from the Kremlin, because a republican doesn't say shit without their boss saying so. Fucking traitors, and that includes Gabbard.

twitter world is exploding tonight but not in a good way for our party, old wounds are still festering. nt

Unlike single minded Republicans. Many on Twitter are bots.

Never was and never will be, as she made clear today.

That's why you're seeing this take place now. It's way better to rip the bandaid off now and let the wound heal before we're close to the election.

This was an inoculation, not a wound.

For someone talking about inner party infighting, the person ripping the party is Tulsi. She has been doing that since she got into the primary. Hillary just called it out.

It's not a "shtick" to get attention, truly it's not.

She would more than likely far top the 1.4 million votes that Stein got in 2016 (in comparison, the RW Libertarian Gary Johnson, plus the few-stater Evan McMullin pulled 5.2 million votes, mostly taken away from Rump)

Add ALL the 2016 Green votes to Clinton, but also add all the Johnson/McMullin votes to Trump, Trump not only wins again via the EC, BUT he wins the popular vote as well.

Now, say Gabbard pulls 3, 4 million on her Green ticket run, and then also put in a far poorer performing Libertarian Party top of ticket candidate (Johnson, who is NOT running in 2020, had millions more than they usually get, they usually pull in less than half million when Johnson doesn't run), and you have a potential 4, 5 or so million net swing TO TRUMP in raw votes . Add in (only if Warren or Sanders is the nominee, he will not do it if it is Biden) a kamikaze 3rd party run by Schultz (who will further draw from us) or even (much more doubtful but FAR more dangerous) Bloomberg as an indie, and we are playing with massive fire in terms of beating Rump, especially if we cock-up impeachment and the economy stays solid (or appears to.)


No thanks to any of that potential hot mess.

were honey traps for disgruntled republicans to prevent them from voting for Clinton.

McMullin ran to try and stop Rump

there was very little chance most of either's voters would have voted for Clinton, she was hated by the RW

the 2016 election had the 2 most overall unpopular major candidates in decades

and unlike most losing candidates, Clinton's popularity did not improve post election, it got worse, even with a monster Rump as POTUS

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/snapshot-hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-low.aspx

Last edited Fri Oct 18, 2019, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)

than she will to Democrats.

I hope she gets tons of air time on FOX News. A lot of those deadheads think with their dicks.

than vice versa. The poison she just spat at Democrats will probably bring her a few who like it.

but I do not think that is what is likely to happen today.

There was the exposure through the leaked emails that the Clinton campaign controlled the DNC and the cards were stacked against Sanders. That ticked a bunch of folks off including me. I wound up supporting Hillary but could understand why a number would not because like Trump, the DNC was corrupt.

Since then, we've found out the Russians helped Trump and he went along with it. We've also heard over 13,000 Trump lies and endured many terrible things by Trump. Trump's approval has gone down since he was elected. Awareness that he's racist, etc has gone up.

This time around, I think Tulsi will attract more Republicans.

mainstream Democrats. His messages haven't changed in the least. He still badmouths liberal Democrats six ways from Sunday, and in all likelihood he's lost few of the populists and illiberal LWers who were drawn to that.

Btw, why not read any of the honest histories and analyses of the DNC and 2016? Since you obviously care about it, you really should. Sanders benefited enormously from DNC support. The DNC chose to make him a national figure, cutting 9 Democrats and making I-Sanders one of five candidates on the national stage, offered by the party to appeal to the farther left and those resentful white populists who'd OD'd on too much equality. They ended up voting for Trump or third party anyway after a year of Sanders taking all the considerable benefits given to the candidates, while breaking all agreements and demonizing us -- instead of convincing those who trusted him that it was critical to their futures and the future of progressivism itself keep Republicans from getting power.

in 2016 and biased and/or controlled by the Clinton campaign. The leaked emails proved that and the DNC did not dispute it in court. It caused me to walk away for months and the only reason I came back holding my nose was to beat Trump - not to support a corrupt enterprise - but to fight a more corrupt and more dangerous enterprise. Many didn't come back. The DNC getting caught doing that probably cost Hillary the election as some angry Sanders supporters voted against Hillary because they felt their candidate had been cheated.

I do not think we have that sort of thing going on here with Tulsi - certainly nothing remotely close to the scale of 2016.

Last edited Sat Oct 19, 2019, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)

equate to "dishonest and corrupt." It had been allowed to decline as centralized power declined, the negligent appointment of a person of poor character like Donna Brazile just because she was a known figure proof enough of that. Important party decisions were made far away in Democratic power centers by other people, including Hillary, who were not on the neglected, comparatively powerless DNC but did send representatives.

Sanders cynically portrayed the DNC as the major Democratic Party symbol he needed to turn his followers against because it had a short, recognized name even if no one knew what it did. Reality would have had to be explained, and populist leaders don't explain what balls are made of to dogs, they just throw them. (Yes, I do have great contempt for how Sanders used the people who trusted him most, even if many were well endowed with the antagonism that draws people to inflammatory populist messages and even if they did set themselves up for it. Most were decent aspiring people who in no way deserved that.)

As for Hillary, she had to intersect the DNC big time because Obama didn't fundraise for the 2016 election, though it was his job. The decrepit DNC was so broke it couldn't pay ordinary operating expenses, much less put on the debates. You may not like it, but Hillary immediately raised $200M to make it possible for there to be debates for Sanders to appear in. From people who asked her to make sure people who couldn't be trusted to use it well didn't control its use. So the money she raised was put in charge of someone chosen to make sure of that. It's also likely that, with her power, whether she weighed in or not, she at least acceded to the decision to cut a solid Democratic candidate to make space for Sanders to be on the debate stage instead. I'm pretty sure he never thanked anyone for sacrificing another for him. I know he never complained to you about how unfair his being enormously favored over others was.

As for the DNC, you should at least admit that Brazile was fired when her misdeeds in attempting to provide unasked favors to the person she believed would be the next president were revealed.

And that since that disaster the DNC's been cleaned up, "re-professionalized" with new staff under ethical, widely admired Tom Perez, and given new, expanded duties and authority so it's no longer the kind of bypassed backwater where a Brazile could be appointed to pose as a pretend decisionmaker.

It's still not where the really big decisions are made, though. Those are made elsewhere, and the candidates come as their own already created products, heads of eventual billion-dollar campaign corporations, with large numbers (hopefully) of endorsements already earned and in place. During the primaries the DNC helps them present themselves officially as a group to the electorate for consideration, and in the GE it works to elect our next president. As it was in 2016.

The problems with the DNC were to the core, beyond financial and far more widespread than Donna Brazille. They sold their souls. That's not merely a media take - it is in the emails and court transcripts.
https://observer.com/2017/05/dnc-lawsuit-presidential-primaries-bernie-sanders-supporters/

https://osociety.org/2019/08/15/court-ruling-the-democratic-party-rigged-the-2016-presidential-primary-and-can-do-it-again-in-2020-if-they-wish-to/

To the best of my knowledge, the Clinton campaign no longer owns the DNC. Joe Biden would not tolerate that kind of corruption in my opinion. So we're not going to have the sort of backlash we saw in 2016 when Democrats found out the DNC was so corrupt and controlled by one candidate - which triggered a broader backlash and some disillusioned supporters flipping to Trump or 3rd party candidates.

Tulsi Gabbard is near the bottom of the barrel of Democratic candidates so she has a small fraction of the many supporters Bernie had in 2016. She's not going to take many Democrats away. Trump is in trouble and not popular. With Gabbard citing Russian-GOP talking points, she is much more likely to pull supporters away from Trump. who like many Sanders voters, didn't care for the other party but were ticked off by their leader. Her popularity within the party as a leader was low. Going after a popular figure in the Democratic party using Russian-GOP positions - as opposed to Bernie's progressive positions - is not going to endear her to many Democrats.

So this situation is substantially different than 2016 and it is going to lead to a substantially different result that in my opinion, will not be helpful to Trump.

But I felt like not letting your statements not go unanswered. You're not the only one here.

n/t

Brainwashed tweet.

Hillary and Democrats is wildly wrong and dishonest, so why did she say it?

She hangs with Republicans a fair amount, and we know it's very important for them to fool themselves that they're not rotten and corrupt at all. We are.

Gabbard was polling at what? Half a percent?

Now the news is all about her and Hillary.

The whole game plan is to have Tulsi run as third party. Tulsi has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination - so why is running? Where is her funding coming from? Trump and republicans of course!!

Because Republicans will vote Republican when it comes down to it and Gabbard's inevitable tag-teaming with Trump on attacks on the Democratic candidate will only serve to depress Democratic turnout once again. Trump cannot win in a two-person contest. His ceiling is sub-45%. A third party candidate helps that ceiling be just high enough to eke out another win in the electoral college (again).

Clever!

Or is that too much for her?

....came to a screeching halt yesterday.

I hear they have a lot of vacancies

and based on nothing else