Dem Post Mortem

[Jimmy Higgins]

There was, among the DNC, what amounted to a betrayal of progressive interests by failing to at least play a "fair" campaign against Sanders.

This is bullshit.
Sanders never had much support amongst the Democrats because he isn't and wasn't a Democrat!
The Clintons allowed him to jump the fence mainly so her coronation was slightly less obvious. Also, I think she used him to float trial balloons about which leftist policies would get the most support, without taking responsibility for proposing them. But she won the primary without resorting to the "super delegates" because she had the solid backing so devoted they voted in the primary election.
Tom

Agree. She won the primary because she got more votes. Millions of more votes. I met both HRC and Bernie in person. I liked her more. She seemed more genuine to me. So i voted for her. There will never be a perfectly unbiased democratic (or republican for that matter) sytem to elect our candidates. I’m sorry that Bernie didn’t get as much support in the beginning as HRC did. He was the outsider in 2016. Obama was the outsider in 2008. He also was badly treated in the beginning; and yet over came all and won. Dems need to come together!

Bernie made a great candidate, he wouldn't have made a great President. Bernie was great to help tell the Democrat Party that the liberals are getting real tired of being ignored.

Not even "liberals", "progressives".

He was there to gain political capital among the progressive Dems, and the fact that the progressives were shut out drove them away from the polls, making for an L for the Democrats.

I'm progressive, I didn't walk away. Most didn't. Harris lost in a very similar manner as Clinton did.

It was very clearly the "fuck you, it's gonna be 'business as usual'" message that cost the election when we had a huge 'outsider' candidate.

Sanders has done nothing in Congress. He isn't a problem solver, he wouldn't have been a great candidate against Trump, and certainly would have been an ineffective President. Sanders did well in states with caucuses, not primaries. He lost Massachusetts, Texas, California, New York.

His primary candidacy was a populist stroke of luck at the right time. It helped push the Democrat platform a bit to the left, and Sanders campaigned for Clinton. The Town Hall had likely no impact on the race. Progs liked Sanders, they weren't being convinced because of a Town Hall differential. Mainstream preferred Clinton. There wasn't this massive Civil War some people seem to recall.

And of course, when Sanders loses to Trump in 2016, people would be saying Clinton would have beaten Trump.

 

[Jarhyn]

He isn't a problem solver, he wouldn't have been a great candidate against Trump, and certainly would have been an ineffective President.

I didn't argue that at all.

I don't really think Sanders could possibly have won.

Let's imagine five people playing a board game together.

One of the players got a disadvantageous starting position. Well call him Greg.

Now, generally Two of the five people are friends with Sally and 2 of the five are friends with Bob, and each friend of each person is a complete idiot.

Greg isn't really a friend of either, but he is most likely Sally, and Sally's friend kind of also likes Greg. Let's call her Peach.

In this board game, coalitions are needed to win, particularly of players with resources.

At the beginning of the game, Sally utterly fucks over Greg, and Sally's friend sees this, shaking her faith in Sally's commitment to winning the game and it doesn't sit in Peach's mind and dried out just enough of her interest in supporting Sally that she loses, even though Greg hates Bob. In fact, if Sally had never fucked Greg, Greg would have made a good ally, and Peach never would have fumbled either. It would have been 3 on 2 but for Sally's desire to hamstring Greg.

This is one of those situations where even someone that is GOING to lose has an entitlement to "fair play" and that this fair play is in the interest even of someone who might see Greg as a threat to the loyalty of Peach, as it were.

I understand that this goes over the heads of a lot of people, but this is what is necessary to win as democrats: they MUST play fairly even when it rankles them to do it, because their ability to play fairly is kind of their whole identity, and not doing that destroys faith even if the moderates and centrists.

It is all about vibes and perceptions during an election because Intelligence has its fat tail to the 'unintelligent" side.

Shaking faith in the foundations of a party built on fairness and inclusion and 'the big tent' is fucking stupid.

And Harris lost the election because Trump got a huge media windfall getting fake-shot in the head and with his opponent dropping out of the race and causing all kinds of fucked up confusion in addition to whatever illegal hijinks and vote buying.

 

[TomC]

Not even "liberals", "progressives".

He was there to gain political capital among the progressive Dems, and the fact that the progressives were shut out drove them away from the polls, making for an L for the Democrats.

It was very clearly the "fuck you, it's gonna be 'business as usual'" message that cost the election when we had a huge 'outsider' candidate.

Nonsense. Despite the bubble you live in, the large majority of Democrats are centrist. That used to be true of the Republicans as well, although it isn't any longer.

But there was no "shut out" of Dem extremists. Clinton got so many votes in the primary that the super delegates never entered the picture. If Sanders couldn't win amongst the Democrats, what possible reason would make him viable in the general?

Honestly, despite my solid support for Democrats across the board, had 2016 presented me with a choice between Sanders and Kasich, I'd have probably voted Kasich. He did not appear in thrall to the Teaparty, was more centrist and competent than Sanders.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And Harris lost the election because Trump got a huge media windfall getting fake-shot in the head and with his opponent dropping out of the race and causing all kinds of fucked up confusion in addition to whatever illegal hijinks and vote buying.

Harris received nearly 2 million fewer votes in California than Biden did while Trump received about the same as 2020. She also underperformed NY, NJ, MA, and IL in ways that can't be interpreted as Trump gaining support. Likewise this was observed in MD and OH, where Trump's support didn't really increase.

Harris lost in large part due to inflation. It was less about Trump and more about the economy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not even "liberals", "progressives".

He was there to gain political capital among the progressive Dems, and the fact that the progressives were shut out drove them away from the polls, making for an L for the Democrats.

It was very clearly the "fuck you, it's gonna be 'business as usual'" message that cost the election when we had a huge 'outsider' candidate.

Nonsense. Despite the bubble you live in, the large majority of Democrats are centrist. That used to be true of the Republicans as well, although it isn't any longer.

But there was no "shut out" of Dem extremists. Clinton got so many votes in the primary that the super delegates never entered the picture. If Sanders couldn't win amongst the Democrats, what possible reason would make him viable in the general?

Honestly, despite my solid support for Democrats across the board, had 2016 presented me with a choice between Sanders and Kasich, I'd have probably voted Kasich. He did not appear in thrall to the Teaparty, was more centrist and competent than Sanders.
Tom

While Kasich isn't a tea party or MAGA guy, he was a Reaganite (far from a centrist) and he is likely wet dreamin' every night as Trump permanently reduces the size of the Executive Branch in ways he could have only imagined in the 80s.

 

[TomC]

While Kasich isn't a tea party or MAGA guy, he was a Reaganite (far from a centrist) and he is likely wet dreamin' every night as Trump permanently reduces the size of the Executive Branch in ways he could have only imagined in the 80s.

I don't know about today. I stopped caring about Kasich when the Kasich/Cruz desperate attempt to shut out Trump failed so miserably. I still think he'd have been better than Sanders, but none of that matters now. Hillary's attempt to launch an insurrection, based on her popular vote win, didn't happen so the Deep State teapartiers finished taking control of the Republican Party and (having no moral scruples or interest in the USA people) the government.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Trump permanently reduces the size of the Executive Branch

WUT?
Reduced in number of personnel making decisions, but VASTLY expanded in terms of the power of the executive. The power of of the legislative and judicial branches is consolidated into the executive branch, and the power of the executive branch is consolidated into one exceedingly stupid, malevolent individual.
Do you think that is what Kasich imagined?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump permanently reduces the size of the Executive Branch

WUT?
Reduced in number of personnel making decisions, but VASTLY expanded in terms of the power of the executive. The power of of the legislative and judicial branches is consolidated into the executive branch, and the power of the executive branch is consolidated into one exceedingly stupid, malevolent individual.
Do you think that is what Kasich imagined?

Fuck yes! With an ALL CAP FUCK and YES.

The whole point of the Reagan Republicans was to destroy the regulatory body of the Government. And Trump Admin is achieving this in spades! He is firing staff, separating staff, selling offices, making it very difficult to reestablish the work force. Why do you think the GOP is letting this tariff shit happen? Because Trump is allowing CATO et al. to shutter the Executive Branch. They managed to break Chevron and now they are going for the jugular.

Kasich was very conservative, he wasn't a radical populist, but he was very conservative and supported this sort of stuff, they just never had the power to do as such in the 80s. But thanks to Gingrich and the Fox News, and passage of the ACA, and a lot of luck the end game at least as far as regulation in America is at our feet.

Some of you people keep over focusing on Trump. Trump doesn't give a damn about any of this shit. He is letting CATO et al do whatever they want. He wants to get his oral (metaphorical and likely real) provided for free by a bunch of radical criminals abroad who are feigning flaunty behavior. CATO et al go back to the early 80s. This is their dream and it is now being fulfilled, as promised by many.

 

[TomC]

The whole point of the Reagan Republicans was to destroy the regulatory body of the Government.

I don't know where you got that idea from but it's not reality. Reduce government is not the same as destroying it.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Sorry, but I never got an “I endorse establishing an authoritarian dictatorship in place of representative government” message from Kasich. He seems more like a placid dullard than a right wing revolutionary.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sorry, but I never got an “I endorse establishing an authoritarian dictatorship in place of representative government” message from Kasich.

Well, seeing you don't live in Ohio.... Kasich isn't a red hat firebrand, but he was a devote Reaganite.

He seems more like a placid dullard than a right wing revolutionary.

Again, he isn't a populist. He is Reaganite. Reagan was the figurehead of a rather anti-Democratic GOP wing. They tried to put Bork on the Supreme Court. The GOP in general put Rehnquist, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch, Scalia on the Supreme Court. This has been their goal all along. Kill Chevron, kill the regulatory body.

You folks are concentrating on Trump too much and not realizing this has been in motion since the early 80s. Reagan starved the Government and appointed radical conservative judges (at the time) on the bench. W tried to fuck with Habeas Corpus, told us watch what we said, called us anti-America for daring to question their judgment. He appointed a Scalia clone to the bench. Under Trump, the GOP were able to appoint three rather right-wing justices to finish was Reagan and the GOP started in the 80s. Roper-Bright and Dobbs did just that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The whole point of the Reagan Republicans was to destroy the regulatory body of the Government.

I don't know where you got that idea from but it's not reality. Reduce government is not the same as destroying it.
Tom

What do you think Loper-Bright is all about? Or the massive impact it will have. It is Dobbs on steroids in the regulatory capacity of the US Government.

Loper-Bright was the wet dream of the GOP in the late 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s, and 20s. It was culmination of every Supreme Court selection by the GOP.

Reagan / GOP started starving the beast in the 80s, and now they are taking out its teeth.

 

[TomC]

Reagan / GOP started starving the beast in the 80s, and now they are taking out its teeth.

Both Reagan and the GOP are dead.

The GOP trashed the country so much during the Bush II administration that the Deep State billionaires took over.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Reagan / GOP started starving the beast in the 80s, and now they are taking out its teeth.

Both Reagan and the GOP are dead.

The GOP trashed the country so much during the Bush II administration that the Deep State billionaires took over.
Tom

Those people were in charge the entire time. You think CATO or the Heritage Foundation are a bunch of right-wing populists?

 

[TomC]

Reagan / GOP started starving the beast in the 80s, and now they are taking out its teeth.

Both Reagan and the GOP are dead.

The GOP trashed the country so much during the Bush II administration that the Deep State billionaires took over.
Tom

Those people were in charge the entire time. You think CATO or the Heritage Foundation are a bunch of right-wing populists?

I'm not sure who you meant by "those people", or "the entire time". You seem to be mistaking the GOP for the Teaparty.

Yes, I believe that outfits like the heritage foundation and CATO have been supporting the Deep State and it's minions for a very long time. But they weren't in charge while the GOP existed, they took it over when the GOP crashed and burned. That was during the Bush II administration.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Reagan / GOP started starving the beast in the 80s, and now they are taking out its teeth.

Both Reagan and the GOP are dead.

The GOP trashed the country so much during the Bush II administration that the Deep State billionaires took over.
Tom

Those people were in charge the entire time. You think CATO or the Heritage Foundation are a bunch of right-wing populists?

I'm not sure who you meant by "those people", or "the entire time". You seem to be mistaking the GOP for the Teaparty.
Yes, I believe that outfits like the heritage foundation and CATO have been supporting the Deep State and it's minions for a very long time. But they weren't in charge while the GOP existed, they took it over when the GOP crashed and burned.

Yes they were. Who do you think wanted Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist on SCOTUS? Then Alito and Roberts?

 

[TomC]

Yes they were. Who do you think wanted Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist on SCOTUS? Then Alito and Roberts?

Perhaps you are mistaking "Has influence" for "In charge"?

I don't know. Your opinions don't make sense in the current American political landscape.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is literally nothing they can do. Impeachment will only be an option if Trump openly defies SCOTUS.

The only way this is going to be resolved is by force. Either federal law enforcement growing a spine and doing it's job, or by coup.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because it's true, and it's the reason their country is going to shit.

Why do you assume it is true?

Because we are looking around and seeing it happen. We are well on the way to becoming a police state.

 

[Elixir]

There is literally nothing they can do. Impeachment will only be an option if Trump openly defies SCOTUS.

The only way this is going to be resolved is by force. Either federal law enforcement growing a spine and doing it's job, or by coup.

Coup? Nah - a simple assassination would suffice to preserve American democracy until the next election.
In fact, that or the Hamburglar are probably the only things that can enable a next election. No need for a coup.