Yes. The future belongs to the AOCs and the Tlaibs. And the Establishment can just take your fainting pills now.
Again with the victimhood. Nowhere in there do you acknowledge that she might have been a flawed candidate, it’s all everyone else’s fault but her own.
And so what if Trump used a line? It happened to be absolutely true. The Democrats had rigged the setup for 2016 to be as favorable to Hillary as possible. She should have been prepared to respond to that (and ideally, shouldn’t have been a recipient of a rigged system, then he wouldn’t have had that attack line).
So you’re saying we shouldn’t have acted as a Democracy, we should have just anointed her from the start? So that Trump couldn’t say mean things to her later???
He went up against a rigged system (front-loaded and rules in Hillary’s favor, including the limited debates, a Party Chair in her back pocket, and the Super-dels to be the presumptive winner before Iowa and actual voters had a say), did pretty darned well in spite of that, but came up short.
This is a crock of sh*t.
The first big criticism this year was that the DNC had sponsored “only” six debates between Clinton and Bernie Sanders in some sort of conspiracy to impede the Vermont senator. This rage was built on ignorance: The DNC at first announced it would sponsor six debates in 2016, just as it had in 2008 and 2004. (In 2012, Barack Obama was running for re-election. Plus, while the DNC announced it would sponsor six debates in 2008, only five took place.) Debates cost money, and the more spent on debates, the less available for the nominee in the general election. Plus, there is a reasonable belief among political experts that allowing the nominees to tear each other down over and over undermines their chances in the general election, which is exactly what happened with the Republicans in 2012
Still, in the face of rage by Sanders supporters, the number of DNC-sponsored debates went up to nine—more than have been held in almost 30 years. Plans for a 10th one, scheduled for May 24, were abandoned after it became mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the nomination.
the argument that the DNC rigged the debates is, by any rational analysis, garbage. For those who still believe it, hats made of tin foil are available on Amazon.
And lets not forget that when actual voters had a say, Clinton trounced sanders by 4 million votes.
Where Sanders did well is in caucuses which are designed to suppress the vote. Caregivers, voters with disabilities, working folks, the elderly, and those unwilling to be harangued by others who may be more verbose and physically demonstrative are denied the opportunity to have their votes matter in these caucus arrangements.
face it, your preferred candidate lost and the thought of his opponent becoming President left many of your ilk willing to endure the election of a proto-fascist to “teach us all a lesson”. Congratulations, you did. just not the one thought it would be.
3 Likes
God, I love the internet. Check out an easy quote, back from Aug 2015, with the complaints already happening about the schedule on its release. This wasn’t something invented after the fact or anything, and I remember it well. More examples available with the help of Google. If facts matter to you.
"O’Malley senior strategist Bill Hyers criticized the proposed schedule in a statement released Thursday.
“By inserting themselves into the debate process, the DNC has ironically made it less democratic. The schedule they have proposed does not give voters - nationally, and especially in early states - ample opportunity to hear from the Democratic candidates for President. If anything, it seems geared toward limiting debate and facilitating a coronation, not promoting a robust debate and primary process,” he said. “Rather than giving the appearance of rigging the process and cutting off debate, the DNC should take themselves out of the process. They should let individual and truly independent news, political, and community organizations create their own debates and allow the Democratic candidates for President to participate.”
He wants to make sure one of them isn’t Debbie Wasserman-Schultz!
Keep digging, Bernie!
1 Like
And you obviously bought into the russkie propaganda back in 2016 if you believe that (and yes, there was propaganda pushed internally to put wedges in). There was no Bernie Bro thing to push votes to Trump or anything.
Almost all of us bit our tongues and votes for Hillary anyway, not that your folks were at all welcoming to us.
That doesn’t change a damned thing. The Democratic Party STILL belongs to Democrats.
"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger
1 Like
Clinton wasn’t "anointed’. She defeated her primary opponent by 4 million votes. She defeated her general election by 3 million votes but lost in the execrable Electoral College, an anachronistic sop to the slave-holding states, by 70,000 votes in 3 EC states.
Her flaw to many was that she wasn’t a man. She ran against a racist, natavist, and proto-fascist who appealed to the worst elements of our society. He was aided and abetted by Russian chicanery and the useful idiots of the Bernie Bros/Jill Stein/#NeverHillary cabal.
And as has been previously presented, none of the process was “rigged”. Sanders and his supporters were the ones that tried to get “super delegates” to overturn the Democratic electorate to make him the nominee. He was the one who desired anointment.
You clutch to the “rigged” fairy tale because it assuages your butthurt in having the Democratic electorate overwhelmingly reject your beloved candidate.
Next you can apologize to all of us women who were insulted and abused by H.A. Goodman on your behalf.
2 Likes
There were more debates in 2016 than there had been in 30 years. If Sanders couldn’t make his case in that amount of time it was because voters weren’t buying what he was selling or maybe the one who was doing the selling.
I wish people would stop with the sexist crap.
Her flaw wasn’t that she was a woman, it was that she didn’t have a clear and cogent vision for the country-- a reason to vote for her:
Trump? Easy. He’ll build you a wall, keep the brown people out.
Bernie? Free college for everyone, free healthcare too (and probably a pony).
Obama? “Yes, we can”, that we can do big things together.
Hillary?-- It’s my turn, and I’m a woman. She never had the simple message or visionary statement that voters could connect with and understand WHY the candidate was running and WHY the voter should vote for her.
And if anything, the constant messaging from those around her that people should vote for her BECAUSE she was a woman was sexist in and of itself.
There shouldn’t be an obligation-- implied or otherwise-- that someone should be supported because of their race/gender/sexual orientation/religion/other. We should be selecting the best person for the job, period. And that’s about what’s inside their head and their heart, not their pants.
1 Like
Did you want a participation trophy? Perhaps the realization that you were going to vote for someone who was opposing a proto-fascist who may end up appointing 4 Supreme Court justices who will direct the court for decades, should have been enough motivation.
2 Likes
Hillary Clinton was the most intelligent, articulate, and competent person that ran for the Presidency in 2016. She was also the most progressive. Her positions on women’s rights, criminal justice reform, income equality, Wall Street, and many other issues is evidence of that fact.
That she is a woman just made the choice easier, because it does matter that she was a woman running for an office that has only been occupied by men. For you not to fathom that fact is indicative of your own privileged myopia.
2 Likes
Don’t forget Gary Johnson. As compared to Jill Stein, it’s less obvious that a vote for Gary Johnson was a lost vote for HRC, but I am reasonably confident that many, many Gary Johnson votes were cast by people who didn’t want tRump but who just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a woman (especially after the decades-long Republican anti-Hillary smear campaign that was, depressingly, adopted wholesale by the Sanders campaign).
1 Like
And Obama was the first African-American President. But I don’t recall his supporters running around telling people that there was a special place in Hell for African-Americans who didn’t vote for him.
I would agree with you on all of the rest about her. She’s great, made a great Secretary of State, a great Senator. But she lacked that compelling vision that can be summed up in a simple and clear idea which is the hallmark of successful candidates for president (even if that message is a wall and it’s a bunch of bullshit). If anything, she was probably too smart and articulate and in the weeds to connect with people where it counted.
You’re the only one saying people voted for Clinton because she was a woman. More people voted for her instead of Sanders.
And your using the last name for all other candidates, but not Clinton, is telling.
You’ve already lost this game.
Everything is a satellite to some other thing.
2 Likes
So now we have a President who’s a genuine moron besides being a proto-fascist. Is that better?
The smartest “girl in class” is always to be denigrated because she always “thinks she’s better than anyone else”, right?
President Obama’s race was a compelling factor in his election, for both his supporters and his detractors. That’s an undeniable fact. The enthusiasm for his candidacy by black folks was palpable.
You can never understand the genesis of the Madeline Albright quote you’ve repeatedly dragged out. For a woman of her generation, having fought the hard fight she had, the nomination of a woman for the Presidency was a seminal moment in history just as Barack Obama’s nomination was for black folks. Your lack of understanding of this betrays the privilege you enjoy. Not all Americans are in your position.
4 Likes
Calling out bigotry is not victomhood!
1 Like
Lots. Most notably, Hillary Clinton.
We were all there in 2016. So lets start with the caucus in my city where the mostly young white Sanders supporters jeered and taunted Clinton supporters.