Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mbernardi

We can't risk losing in 2020. Make sure the next candidate is OURS

Recommended Posts

I've started a petition directed at the leadership of the DNC calling for the immediate elimination of Superdelegates.

 

In my opinion, one of the reasons we lost the 2016 election is because the DNC leadership were completely tone-deaf. To put it bluntly, they were so loyal to the Clinton machine that they ignored a groundswell of Americans begging for change and instead offered them the status quo.

 

The 2020 election is too important to risk having a candidate handpicked by party elders. The only thing that should matter are ideas and votes.

Please sign this petition and let's make sure our voices are heard loud and clear:

https://www.change.org/p/democrats-should-be-democratic-no-more-superdelegates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your assessment of what went wrong mbernardi. And the petition is laudable. But we are few and this forum is not the place to look for a large numbers of signatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This candidate was OURS, and she won the popular vote by 2 million and beat Bernie Sanders by more than that. Get over it.

 

The Democrats should get rid of caucuses (save Iowa for historicity) and close the primaries to non-Democrats.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This candidate was OURS, and she won the popular vote by 2 million and beat Bernie Sanders by more than that. Get over it.

 

The Democrats should get rid of caucuses (save Iowa for historicity) and close the primaries to non-Democrats.

 

Yup.

I also agree that primaries should be closed to non-Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2020 election is too important to risk having a candidate handpicked by party elders. The only thing that should matter are ideas and votes.

 

If that's true, then what you get are candidates that please the base.

 

The leadership is also charged with actually getting a candidate elected, so they care about electability.

 

I don't think Bernie Sanders would have been more electable than Clinton was. In his case the right would have screamed "socialist" until people enough people were turned. In her case they magnified the email stuff with the help of Comey.

 

Initially I was for Martin O'Malley, but he got little support because, incredibly, he was less exciting than Hillary Clinton. :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Socialist" was not always a dirty word politically, and it need not be again. FDR, who took us in a Socialist direction, managed to mostly de-stigmatize the term during his administration.

 

Undoubtedly the Right would hammer Bernie hard not only as a Socialist. The words Pinko, Commie, Marxist, Bolshevist, etc. would also be bandied about. But I believe Bernie would have been able to weather that storm admirably because of the trust factor. Like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie's career and actions all back up his rhetoric. Most people rightly see him as trustworthy. Contrast that with Hillary who suffered from widespread mistrust by the electorate. It's probably the biggest reason she lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Socialist" was not always a dirty word politically, and it need not be again. FDR, who took us in a Socialist direction, managed to mostly de-stigmatize the term during his administration.

 

 

 

The Socialists excoriated FDR in his time. He did not identify as a "socialist" and was attacked as a plutocrat by the Socialists. This is "revisionist" history.

 

While supporting HRC (and believing she would have made the far better president) there is an argument to be made that in states like Michigan and Wisconsin (which Sanders won in the primaries) that his economic-populist message may have played better against the similar economic populism of Donald Trump. Sanders did best in those states (vs Clinton) in areas that went to Trump in the General.

 

So in hindsight—and in the strangest election of my lifetime—I must be open to the idea that Sanders may have had a better electoral college path that HRC. His pro-gun stance and economic nationalism would have likely siphoned votes from Trump w/o losing the votes of liberals.

 

It's possible.

 

He would have been red-baited. In any other year that would have been (in my estimation) political death. But this was not a normal year. I think Bernie may have had teflon on this issue.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything you said about Bernie is spot-on. Add to it, the trust factor, which Hillary did not widely enjoy.

 

No matter how confused the issues got in the 1930s, the historical clarification that time brings, shows that FDR took the Nation in a Socialist direction. People still remember. FDR's socialist programs like Social Security still hang on today. And, if not for him, we would never have had the middle class that was the envy of the world until Reagan started to undermine it. I contend the term "Socialist" would be far more toxic today, if it weren't for FDR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a candidate who is more than "Not Trump"

Did we learn nothing from 2004? John Kerry was "Not Bush", and it wasn't enough to win.

I just hope it's not Cory Booker or Tim Kaine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a candidate who is more than "Not Trump"

 

Did we learn nothing from 2004? John Kerry was "Not Bush", and it wasn't enough to win.

 

Yes, I think that's right. I'm going to try to remember this. More than "not Trump".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim Kaine is a dud. The two leading Democratic contenders at the moment look like Warren and Booker.

 

We could do worse than a Warren/Booker ticket.

 

I do wish Warren had been the VP choice this year.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything you said about Bernie is spot-on. Add to it, the trust factor, which Hillary did not widely enjoy.

 

No matter how confused the issues got in the 1930, the historical clarification that time brings, shows that FDR took the Nation in a Socialist direction. People still remember. FDR's socialist programs like Social Security still hang on today. And, if not for him, we would never have had the middle class that was the envy of the world until Reagan started to undermine it. I contend the term "Socialist" would be far more toxic today, if it weren't for FDR.

 

The irony is the so-called plutocrat (FDR) implemented many of the programs that Eugene V. Debs advocated for (from prison). Many argue that FDR saved capitalism/corporatism by making "reforms" to the system (as opposed to ushering in a revolution).

 

Personally, I think HRC would have done more to advance positive reform than anyone else in the race, and am gutted the nation missed an opportunity. I realize that's a minority opinion on this sub-forum.

 

One difference between FDR/HRC and Debs/Sanders, is that the former pair remained internationalists vs the nativism/populism of the latter pair. Withdrawal from the world would be a bad path for the Democratic party IMO.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without FBI director Comey's partisan abuse of his office, Hillary would have won in a landslide. This, more than any other factor swung the election to Trump.

Harry Reid Slams FBI Director As A 'Republican Operative' Who ...
www.politicususa.com/.../harry-reid-slams-fbi-director-republican-operative-handed-e...

11 hours ago - Harry Reid went straight after FBI Director James Comey on Thursday, calling him a “Republican operative” and saying that there's “no ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton had $900 million of corrupt Wall Street money, and Obama spent $10 trillion in money that we don't have in order to buy a presidential election.

 

The result was devasting losses at every political level and a Clinton loss to the most loathed candidate in history (after Clinton of course).

 

Time to reconsider tactics and strategies. Old Chinese saying: "If you don't change direction, you'll end up where you are headed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A de-funded party would have done better?

 

Please note: Barack Hussain Obama was elected twice. Hardly an electoral failure.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A de-funded party would have done better?

 

Please note: Barack Hussain Obama was elected twice. Hardly an electoral failure.

 

Bill

Almost impossible to do worse. Democrats have lost practically everything. Clinton/Obama have presided over a policy of mass destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A de-funded party would have done better?

 

Please note: Barack Hussain Obama was elected twice. Hardly an electoral failure.

 

Bill

 

Almost impossible to do worse. Democrats have lost practically everything. Clinton/Obama have presided over a policy of mass destruction.

 

Two different ways of looking at it. There is truth in each one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is impossible to build sustainable economic growth and a strong political and economic climate without strong middle class growth in both savings and income. Very unfortunately Obama only grew middle class and national debt while transferring $trillions of wealth to the top 1%. This is recipe for disaster. Clinton simply promised more of the same, and quite rightfully lost to the 2nd most loathe Presidential candidate in modern history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich if you think it was "right" that HRC lost to Trump, then we are living on different planets.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich if you think it was "right" that HRC lost to Trump, then we are living on different planets.

 

Bill

You want to bring the dubious concept of right and wrong into Presidential politics? Well, those who thought that it was "right" for Trump to win voted for him.

 

Next time, maybe I different winning strategy may prevail in the Democratic Party. For example, cleaning up Flint's water instead of cleaning up on the stock market. Just an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want to bring the dubious concept of right and wrong into Presidential politics? Well, those who thought that it was "right" for Trump to win voted for him.

 

Next time, maybe I different winning strategy may prevail in the Democratic Party. For example, cleaning up Flint's water instead of cleaning up on the stock market. Just an idea.

 

You were the one who said Trump "rightfully" defeated HRC.

 

Your suggestions that the Democrats under Clinton wouldn't have acted to clean up Flint's water are blatantly false. You sound like a transplant from the alt-right.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were the one who said Trump "rightfully" defeated HRC.

 

Your suggestions that the Democrats under Clinton wouldn't have acted to clean up Flint's water are blatantly false. You sound like a transplant from the alt-right.

 

Bill

I would suggest that if Clinton had spent some of those hundreds of millions that she received from Wall Street on cleaning up the water in Flint, she might actually had a chance of winning. But the thing about puppets like Obama and Clinton is that they care more about their bank accounts than people who are drinking contaminated water courtesy of the corrupt political system that they are va part of. Not a good long term strategy.

 

This little concept of "right" is yours to own. Good luck with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that if Clinton had spent some of those hundreds of millions that she received from Wall Street on cleaning up the water in Flint, she might actually had a chance of winning. But the thing about puppets like Obama and Clinton is that they care more about their bank accounts than people who are drinking contaminated water courtesy of the corrupt political system that they are va part of. Not a good long term strategy.

 

This little concept of "right" is yours to own. Good luck with it.

 

That's just goofy. HRC had no power or authority as a candidate to clean up the water in Flint. Had she been elected the situation would have been different.

 

Did you vote for her?

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's just goofy. HRC had no power or authority as a candidate to clean up the water in Flint. Had she been elected the situation would have been different.

 

Did you vote for her?

 

Bill

 

I'm not really following the logic either. How would HRC have been in a position to clean up Flint while on the campaign trail?

 

 

Very unfortunately Obama only grew middle class and national debt while transferring $trillions of wealth to the top 1%. This is recipe for disaster.

 

Lol, what?

 

 

Clinton simply promised more of the same, and quite rightfully lost to the 2nd most loathe Presidential candidate in modern history.

 

Except her sponsorship/attempted sponsorship record as a NY Senator and all of the legislation she was involved in attempting to pass says that you're incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True enough. She was to busy kissing ____ of bankers to have any time for the citizens of Flint. So be it. She got her dirty money and Michigan had its revenge. All is Ok. An even exchange. Now Clinton supporters can enjoy a Trump Presidency while their candidate enjoys her hundreds of millions of dollars given in gratitude by a grateful Wall Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...