All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[aja_christopher]

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

And you can also hold Sanders supporters accountable for their actions, especially when they continue the same divisive behavior in subsequent elections.

The irony is that I'm actually curious to see how effective Sanders' policies would be in a moderately conservative nation like America -- the nation could do with a leftward shift, given the fact that we have someone who openly promotes white supremacist policies actively working in our government without any real reproach from the Republican party.

But his success can't come at the expense of other candidates or the party as a whole, especially when he can't even win the primary much less the general.

Until you have a winning alternative, it doesn't make sense to constantly attack the only team standing between you and borderline fascism.

[numberthirty]

And you can also hold Sanders supporters accountable for their actions, especially when they continue the same divisive behavior in subsequent elections.

If you are intent on doing so, I would hope it is worth the elections that you will probably lose by doing it.

You just pointed out that a divided house cannot stand, but it feels like being able to hand out "Blame" is more important than figuring out a way to deal with said division.

[Iron Maiden]

It's more of a shame that it turned out this way, since I felt that having her in the race was a good thing over all. It will be up to the political scholars and pundits to figure out what went wrong, but I agree that knowing when to back away isn't a bad thing.

Disappointed that she dropped out but I can see why. For some reason she seemed to get lost in the crowd after having a good beginning. I would have loved to have seen her debate Trump. Now I'm throwing my support to Mayor Pete.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

And you can also hold Sanders supporters accountable for their actions, especially when they continue the same divisive behavior in subsequent elections.

Every presidential candidate will have primary opponents and detractors. Plenty of McCain style Republicans opposed Trump. It’s just something you have to live with. If we go that route I could also say Hillary was more damaging to Obama, the math backs it up, and part of it was floating some mild birtherism out there in the primary’s and guess who latched onto it and spent 8 years using it to make a pivot into politics?

The reality is neither party is uniform anymore and the two party system is archaic and is busting at the seams with in fighting from both sides, any candidate needs to deal with the fact that there will be some in fighting around them and internal opposition.

[aja_christopher]

Every presidential candidate will have primary opponents and detractors. Plenty of McCain style Republicans opposed Trump. It’s just something you have to live with.

It wasn't the same with Trump, which is why he won.

Anyway, there's no point in arguing this like it's still 2016 -- let's just see whether Sanders wins.

And in the process, stop trying to drag everyone else down -- there's too much at stake to repeat the same stupidity this time around.

If you are intent on doing so, I would hope it is worth the elections that you will probably lose by doing it.

Like how Hillary lost after moving the left to satisfy Sanders' supporters?

Like all of the progressives who lost when they ran for midterm election seats, especially in contrast to more moderate candidates?

You're still here trying to sell a pipe dream: when your chosen candidates actually start winning local and national elections, then maybe your criticisms regarding winning local and national elections will actually be relevant.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ele...hat-do-n933771

[Kevinroc]

At this point my fear is that Biden will be the nominee.

[numberthirty]

It wasn't the same with Trump, which is why he won.

Anyway, there's no point in arguing this like it's still 2012 -- let's just see whether Sanders wins.

And in the process, stop trying to drag everyone else down -- there's too much at stake to repeat the same stupidity this time around.

...



Like how Hillary lost after moving the left to satisfy Sanders' supporters?

Like all of the progressives who lost when they ran for midterm election seats, especially in contrast to more moderate candidates?

You're still here trying to sell a pipe dream: when your chosen candidates actually start winning local and national elections, then maybe your criticisms regarding winning local and national elections will actually be relevant.

To put it simply...

There is still not much that points to that a Democratic nominee who is intent on holding a strictly "Moderate" group of voters together has enough leeway to be able to win an election without keeping almost every single on of them in the fold.

How candidates further left have done in the elections you mentioned?

Non-Issue. To put it lightly.

The actual issue is keeping enough of them to give you some breathing room in a Presidential General Election.

Which will be hard to do if you are intent on "Holding The Accountable..."

As for the HRC loss, you are talking about someone who was talking about Sanders not being a "Real" Democrat before being booed for doing so.

You cannot move far enough left to change that bell being rung. That is why doing so again this time out is not advisable.

[numberthirty]

At this point my fear is that Biden will be the nominee.

Well, you are not alone when it comes to being uneasy with that possibility.

[aja_christopher]

To put it simply...

To put it simply, until your "progressive" candidates can put up wins like "moderates" like Obama and Clinton, none of what you're saying is "reality".

So let's just see what happens instead of repeatedly promoting a losing strategy over one that actually wins elections and re-elections.

If you were that confident in the quality of your ideologies or candidates, you wouldn't have to keep putting down others to promote them.

I understand the lack of confidence though -- since they don't generally win elections -- but not the selfish need to try to push them on others.

[numberthirty]

To put it simply, until your "progressive" candidates can put up wins like "moderates" like Obama and Clinton, none of what you're saying is "reality".

So let's just see what happens instead of repeatedly promoting a losing strategy over one that actually wins elections and re-elections.

If you were that confident in the quality of your ideologies or candidates, you wouldn't have to keep putting down others to promote them.

I understand the lack of confidence though -- since they don't generally win elections -- but not the selfish need to try to push them on others.

Bringing that back up will not turn it into an issue when it is not.

The reality is there in the results of the last Presidential Election.

As of right now, a Democratic Presidential Nominee just does not have enough strictly "Moderate" cushion to likely win that Presidential election.

If more "Progressive" candidates can put wins together has nothing to do with that we know that the above is fact.

There is no scenario where potentially alienating more progressive voters makes sense when you could not win an election on "Moderate" support the last time.

[aja_christopher]

Bringing that back up will not turn it into an issue when it is not.

The reality is there in the results of the last Presidential Election.

As of right now, a Democratic Presidential Nominee just does not have enough strictly "Moderate" cushion to likely win that Presidential election.

If more "Progressive" candidates can put wins together has nothing to do with that we know that the above is fact.

There is no scenario where potentially alienating more progressive voters makes sense when you could not win an election on "Moderate" support the last time.

Why are you still arguing?

Let's just see how said theories pan out in "reality" instead of pretending 2016 was the only election in history.

You know -- the one where Sanders lost to Hillary by millions of votes, who then lost after moving to the "left" to cater to Sanders "progressives".

[numberthirty]

Why are you still arguing?

Let's just see how said theories pan out in "reality" instead of pretending 2016 was the only election in history.

You know -- the one where Sanders lost to Hillary by millions of votes.

It is the only election in history that the guy a Democratic Nominee will be running against was involved in.

The results of that race are "Reality". There is no arguing that one way or the other.

Ignoring how that played out to discuss that Sanders lost to Clinton during a primary makes very little sense.

[aja_christopher]

The results of that race are "Reality". There is no arguing that one way or the other.

It's one election out of hundreds in this nation -- the majority of which were not won by "progressives" like Sanders.

That you constantly focus on "Hillary" -- despite "progressive" Sanders getting spanked handily by "moderate" Hillary in the primaries -- and ignore the success of moderates (like Obama and Bill) prior just further shows your lack of historical perspective and why it's a waste of time to expect better at this point.

I also stand by the fact that if you can't see fit to vote against neo-nazis and white supremacists, you probably shouldn't call yourself a Democrat, regardless.

[numberthirty]

It's one election out of hundreds in this nation -- the majority of which were not won by "progressives" like Sanders.

That you constantly focus on "Hillary" -- despite "progressive" Sanders getting spanked handily by "moderate" Hillary in the primaries -- and ignore the success of moderates (like Obama and Bill) prior just further shows your lack of historical perspective and why it's a waste of time to expect better at this point.

I also stand by the fact that if you can't see fit to vote against neo-nazis and white supremacists, you probably shouldn't call yourself a Democrat, regardless.

That I am not a Democrat would probably explain not losing sleep over the party shooting itself in the foot with a nominating process slanted in favor of states it currently is.

[InformationGeek]

Kamala is out and Bloomberg bought his way in. What a load.