So Much for "Unity" at the DNC: Corporate Democrats Purge Bernie Backers
Any chance for details of what this "dirty DNC tactic" was supposed to have been?
South_Mountaineer said:
If we can't sit through 18 minutes of video, could someone who did sum up what is being complained about, or who, or whatever it is?
nan said:
Well, your vote will be thrown away since they will probably lose. Here is the latest dirty DNC tactic.
I switched to Hillary too. But, when she lost to Trump, I expected the DNC to have an honest look at why they lost and make changes. But, that is not going to happen. Realisticlly we are looking at more big losses and the Democrats we are settling for are basically Republicans. As to the money situation, it's very complicated and I urge you all to watch this video. It is an eye opener. Nomi Kanst, an investigative reporter, follows the money at the DNC and how they starve local races in favor of presidential campaigns and how much of the money goes to consultants who are not held accountable (and rehired after failing) and how the buget is singed off by the chair and not reviewed by a committee. Basically they have a losing strategy but no will to change.
South_Mountaieer - They were trying to say that progressives wanted to remove three black women. It was a blg blow up.
Anyway, I found a great Thomas Frank lecture on "Why Democrats Lose" It's long but shorter than reading his book.
More DNC dirty tricks. They won't let the progressive Democratis candidates see the votor database they give to establishment Democratic candidates. And you wonder why some people vote 3rd party?
I don't wonder. It's because they're self-centered impractical idealists who are more concerned with their personal fee fees than whether their country will progress or regress. They claim to be progressive, yet they vote to be regressive.
So, no confusion there.
nan said:
More DNC dirty tricks. They won't let the progressive Democratis candidates see the votor database they give to establishment Democratic candidates. And you wonder why some people vote 3rd party?
All was quiet. Bit now its close to election time.
Even though its mostly local elections, the time is now to diss the Democratic party, to un-motivate Democratic voters, to not get them to vote.
Just who is funding all these recent nuggets of knowledge?
The Democrats have big corporate donors, Wall Street, Big Pharma, insurance, oil companies, Hollywood, and media, billionares, and other lobbiests.
The Justice Democrats are self-funded through a group that does not take money from a PAC or lobbyiest (as Bernie did). https://secure.actblue.com/donate/jdpacslate?refcode=homepageheader They may be affiliated with some other like-minded groups such as "Brand New Congress"
Big story! Donna Brazille wrote an incendiary piece for The HIll blasting the DNC, which she says was secretly run by Hillary. Wow. Did not see this coming.
Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC
Another analysis going into detail about the Clinton money laundering piece. Yes, I said money laundering -
So basically, there was no DNC. There was a HNC (Hillary National Committee)
nan said:
How does this not bother people? I just don't get it.
1. I didn’t give them any money.
2. I didn’t vote for them.
3. Who are they? I don’t know them.
4. They’re all grifters anyway.
nan said:
So basically, there was no DNC. There was a HNC (Hillary National Committee)
Make sure you post this in every thread. It's clever.
Interesting artcle in the Intercept today placing a big portion of the blame for the DNC mess on Obama:
ANGRY ABOUT THE DNC SCANDAL? THANK OBAMA.
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/03/dnc-donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-barack-obama/
excerpt:
". . .
It didn’t have to be this way. Obama’s campaign operation, Obama for America, took small-dollar giving to never-before-seen heights and opened up the possibility of a transformation of politics. But he quickly decided to marginalize his group after the 2008 election. He renamed it Organizing for America, but ordered it to do very little organizing, worried that if grassroots activists attacked Blue Dog Democrats, they would bolt from the president and lose in 2010. Then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel famously told activists such a strategy was “******* retarded.” (Most lost anyway in 2010, as the tea party wave swept them out.)
OFA became Obama’s primary campaign apparatus, supplanting the DNC, which became an afterthought handed to Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who later became Clinton’s running mate. After the 2010 wave, Obama put Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz on top of the moribund institution, a clear signal that he was uninterested in it as a central component of the party. Obama’s poor relationship with Wasserman Schultz was widely known and written about, but he left her in the job for six years regardless.
Raising money for a bland outfit like the DNC isn’t easy in the best of times, but with Obama offering little to no help, and clinging to his invaluable email list, Wasserman Schultz was set up to fail, even if she would have done so on her own.
Obama instead reasoned that he could become the party, his dynamic and charismatic personality carrying it at the national level.
Obama was re-elected, but the party itself went on a historic losing spree, ultimately shedding nearly 1,000 seats across the country. Even after Democrats lost the Senate in 2014, and the DNC continued spending money on consultants at an eye-popping rate, Obama decided not to make a leadership change. Instead, he left it saddled with debt — debt the Clinton campaign would later agree to pay off in exchange for control.
Obama finally became interested in the party after the 2016 loss. His final gift to the party apparatus was Tom Perez, his labor secretary, who he recruited to stop Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., from winning the race for DNC chair. Obama and Perez won. DNC funding has been anemic, and it recently had to add to its roughly $3 million in debt."
jeez. this guy even mangles the mangled version of Emmanuel's quote.
but I understand. It's part of the neo-liberal myth. A totem that all good "progressives" must believe.
And yeah, gee, because Obama didn't do, something?, this meant that the DNC must collapse, because the poor snowflakes were helpless to do their jobs.
Someone explain to me the importance of the DNC again?
Just so I get this straight. The DNC was supposed to politically and financially promote Sanders- a primary candidate who was not a democrat? As opposed to, Clinton, who spent most her her adult career promoting Democratic candidates up and down the ballot. Um, ok.
Because there are more important things to focus on - like getting a Democrat into the Governor’s office in NJ. But, you go ahead and keep posting anti-Hillary/anti-DNC stuff. It’s super helpful.
nan said:
How does this not bother people? I just don't get it.
No, the DNC was supposd to be a netural party during the nomination. The resumes of accepted candidates does not provide them a different set of rules. I should not have to explain how basic Democracy works for you. Instead the DNC had a SECRET pact with Clinton, signed a year before the primary, whereby she ran the DNC. It was the HNC, not the DNC. Every hire and fire and memo and strategy went through her office in Brooklyn. She also used it as a legal, but ethically questionable money laudering scheme--so the money that was supposed to go to the states went there and then they ahd to turn around and send almost all of it back to her. This is how they got around individulal contribution limits. The states only kept 1% and some did not have enough money. If you are OK with that, then having a facist president should not be a problem.
Hahaha said:
Just so I get this straight. The DNC was supposed to politically and financially promote Sanders- a primary candidate who was not a democrat? As opposed to, Clinton, who spent most her her adult career promoting Democratic candidates up and down the ballot. Um, ok.
Don't say we didn't warn you.
Prominent Sanders Supporters Issue Report Criticizing the Democratic Leaders for Failing to Learn From 2016
Exerpt:
"Since the election, the DNC has not made any structural changes to build bridges to the party's Berniecrats, such as reforming its superdelegate system. In 2017 races like Virginia's gubernatorial election, the way party leaders haven't changed their voter outreach strategy is also offputting, Solomon said, because it's prioritized white centrists and appears to take non-white voters for granted."
That one paragraph is filled with so much misinformation, it's staggering.
Not that I'm going to point out where you're wrong, yet again. You have proved to be impervious to facts.
nan said:
No, the DNC was supposd to be a netural party during the nomination. The resumes of accepted candidates does not provide them a different set of rules. I should not have to explain how basic Democracy works for you. Instead the DNC had a SECRET pact with Clinton, signed a year before the primary, whereby she ran the DNC. It was the HNC, not the DNC. Every hire and fire and memo and strategy went through her office in Brooklyn. She also used it as a legal, but ethically questionable money laudering scheme--so the money that was supposed to go to the states went there and then they ahd to turn around and send almost all of it back to her. This is how they got around individulal contribution limits. The states only kept 1% and some did not have enough money. If you are OK with that, then having a facist president should not be a problem.
Hahaha said:
Just so I get this straight. The DNC was supposed to politically and financially promote Sanders- a primary candidate who was not a democrat? As opposed to, Clinton, who spent most her her adult career promoting Democratic candidates up and down the ballot. Um, ok.
Nan, I accept most of your condemnation of the DNC, but it has nothing to do with the rules of democracy. It is a privately run non profit designed to get it's preferred candidates elected. It is not part of the government. Anyone can start a national committee for any party they want. Hillary supported and worked for DNC candidates for years. It was an organization designed to get her elected, not another candidate. I don't give them money. You don't have to. But Sanders ran outside that organization. They owed him nothing, and they are not even required to back the candidate with the most primary votes. They don't matter.
But wait. Brazile's hands are not clean. Let's not forget:
“My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen,” she wrote. “But sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret.”
WikiLeaks posted emails from Brazile to the Clinton campaign that tipped it off that a woman from Flint, Michigan, would ask Clinton about the situation there for a town hall. Brazile also told the campaign that Clinton would be asked about the death penalty at a separate town hall.
CNN dropped Brazile as a contributor after the revelations. When the email alerting the Clinton campaign about the death penalty question was released, Brazile suggested the documents were “misinformation.”
Their entire house needs to be cleaned out and start anew with people who are leaders and potential winners.
As a lifelong union democrat, I don't see the party recovering any time soon.
No lurch to the left is going to get us anywhere in the short term. Any movement needs to be slow and unsatisfyingly painful. GOP took years to get so far right, gerrymandering their way into safe seats and poisoning public discourse. For me, this is the climax of Fox/hate radio's success, the internet, and backlash of resentful whites against BHO.
We could elect a moderate democrat president in the near future but left-leaning legislative success needs to be built slowly and (unsatisfyingly) painfully. A moderate POTUS can sign progressive legislation.
The idea that Bernie could've gotten elected in '16 is fantasy. The ruefulness some progressives express may feel good, but it's basically resentfulness. And speaking of resentfulness, I'll echo what others have said - Bernie wasn't a democrat and isn't a democrat.
Back in the day I felt really proud to have voted McGovern ('72) and Jesse Jackson in a primary sometime in the 80's. Felt like I was really standing up for my principles. As an old coot I know that HRC was the best we could've done in '16.
yes. good post. puts it all in a nutshell.
GL2 said:
As a lifelong union democrat, I don't see the party recovering any time soon.
No lurch to the left is going to get us anywhere in the short term. Any movement needs to be slow and unsatisfyingly painful. GOP took years to get so far right, gerrymandering their way into safe seats and poisoning public discourse. For me, this is the climax of Fox/hate radio's success, the internet, and backlash of resentful whites against BHO.
We could elect a moderate democrat president in the near future but left-leaning legislative success needs to be built slowly and (unsatisfyingly) painfully. A moderate POTUS can sign progressive legislation.
The idea that Bernie could've gotten elected in '16 is fantasy. The ruefulness some progressives express may feel good, but it's basically resentfulness. And speaking of resentfulness, I'll echo what others have said - Bernie wasn't a democrat and isn't a democrat.
Back in the day I felt really proud to have voted McGovern ('72) and Jesse Jackson in a primary sometime in the 80's. Felt like I was really standing up for my principles. As an old coot I know that HRC was the best we could've done in '16.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Advertisement
It isn't that a third party isn't viable, it is that the way third parties in the US are currently going about things makes them un-electable. Take either the Green Party or the Libertarian party, how many governors, senators, and representatives do they have? You have to work hard to EARN credibility. But nope, they just want to waltz in the door and hope to win the White House. That is why it won't work, not because three parties can't but because the current ones we have aren't willing to build support from the ground up.
If a third party slowly worked their way up in government to the point where they had multiple governors, and multiple people in both houses of congress, THEN they would have a decent shot and it wouldn't be folly to vote.
I was a huge Bernie supporter. But the moment Bernie stepped aside I switched to Hillary. I'm a progressive, but I'm also realistic.