Well, I´d agree that picking Kaine was a mistake. But Brown is to the left of Kaine, which seems to work against your first point
1 Like
The Republicans sold their party out to outsiders and, while they are nominally in power, they are completely dysfunctional. The Democrats are smart to recognize that they need to keep theirs in the hands of people who are connected to its history and mission. Lack of institutional continuity is the #1 thing that has made the Trump Presidency so ineffective.
Well, sure, but Perez kicked off some old time members who had picked Sanders, or Ellison for the leadership post.
Honestly, what I would like to see is a broad range of views represented. For instance, given that the 2020 D candidate will need to receive more votes from Independents than from Democrats in order to win, it would make sense to at least consider letting Independents vote in the primaries, right? Or, how about instituting instant run-off voting in the primaries?
Which means that the rules committee should have more than one or two people who represent those views, in order to give them appropriate weight.
Brown is to the left of Kaine. Hillary Clinton probably is as well. All three are thoughtful and capable of weighing concerns from the differing stakeholders in society and none are egomaniacal posturers making nowhere plans for nobody like Bernie Slanders. Brown’s chief pros were being from the midwest and being an exceptional politician. He is who they should run in 2020, IMO.
1 Like
Oh, I never really thought about that! Makes sense. I’ll also add that as much as folks bitch about her choosing Kaine, we really don’t know how the vetting went with others. We assume everyone would’ve passed muster, but we really don’t know.
2 Likes
The controversy over Kaine was overblown, he was no more anti-abortion than Biden or a lot of people, but he just was a non-entity after the debate.
1 Like
you kinda sound like one of those right wing guys who yells “NOT AN ARGUMENT” and explains Darwinism
1 Like
For better or for worse, the Parties are private institutions, so it doesn’t really make a lot of sense to me to allow random “independents” (who could be spoilers or provocateurs) participate in the Party’s candidate selection process.
I’m also confused what instant run-off voting would achieve in the primaries. Hillary won most of the primaries handily, so I don’t see how that would have changed anything. I’m not completely opposed to the idea, but I don’t know that it would make much of a difference at the party primary level. At the national level, that might be a more interesting proposition, but I haven’t done any real research on the matter, so I don’t really know how that would shake things up.
2 Likes
This article states, “NBC also reported that there is an over-representation of former presidential candidate and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton backers on the Rules and Bylaws Committee…” That’s inaccurate. The story describes “what critics charge is the over-representation of Clinton-backed members on the Rules and Bylaws Committee.” NBC expressed no opinion on the matter. This kind of conflation of allegations with reported facts is a characteristic of left- (and right-) wing outrage-stirring sites; I expect TPM to be more careful.
3 Likes
Anybody who can read this and still support Sanders is fooling themselves. This and the shitty, conspiratorial way he and his campaign talked about Clinton and the Democratic Party put me off him forever.
3 Likes
So basically you’re saying that if I am for unity in the Democratic Party that I am against BLM and other groups that make up our party? That I cater to them only with identity politics? Horsepucky. Catering to one group or another is what is making us lose. Unless we address all concerns and there is give and take in each negotiation we can give up every holding power again.
1 Like
With all due respect, that quote was from the DNC website describing what they do.
Yet you don’t answer his questions
1 Like
I’ll withhold any reaction until I hear from Ellison on this.
We did hear exactly that. I posted the link, but you may have overlooked the implications of this statement from Sanders advisor Tad Devine:
“I don’t think she gave anybody the questions,” he told NBC News.
This is after the release of the hacked emails from Brazile to the Clinton campaign. Devine, as noted in the article, says that Brazile: did not give “anybody the questions;” “reached out to me and the Bernie camp consistently during the primaries;” and “was fair and square with us.”
Devine is saying “Brazile talked to use a lot, was fair to us, and didn’t send questions to anybody.” If that isn’t “similar help,” I don’t know what is.
Devine rejects the “questions in advance” label for the communications from Brazile, Then he tells us that Brazile communicated with the Sanders campaign and was fair to the campaign. Don’t let Trumpp and the Russians frame the facts in your mind. Devine isn’t going to come out with “we got the questions in advance, too,” because that would be politically stupid. The phrasing greatly exaggerates the communications from Brazile, and would allow Trumpp and the GOP to refer to Sanders when they spread their propaganda about collusion between Democrats and the “liberal” media.
5 Likes
Coulda chosen Sanders. But he apparently was at the bottom of her list at number 39.
Oh well. Winning isn´t everything, is it?
1 Like
It isn’t about Bernie vs. Hillary. It isn’t even about Trump vs. Hillary.
Last year is so last year.
What it is about is turning around an 8 year Democratic losing streak in which we lost the White House, Senate, Congress, Supreme Court, and 35 Governorships and 67 State Legislatures.
That is the bleeding we have to stop. And arguing about Bernie versus Hillary isn’t doing a damn thing to help.
2 Likes
Projection, thy name is maurizio689.
And that should be the emphasis—and it should make you happy.
2 Likes