I’d rather have an Electoral College that’s been reformed to a nation-wide standard of reflecting the popular vote in each state, but until we have that I agree.
The irony is, Clinton promised to use her Senate seat to sponsor reform of the Electoral College back in 2000 and then followed up by … doing nothing. If she’d put in the effort then she might be in the Oval Office today.
Oh, I’m so sorry; did they just now invent the Electoral College?!
She didn’t win the election because she didn’t work her swing states, she let Trump control the narrative, she did everything in her power to look like a corporate-owned politician, she totally failed to communicate with her base, and then turned around and blamed everyone else for running a crap campaign.
I know you wanted her to be someone different than she was, but it’s a little frustrating to see people defending their (hurrk) “Khaleesi” when they aren’t even talking about the same person that ran a clumsy, half-assed campaign because she decided to gamble America’s future on it being “Her Turn”, even though she knew that polls were saying she was a hugely vulnerable candidate that Dem voters didn’t really like, and Rep voters would turn out in droves to defeat.
This whining over superdelegates is pathetic. Get a candidate that can actually get the support of the majority of the primary voters, and the superdelegates will support them.
A case study in catastrophically clueless privilege:
Anyone who still says the Democratic party shouldn’t be ‘tea partied’ deserves to fall on deaf ears.
I hope so, since my wife could be classified as a lobbyist. Advocating for public health policy for an NGO, but still…
When you contact a legislator to advocate on any issue that is called lobbying. Write a letter to your senator and you are a lobbyist. (Generally, though, we tend to limit the term to just those who do it for pay.)
The rules committee thing is the actual smokey room nonsense, the superdelegates are not what lost Bernie the primaries and their problems are more that they are really pointless the way the system is structured.
Yet more wallowing in hatred, namecalling. All very appealing to people who agree with you (only).
You people love to hate her, but you have to face up to the fact that only moderate Democrats, like Bill Clinton, like Obama, and yes, like, Hillary Clinton, have a chance of winning.
You think Hillary is a flawed candidate? Join the club. But she wasn’t any more “corporate” than any other candidate in the last 50 years. She wasn’t corrupt. She wasn’t incompetent. Excuse her for not being able to control the mainstream media frenzy over Trump. “Khaleesi?” Her flaw was that she was not a khaleesi, she did not inspire the crowds the way Obama did. Being imperfect or unsuccessful in the race does not justify an orgy of hate after the fact.
But I do agree her continued focus on “being the first woman President” was a strategic mistake. Obama never talked widely about his unique role in history until he’d actually sealed the deal.
This truly is fake science. Because you see a dot in a certain space, you think it means something. You might inquire as to the methodology of how the dot got there and who put it there before disseminating it. The site that put the dots there seems to have no methodology. The site does seem to be openly partisan. This is no fivethirtyeight.com. And Glenys Kinnock of One World Action is no Nate Silver.
Instead of the site saying “We’re leftists and we assert Hillary is as right-wing as Trump”, they put 2 dots on a graph and then casually report “The data show Hillary is as right-wing as Trump-- no, more right-wing than Trump.”
Please note that the positions on the chart are based on speeches, manifestos and, where applicable, voting records. If positions markedly change during the campaign, we will revise the chart accordingly.
And it hilariously makes it sound like there is some “science” behind where the unscientific data points are placed. The graph even has pseudo-gridmarks, to make it look more legitimate, more science-ish.
Obviously, superdelegates are the scourge of the Democratic Party, and should be cut way back and required to vote for whoever your state voted voted for in the primaries. That’s what the Republican Party did, and it was hugely successful for them in 2016.
Not so obviously. And I would think that the fact that a superdelegate mechanism in the GOP would have had a capacity to prevent a Trump candidacy is more an argument for keeping superdelegates rather than getting rid of them.
We’ll see if the Republican Party ends up cutting its own throat.
I dont know if Donnie is a fascist. But its hard to miss all the generals in the cabinet. How many generals do you need in government to get a military junta?
PIG’S ARSE.
Bernie would’ve fucking crushed Trump by ten points, if only the goddamn DNC hadn’t rigged him out of the game.
That’s a fucken fact.
Actually, I was being snarky; I completely agree that Trump is a case for keeping superdelegates.
In most states, the process for getting your faction into power in the Democratic Party, including the superdelegate list, is surprisingly easy. (Maybe too easy, as the Illinois party discovered in 1986 with the LaRouche takeover.) It starts with joining the party, which gets you on the mailing list so you know when precinct meetings will be taking place. That doesn’t commit you to obeying Wasserman-Schultz.
State government union members understand that who is in state office can have a huge direct impact on their life, and so state parties nearly everywhere are dominated by teachers and other union members, they’re the ones who show up to meetings and do committee work. These are the people who Sanders supporters were butting up against during the last election, but if these supporters put as much time into local politics as the teachers and garbagemen do then they could gain some genuine power. This is happening in some states, including mine. However, for many it is much easier to refight old fights, repeat screeds from clueless self-styled public intellectuals , and claim there’s nothing that can be done.
Already has, now they’re just working on the rest of the body politic.
The DNC was sued for dirty tricks in the 2016 primaries, and in its defense, DNC leaders insisted the party could “pick candidates in smoke-filled back-rooms” and ignore the votes of party members.
It is also worth pointing out, that lawsuit was dismissed before it was ever heard, because even when given the best possible light(ie, assuming all claims were true independent of any arguments or evidence, to judge if the case should actually proceed) the court basically couldn’t find any standing(In that context, " ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case.") for them to actually litigate.
So saying they were sued is a bit - okay, a fucking lot - disingenuous, considering both that they didn’t successfully sue anyone, and it never actually made it to court, it was thrown out. And the judge didn’t exactly mince words, either, basically calling the entire case - to translate from roughly 28 pages of dense formal legal language into 50-words-or-less - a load of utter gibbering nonsense, being presented to the wrong people, who don’t have the power to give a solution that would satisfy, about problems which were entirely avoidable by the plaintiffs by just reading and following the damned rules of the game they willingly and knowingly entered.
To quote:
“To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC’s internal workings, or their right of free speech——not through the judiciary.”
The Plaintiffs asserting each of these causes of action specifically allege that they donated to the DNC or to Bernie Sanders’s campaign. But not one of them alleges that they ever read the DNC’s charter or heard the statements they now claim are false before making their donations. And not one of them alleges that they took action in reliance on the DNC’s charter or the statements identified in the First Amended Complaint.
“The act of donating to an organization does not, of itself, create a legally protected interest in the organization’s operations.”
If you want to read the whole thing for yourself, or just skim it to cherry pick quotes to scream back at me for disagreeing(but please don’t, this isn’t reddit), it’s all right here.
Of course, people who don’t know shit about what they’re talking about will still cite this - present company not excluded, because, Corey, do your damned damned due dilligence for fuck’s sake - usually in the same form seen above, that the DNC was “Sued”(which is only true in the loosest interpretation), without ever talking about the result. Because if they did, they’d have to admit the case was thrown out, and essentially didn’t happen.
(Edit- And I’m saying Corey didn’t do his due diligence, because I generally trust him, so I’d rather think he just made a mistake, rather than that he DID do his due diligence and said it anyway, which would mean that he was just outright lying, rather than mistaken.)
Thats’s fucken cognitive dissonance.
