Just asking: when Nina Turner says "---we didn't lose this race---evil money manipulated

[Atticus]

and maligned this election!", is that not comparable to the guy who said "I won by a landslide" and "they rigged the election"?

Don't both say "the winner did not win" and "the electoral process is corrupt and unreliable"?

Don't both corrode and weaken democracy?

Who does that benefit?

[snowybirdie]

1. Looks like it

This just proves the best candidate won.

[we can do it]

2. She needs to go away, too.

[PortTack]

3. It benefits no one. Thank the gods she was not elected!

[Me.]

4. Of Course Someone Maligned This Election

She did with her ugly talk and lies, not to mention that most of her money came from out of state.

[Hortensis]

11. True and true, and she'll continue to raise money with more maligning.

SOP.

[Me.]

18. BuT What Will She Legally Use It For?

[Hortensis]

19. I'd wish it was to protect progressive government, but

the train that once carried that lonely hope left the station long ago.

She'll continue as before.

Whether I'm right or whether I'm wrong
I gotta be me, I've gotta be meeee,....

[Rustyeye77]

5. Evil money, huh?

She’s one step away from blaming a certain group.

Go ahead Nina, let it out.

[skylucy]

6. Thank goodness Shontel Brown won.

[DinahMoeHum]

7. She's a crybaby.

[viva la]

8. "Evil money"?

I think there might be evil people, but money?

[Caliman73]

13. Unfortunately, Turner isn't really good at communicating.

Her fans love her because she is loud and in your face.

There is no such thing as "Evil Money" there is money that is used for nefarious purposes.

I will say this. People who advocate for leftist ideas, basically Socialism or further left, or even strong Social Democracy, are often targets of attack by wealthy people and major corporations with lots of money to spend on campaigns. A major difference for leftists who have joined the Democratic coalition, and even progressive Democrats is that some leftists actually advocate for abolishing Capitalism or significantly restraining it. Obviously, people with money will fight to keep it and try to discredit any real advocate of those processes.

Turner is just a malcontent. She is not the hook that leftists should hang their hat on because I think that she really is just an opportunist.

[rickyhall]

9. You never hear, "The other side won because they got more votes." AKA The Truth.

[viva la]

14. I remember my earnest middle school coach explaining how to win the game.

"Our strategy is to score more points!"

Simple, and yet profound.

I'm pretty sure Trump has muddled that up forever-- just win more votes.

[Atticus]

16. Sadly, as 2016 demonstrated, "winning more votes" is not always the successful strategy. nt

[stillcool]

10. sounds the same to me

there's no shortage of humongous ego's that can't handle it when people say no.

[betsuni]

12. That's where Trump got the idea.

He was saying it in 2016 but then (surprise!) won. He used the conspiracy theory (that Turner promoted) that the DNC/Hillary rigged the primaries, part of his "crooked Hillary" thing. Recycled it in 2020 when he knew he was going to lose.

[Maru Kitteh]

15. Maybe she's looking to hang out in Moscow with her pal J. Stein

as Vladimir's "honored useful idiot" at his personal table?




I'm sure Flynn is available too.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

17. Nina outspent Brown by 3 to 1.

Nina is a sore loser and she does remind me of TFG

[LetMyPeopleVote]

20. Why Nina Turner, the real 'establishment,' lost Ohio Democratic primary race

Prof. Jason Johnson does a good job here

Link to tweet

The reality of the Ohio primary is that Nina Turner, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, was the Establishment in this race. She had more money, higher name recognition and tons of celebrity endorsements in her pocket. Her opponent Shontel Brown was a local Cuyahoga County Democratic Party chair, that nobody would’ve been able to pick out of a lineup four months ago. And yet, Turner still lost.....

However, Nina Turner was a former national surrogate of a presidential campaign, former elected official, television pundit, college professor, SuperPAC director and lobbyist, who got endorsed by the major local newspaper Cleveland Plain Dealer, had Hollywood backing her and could raise thousands of dollars with one mass text. It doesn’t get more Establishment than that, which is ultimately why Turner lost the election. ....

Nina Turner had burned a lot of bridges in local Cleveland politics years ago, and voters have long memories. This is not to say that Shontel Brown didn’t have her detractors; her management of the Cuyahoga County Democrats was seen as biased and one local organizer told me that Shontel’s campaign trafficked in colorism and classism. I heard a number of people complain that Brown’s only policy position was ‘supporting Joe Biden’ and they wanted more.....

Nina Turner raised $4.5 million in campaign funds to Brown’s $2 million and while outside groups spent slightly more on pro-Brown advertising, Turner had been on the air much longer so the air war was basically a wash. The truth is, had Turner kept the race about fighting crime in Ohio City and PPP loans for failing businesses in Tower City, Jim Clyburn would’ve never driven into Cleveland in a caravan like a Democratic King Jaffe Joffer with the entire CBC in tow.

Turner didn’t lose because of “dark money,” she lost because local voters don’t live their lives on Twitter, don’t read puff pieces in The New York Times and didn’t want the Progressive Establishment carpetbagging into town and telling people how to vote. Not to mention, Shontel Brown is actually a pretty darn good public servant.

[betsuni]

21. Excellent! Tired of well-funded politicians pretending to be anti-establishment outsider populists

calling Democrats corrupt establishment who can't be progressive.

Thanks for posting.

[crickets]

22. Good article - thanks for the that. nt

[bigtree]

23. what do you think would happen if those complaints were just ignored

...instead of amplified in numerous screeds against her today?

I'd think a demagogue wouldn't care at all how their words were furthered. That's built into the demagoguery. It's all designed to keep her name elevated.

In this case, I daresay she's gotten far more attention than the actual winner of that contest (Shontel Brown), at least on this forum. I'd wager there's no energy or motivation at all here to sustain positive threads about the winner. I find it all very contradictory and curiously detrimental to the very election in question.

Don't you think republicans would love us to keep talking about Nina Turner, rather than Shontel Brown?

[George II]

25. So Democrats and the Democratic Party get trashed relentlessly for years....

....and you want us to just ignore them? Why, because the "wrong" candidate won and the "right" candidate lost?

We need to learn from this, just as we need to learn from some other recent primaries and elections. Ignoring them would only increase the possibility that we go through this all over again around this time next year.

[George II]

24. Just bluster trying to rationalize her loss. Fact is she spent TWICE as much as Shontel Brown did...

Plus, outside groups, i.e., Super PACs, that supported her spent roughly twice as much as those supporting Shontel Brown.

The final numbers aren't in, we won't know for a few weeks or so.

Yes, you are 100% right - it's eerily reminiscent of what we heard late last year. Sadly, Turner's surrogates are parroting that shtick, too, especially Cornel West.

Link to tweet

[mcar]

26. That's what it reminded me of