All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[numberthirty]

You mean no one you care about was supporting them -- plenty of black women supported Harris, but they are a small demographic overall.

Again, just because you ignore and dismiss them at will -- just as you did when you tried to use them to repeatedly attack Hillary in support of Sanders -- doesn't mean they aren't relevant. Apparently, however, they are only relevant to you when you can use them to attack other candidates and the Democratic party as a whole.

I'll add that this is pretty typical of many Sanders supporters -- attack other candidates and the Democratic party at will, while ignoring the most loyal base of the Democratic party, namely black women.

Again, there's no point in arguing this -- let's just see how many of those "black voters" show up for Sanders since you're so concerned about "reality".

The same reality in which Sanders lost to Hillary by millions of votes, many of them cast by voters of color.

------
"Black Women Voters Are Key to the 2020 Presidential Race"

https://fortune.com/2019/09/12/joe-b...kamala-harris/

No, I meant "No One".

The same as "No One" supported Moulton or currently support Gabbard.

It's not "Dismissal" to be honest with one's self about what they amount to. It's right around "No One".

[aja_christopher]

No, I meant "No One".

The same as "No One" supported Moulton or currently support Gabbard.

It's not "Dismissal" to be honest with one's self about what they amount to. It's right around "No One".

Whatever makes you feel better about dismissing Joy Reid (and other black women)'s concerns as being irrelevant to "regular folks".

Let's just focus on "reality" from this point on, and see how Sanders does this time around, since arguing with you is rarely more than a waste of time.

[numberthirty]

As for "Me" using them to attack The Democratic Party, you just pointed out that the primary system that the party uses is pretty clearly slanted in a certain direction.

That's not "Using" minority voters to attack The Democratic Party.

It is current reality as it exists.

[aja_christopher]

As for "Me" using them to attack The Democratic Party, you just pointed out that the primary system that the party uses is pretty clearly slanted in a certain direction.

That's not "Using" minority voters to attack The Democratic Party.

It is current reality as it exists.

If you cared that much about said issue, you'd be supporting candidates like Castro instead of Sanders.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...rimary-913971/

It's not the first time you've done it -- like when you claimed that Hillary didn't support BLM and I then posted a video of the mothers of those killed by police officers speaking at one of her rallies, after which you promptly disappeared -- and I'm sure it won't be the last.

More relevantly, if you cared that much about any kinds of racial issues, you would have voted against Trump the first time around.

Believe you me, that was a real wake up call regarding "regular folks" in America -- not completely unexpected, but highly disappointing, nonetheless.

[Mister Mets]

She read the tea leaves and knew it was a lost cause. Her biggest issue is that she was fighting for the "alternative to Biden" lane of a candidate centrist liked but was young and exciting for the rest of the electorate. Once Tulsi hit her in the second debate she stayed doormant the rest of the summer and fall and now Buttegieg is firmly entrenched in the spot she wanted. Bloomberg also just came in and jumped her in most polls nationally.

I outlined earlier in this thread, but there is no real pathway for her anymore. Barring several major collapses, the stage is set for who is going to be in the fight for the first few primaries and she's not one of them. The last few weeks seemed a bit like a "nothing left to lose" tour.

She's not the only one who is in that position. She's smart enough to not waste her own time.

One of her problems may have been that she didn't really pick a lane. She tried for both the twitter left and the establishment.

Debate of all white people coming up. Wheee!

Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard are pretty close to qualifying.

[numberthirty]

If you cared that much about said issue, you'd be supporting candidates like Castro instead of Sanders.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...rimary-913971/

It's not the first time you've done it -- like when you claimed that Hillary didn't support BLM and I then posted a video of the mothers of those killed by police officers speaking at one of her rallies, after which you promptly disappeared -- and I'm sure it won't be the last.

More relevantly, if you cared that much about any kinds of racial issues, you would have voted against Trump the first time around.

"Care" is a tricky way to put it.

That I can clearly see the issue doesn't mean that I care one way or the other about how the party treats it's minority supporters.

If it intends to aim right at it's own foot and fire, I'm not going to lose much sleep over it.

The party seeing what it is doing and addressing it? That's going to be up to it to do.

[aja_christopher]

"Care" is a tricky way to put it.

That I can clearly see the issue doesn't mean that I care one way or the other about how the party treats it's minority supporters.

If it intends to aim right at it's own foot and fire, I'm not going to lose much sleep over it.

The party seeing what it is doing and addressing it? That's going to be up to it to do.

Which still doesn't address your lack of a vote against Trump's blatantly racist agenda in the general election.

Point being don't try to use "minorities" only when it suits your agenda, when you can't even be bothered to stand up for them when it counts at the polls.

Right wing Supreme Court, environmental rollbacks, abortion rights challenged, children separated from families -- it's up to you to vote against that.

[numberthirty]

Which still doesn't address your lack of a vote against Trump's blatantly racist agenda in the general election.

Point being don't try to use "minorities" only when it suits your agenda, when you can't even be bothered to stand up for them when it counts at the polls.

Right wing Supreme Court, environmental rollbacks, abortion rights challenged, children separated from families -- it's up to you to vote against that.

Put simply, that logic is how we got to where we are.

At some point, I'd hope that folks will realize that sticking to that is like running the "Statue Of Liberty..." play for a fifth time even though you've been sacked during attempts two through four.

Since I will assume that The Democratic Party will probably be one of two realistic options the next time out, I would hope that they have a better plan than "Hoping For Votes 'Against' Our Opponent..." put together.

It hasn't really got folks off of the sidelines before, and I have right around "Zero..." reason to believe that it will this time out.

As for "Agenda...", sure. A Democratic Party that does a little bit better at treating it's supporters something like fairly.

Some "Agenda".

[aja_christopher]

Put simply, that logic is how we got to where we are.

The "logic" of "regular folks" not voting against a blatantly sexist and racist individual like Donald Trump being elected to the highest office in our nation?

Yeah -- that's exactly why we are today.

And apparently some "regular folks" still haven't learned their lesson -- they'd rather focus on "moderate" Hillary losing a highly suspect election than "moderates" Obama and Bill winning their respective elections and re-elections.

Like I said before -- let's just see how Sanders does this time around.

Edit: And to be clear, I have no problem whatsoever with Sanders winning the nomination and/or the presidency, especially against Trump.

My concerns are more pragmatic (passing legislation) than anything else but I'm open to seeing what he could do if elected.

[kmeyers]

That's because Reid has no clue what "Regular Folks" are thinking.

She laughed when Ann Coulter said Trump would win. Guess what regular folks thought about that?

She said herself that she actually had to see younger folks not come out for HRC before she believed that it was actually an issue. Guess what "Regular Younger Folks" thought about that?

Trump supporters are not "regular folks." They're a very small minority of the population.

[numberthirty]

The "logic" of "regular folks" not voting against a blatantly sexist and racist individual like Donald Trump being elected to the highest office in our nation?

Yeah -- that's exactly why we are today.

And apparently some "regular folks" still haven't learned their lesson -- they'd rather focus on "moderate" Hillary losing a highly suspect election than "moderates" Obama and Bill winning their respective elections.

Like I said before -- let's just see how Sanders does this time around.

No.

The logic that you can count on your opponent creating enough hatred to deliver an election to you.

Which means your chances of putting a win together are almost completely in the hands of the person you intend on defeating.

That is an incredibly flawed strategy.

[aja_christopher]

No.

The logic that you can count on your opponent creating enough hatred to deliver an election to you.

Which means your chances of putting a win together are almost completely in the hands of the person you intend on defeating.

That is an incredibly flawed strategy.

That wasn't the strategy -- that's just what anyone with a conscience should do when they see someone like Trump one step away from the presidency.

If Hillary had been more aggressive about Trump's Russia connections, instead of focusing so much on policy, she might have even won the election.

Ironically, that sounds more like what I saw from both Trump and Sanders supporters regarding Hillary.

You could argue that both won, in that sense.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

That wasn't the strategy -- that's just what anyone with a conscience should do when they see someone like Trump one step away from the presidency.

If Hillary had been more aggressive about Trump's Russia connections, instead of focusing so much on policy, she might have even won the election.

Ironically, that sounds more like what I saw from both Trump and Sanders supporters regarding Hillary.

You could argue that both won, in that sense.

I think in general the Russia issue polled poorly and only real tracked with Democrats woo already were supporting Hillary. Hillary’s biggest issue was never getting out from under the email scandal. It was always a big unfavorable for her and an easy go to for Trump

[aja_christopher]

I think in general the Russia issue polled poorly and only real tracked with Democrats woo already were supporting Hillary. Hillary’s biggest issue was never getting out from under the email scandal. It was always a big unfavorable for her and an easy go to for Trump

I'd say her biggest issue was Sanders supporters attacking her at every turn -- a house divided against itself cannot stand.

I saw it everywhere from Reddit, to Salon, to Huffpost -- even the left-wing media attacked her "centrism" in contrast to Sanders, and when she finally capitulated and moved to the "left" (losing many moderates in the process) they still didn't show up to vote for her.

Some even continue to attack her to this very day.

(Ironically, it's the same pattern seen with Kamala, while Biden and Buttigieg remain relatively "moderate".)

-----
"Liberal activists had been preparing for months to hold a President Hillary Clinton’s feet to the fire and make sure she stuck to the bold progressive agenda that had emerged from her bruising primary battle with leftwing senator Bernie Sanders.

Instead, on issues as varied as Wall Street reform, climate change, women’s rights and criminal justice, they now face their worst-case scenario: a Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress.

Clinton had called herself “a progressive who likes to get things done” during her primary campaign against Sanders, emphasizing what she saw as her ability to work within the system to effect change. He eventually helped pull her to the left on a slate of progressive priorities, including trade, banking reform and debt-free college. Clinton decided she opposed the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership (TPP) despite having laid the groundwork for the deal as secretary of state.

But it was Sanders’ branding of her as “establishment” that stuck, a scarlet letter in a year when a populist, anti-establishment tide swept US politics and eventually delivered the White House to Donald Trump."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sives-liberals

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I'd say her biggest issue was Sanders supporters attacking her at every turn -- a house divided against itself cannot stand.

I saw it everywhere from Reddit, to Salon, to Huffpost -- even the left-wing media attacked her "centrism" in contrast to Sanders, and when she finally capitulated and moved to the "left" (losing many moderates in the process) they still didn't show up to vote for her.

Some even continue to attack her to this very day.

(Ironically, it's the same pattern seen with Kamala, while Biden and Buttigieg remain relatively "moderate".)

-----
"Liberal activists had been preparing for months to hold a President Hillary Clinton’s feet to the fire and make sure she stuck to the bold progressive agenda that had emerged from her bruising primary battle with leftwing senator Bernie Sanders.

Instead, on issues as varied as Wall Street reform, climate change, women’s rights and criminal justice, they now face their worst-case scenario: a Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress.

Clinton had called herself “a progressive who likes to get things done” during her primary campaign against Sanders, emphasizing what she saw as her ability to work within the system to effect change. He eventually helped pull her to the left on a slate of progressive priorities, including trade, banking reform and debt-free college. Clinton decided she opposed the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership (TPP) despite having laid the groundwork for the deal as secretary of state.

But it was Sanders’ branding of her as “establishment” that stuck, a scarlet letter in a year when a populist, anti-establishment tide swept US politics and eventually delivered the White House to Donald Trump."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sives-liberals

At the end of the day less Sanders voters defected from her than the amount of Hillary voters that defected from Obama. Obama still won in a landslide. There’s not much evidence that a Sanders opposition creates any more of a hurdle than any other candidate who ran against her would have. At the end of the day there was a real leftist appetite for a non Hillary Clinton candidate and Sanders just happened to be there.

Also Trump went through a much uglier primary with more opposition and more of his opponents calling him unfit.

Ultimately Hillary always had huge negatives tied to the perception that she was untrustworthy and corrupt and it flared up with the email scandal. You can actually tie the shift that cost her the election to the Comey letter