Dems Need To Learn From the UK Election to UNITE under one message: GET HIM OUT!

[Anya Ristow]

If you're saying that he's content with people booing HRC and he thinks this is the best way to win

I doubt if he thinks that at all. It's just that he, and only he, keeps getting asked to apologize, and when he does so, it is counterproductive. I don't expect he'll keep jumping through boobie-trapped hoops in order to please the unity police. It's a no-win scenario.


Tucker Carlson called it a hostage tape LOL. And Biden used it to diminish legitimate criticism of an unrelated matter (Social Security cuts).

rather than to relitigate the last nomination procedure

You see the irony in this particular instance, don't you, and the confirmation of what I just wrote?

 

[Jolene Benoir]

I'm just going to say that it is fucking hilarious when people who denounce both Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren for pointing out the very real misogyny present in our electorate (and system for that matter) declarinbg them to be "playing a card", yet those same people decry the upset with Rashid Tlaib as "sexist and racist".

Hypocritical, AGAIN. But then, that is what I expect of certain Bernie supporters, just as I expect the same behavior of Trump supporters. Two sides of the same coin, in some instances. I guess some people just want a "daddy" figure. Mommy is too mean, I guess. Daddy promises ponies, mommy makes you eat your vegetables.

Oh, and Aeon? Before you respond, let me pre-emptively tell you to fuck off now with whatever pathetic, lazy, oh-so reasonable yet dripping with a falseness so bright the world can see response you may attempt so that I shall not have to do so later.

And, Kara? Killary? Really? You voted for "Killary", IIRC. Why would you spout Trumpian (and Trump voters) schoolyard taunts?

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

Perhaps I misunderstand what, in the USA, speaking in support of a candidate at a rally organised on behalf of that candidate involves.

Here in the UK, someone speaking on behalf of a candidate at that candidate's rally is expected to speak on the lines agreed with the organisers.

If she wants to organise her own rally in support of something, that's different, but while she's an invited speaker it's his rally and his rules, surely?

If you're saying that he's content with people booing HRC and he thinks this is the best way to win, then fair enough, though to me it sounds like a pretty stupid proposition, since I thought the point of the primaries was to select a candidate for this year's election rather than to relitigate the last nomination procedure, and turning your fire on someone who's not even a candidate this time round seems a bit of an eccentric choice of target.

We'll just have to see what happens, I suppose.

I don't have any idea what Bernie Sanders thinks about this whole incident. In a completely personal opinion, I could care less what he thinks. This is just small potatoes of what's to come. I'd be a horrible advisor and I'm just not in a sugar-coating mood of what I see his movement bringing to the table. I think it's going to be painful and he just can't start apologizing or he'll never be able to stop. The veil of procedural etiquette when out the window in 2016.

As for Hillary Clinton, she's going to court for one of her 2020 election contributions. The eccentricity door swings both ways.

I know the UK has its problems, but you have your NHS. We haven't evolved as humans to that plane you live in. Our children haven't been taught that life is valued at that level. They don't grow up accepting that in others. It colors everything. It leaves us disconnected. You see life more clearly.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The veil of procedural etiquette when out the window in 2016.

It's about trying to win elections, not procedural etiquette.

The Democratic nominee, whoever she or he turns out to be, needs to be able to unite the party behind him or or her and have them all out campaigning vigorously for all the Democrats running for office this year.

Does leading an audience in booing the previous candidate help in this endeavour when many of the party activists on whom you're depending to help you/your candidate elected worked as hard as possible to elect her 4 years ago?

To my mind, it doesn't, so people shouldn't do it.

That's not because I consider it impolite, though I do, but because I think it hinders, rather than helps, defeating your opponents and getting your side elected -- that's why it's bad.

I see that the US political system is very dysfunctional, in that the Republicans are -- in British terms -- the lunatic wing of the Conservative Party (Rees-Mogg, Marc Francois, etc and points right, while the Democrats are Boris Johnson and points left, including the Lib Dems and Labour, with the result that, in British terms, Labour supporters are being asked to work to elect Theresa May on the grounds she's better than Nigel Farage.

I'd be very unhappy in those circumstances too.

But that doesn't stop me thinking that, when you've got no choice but to make the best of a bad job, this kind of attack on the previous candidate is irresponsible and shows a lack of seriousness about winning elections.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

It's about trying to win elections, not procedural etiquette.

The Democratic nominee, whoever she or he turns out to be, needs to be able to unite the party behind him or or her and have them all out campaigning vigorously for all the Democrats running for office this year.

Does leading an audience in booing the previous candidate help in this endeavour when many of the party activists on whom you're depending to help you/your candidate elected worked as hard as possible to elect her 4 years ago?

To my mind, it doesn't, so people shouldn't do it.

That's not because I consider it impolite, though I do, but because I think it hinders, rather than helps, defeating your opponents and getting your side elected -- that's why it's bad.

I see that the US political system is very dysfunctional, in that the Republicans are -- in British terms -- the lunatic wing of the Conservative Party (Rees-Mogg, Marc Francois, etc and points right, while the Democrats are Boris Johnson and points left, including the Lib Dems and Labour, with the result that, in British terms, Labour supporters are being asked to work to elect Theresa May on the grounds she's better than Nigel Farage.

I'd be very unhappy in those circumstances too.

But that doesn't stop me thinking that, when you've got no choice but to make the best of a bad job, this kind of attack on the previous candidate is irresponsible and shows a lack of seriousness about winning elections.

You're right, US politics is very dysfunctional.

The booing did not happen in a vacuum. It come with a whole truckload of sordid baggage attached to it, some of it very fresh.

It's not typical of a previously losing candidate to inject themselves into a future election by publishing books, doing interviews, and making public claims that some of the candidates are foreign assets. This is new ground being broken by Hillary Clinton.

There is a clear divide in the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton is not helping matters at all. If there ends up needing to be a rally around a Biden candidacy, I think that Sanders supporters will have a much clearer perspective if Hillary Clinton is just out of the picture. It's a free country and everyone is allowed to have their say, including Clinton. If there is some expectation that Sanders supporters are just going to roll over for whatever is thrown at them... I do think that those days are over. If that is what everything is resting on, then I would say there's a good chance that the 2020 election will go to hell.

Part of the Democratic Party is passionate about getting rid of Trump. Another part of the party is passionate about getting rid of the Establishment.
These are not the same goals. Only one will win. The only thing that I can be sure of is that the strength of the tiny thread that will bind these two factions together will not have one fiber of Hillary Clinton in it.

 

[Ariane]

IMHO:
Candidate who would make the best President: Bernie Sanders
Candidate who would least likely make a good President: Michael Bloomburg
Candidate who would have the best chance at beating Trump: Pete Buttigieg
Candidate who would have the least best chance at beating Trump: Joe Biden
Candidate currently leading in the primary polls: Joe Biden

 

[Innula Zenovka]

You're right, US politics is very dysfunctional.

The booing did not happen in a vacuum. It come with a whole truckload of sordid baggage attached to it, some of it very fresh.

It's not typical of a previously losing candidate to inject themselves into a future election by publishing books, doing interviews, and making public claims that some of the candidates are foreign assets. This is new ground being broken by Hillary Clinton.

There is a clear divide in the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton is not helping matters at all. If there ends up needing to be a rally around a Biden candidacy, I think that Sanders supporters will have a much clearer perspective if Hillary Clinton is just out of the picture. It's a free country and everyone is allowed to have their say, including Clinton. If there is some expectation that Sanders supporters are just going to roll over for whatever is thrown at them... I do think that those days are over. If that is what everything is resting on, then I would say there's a good chance that the 2020 election will go to hell.

Part of the Democratic Party is passionate about getting rid of Trump. Another part of the party is passionate about getting rid of the Establishment.
These are not the same goals. Only one will win. The only thing that I can be sure of is that the strength of the tiny thread that will bind these two factions together will not have one fiber of Hillary Clinton in it.

I think Clinton claimed that one candidate, Tusli Gabbard, (so not several) was the favourite candidate of the Russians, who she said were supporting Gabbard with bots and websites, which may or may not be true, but isn't the same as calling her "a Russian asset" (on my reading of Ciinton's remarks, she called Jill Stein, not Tusli Gabbard "a Russian asset")

Clinton suggests Gabbard is ‘favorite’ candidate of Russians

Hillary Clinton appeared to suggest that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is the “favorite of the Russians” to win the 2020 presidential election.Clinton also said “they” are grooming Gabbard to …

thehill.com

It must make sense to you why someone should encourage a crowd at a rally intended to support Bernie Sanders to attack Hillary Clinton for attacking one of Sanders' rivals, but it doesn't really make sense to me -- what's that got to do with the proposition that Bernie Sanders is a better choice than any of the other candidates in 2020 rather than 2016?

 

[danielravennest]

I keep hearing, "Trump has definitely lost support," but I'm not seeing it in my surroundings.

His base will vote for him no matter what. But his base is shrinking, and only ~40% of people think he's doing a good job as president. Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million, but Republicans lost the midterms by 8 million. That's why they lost 42 seats in the House. We merely need to repeat the midterms with two more years of demographic shift, and he's toast.

The Democratic Party has become more progressive in recent decades. So they need to choose a candidate that reflects that, i.e. not Biden. The other things that can help between now and the fall are (1) more dirt will come out about Ukraine, which will keep it in the public consciousness. The House is likely to call John Bolton to testify, and he's eager because he has a book coming out next month. (2) Much as a recession is a bad thing for everyone, we are seeing early signs of heading that way, and Brexit + Coronavirus only make it more likely a global slowdown will hit us too. The economy has been Trump's strongest selling point outside his base. (3) Other court cases in progress may finally come to fruition. For example, a New York grand jury is investigating Trump and his company's finances and taxes. Grand juries only exist to bring indictments, but they have been blocked from getting documents from Deutsche Bank and his tax returns.

Meanwhile, we also have the opportunity to flip the Senate. The slogan "No Witnesses? No Evidence? Fake Trial!" should be popular this year. Both of Georgia's senators are up for election this year (due to one retiring early), so we have a decent chance to flip one of them.

 

[Romana]

I doubt if he thinks that at all. It's just that he, and only he, keeps getting asked to apologize, and when he does so, it is counterproductive. I don't expect he'll keep jumping through boobie-trapped hoops in order to please the unity police. It's a no-win scenario.


Tucker Carlson called it a hostage tape LOL. And Biden used it to diminish legitimate criticism of an unrelated matter (Social Security cuts).



You see the irony in this particular instance, don't you, and the confirmation of what I just wrote?

Rashida Tlaib was asked to apologise, and she did.

You're right, US politics is very dysfunctional.

The booing did not happen in a vacuum. It come with a whole truckload of sordid baggage attached to it, some of it very fresh.

It's not typical of a previously losing candidate to inject themselves into a future election by publishing books, doing interviews, and making public claims that some of the candidates are foreign assets. This is new ground being broken by Hillary Clinton.

There is a clear divide in the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton is not helping matters at all. If there ends up needing to be a rally around a Biden candidacy, I think that Sanders supporters will have a much clearer perspective if Hillary Clinton is just out of the picture. It's a free country and everyone is allowed to have their say, including Clinton. If there is some expectation that Sanders supporters are just going to roll over for whatever is thrown at them... I do think that those days are over. If that is what everything is resting on, then I would say there's a good chance that the 2020 election will go to hell.

Part of the Democratic Party is passionate about getting rid of Trump. Another part of the party is passionate about getting rid of the Establishment.
These are not the same goals. Only one will win. The only thing that I can be sure of is that the strength of the tiny thread that will bind these two factions together will not have one fiber of Hillary Clinton in it.

Hillary could have chosen her words more carefully and still promoted her book, maybe even better. But she has as much right to publish books and do interviews as any other citizen, and more than some of the bilious "pundits" that keep churning them out.
But from the tone of this post you'd have been right in there booing her, wouldn't you? Loudly, and from the first row.

And I do care what Bernie thinks of that incident, and it disturbs me that he didn't even comment on it promptly. (That's comment, not apologize, Cristalle.)
It reminds me uncomfortably of the tone around the 2016 election when Jewish cemeteries in the NY area were being desecrated with swastikas and Trump's name, and he said nothing. A good president, a good person, would have condemned the actions and discouraged his fans from doing more. Of course we know Trump is neither of those things (I knew it then). But I expected better of Bernie

 

[Clara D.]

IMHO:
Candidate who would make the best President: Bernie Sanders
Candidate who would least likely make a good President: Michael Bloomburg
Candidate who would have the best chance at beating Trump: Pete Buttigieg
Candidate who would have the least best chance at beating Trump: Joe Biden
Candidate currently leading in the primary polls: Joe Biden

Candidate Corporate America would prefer because they're least likely to shake things up: Joe Biden.

 

[Ariane]

Meanwhile, we also have the opportunity to flip the Senate. The slogan "No Witnesses? No Evidence? Fake Trial!" should be popular this year. Both of Georgia's senators are up for election this year (due to one retiring early), so we have a decent chance to flip one of them.

Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, and Maine are all definitely flippable. Alabama will probably flip back to GOP. If Dems can flip the Senate, then it will deny Trump the ability to pick more lackys to the Cabinet or the Courts if he happens to win again.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

I think Clinton claimed that one candidate, Tusli Gabbard, (so not several) was the favourite candidate of the Russians, who she said were supporting Gabbard with bots and websites, which may or may not be true, but isn't the same as calling her "a Russian asset" (on my reading of Ciinton's remarks, she called Jill Stein, not Tusli Gabbard "a Russian asset")

Clinton suggests Gabbard is ‘favorite’ candidate of Russians

Hillary Clinton appeared to suggest that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is the “favorite of the Russians” to win the 2020 presidential election.Clinton also said “they” are grooming Gabbard to …

thehill.com

It must make sense to you why someone should encourage a crowd at a rally intended to support Bernie Sanders to attack Hillary Clinton for attacking one of Sanders' rivals, but it doesn't really make sense to me -- what's that got to do with the proposition that Bernie Sanders is a better choice than any of the other candidates in 2020 rather than 2016?

Gabbard suing Clinton for defamation over 'Russian asset' comments
Clinton says 'nobody likes' Sanders and won't commit to backing him if he's the Democratic nominee
The first link is more about the Russian asset insinuation or comment.
The second link is about Clinton's recent comments regarding Sanders.
One got her sued. One got her booed.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Checking in to report that I still plan to vote for whomever the Dem nominee is.

It occurs to me that it may be true that Sanders would get more votes in the general than any other Democrat would if he wins the nom, ironically because every other candidate's supporters can be counted on to prioritize getting rid of Trump over getting revenge on their fellow Dems for not backing their favorite.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Gabbard suing Clinton for defamation over 'Russian asset' comments
Clinton says 'nobody likes' Sanders and won't commit to backing him if he's the Democratic nominee
The first link is more about the Russian asset insinuation or comment.
The second link is about Clinton's recent comments regarding Sanders.
One got her sued. One got her booed.

Yes, anyone can sue, but the important thing about civil litigation is you have to win your case, which is a pretty difficult hurdle for the plaintiff in a US libel case, even when she's not a public figure. That's the difficult bit.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

Yes, anyone can sue, but the important thing about civil litigation is you have to win your case, which is a pretty difficult hurdle for the plaintiff in a US libel case, even when she's not a public figure. That's the difficult bit.

I don't think Gabbard has a chance of winning her case. I expect it will get thrown out. It's a gesture.

 

[Ishina]

...every other candidate's supporters can be counted on to prioritize getting rid of Trump over getting revenge on their fellow Dems for not backing their favorite.

Well we could already tell that from the halo above their heads.

 

[Ishina]

Candidate who would have the least best chance at beating Trump: Joe Biden
Candidate currently leading in the primary polls: Joe Biden

Biden always seems like a boxer who retired too late. It's uncomfortable to watch. He'd make Trump seem like an intellectual giant in a debate.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

Checking in to report that I still plan to vote for whomever the Dem nominee is.

It occurs to me that it may be true that Sanders would get more votes in the general than any other Democrat would if he wins the nom, ironically because every other candidate's supporters can be counted on to prioritize getting rid of Trump over getting revenge on their fellow Dems for not backing their favorite.

I can't speak for the the Sanders population. Like everyone else, they will do what they do and vote as they vote. Personally, it's not about revenge. It's more like paying in advance. I don't trust the DNC and I won't promise payment until services are rendered. That doesn't mean democracy must do as I say or I won't support it. It does mean that it needs to be fair and legitimate. "It may be a little crooked, but it's not Trump" Surely, it's reasonable to aim higher than that right now.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I can't speak for the the Sanders population. Like everyone else, they will do what they do and vote as they vote. Personally, it's not about revenge. It's more like paying in advance. I don't trust the DNC and I won't promise payment until services are rendered. That doesn't mean democracy must do as I say or I won't support it. It does mean that it needs to be fair and legitimate. "It may be a little crooked, but it's not Trump" Surely, it's reasonable to aim higher than that right now.

What are your criteria for deciding whether the selection procedure was "fair and legitimate," and why do you couple "fair" with "legitimate"?

After all, whether or not the procedure is legitimate is a question of fact that can be settled, if necessary, by some form of judicial review. Deciding whether it's fair, on the other hand, is a highly subjective exercise ("It can't have been fair, otherwise my candidate would have won!").

Assuming that none of the defeated candidates considers the selection process illegitimate, or not sufficiently illegitimate that they consider it worth challenging the outcome in court, what other criteria would you apply in deciding whether or not it was fair?

 

[Romana]

I can't speak for the the Sanders population. Like everyone else, they will do what they do and vote as they vote. Personally, it's not about revenge. It's more like paying in advance. I don't trust the DNC and I won't promise payment until services are rendered. That doesn't mean democracy must do as I say or I won't support it. It does mean that it needs to be fair and legitimate. "It may be a little crooked, but it's not Trump" Surely, it's reasonable to aim higher than that right now.

I'm not saying the DNC isn't corrupt, but if you think it rises to tRump-level corruption, that's the same "there's no difference" argument that lost us the general in 2016.
Meh, I haven't had enough coffee for this. I'll just wander out now.