So how exactly did this happen?

[myDeaconmyhand]

I'm sorry to black South Carolina Democrats and San Francisco liberals, but I don't really give a shit which Democratic candidate they most prefer, if that candidate is just going to lose to George Bush or Donald Trump.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

 

[RJKarl]

RJ: Often wrong, but never in doubt.

You state this as a stone cold fact when really it is just your own opinion. You don't know the first damned thing about whether what you said was actually true or not.

Not my opinion. How about these:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/
"Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking"

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/u...cuses-russia-of-stealing-dnc-emails.html?_r=0
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...s-senior-most-officials-ordered-dnc-hack.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...cked-dnc-emails-says-top-u-s-official-n618936
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/

I'm just reporting what hundreds of other legitimate sources (including the US intelligence services) have said.

Only people who sneeze and give Trump an enema don't admit Russia just elected US POTUS.

 

[deacs1995]

pwned

 

[ChrisL68]

This mindset right here is part of the problem. Clinton is what hurt Clinton in the general election. She was never a good candidate. You're annoyed that a bunch of fickle, unpredictable voters didn't get behind the unlikable, scandalous, elitist establishment candidate. The answer to that is not to run an unlikable, scandalous, establishment candidate. The problem with the DNC primary process is that you pick out the candidate that establishment Dems like the most, not the candidate that is most likely to inspire non-establishment voters. The Democratic party needs to start compromising and telling establishment voters to get in line, instead of just hoping that people outside of the tent will like who you picked.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

Ultimately, I voted for Clinton because i agreed with her policies much more than Sanders. if Sanders would have won, i would have gotten in line behind him instead of Trump. Can i say that would be the case with any Republican? No.

I get that you think that the extreme progressives should dominate the party choice. i imagine you will get to test that hypotheses soon. We will see if it is effective.

 

[ChrisL68]

I'm sorry to black South Carolina Democrats and San Francisco liberals, but I don't really give a shit which Democratic candidate they most prefer, if that candidate is just going to lose to George Bush or Donald Trump.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

So you don't think that all Democrats should have a say in who the Democratic nominee is?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Ultimately, I voted for Clinton because i agreed with her policies much more than Sanders. if Sanders would have won, i would have gotten in line behind him instead of Trump. Can i say that would be the case with any Republican? No.

I get that you think that the extreme progressives should dominate the party choice. i imagine you will get to test that hypotheses soon. We will see if it is effective.

I think it's disingenuous to label anyone further left than Obama or Hillary as "extreme progressives". Bernie ran on much of the same outsider populist rhetoric as Trump. Modern populism directly addresses the very real problems with globalist trade, and it's mostly being addressed by conservative politicians. I don't think the Democratic party can afford to keep ignoring that problem and the people who are worried about it.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

 

[ChrisL68]

Protectionist trade policies is a position that isn't necessarily conservative or progressive. Pat Buchanan was beating that drum 15-20 years ago.

In American politics, Bernie is about as far left as you can get and still be in the playing field.

 

[PhDeac]

So you don't think that all Democrats should have a say in who the Democratic nominee is?

Guess not. Only the real Americans.

The DNC needs to encourage a wide range of candidates and let voters choose. I'm fine arguing about open or closed or winner take all or proportional but that not going to address the problem of the DNC planning a Hillary coronation for 8 years then doubling down after their mistake.

Hillary won the 2016 popular vote despite being an unpopular candidate. The solution seems to be simple and it doesn't include rejecting the base in favor of white rural voters. That doesn't work in midterms and it won't work overall. The solution is better candidates.

As far as midterms, how does the Dem party get supporters to show up to the polls? They can't recruit a charismatic candidate in every race. They've struggled to nationalize state elections.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

You're talking about a candidate with a life time of political experiemce that voted with the Dem party like 96% of the time, whereas we just nominated a president who has never been nominated for a single elected office, who publicly called for a ban of muslims. It's probably time that we Democrats re-think exactly how and why we are parsing liberal ideology so severely.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

 

[bobknightfan]

Not my opinion. How about these:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/
"Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking"

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/u...cuses-russia-of-stealing-dnc-emails.html?_r=0
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...s-senior-most-officials-ordered-dnc-hack.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...cked-dnc-emails-says-top-u-s-official-n618936
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/

I'm just reporting what hundreds of other legitimate sources (including the US intelligence services have said.

Only people who sneeze and give Trump an enema don't admit Russia just elected US POTUS.

Those people don't know, either. You've just listed several more opinions that agreed with your opinion. And saying that "Russia just elected US POTUS" is just more of your over-the-top hyperbole, which we've come to expect from you.

Keep licking your wounds. They will eventually heal. You had better stop thumbing your nose at white working class voters, though, or you might wind up with a GOP 60-seat super majority in the Senate after the 2018 mid-term elections, when the Democrats are defending 25 seats to the GOP's 8.

 

[RJKarl]

You're right NO ONE knows, but all of the experts agree.

You are beyond hopeless. Have you gone far enough to believe climate change doesn't exist? The Earth is 6000 years old? Cigarettes don't cause cancer?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Guess not. Only the real Americans.

It's the electoral college that makes those voters opinions irrelevant, not me. I just recognize the futility.
No matter how many Californians vote Dem - 5 million, 6 million, 7, it's still just 55 electoral college votes. And no matter how many black South Carolinians vote dem, it's still 0 electoral college votes.

 

[ChrisL68]

You're talking about a candidate with a life time of political experiemce that voted with the Dem party like 96% of the time, whereas we just nominated a president who has never been nominated for a single elected office, who publicly called for a ban of muslims. It's probably time that we Democrats re-think exactly how and why we are parsing liberal ideology so severely.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

Sanders is more establishment than Trump?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

 

[bobknightfan]

You're right NO ONE knows, but all of the experts agree.

You are beyond hopeless. Have you gone far enough to believe climate change doesn't exist? The Earth is 6000 years old? Cigarettes don't cause cancer?

There you go again with your absolutes-there-is-no-room-for-other-opinions mindset. In the first place, how do you know that all of the experts agree? And in the 2nd place, how do you even determine what constitutes the "all of the experts"? That itself is subjective.

Then, of course, you close your post with the obligatory over-the-top hyperbole ranting about climate change, the age of the earth & cigarettes causing cancer...none of which have anything at all with anything we are talking about....but for some reason you always like to include all that hyperbole for perceived effect.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Sanders is more establishment than Trump?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Yes, absolutely. I've heard from quite a few staunch Republicans that decried Bernie for being a lifelong politician who has "never had a real job". I get that you don't like or agree with Bernie's economic platform, but I think you are exaggerating about the extent of Bernies "extremism", on the whole. He is a very liberal politician, but still very much more "establishment" than Donald Trump.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Not every Democratic politician in Washington is economically moderate.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

 

[RJKarl]

There you go again with your absolutes-there-is-no-room-for-other-opinions mindset. In the first place, how do you know that all of the experts agree? And in the 2nd place, how do you even determine what constitutes the "all of the experts"? That itself is subjective.

Then, of course, you close your post with the obligatory over-the-top hyperbole ranting about climate change, the age of the earth & cigarettes causing cancer...none of which have anything at all with anything we are talking about....but for some reason you always like to include all that hyperbole for perceived effect.

All 17 of our intelligence agencies AGREE, READ the articles.

But that won't matter. Nothing will matter to you.

You are beyond hopeless.

 

[bobknightfan]

I am not mad at you. i am honestly curious what your solution is. if I came off as condescending i apologize. i agree with you that Clinton vs. Sanders was not a very inspiring field of candidates.

But at the end of the day, Clinton won that battle, and it annoyed me that Sanders supporters didn't want to accept the legitimacy of that result. i think it hurt Clinton in the general election.

I would actually like to see primaries in every state. The caucus system is so outdated and inefficient. Getting rid of superdelegates is a good call. They aren't ever going to actually change the result, they just provide the perception that the primary is tilted towards the establishment. Not sure how I feel about open vs. closed. i am unaffiliated in NC.

The DNC front-loaded primaries for Hillary where there was a large concentration of black votes....even though they knew that those states were going to go Republican in November and thus really gave no indication of whether Sanders or Clinton would be the strongest general election candidate for the Democrats. This also helped create an air of inevitability that Hillary would be the nominee...which gave the Super Delegates cover and created a false impression of Hillary's strength.

Imagine if some of the battleground states in the Rust Belt, for example, were early Democratic primary states. Sanders defeated Hillary in both Michigan & Wisconsin....then Trump did the same in November. If some of those states had held early primaries, the Super Delegates might have wavered and the roles might have been reversed....with Hillary being the one under pressure to get behind Bernie to prevent hurting the Democrats' chances in November.

MDMH is right about this. The DNC rigged this for Hillary from the beginning. Everyone should have been able to see this even without WikiLeaks, just from the actions of DWS all along....and even without considering the stranglehold the Clintons have had on the Democratic Party for years. The WikiLeaks sealed the deal on this, though, when it was revealed that DWS' successor Donna Brazile was personally feeding Hillary inside intel and the DNC was doing everything it could to undermine & suppress Bernie's candidacy.

Actually, I'm surprised that even more of Bernie's supporters didn't either vote for Trump or stay home on election day. The Democratic Establishment totally crapped on Bernie & his supporters from day one of this campaign. Don't know why anyone would have been surprised at this, as it was just typical Clinton operating procedure. They did the same thing in 2004, which is how John Kerry, another stiff, ended up being the Democrats' sacrificial lamb in the general election. Thank God that woman is never going to be the president of this country.

 

[marquee moon]

So now it's all the electoral colleges fault!!!

Wasaaahhhh

 

[ChrisL68]

The DNC front-loaded primaries for Hillary where there was a large concentration of black votes....even though they knew that those states were going to go Republican in November and thus really gave no indication of whether Sanders or Clinton would be the strongest general election candidate for the Democrats. This also helped create an air of inevitability that Hillary would be the nominee...which gave the Super Delegates cover and created a false impression of Hillary's strength.

No significant difference than the past several primaries. The suggestion that this was some major change to help Clinton doesn't hold water. Super Tuesday has always been the first major set of primaries and has always had alot of southern states participating.

The primary schedule was set a year before Sanders entered the race. This narrative isn't supported by the facts.