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But I need to go down to the Consulate and see about renewing that passport though. You never know,
TDale313
(7,820 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)matter who is elected if Bernie is out we are screwed.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)So, hope you stick around in the U.S.!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)They all endorsed Clinton and gave spectacular reasons fir doing so.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)control all the media thanks to Bill's Telecommunications Act of 1996, so of course they endorse her
ismnotwasm
(41,988 posts)Except the part about Trump being horrible.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)I wish I could believe in her more. Truly.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Gothmog
(145,293 posts)It is too late in most states and sore loser laws would keep him off the ballot in many other states
Gothmog
(145,293 posts)Here is a good thread talking about these polls http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010
The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/
Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.
No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Gothmog
(145,293 posts)Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Watching Sanders at Monday nights Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump or another Republican nominee would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.
The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the socialist label and requested that Sanders define it so that it doesnt concern the rest of us citizens.
Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who dont want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top thats my definition of democratic socialism.
But thats not how Republicans will define socialism and theyll have the dictionary on their side. Theyll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. Theyll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldnt be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists dont win national elections in the United States .
Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases one of the biggest tax hikes in history, as moderator Chris Cuomo put it to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that hypothetically, youre going to pay $5,000 more in taxes, and declared, W e will raise taxes, yes we will. He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that its demagogic to say, oh, youre paying more in taxes.
Well, yes and Trump is a demagogue.
Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government bigger than ever, Sanders didnt quarrel, saying, P eople want to criticize me, okay, and F ine, if thats the criticism, I accept it.
Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.
Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)I was one of them. I said, "if she doesn't win, this Obama guy is never gonna carry it." Well, she didn't win, and he carried it. Now that it's her turn, I'm willing to give her a chance. Neither she nor Bernie have the amazing ability to stay on point that Obama does (his interview with Fox News show the unflappable genius he is), but they don't have to be. Either one of them would be going up against either a bitter theocrat whose personality is far more un-relatable than Hillary on her least personable day, or a bloviating narcissist whose appeal and sanity are both fading by the minute. I think you could put Gumby up against one of those two and he'd win.
All in it together
(275 posts)from the political system. Especially if she's in the White House and follows her patrons of fossil fuel, big banks, MIC, pharmaceutical industry, etc.
We may get an opportunity with Hillary to see how far the Democratic Party will go Republican and turn it's back on the people's needs.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)But I guess time will tell, won't it.
JEB
(4,748 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)it will be the result of a process that as has been revealed this election cycle is full of features that people with democratic values hate.
If there has been a mistake, a serious oversight, a miscalculation, I'd say it is something bigger than the Clinton campaign. It's something like this...
The DNC purposefully and out-of-hand dissed a politician they framed as a white guy from an insignificant state who has attracted non-democrats as well as democrats to vote to revitalize America across it's vast expanse and deep into all its corners
For decades the party tried, and failed to do what Sanders has done and is doing. He's gotten the awful corrupting influence of big money donors out. He's brought in rural voters.
And for that he's been attacked as an icon of white patriarchy. The DNC clearly sees itself as an urban party of minorities and women. I'm sure that as technocrats look at that focus it makes logical actuarial sense. But it makes the democratic party reliant on sexism and racism in a manner that to reach numerical voting superiority over republicans must rely on those features just as much a the GOP has over the past generation.
I see -THAT- as a huge mistake. A mistake at the level moral and philosophical outlook.
Focusing on urban areas is a mistake that may get democrats elected, but one which will leave scores of millions of people behind creating more small ghost towns, less access to education, more distant access to healthcare, inavailability of transit, digital/communications services, etc.
Of course, this will be great for the elite ex-urbanite who will live squire-like in McMansions on the tops of hills and ridgelines, but this approach really will end up sticking it to small town and country working people.
blm
(113,063 posts)candidate that the 2003-4 revisionists tend to claim.
Kerry BECAME the nominee without corporate pac money - just as he ran all 4 of his senate campaigns without corporate pac money.
Once he was the nominee (and this was pre-CitizensUnited), it would have been completely derelict of him to not tap into every option legally available to counter BushInc. Just as it would be derelict of Sanders campaign to not avail itself of all legal campaign funding, should he prevail.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)in the GE. He is also finally being vetted and that also will bring his numbers down.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The stark difference between open and closed primary results alone makes it clear that Bernie would be the stronger GE candidate. In the primary, the DNC machine has successfully (it seems) set things up to ensure their chosen status-quo candidate wins. But registered Democrats are a distinct minority...and Hillary tanks with independents. She's toast in November...
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)electoral ouside of millenials .... That is what the DEM party looks like
All in it together
(275 posts)or even join the party for life if Bernie got the nomination.
There's been so many shenanigans that the process is flawed. Too bad the Party has stuck it's head in the sand and backs Hillary per DWS and people in the party who think they need contributions or jobs from K Street or big banks, Wall Street etc.
It's time to return the country and our party back to the people.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)a whole lot of that in Caucus states BUS loads of shenanigans...
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
griffi94
(3,733 posts)Hillary is going to be our nominee.
The unpledged delegates aren't going to flip
Hillary will add to her delegate count next week.
This isn't gloating. It's just the reality of the situation.
The Bernie supporters think Bernie is the best choice
but they're not in the majority.
The majority chose Hillary.
Those are just the undeniable facts.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)You're basing it off polls taken before either party has a nominee.
Sanders would probably draw more independents, but Clinton will draw more moderates. I think. I believe that we will never be able to be sure who would have been the better nominee, but one thing I'm certain of: if the Dem somehow loses, the other Dem will be blamed.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)With Clinton, I don't like our odds all that much.