• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Meltdown at DNC...

Kazukian

Kazukian

Platinum Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ational-committee_us_5824cb95e4b0ddd4fe7954e8

“Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?” he asked, according to two people in the room. “You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.”

Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.

“You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”

Brazile needs to go, and give the DNC a chance to rebuild.
 
Schumer (along with Sanders) has endorsed Keith Ellison for party chair so it's a fair shot that he gets the job. I'd put it at even money that Trump and the GOP will face a slate of Sanders style progressives in 2018 and nearly certain for 2020. Populism and anger are fickle things people.
 
K1052 said:
Schumer (along with Sanders) has endorsed Keith Ellison for party chair so it's a fair shot that he gets the job. I'd put it at even money that Trump and the GOP will face a slate of Sanders style progressives in 2018 and nearly certain for 2020. Populism and anger are fickle things people.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it fickle per say, just that DNC was tone deaf and fighting against it.
Next time Trump will have failed in his promises, their lives will not be better, and maybe DNC will provide hope instead of crustacean.
 
This should be a major wake up call not just for the DNC but for the Republicans as well. Trump was from neither camp, he was more an Independent that was running on the Republican ticket. But both Democratic party and Republican party needs a major change before the next presidential election if they want a chance. With how surprisingly popular Bernie was and with Trump winning the presidency, it's a clear message that people are sick of the same old, established politicians that plagues our current government. A complete overhaul is needed.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
So what will the democrat version of the Tea Party be called because its forming right now.
Click to expand...
The Majority?

Personally, I'd like to see a re-branding using Federalists, but update the meaning of the label to those that want the Federal government to do things for the citizenry that supports it.
 
Pens1566 said:
Even without the super delegates, Bernie wouldn't have won. In fact, he lost by a wider margin to HRC than HRC did to Obama in '08.
Click to expand...

Elections have a momentum. They are the ultimate example of bandwagon jumping, even moreso than sports where Cubs fans suddenly came out of the woodwork in 2016 and will disappear for another 107 years.

You got a lotta nerve
To say you got a helping hand to lend
You just want to be on
The side that’s winning ~ Bob Dylan

To a large degree the system creates the results. The nomination process was rigged from the start and Hilary was going to win because the DNC wanted Hilary to win. She was the sleaziest and would raise the most money by selling influence. So she starts with the lead, she builds the lead, her win seems inevitable and that draws in other voters who want to back the candidate with the best chance to win the nomination. They want to be able to slap a bumper sticker on their Prius and say "Sure, I backed Hilary all along". The final results mean nothing, the margin was entirely the result of the deck being stacked from the beginning and the bandwagon jumpers hopping on the winning train late in the process. That happens every year in both parties. The primaries start out looking even and once one candidate starts to get in front enough that it looks like it's over the lemmings all follow along and back the winner.
 
DrunkenSano said:
Wasn't Bernie's group the Democrat version of the Tea Party?
Click to expand...
Bernie Bros would have been the Democrat version. Just substitute the blatant racism throughout the Tea Party with the sexism Bernie Bros were showing.
I even voted Bernie but was massively disappointed with how some of his supporters were acting after he validly lost to Hillary.
 
Jaskalas said:
I wouldn't call it fickle per say, just that DNC was tone deaf and fighting against it.
Next time Trump will have failed in his promises, their lives will not be better, and maybe DNC will provide hope instead of crustacean.
Click to expand...

The DNC was tone deaf however the Democrats at large didn't' seem totally receptive to such deep progressive ideas as evidenced by the primary. It isn't like Sanders lost by just a little bit.

If somebody like Schumer is backing a Sanders brand dyed in the wool progressive for the DNC chair they clearly understands the need for drastic change and the rest of the party will probably follow along since that's the way forward. If they add in a bunch of younger, more charismatic, and diverse blood the party could rebound dramatically.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
So she starts with the lead, she builds the lead, her win seems inevitable and that draws in other voters who want to back the candidate with the best chance to win the nomination.
Click to expand...
Hillary Clinton - 16,914,722 votes - 34 states (popular vote) / 40.5 states (convention - super-delegates) - $212,433,823 spent
Bernie Sanders - 13,206,428 votes - 23 states (popular vote) / 16.5 states (convention - super-delegates) - $220,765,734 spent
 
K1052 said:
The DNC was tone deaf however the Democrats at large didn't' seem totally receptive to such deep progressive ideas as evidenced by the primary. It isn't like Sanders lost by just a little bit.

If somebody like Schumer is backing a Sanders brand dyed in the wool progressive for the DNC chair they clearly understands the need for drastic change and the rest of the party will probably follow along since that's the way forward. If they add in a bunch of younger, more charismatic, and diverse blood the party could rebound dramatically.
Click to expand...

Yes we lost being Republican-Lite.

We have to be our identity and our own identity is not the old guard.. its the new millennials which will be voting for the next 40 years as the majority, not the baby boomers which are dying off in the next 40.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
Elections have a momentum. They are the ultimate example of bandwagon jumping, even moreso than sports where Cubs fans suddenly came out of the woodwork in 2016 and will disappear for another 107 years.

You got a lotta nerve
To say you got a helping hand to lend
You just want to be on
The side that’s winning ~ Bob Dylan

To a large degree the system creates the results. The nomination process was rigged from the start and Hilary was going to win because the DNC wanted Hilary to win. She was the sleaziest and would raise the most money by selling influence. So she starts with the lead, she builds the lead, her win seems inevitable and that draws in other voters who want to back the candidate with the best chance to win the nomination. They want to be able to slap a bumper sticker on their Prius and say "Sure, I backed Hilary all along". The final results mean nothing, the margin was entirely the result of the deck being stacked from the beginning and the bandwagon jumpers hopping on the winning train late in the process. That happens every year in both parties. The primaries start out looking even and once one candidate starts to get in front enough that it looks like it's over the lemmings all follow along and back the winner.
Click to expand...
Why? Wouldn't you be mad if by voting for Clinton in the Primaries you would be handing the election to Trump. Aren't Clinton voters now mad that people voted for Trump?

And as for Democrats reforming, good luck with that. What reform is possible when you suffer from an unrecognized brain defect.
 
Moonbeam said:
And as for Democrats reforming, good luck with that. What reform is possible when you suffer from an unrecognized brain defect.
Click to expand...
To be fair, there's a greater level of introspection among liberals, so they might actually catch their own defect and adjust course to compensate.
 
jackstar7 said:
To be fair, there's a greater level of introspection among liberals, so they might actually catch their own defect and adjust course to compensate.
Click to expand...


This board certainly doesn't illustrate that, hopefully it's just an outlier due to concentration of a particular type of person and you're right about the broader party.
 
UglyCasanova said:
This board certainly doesn't illustrate that, hopefully it's just an outlier due to concentration of a particular type of person and you're right about the broader party.
Click to expand...
This board is mostly a pool of zealots on any and every issue. The only upshot is that at least opposing views address each other here (sadly mostly with baseless insults), but it's slightly better than the bubbles of facebook and the like.

When it comes to P&N I try to see something in the glass...
 
Lol reform the party? Go ahead and change it, it's still not going to change the fact that dems simply don't consistently show up to vote in every election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top