HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Learn from the '16 electi...

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:05 AM

 

Learn from the '16 election and MOVE ON. We know what happened. So let's focus on 2017 and 2018.

Last edited Sat Nov 4, 2017, 08:04 AM - Edit history (2)

So many people are tired of re-litigating the '16 primaries and general election. Wasserman and Brazile are GONE. Goodbye to them. In the long run what we need is national campaign finance reform to give the system back to the people and take it away from the rich donors.

As to 2016, tt was never any surprise that party and DNC insiders and the party establishment would be partial to Clinton because she was a longtime member of the party high in the chain, and Sanders was an independent and not a member of the party. Still, Sanders was allowed to run in the party and did receive DNC resources. There was no widespread "rigging". Primaries and caucuses are run by the state parties, not the DNC. Never forget that. In my view, in the general election, Sanders would have been the stronger candidate because it was an outsider year when people wanted change. And while we should all thank Hillary Clinton for her service and we all know she would have been a THOUSAND times better than Trump and I certainly voted for her, she just didn't have great enthusiasm, was plagued with the email scandal, just did not run a strong enough campaign (not a bad campaign, but some real mistakes too), and was an establishment candidate who simply did not embody "CHANGE." She was seen as the status quo, and people wanted change. And yes, the third partiers, Russian interference and the Comey letter were SERIOUS factors too, but we can't discount the other fundamentals and problems that led to her electoral defeat. Still, in the primary Clinton was better known in the party and simply had large advantages in the South and most delegate-rich primary states. Sanders just didn't have the national standing in the party to win that nomination. He did not lose the primary due to vast "rigging." He lost because he received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton.

So, we know just what happened in the primary and the general election last year. We also know the party needs to unite and have a strong affirmative MESSAGE for voters going into 2018 and that message is that we will keep Crazy Donnie in check, we will create good jobs for everyone everywhere the CORRECT way with middle class economics instead of failed trickle down, and we will solve the nation's problems the right way because the R's and Trump are unable to lead.

So let's put 2016 away once and for all and move on to 2017 and 2018.

10 replies, 965 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to LBM20 (Original post)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:15 AM

1. you are right, it was not rigged. In 2008 Obama was the outsider. Hillary was still Hillary, and

was the favored candidate of the DNC. The RULES were the same. Hillary lost because Hillary got less votes in 2008.

2016. Bernie lost because Bernie got less votes in 2016. No one lost for any other reason. There was no rigging. If Sanders had gotten more votes he would have won, he DIDN'T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 4, 2017, 07:57 AM

9. Yes,financial rules need reform, but there was no "rigging." Primaries are run by the state parties.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LBM20 (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 4, 2017, 08:15 AM

10. The use of that term, and the connotations associated with it only helped foster division among

Democrats at possibly the worst time.

In fact, it now appears that Donna Brazile got her facts wrong, and is backtracking. This should serve as a warning to us that it might be prudent to wait until we have the full facts.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/11/donna-brazile-and-the-latest-great-hillary-scandal/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LBM20 (Original post)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:18 AM

2. What? No hysteria from either side?

Good post, I think I agree with everything in your post, but would add that Bill's tarmac meeting was an easily avoided mistake and hamstrung the Russia investigation, and added fuel to the email scandal from an appearances standpoint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LBM20 (Original post)


Response to LBM20 (Original post)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 09:13 AM

4. Too much sectarianism.

I think there’s too much anti-Sanders sectarianism here and away from this site there’s too much anti-Clinton sectarianism. Sadly, this will probably continue beyond the coming midterms, impeding the Democrats’ chances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LBM20 (Original post)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 09:18 AM

5. Wasted words

 

The agents pushing these issues have no interest in uniting Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to keen observer (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 4, 2017, 07:52 AM

7. I hear you, but we can't let a minority of people continually sow discord.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LBM20 (Original post)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 09:25 AM

6. I am only a low ranking officer of the Democratic Party (a Town Chair)

For the most part I concentrate on issues and on winning elections. My lowly position does however come with some responsibility for the health of our Party - so our Town Democratic Committee went on record favoring some really basic reforms to how our State Party operates (for example, not allowing the Chair of the State Party to personally appoint a majority of the members to the State Party Executive Committee). So far that reform has been shot down by the State Party. I favor moving on from blaming individuals for the past. I favor moving forward to improve how the Democratic Party operates in the future

Working to improve the functioning of the Democratic Party is not in itself divisive, although as with all things, people will divide over what is and is not an improvement. It seems to me that our National Democratic Party sees value in learning, with the advantage of hindsight, what has not worked out as well as envisioned in the past.

This is from today's Washington Post:

"...Kleeb, who along with Weaver is a member of the Democrats’ post-primary “unity commission,” said the party had made some amends under Perez’s leadership. In his campaign to run the DNC and since, Perez has chastised Wasserman Schultz for turning the party into a vehicle for the presidential campaign.

After Brazile’s book excerpt surfaced, state chairs began calling and emailing each other about a change to the DNC’s rules and bylaws that would forbid any arrangement like the one Clinton got. Buckley and other DNC members suggested that the party should also give DNC members access to its budget, which would have made it clear much earlier how the joint fundraising agreement was affecting the flow of money.

“I will co-sponsor that amendment and vote for it,” Buckley said. “There’s so much reform that has to happen.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-express-outrage-over-allegations-of-early-control-for-clinton-in-2016/2017/11/02/84e949da-c000-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.913dd8ce0547

More about Kleeb: "After the election, the effects of the Clinton fundraising effort hit some state parties hard. Jane Kleeb, who took over Nebraska’s Democratic Party in late 2016, discovered that the party had accrued $35,000 in debt for the Clinton campaign."

More about Buckley: "Ray Buckley, the chairman of New Hampshire’s Democratic Party, said that he first learned of the agreement while serving as DNC vice chair in 2016. “The day that Donna discovered this, she called me and I almost passed out,” Buckley said. “We were blatantly misled.”

I have no interest in trying to demonize either the Clinton campaign or Hillary herself. I can understand why prior arrangements evolved the way they did at the time, even if I do not approve of all the steps that were taken. Hind sight is 20/20. Foresight is a much more important quality, and the Democratic Party needs some now in moving forward. Learn from our mistakes, get our house in order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 4, 2017, 07:54 AM

8. Very good post. There was not "rigging" but the way the party has been operated does need reform.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread