"Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC"
The DNC encouraged Trump to run?
wow. We need to get you lead lining for that tin hat.
nan said:
She lost to an orange psycho!!!! She should have won in a landslide--that's why the DNC encoraged Trump to run. They thought it would be easy peasy. She ran a horrible campaign--ask Donna Brazile, not me. She bought the nomination and she still lost. How can you support this crap? It is undefensable.
nan,
Do you know that Clinton won the working class vote? (under 50k salary)
Do you know she won the union vote?
Do you know Clinton won among people who thought the economy was the most important issue?
That whole paragraph of yours below is based on the opposite of the truth.
Do you care that whoever you're using for your information is lying to you?
Your disinformation in these threads is really tiring us out. All we do is correct you with facts, and you blithely go along believing the opposite.
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/
nan said:
If she had run a better campaign, she probably would have won. Donna Brazille talks about this in the book and inerviews (I've only seen the interviews). She was banging her head trying to get them to pay attention. Clinton ignored the rust belt and blue collar workers. As we have gone over before, Chuck Schumer voiced the strategy to ignore the working class and focus on the professional class instead- (https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4632402/every-blue-collar-democrat). This has been a problem at the DNC for decades. Clinton is responsble for losing the election, not Susan Saradon, no matter what she wrote in the fictional "What Happened?"
...
drummerboy said:
The DNC encouraged Trump to run?
wow. We need to get you lead lining for that tin hat.
nan said:
She lost to an orange psycho!!!! She should have won in a landslide--that's why the DNC encoraged Trump to run. They thought it would be easy peasy. She ran a horrible campaign--ask Donna Brazile, not me. She bought the nomination and she still lost. How can you support this crap? It is undefensable.
Come on now. Anyone who was paying attention knows that there were plenty of D talking heads that were ecstatic to run against a buffoon like Trump. There was even a theory that he was running as an R only in an effort to tank their effort in favor of Hillary.
nohero said:
. . . the chanting Bernie Bros at the convention . . .
One of the defining moments of the Hillary campaign was at the convention during General Allen's speech when Bernie supporters began to chant "No More War, No More War . . " and the Hillary supporters (under the direction of their leaders) tried to down them out with "USA, USA . . ." We saw this play out in the recent vote, supported by establishment Dems, opposed by Bernie, to increase military spending by $80 billion, $26 billion more than what Trump asked for. The Resistance at work.
drummerboy said:
nan,
Do you know that Clinton won the working class vote? (under 50k salary)
Do you know she won the union vote?
Do you know Clinton won among people who thought the economy was the most important issue?
That whole paragraph of yours below is based on the opposite of the truth.
Do you care that whoever you're using for your information is lying to you?
Your disinformation in these threads is really tiring us out. All we do is correct you with facts, and you blithely go along believing the opposite.
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/
nan said:
If she had run a better campaign, she probably would have won. Donna Brazille talks about this in the book and inerviews (I've only seen the interviews). She was banging her head trying to get them to pay attention. Clinton ignored the rust belt and blue collar workers. As we have gone over before, Chuck Schumer voiced the strategy to ignore the working class and focus on the professional class instead- (https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4632402/every-blue-collar-democrat). This has been a problem at the DNC for decades. Clinton is responsble for losing the election, not Susan Saradon, no matter what she wrote in the fictional "What Happened?"
...
Seems like she won every group but the Electoral College. They probably failed to make a contribution to
the Clinton Fund
Here is a fact some of you are having trouble accepting: HIllary LOST!!!!! Really, she did and she had a really bad campaign, and if you don't believe me than read Brazille's book. She did not do well in the states that mattered for the votes needed to win.
The idea that the Clintons encoraged Trump to run has been made by several others, including Vanity Fair - https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-before-presidential-run-2016
Wikileaks revealed more about how the Clinton campaign sought to legitimize Trump:
http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/
Basically, they wanted it to be easy for Clinton to win.
OK, let me get this straight.
You're accusing/criticizing the Clinton campaign of using tactics that would make it "easy" for her to win? And that they would try to use the various Republican candidates against each other?
And you think there's something wrong with that?
jeebuskrist, you're further out there than I thought.
Bye the way, here's news for you too. Bernie LOST! And he was beaten a lot worse than Clinton was. So get over it.
Anyway, good way to ignore all of the points I made that show you're coming from some fantasy-land.
nan said:
Here is a fact some of you are having trouble accepting: HIllary LOST!!!!! Really, she did and she had a really bad campaign, and if you don't believe me than read Brazille's book. She did not do well in the states that mattered for the votes needed to win.
The idea that the Clintons encoraged Trump to run has been made by several others, including Vanity Fair - https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-before-presidential-run-2016
Wikileaks revealed more about how the Clinton campaign sought to legitimize Trump:
http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/
Basically, they wanted it to be easy for Clinton to win.
No, she lost the deplorables vote, (the racists, the immigrants-stole-my-job vote, the duh-let's-bring-back-coal vote,etc) which, unfortunately for everyone, was a lot larger than any modern society should expect.
author said:
drummerboy said:
nan,
Do you know that Clinton won the working class vote? (under 50k salary)
Do you know she won the union vote?
Do you know Clinton won among people who thought the economy was the most important issue?
That whole paragraph of yours below is based on the opposite of the truth.
Do you care that whoever you're using for your information is lying to you?
Your disinformation in these threads is really tiring us out. All we do is correct you with facts, and you blithely go along believing the opposite.
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/
nan said:
If she had run a better campaign, she probably would have won. Donna Brazille talks about this in the book and inerviews (I've only seen the interviews). She was banging her head trying to get them to pay attention. Clinton ignored the rust belt and blue collar workers. As we have gone over before, Chuck Schumer voiced the strategy to ignore the working class and focus on the professional class instead- (https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4632402/every-blue-collar-democrat). This has been a problem at the DNC for decades. Clinton is responsble for losing the election, not Susan Saradon, no matter what she wrote in the fictional "What Happened?"
...
Seems like she won every group but the Electoral College. They probably failed to make a contribution to
the Clinton Fund
by the way, no one is arguing that Hillary didn't lose. I'm arguing that you don't have a clue about why she lost. You say she ignored the blue collar vote - in fact she won the blue collar vote. So with that little fact, you should adjust your thoughts on the matter. That's what smart people do.
Instead, you clam up and switch to another subject, and you simply ignore the inconvenient truth that doesn't fit into your worldview. I'm not sure what kind of people do that.
Unfortunately - there were so many unknowns of how Trump would have "made fun" of Bernie. You can't factor any of the Trump effect into the polling properly, because we're unaware of what sort of insults would have been hurled his way.
If Sanders was the nominee he probably would have said- "I'm not sure why you ran this old, socialist, commie when you could have run Clinton who had more experience in many sector of our government."
This is the word cloud Trump supporters have on Sanders. The fear of socialism would be the number one lead story instead of "Emails".
What Trump was successful at was building a divide among democrats - which is still happening.
Personally, I'm still proud of Hillary and her historical run. This debate will go on forever and we need to move past and make sure if doesn't happen again. I do believe fake news, gerrymandering and the Facebook algorithm had major affect in the outcome.
Also, the Trump tactics that John Stewart laid out tonight is what we need to fight against: Delegitimizing the news, Whataboutism and Trolling:
Bernie lost but he is now the most popular politician in the country. Hillary is still unpopular. Every poll taken said he would have beaten Trump. Unlike Hillary, Bernie directed his message to working people, now ignored by the Democratic party. Here is a New York Times piece discussing why it is important not to write off the white working class and to get them to focus more on the working part and less on the white part.
ridski said:
If this were a popularity contest, Tom Hanks would be president.
There is no crying in politics
Of course Bernie is more popular than Hillary. They're both unpopular among Republicans and other conservatives. Then, Hillary is unpopular among non-GOP and non-conservatives including the still-Bernie-bro types, and Democrats who have decided to blame her to cover themselves. So it's a no-brainer to see that Bernie is popular among more people than Hillary is.
nan said:
Bernie lost but he is now the most popular politician in the country. Hillary is still unpopular. Every poll taken said he would have beaten Trump. Unlike Hillary, Bernie directed his message to working people, now ignored by the Democratic party. Here is a New York Times piece discussing why it is important not to write off the white working class and to get them to focus more on the working part and less on the white part.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/12/opinion/democrats-virginia-jersey-victory.html?smid=fb-share&referer=http://m.facebook.com/
Nan, you've stated "Bernie is the most popular politician in the country today" numerous times both in this thread and the other DNC thread. Where is the evidence to support this statement?
And yes, Bernie supported single payer healthcare and free college and a living wage. I'm not against any of these proposals. But, do you truly think any of these policies he ran on would actually pass both the House and Senate given the realities of our Congress? Because if you're being honest with yourself, they wouldn't and then what would you be left with?
If you want to vote for a third party candidate in 2020 that's obviously your prerogative. However, I find it an incredibly foolish and, I'm sorry to say, selfish act given that there's a very real chance Trump could win reelection.
nan said:
BG9,
Bernie was not the one to buy the nomination. Bernie was not owned by Wall Street. Donna Brazille, a DNC insider, was the one to put the final nail in Hillary's doomed campaign. Bernie campagned for her. And your remark about BLM - so what? Campaigns should be about policies, not personalities. Bernie was for single-payer healthcare, free college, a living wage, stronger unions, a ban on fracking. Which of these do you hate the most? The same Democrats who were say we did not have money for these things, recently voted to give Trump 80 Bilion more for the military - more than what he asked them for. Hllary was telling the bankers that they should be able to regulate themselves. HIllary promted fracking around the world. HIllary made one bad foreign policy judgement after another. Hillary wanted a no-fly zone in Syria. Hillary wrote a book about "What Happened?" and left out what really happened.
And finally, Bernie is the most popular polition in the country today. This is not because he has some charismatic personality. People are excited about his policies. They make them want to get off the couch and vote. Are you fine with the Democrats ignoring that and just continuing withe the same strategy that wiped them out in 2016?
you sure can say that 9 or 37 times.
Perseverance said:
If you want to vote for a third party candidate in 2020 that's obviously your prerogative. However, I find it an incredibly foolish and, I'm sorry to say, selfish act given that there's a very real chance Trump could win reelection.
Perseverance said:
Nan, you've stated "Bernie is the most popular politician in the country today" numerous times both in this thread and the other DNC thread. Where is the evidence to support this statement?
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-655315
Thank you! Although this dates back to August so I wonder if it still holds true?
ridski said:
Perseverance said:
Nan, you've stated "Bernie is the most popular politician in the country today" numerous times both in this thread and the other DNC thread. Where is the evidence to support this statement?
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-655315
Off-year polls are as reliable a gauge of a politician’s electability as standardized tests are of a teacher’s effectiveness.
jamie said:
Unfortunately - there were so many unknowns of how Trump would have "made fun" of Bernie. You can't factor any of the Trump effect into the polling properly, because we're unaware of what sort of insults would have been hurled his way.
If Sanders was the nominee he probably would have said- "I'm not sure why you ran this old, socialist, commie when you could have run Clinton who had more experience in many sector of our government."
I know what they would have used, having been told.
To start, they would bring up his honeymoon in the Communist Soviet Union. Who else would go there for their honeymoon except for die hard communists?
They would bring up that he went to Nicaragua and joined "death to America" rallies there.
They would have brought up how Bernie Sander's wife raped Burlington College with tear jerkers from students whose education imploded or was delayed.
They would have brought up the Bernie lives in baronial splendor in three houses. Pointing out he's like the Soviet commie elite who lived in splendor while the masses lived on food lines. Also, expect food lines if Bernie becomes president.
It doesn't matter how much of the above is true. Its the repetition that counts.
As for popularity, that can change. Clinton's popularity as Sec of Stage was 67 to 69, a very good rating. Then the heavy attacks and the constant lies. This would have been done to Bernie were he the nominee.
Now the right wing takes it easy on Bernie. Their hope is he'll remain significant enough to be a serious disrupter in 2020 election. Their fool, their tool.
Perseverance said:
And yes, Bernie supported single payer healthcare and free college and a living wage. I'm not against any of these proposals. But, do you truly think any of these policies he ran on would actually pass both the House and Senate given the realities of our Congress? Because if you're being honest with yourself, they wouldn't and then what would you be left with?
I wish people would stop making arguments like this. Are you saying that Congress would have been more cooperative with HRC?
Yes Bernie Sanders is the most popular:
http://observer.com/2017/10/sanders-is-most-popular-us-politician-and-trump-is-least-popular/
This article also points out how most people want progressive policies.
Seems like if the DNC wanted to win elections, the platform should be a no-brainer. But, instead they carry on about how he is not a Democrat and keep taking big money from donors and oppose the things that people want. That's why I will not vote for them anymore. You can also demand that the DNC stop working for Wall Street instead of Main Street or you can beat up on me and Susan Sarandon. The Democrats choose to loose, rather then embrace the polices that people want. And don't tell me we don't have the money because the Democrats all just voted to give $80 billion more to the military. How come when it comes to free college, everyone says, "How can we afford that?" Why don't they say the same thing when they ask for more money for more wars that are not even declared?
And it does look like Trump will be re-elected, but don't blame me because I warned you as I did the last time also.
In our hyper partisan Congress, no I do not think Clinton would have an easy time. Far from it. In fact, I think any president at this point would have an uphill battle. However, I do think Clinton's proposals were more pragmatic than Sanders and perhaps that could have worked in her favor. Of course, you would always have members of Congress not support her solely because she's a Clinton.
Someone mentioned either in this thread or the other that watching Sanders and Trump was sort of like watching a middle school election...lots of campaign promises that would never come to fruition. I tend to agree with that. And even if Sanders were elected, there would have been the inevitable disappointment and letdown by his supporters that he wasn't able to achieve what he set out to do or was only able to achieve some watered down version of a policy. All you need to do is look at Obama. His biggest supporters drank the kool aid in 2008 and were all excited about hope and change. Then they were disappointed that he turned out to be far more moderate than they had hoped.
But really this discussion is somewhat pointless because it's all speculation and noise at this point. And yes, I'm a hypocrite for taking part in it. Instead of fighting about Clinton and Sanders, we should really be focusing our efforts on making sure Trump is not reelected.
Red_Barchetta said:
Perseverance said:
And yes, Bernie supported single payer healthcare and free college and a living wage. I'm not against any of these proposals. But, do you truly think any of these policies he ran on would actually pass both the House and Senate given the realities of our Congress? Because if you're being honest with yourself, they wouldn't and then what would you be left with?
I wish people would stop making arguments like this. Are you saying that Congress would have been more cooperative with HRC?
nan said:
Yes Bernie Sanders is the most popular:
http://observer.com/2017/10/sanders-is-most-popular-us-politician-and-trump-is-least-popular/
FWIW, the site link I posted isn't owned by the President's daughter's husband's sister's husband.
In a dream last night I told people that if Bill Cosby had run for President ten years ago he would have been elected in a landslide.
Popularity is fleeting. At the beginning of 1992 George H.W. Bush was so popular that no major Democrat wanted to run for the nomination.
Bernie had one major advantage over Hillary. Gender. After the racial breakthrough of Obama the Country was not ready for another major break through.
But as I have repeatedly posted the major factor was that Trump was the Republican candidate and history shows that the voters seem to like to alternate between the Parties
Actually, the voters do not like to alternate between the parties.
In 2000, the Republican lost the popular vote.
In 2016, the Republican lost the popular vote.
The voters seem to want to stick with the Dems. The EC keeps on stopping them.
LOST said:
..
But as I have repeatedly posted the major factor was that Trump was the Republican candidate and history shows that the voters seem to like to alternate between the Parties
I take your point with respect to the popular vote but crucial States have swung back and forth.
In any event I do not see any benefit to continuing this "discussion" about the 2016 campaign for the Democratic Nomination.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Featured Events
-
Go "Back to the '70s" with The Maplewood Glee Club and Special Guests from CHS
May 19, 2024 at 4:00pm
Advertisement
If she had run a better campaign, she probably would have won. Donna Brazille talks about this in the book and inerviews (I've only seen the interviews). She was banging her head trying to get them to pay attention. Clinton ignored the rust belt and blue collar workers. As we have gone over before, Chuck Schumer voiced the strategy to ignore the working class and focus on the professional class instead- (https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4632402/every-blue-collar-democrat). This has been a problem at the DNC for decades. Clinton is responsble for losing the election, not Susan Saradon, no matter what she wrote in the fictional "What Happened?"
Not all Bernie supporters advocated voting 3rd party. Many, including Bernie, said to vote for her. I voted for her because although I think she is beyond horrible, I figued she would be better at showing up everyday and actually doing the job--not tweeting about wishing the leader of North Korea was her friend. Had I known how she bought the nomination though, I would have voted 3rd party. I will not vote for a Democrat (except for some local races) until they make a major overhaul at the DNC, which probably means never. There is no excusing that secret contract between Clinton and the DNC. Everyone should be protesting that and it is as bad as anything Trump did to get elected.
The Progressives were treated horribly at the convention and were not allowed to speak. Nina Turner was not even allowed in, while Leon Pannetta was welcomed. They were all screaming "No more Wars" during his speech: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/disruptions-by-angry-bernie-sanders-delegates-were-the-best-part-of-the-democratic-convention/page/2/ I agree with the author of this article who thought the Bernie delegates were the best part of the convention. The Democrats are just too right-wing for me.