home

Hillary Wins D.C. Primary

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 10:25:24 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Hillary Clinton trounced Bernie Sanders in the Washington, D.C. primary.

The Associated Press said with 83 percent of the precincts reporting, Clinton has 67,156 votes, compared to 17,983 for Sanders.

Hey, Bernie, are you done now? It's not clear. Hillary and Bernie met tonight. So far, both are being mum. As for his demands that the platform accommodate his issues, they aren't "his" issues. Democrats have always been the party fighting for economic and social equality. Bernie just got the issues more attention. He gets props for that, but not the issues themselves or positions he's advocating. He didn't come up with them -- especially his views on criminal justice. Many of his positions are taken from years of advocacy by others, like criminal defense lawyers. Where was Bernie's voice in 1994? I never heard it.

It's Hillary vs. Trump. Bernie Sanders needs to step aside or be labeled part of the problem.

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Obama and Hillary Give Trump a One-Two Punch >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Wins D.C. Primary | 92 comments (92 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Congrats to Hillary! (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Cashmere on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 10:45:55 PM EST
    I just heard Rachel Maddow state that Hillary won all of the "8" different wards in D.C.

    I am so happy the primaries are over.  I still get very frustrated with the Bernie supporters I encounter locally in Portland that are 100% Bernie or Busters.  Even a close work colleague who has always said she would vote for Hillary if Bernie lost is now saying she will write in Bernie's name.  

    I think Hillary will win in November, even without the Busters.  Fingers crossed.

    Kill her with kindness (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 10:51:50 PM EST
    Just sweet the hell out your colleague. We've only begun to soothe and massage. Mmmmm...some lavender aromatherapy too....mmmmmm, we've got

    Parent
    Is it Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural that talks about (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 10:59:34 PM EST
    the better angels of our nature? I think they will prevail by November.

    Parent
    I agree and am very kind. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Cashmere on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 11:02:25 PM EST
    I know it is tough.  It is just that I have listened to Hillary hatred speech from so many for so long and am lacking some patience.  But I will keep being kind :)

    Parent
    There is no "us" in them. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 10:59:15 PM EST
    People like that are self-absorbed, so I'd ignore them. Besides, anyone who'd be stupid enough to do something like that, given the present nature of the opposition, is a damned fool -- so why waste your valuable time arguing with one?

    ;-D

    Parent

    Ohhhh, we're just a little frustrated (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 07:00:49 AM EST
    With them. They are our stubborn, slightly juvenile nihilistic yet idealistic branch....that's a great burden, they must be exhausted. We'll get most of them back on track. It's herding teenagerish cats. The initial breakup is always the most emotional time too. Things will be said (don't write any of it down, just nod with empathy), dimestore trinkets thrown and broken, the door beads will become unstrung :) Nothing vital will be damaged though

    Parent
    That was great (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 07:57:29 AM EST
    Door beads

    Pfffft

    Parent

    I don't know if everyone has seen (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 08:57:33 AM EST
    This Bernie vs. Hillary video yet. But there's the link. Showed up in my Facebook feed planted there by Facebook probably because I have quite a few friends about to be Berned.

    And I have been respectful. There was only one time I couldn't handle it and I posted to one that they needed to stop being a d*ck. But it turned out okay. No drama :)

    I get it, the sellout establishment status quo ship is about to sail. Stand on the dock all Bernt and crying throwing paper cups at us, then slap some neosporine on your Bernt parts...do however many shots you have to do to numb the horror and pain, and then get on. I will not photograph anyone while they are tantruming on the dock, at least not that I'm going to admit to for at least 4 yrs ;)

    Parent

    Ultimately, I feel that my time is ... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 02:13:43 PM EST
    ... much better spent encouraging other citizens to register to vote, than pleading with those die-hard Berniebots who whine for attention. They're going to do what they're going to do and if they want to self-marginalize, so be it.

    As a party official and activist, I'm obliged to listen to those persons who choose to remain at the table and who interact with me as rational adults. But if someone persists in throwing tantrums and walking away from that table in a snit because he / she didn't get his / her way during primary season, then that person is no longer worth engaging. In a political campaign, the sum total must always be greater than the individual parts.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Oh no, don't plead (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 02:47:44 PM EST
    And continue registering. If you have a loving smile to spare though, shoot em one :) They're having a bad day.

    Parent
    We all have bad days. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 06:32:47 PM EST
    But frustration, adversity, defeat and loss are the four best teachers in life, and the manner in which we respond accordingly to each of those experiences is entirely revelatory of both our own personal character and our willingness to further mature as enlightened human beings.

    In politics and in sports, I've been on the short end of many a final score and yeah, it hurts, especially when you're emotionally invested in the outcome. That's just the way it goes sometimes.

    But my inability to cope with defeat is entirely my problem, and the adult thing for me to do here is to not make that problem everybody else's, too. So, if Bernie's supporters feel the need to lick their wounds, we ought to grant them that space to do so. But feeling hurt is not a license to be stupid, or further act like an a$$ to those around you.

    Life goes on, and as my late baseball coach once used to admonish us, "Eyes up, in life as well as on the field." That is, if we compel ourselves to look to the horizon and survey our surroundings, rather than cast our eyes toward the ground in sorrow and / or self-pity, we'll surely notice that as one door closes, another will inevitably open.

    Campaigns end. Causes endure.

    Parent

    A strong finish, (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 07:08:44 AM EST
    NM, NJ, CA, and D.C.(78.8% v 21%).  The meeting between Mrs. Clinton and Senator Sanders was characterized as "positive," which is a little short on details.  It is unclear what Senator Sanders has in mind at this point; his leverage was at its height a few weeks ago--- with each passing day it decreases.  Favorable polling between Clinton and Trump, endorsements, the reality of being out-of-sight, out-of-mind, and as the unsuitability of Trump for the presidency becomes more widespread, Sanders' influence will wane.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 07:49:51 AM EST
    he would have had a lot more influence leaving the race back in April. He was never going to win California. Unfortunately I suspect he stayed in the race for the money and not much else.

    Parent
    No, Bernie didn't stay in (4.00 / 2) (#29)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 09:28:01 AM EST
    for the money. Some of his advisors may have encouraged him to continue because they wanted the money, but Bernie thought he had a path to the nomination. He was going for the win.

    It seems that Sanders thought whoever made the best showing in the last several primaries would have the momentum heading to Philadelphia. And he was right. The problem for Bernie is that Clinton made the best showing, not Bernie. He threw the primary dice and lost.

    I do not think Bernie was ever in it for the money.

    Parent

    I find (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 09:51:38 AM EST
    that amazing that he thought that. He either did not pay attention or was being willfully ignorant on that account. He himself endorsed Obama in 2008 after Hillary won the majority of the late primaries.

    Parent
    There was certainly money on the mind (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 10:56:08 AM EST
    as he stipulated to his staff that the campaign account never drop below $10 million in the bank.

    Parent
    Yes, his advisors (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 11:12:37 AM EST
    may be the advocates, but the buck, literally, stops with Bernie.  And, I am skeptical that his actions are tied up in the altruistic ones of reforming the Democratic primary process--a process that he is not likely to work with again, unless.  My thinking is that there is more to it. Senator Sanders has shown that he is a pretty good politician and there is likely some politics involved that hit closer to home. His home.

    Parent
    I am sure Sanders did not want to end up (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 12:03:31 PM EST
    saddled with campaign debt. It can years to pay that off, especially for those who lose. I read somewhere, sorry no link, that Howard Dean warned Sanders about the crushing task of paying off campaign debt.

    So, if Bernie insisted on a goodly cushion in the budget, well, I don"t blame him.

    Parent

    I'm thinking he probably asked (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 12:38:02 PM EST
    HRC to pay off any debts he has.  

    BTW, when will we see those tax returns?

    Parent

    Admittedly I have not been tracking him (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 01:45:47 PM EST
    The last couple of days. Is he acting like someone she should help retire campaign debt for? When those deals are struck, the war is over and we start uniting with him endorsing and stumping for Clinton.

    Parent
    Maybe Mrs.Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 01:54:27 PM EST
    pledged $27.

    Parent
    Am I the only one cynical enough (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 02:26:26 PM EST
    to see the Sanders campaign contributions as a case where he took from the poor to give to the rich.

    Parent
    That's a stretch... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 07:13:44 PM EST
    but this fan will admit disappointment at the non-traditional campaign not extending to top campaign hires. You don't change the game with same old dirty players in key positions.

    As my man Dadler would say, no imagination.

    Parent

    Like Bernie's $80,000-per-month adviser (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Towanda on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 10:33:10 PM EST
    named Jane Sanders?

    Parent
    That's 160,000 reasons (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 10:37:53 PM EST
    to not concede for another 2 months

    Parent
    I found this an interesting read... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Cashmere on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 02:48:41 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/hdtpswj

    If anyone is looking for a Senator as VP (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 09:46:57 PM EST
    pick one of those speaking today during the filibuster

    Bernie couldn't make it v (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 16, 2016 at 11:05:02 AM EST
    But neither did Boxer or Feinstein--surprising.

    Parent
    The Feinstein Amendment (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 16, 2016 at 07:24:55 PM EST
    is one of two Dem gun bill amendments (the other being Murphy's) to be brought up for a vote next week.

    Parent
    Why Bernie Sanders (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Nemi on Thu Jun 16, 2016 at 04:20:39 PM EST
    missed the Senate Democrats' 14-hour gun filibuster

    But Sanders's physical absence was noticed on social media, and a bit of a departure from his approach to the Senate. In 2010, the senator waged a one-man filibuster against a compromise that allowed most of the Bush-era tax cuts to continue. It did not delay the vote on that compromise, but it captured liberal attention and raised Sanders's profile, with the text of the speech soon collected into a book.

    Six years later, Sanders is a major national figure, flanked by Secret Service protection for as long as he wants it. It's up to him -- and eventually, delegates to the Democratic National Convention -- when he'll resume the usual work of the Senate. The Murphy filibuster, which quickly turned into a rallying moment for progressives, came at the wrong time.

    The filibuster came at the wrong time? How about: Bernie Sanders missed the right time!

    Parent

    Another reason why (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Towanda on Thu Jun 16, 2016 at 10:34:37 PM EST
    might be Sanders' stance on gun control, hmmm?  And his past funding from the NRA?

    Parent
    Cory Booker (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 16, 2016 at 07:49:52 AM EST
    Was one of the organizers.

    Parent
    the campaign says (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 16, 2016 at 04:35:21 PM EST
    he is not on the short list.   or the long one i would imagine.

    Parent
    As his presumptive (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Nemi on Fri Jun 17, 2016 at 07:25:57 AM EST
    2018-challenger tweeted when Bernie Sanders began his speech yesterday

    Dear lord. He's giving his stump speech to an empty room.

    I had his speech on for about 15 minutes before I gave up, but my mind started wandering after only a few. His supporters praise him for being consistent. [yawn] You can say that again!

    From what I did manage to take in, two things puzzled me. One: Why does he refer to "My sisters and brothers" or as in this instance "our gay brothers and sisters"? Pandering much? Or just rhetorically inspired by BFF Cornel West?

    And two: Where were Waldo ... eh, I mean Jane? She's usually very visible right there beside or behind him. But maybe just for a change she was -- maybe even literally? -- behind the camera?

    i found (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 17, 2016 at 01:39:17 PM EST
    the whole episode downright silly. Considering what happened to his endorsed candidates in Nevada the question I would like to ask him is what if you held a "revolution" and no one showed up.

    Parent
    Silly yes (none / 0) (#91)
    by Nemi on Sat Jun 18, 2016 at 07:21:49 AM EST
    and annoying how some in the media interpreted his words as meaning he would work with Hillary Clinton to beat Donald Trump. He said no such thing. What he did say was that he would work with her to change the party's platform and to "transform the Democratic Party"!

    I'm with Paul Krugman on this

    I don't think Sanders will ever endorse Clinton, even against Donald Trump.

    which has always been my belief. I simply can't envision Bernie Sanders ever endorsing Hillary Clinton. As well as I can't figure out if he hates/dislikes her or the Democratic Party more.

    Btw, I 'found' Jane. Here she is leaving the podcast session. She sure seems to love the attention, and even as she is a very important and outspoken part of the campaign it's astonishing how little -- any? -- push back she gets from the media.

    Maybe it/they aren't really sexist after all? /s

    Parent

    Bernie (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 10:37:10 PM EST
    endorsed three candidates for the house in Nevada. They all three have gotten killed in the primary. I guess the next one to be offered up for slaughter by the voters is Tim Canova against DSW.

    So he's a down ticket kiss of death? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 10:45:30 PM EST
    Or when they deliver stump speeches they too appear to be petting two different sized unicorns? I'm trying to be nice :) But my patience is admittedly thinning

    Parent
    It would (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 10:54:19 PM EST
    seem so. His candidate in PA senate race also lost. And he wants to offer up demands? Frankly he has let it go on too long and he's lost any power that he might have had at one time and now with his favored candidates getting massacred by primary voters it's probably even less.

    The only good thing now is there seem to be loads of Bernie jokes to laugh at.

    Parent

    I think it's verging on indecent (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 10:57:04 PM EST
    this week to be pretending there is a race to be run publicly. This is serious sh**.

    I'm all for the movement going on to the next phase. Put pressure on the issues where it matters most - which right now is not the race for the white house.

    Parent

    No need to concede and (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 04:41:31 PM EST
    endorse Mrs. Clinton.  Sanders has a decent chance.  Admittedly, it is a narrow and steep path to victory.  Please send your $27 to help make this happen.

    Parent
    That's the ideal. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 11:13:50 PM EST
    Bernie's supporters best realize that while campaigns end, the cause endures. That's why we're in the midst of reorienting our own state party so that it's more issue-focused and less candidate-centric. The aim is to both encourage young Democrats to remain engaged in party politics at the local level where they can make a difference, and nudge our candidates to better support the party platform and resolutions rather than merely pay them lip service. Leave the cults of personality for the GOP. We need to be a party where critical thinking and good policy ideas are welcomed and have a home.

    Parent
    Probably. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 10:52:22 PM EST
    That said, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should still step down as DNC chair. Further, if Bernie's seeking real reform, he ought to also propose that we get rid of state caucuses, and offer a standing rule that no sitting member of Congress shall henceforth be a member of the Democratic National Committee.

    As it stands right now, the DNC Executive Committee -- which is comprised of nine members -- only has two members from the states, the governor of Vermont and an Iowa state senator. Members of Congress constitute the majority. It's an inherent conflict of interest which has served to divert party funding from state organizations, where it's been so desperately needed, toward the support of congressional races, where the money's clearly been wasted given the results of 2014.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 10:57:26 PM EST
    those are reforms that probably most people would think are good but they're not the ones Bernie is offering. What he wants seems to be based more on revenge than any sort of reason. It seems he's convinced that he lost because of a "rigged" system instead of the fact that he's actually a bad candidate.

    Parent
    I agree with this. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Cashmere on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 11:10:45 PM EST
    I understand where Donald is coming from, but, in this instance, I hope DWS does not step down, specifically because of all of Bernie's attacks against the DNC for it being rigged.  

    One question have is re: states and whether they are open or closed primaries, or caucuses.  I thought this was up to the state.  Can this be changed via the rules committee/party platform at the convention, or is it still controlled by the states?  Every year I am asked to sign to get it on the ballot here in Oregon to have open primaries.  I never sign as I am not in favor of open primaries. I think the Democratic Party has the right to have Democrats choose their nominee.

    Parent

    Look, DWS is a creature of Congress. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 11:32:08 PM EST
    The DNC has devolved into something just short of a disaster with Time Kaine and her at the ship's helm over the past seven-plus years. You leave her there, and she'll just keep doing what she's been doing, which is to manipulate the internal mechanisms of the DNC and party funding for the near-exclusive benefit of her colleagues on Capitol Hill.

    We've been presented with a wonderful opportunity to run the table nationally thanks to Trump, but to do so we need to invest immediately at the state and county level, where we've taken some serious hits since 2010. Future candidates for federal office are nurtured at the local level. That simply has not been happening and further, it ain't gonna happen so long as Ms. Wasserman-Schultz still has her grubby hands on the tiller.

    Bernie is done, so this really isn't about him any more. And yet by leaving our dear Debbie in place as DNC chair just to slight him, we serve only to further screw ourselves. We as a party need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, by acting in the best interests of the party as a whole, rather than so inordinately focused at federal electoral level to the virtual exclusion of everything down below. And in order to accomplish that, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz needs to be shown the door.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Not to contradict, but to note (none / 0) (#42)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 01:54:46 PM EST
    the role of the President--or at least the real influence of a President--as to the head of the DNC.  My understanding is that President Obama, as head of his party, would be the power that determines the DNC chair.  My further understanding is that the President has supported DWS and, in recent weeks, reaffirmed that support for Wasserman-Schultz publicly. Am I factually incorrect?

    Donald: The reason that I'm such a stickler on DNC responsibility stuff is that--from experience--I am well aware of the factions & power struggles and realities of the DNC.  (And, while I've not been a member of the DNC directly, my 1990s involvement included a wing of the group called the Women's Leadership Forum which has continued off U on AND other association when former Governor Roy Romer did a stint as DNC chair.)

    In sum and at the risk of being "politically incorrect," it seems that there are various reasons for the targeted anger at DWS ... some legitimate and some a little off factually.  In further sum, it is usually more productive for all involved to allow a graceful exit at the end of the President's term, e.g., then the cleavage deepened by appearing to make one person the target.

    Parent

    The president is the titular head ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 02:34:44 PM EST
    ... of the Democratic Party. He has the right to recommend a candidate for DNC chair but ultimately, the final decision rests with the actual members of the Democratic National Committee.

    The committee membership itself is comprised of the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party committee, and over 200 national committee members elected by Democrats in all 50 states and the territories, one male and one female from each.

    Generally, committee members tend to defer to the president. But if they really disagree with the president's recommendation and / or don't like the chair, they are free to remove him or her and replace that person with someone of their own choosing, regardless of the president's wishes.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Yes. (none / 0) (#46)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 02:46:11 PM EST
    I agree with your statement.  My preceding comment was to emphasize my understanding that--in the absence of severe disagreement--the deference to the President in such matter would be great.  (Remember when T. McCauliffe occupied the position.)

    Parent
    Well, this is one instance ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 03:09:04 PM EST
    ... where I as a Democrat very much disagree with President Obama's desires, particularly since this president has very clearly subordinated the party's well being to his own personal agenda. Our party has not only not thrived as a result, in fact we've withered.

    I've been involved in party politics for nearly 30 years now and quite honestly, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is one of the most insensitive, inept and clueless DNC chairs I've ever seen. She's there for one thing and one thing only, and that's to serve the self-perceived interests of the Beltway Dems, even if that ultimately comes at our long-term expense out here in the hinterlands. For our party's own sake, she's really gotta go.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 03:18:26 PM EST
    with your entire statement

    Parent
    Okay. In what way do you disagree? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 08:03:58 PM EST
    I'm speaking from my own personal experience as a party activist and official. Ms. Wasserman Schultz screwed us over when she forced us to reschedule our party caucuses to a later date, only three months before they were originally to take place on Super Tuesday, as had long been our practice.

    That entailed a helluva lot of work for us to make that switch, because we had 63 separate venues statewide and had to scramble because many were no longer available on the new date, which now fell on a Saturday afternoon rather than a Tuesday evening. As compensation, DWS promised us ten additional delegates to the national convention. Afterward the caucuses were done, she reneged on that promise.

    And good Lord, DWS even managed to turn our opportunistic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard into a political martyr, which really didn't have to happen and shouldn't have, given Ms. Gabbard's personal involvement as a member of The Science of Identity Foundation, a local right-wing Hindu cult which is led by the virulently homophobic Chris Butler. (And no, Huffington Post, these aren't "rumors.")

    If you have an entirely different perspective of Ms. Wasserman Schultz and her leadership capabilities, as you may very well might since both she and you are South Floridians, then let's please hear it.

    Otherwise, it's not enough to merely say no -- at least, not if you expect me to pay any further attention. From my own experience in the Democratic Party, DWS's tenure as DNC chair has been a disaster for the party members at the state and local level, as was that of her predecessor Tim Kaine.

    In 2008, Democrats controlled 60 of the 98 state legislative chambers across the country. As of November 2014, the GOP now controls 68 of them. That means we've lost control of 30 legislative chambers in only 6 years, which further cedes control of the congressional redistricting process in many key states. And rather than accept responsibility for that major failure which happened on her watch, Ms. Wasserman Schultz instead blamed voters.

    And please don't get me started on DWS's congressional bona fides. Suffice only to say that her record could easily lead one to readily believe that she's likely in the pocket of Big Pharma, the private corrections industry and AIPAC, none of which are on my list of organizations and industries which promote Democratic progressive values.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The point about over-centralization (none / 0) (#60)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 06:06:39 PM EST
    deserves serious discussion at the winter DNC confab after the election, I think.

    Personally, there are mixed feelings on my end.  The dance toward complete subordination of state parties to the centralized HQ (including the $$$$ aspect) has been playing for years ... and, as you observe, the tempo has gotten louder & stronger in that direction in the past several years.  Whether that reflects a--let us say--Chicago type model or whether the tipping point would have been reached in any event, I don't know.  

    I can say--as one who started active political experience at Indiana University--my full intro to the process was when the role of the county and state chairs meant authority.  IMO, that model worked well in terms of interaction throughout the months with potential and actual voters and in terms of fundraising operations and all the other aspects of a well-organized common interests group.  An earlier model that I also witnessed and knew by reference was the Pennsylvania model ... in the cities and towns, the strength of the county chairs (and the chair in Philadelphia often had more operational control than even a Congressman) ... it worked because of the times and because it stayed closed to the Keystone State's democratic base.  There may be pluses with the extremely centralized model of the DNC these days IN THOSE INSTANCES of federal elections where there is a great deal of nationalization at all levels.  Unfortunately, there are costs to  weakening the say-so of state party officials Ha! we all saw how that worked in CO with the whose-in-charge offhandedness of certain overbearing individuals in highly centralized, singularly focused groups like OFA that accomplish a big purpose exceedingly well, but leave other crucial state office aspects dangling.  

    Finally, after seeing and/or meeting and/or being acquainted a few previous DNC chairs, what am I missing about DWS that makes her so exceptionally unappealing as an individual?  If the concern is the model, of course, this is understood ... but, as to the individual, what is so uniquely bad?  In sincerity, I've never understood the emotion that she generates from some ... IF it is the organization's centralizing control, tho, I do appreciate that.  Thanks, Donald.

    Parent

    Well, the system IS rigged. (4.67 / 3) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 14, 2016 at 11:03:50 PM EST
    It's just that it's been rigged against those Democratic candidates who are running down ticket at the state and local level, and not against Bernie, who actually exploited a number of significant flaws in the DNC primary process.

    Parent
    He wants open primaries (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 01:22:39 AM EST
    and no super-delegates.

    Parent
    The irony (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 06:49:39 AM EST
    is that Bernie's candidacy has shown why we need super delegates. However maybe if reform comes about there won't be much of a need for them or they will be come less important.

    Parent
    Wake me up when (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by smott on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 08:19:41 AM EST
    BS denounces caucuses.
    It's all blather else.

    Also - has he realized he's now irrelevant?
    Any leverage he had after CA is gone now.
    Snooze ya lose Bernie.

    Parent

    He won't get of closed primaries (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 08:02:18 AM EST
    Unless he wants to have tantrums state by state.  Each state decides this, right?

    And he won't get rid of SuperDelegates.  Trump and his royal self are the living carping evidence of their absolute necessity.   And he won't get rid of DWS most likely.  

    Give him a cookie.

    Parent

    No caucuses? (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 08:15:12 AM EST
    I would happily trade caucuses for open primaries. Go from least democratic to most democratic in one fell swoop.

    But I can see where states with caucuses now might want to go to closed primaries first, if they change at all.

    Parent

    IMO (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 08:17:01 AM EST
    after the GOP spent months accusing democrats of being the ones that picked Trump, I imagine closed primaries are shortly going to become the rage all over the nation.

    Parent
    I wouldn't. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 02:53:36 PM EST
    But I'll happily trade caucuses for closed primaries. If you want to vote in a party's primary, then you should be required to state your party preference on your voter registration. Otherwise, why should I as a member of the Democratic Party be allowed to have a say in the GOP's nominating process, and vice versa?

    Indeed, if that's the case, then why not simply dispense with political parties altogether? If ever you desire to see political chaos unfold, then merely watch how governing bodies can sometimes factionalize in the absence of such formal structures. You can already see that happen occasionally in those states which are dominated by one political party to the near exclusion of its rival. In the absence of a formal opposition, members can be prone to fight contentiously amongst themselves.

    Parties exist for a reason. And as such, their members have the right to choose their own slates of candidates without the added intrigue of wanton interference by outsiders who otherwise have no genuine interest in the party itself.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Are you saying (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 04:00:58 PM EST
    that a citizen who does not want to join a political party (for whatever reason) should, effectively, be denied the ability to vote for a Presidential candidate of his choosing?

    In other words "join a party, or, lose your right to vote."

    Is that right?

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 04:02:49 PM EST
    What he is saying

    Or should be, I admit I didn't read it, is that if you want to vote in a primary, register in a party.  And I completely agree.

    Parent

    No - the primaries are not an election (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 04:18:25 PM EST
    they are a candidate selection process for a party.

    Parent
    O.K. (none / 0) (#58)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 05:03:38 PM EST
    Just so I've got the rules understood correctly:

    Hypothetically speaking:

    Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton are both Democrats and are in a (polling) statistical tie in their contest for the Democratic Presidential candidacy. I would like to have Hillary become our next President. However, since I have no desire to join any political party, and, just want to make sure a dangerous war monger like Donald Trump never gets the reins of power into his hands, there's no way I can help assure a Clinton victory unless I join the Democratic Party.

    Is that correct?

    Parent

    i believe he's got it! (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 05:30:08 PM EST


    Parent
    You don't (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 06:52:41 PM EST
    even have to join a party. All you have to do is check a box. It seems if someone was desperately wanting to keep Trump out and Hillary in checking a box wouldn't be too much to ask.

    Parent
    Is that all political parties are? (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 07:21:22 PM EST
    a box on a form? Like race or gender?

    I know, I know...a necessary check on all the Machiavellis out there plotting to sabotage a political party. How do they find the time for their dastardly plots!

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 08:34:38 PM EST
    it's interesting but I'm not sure most of the Bernie supporters have a clue as to how government works simply because they seem to believe that Bernie would magically pass legislation. Considering the fact that they showed up to vote for Bernie and largely didn't vote down ticket kind of explains that. Also Bernie's hand picked candidates went down to landslide losses yesterday. At this point it seems there's not really any there there. Can you have a "revolution" if nobody shows up?

    Parent
    Lots of people have that delusion (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Jun 16, 2016 at 10:08:53 AM EST
    I think many of our fellow Americans of whatever demographic here high or asleep in civics class (if they ever had one).

    Parent
    In the 80's I didn't have any sort (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 18, 2016 at 11:37:01 AM EST
    Civics class that indicated what was really happening in DC until college. Even then though, nothing taught about lobbyists.

    Parent
    Some people will do anything for their country ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 09:00:37 PM EST
    ... as long as it's convenient and doesn't hurt.

    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 07:36:43 PM EST
    I was just listening to the odious Ed Rendell talking to Tweety about this.   The stupid berned.

    But.  They figured it all out.  Ed says no prob, just have same day registration!  That's all you need to do to "obviate" (I believe was the word he used) that would obviate the problem.

    See?  Anyone can register the same day of voting and problem solved!  All you have to do is register with a party....., wait......

    You know, I don't think they understand your problem with the current system.

    Parent

    Rendell (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 08:36:47 PM EST
    also said no speaking slot for Bernie if he doesn't suspend his campaign.

    It seems Bernie has become the Don Quixote of politics.

    Parent

    Yeah man... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 08:33:26 PM EST
    Though same-day is a good idea imo, they don't get the independent by informed choice thing.

    Parent
    kdog, if you want to participate ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 08:53:35 PM EST
    ... in a political party's nominating processes, regardless of the office being contested, then stating your party preference on your voter registration is required.

    But if you can't even be bothered to do so for whatever your reasons then no, you shouldn't have a say in our party's primary. Because by declining to state your party preference, you are effectively telling everyone that you have no vested interest in the outcome of our primary elections -- at least, certainly not enough to care about making even the most minimal of personal commitments.

    If you want to talk the talk and be taken seriously, then you ought to be willing to walk the walk. And if you're not so willing, then you can take a hike, because it's not all about you.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Duly noted Chairman... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 09:20:32 PM EST
    I suddenly feel more confident my decision was the correct one.


    Us us us us us and Them them them them them


    Parent

    Fascinating. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 09:47:47 PM EST
    Actually, it seems more like a put-on from you, Mr. kdog.  But, maybe I misread you ... maybe you consider that there is no need for organizations of any kind--whether governmental, social, interest clubs, all the many organizations that we find in society--for the organization's right to write and abide by its own rules.  From the position you seem to take, organizations should make way for you to vote on their by-laws ... the dues-paying members should do the work, but the bystander should swoop in at his whim to vote up or down.  If that is so, doesn't that make you the center of its purpose? Seems so.

    Parent
    Own your decisions, kdog. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 10:13:56 PM EST
    Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to do anything that you don't want to do. If you decline to state your party preference on your voter registration, that's fine. But the direct consequence of therefore not being allowed to vote in the primary is on you, and isn't anyone else's fault.

    So, please refrain from complaining any further about not being able to participate, particularly when of your own accord, you've deliberately chosen to not meet even the minimal requirements for doing so.

    After all, per your own stated volition, it's our party and not yours. As such, you have no standing to then dictate the terms by which we're to accommodate you at your personal convenience.

    There's nothing at all undemocratic about that. Rather, it's the opposite, because your non-participation is predicated entirely upon your own decision of non-compliance with the stated rules.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    You have every right to vote for president ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 08:30:39 PM EST
    ... in November. But if you want to have a say in who any of our party's nominees for public office will ultimately be -- or the GOP's if you're so inclined -- then you ought to be a member of our party, or at least register your party preference with the local voter registrar's office. And really, how exactly is that so onerous a request by the party, or so oppressive a requirement by the state?

    Otherwise, if your desire to be contrary is such that you would decline to state your party preference on your local voter registry simply for refusal's sake, then no, you shouldn't get a say in a political party's nominating processes, and you'll just have to wait until Election Day in November. Further, your subsequent exclusion from said party's process is entirely by your own choice and was achieved by your own decision. Own your choices and decisions, and don't seek to blame others for their obvious consequences.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Easy killer... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 08:39:41 PM EST
    I'm not blaming anybody for anything, just expressing my opinion on the matter. Fear not, my appointment to the rules committee was not approved.

    I'm not one to crash a party, lest one that lame. The other party, an engraved invitation and all the herb you can smoke would not grant them an appearance ;)

    Parent

    Actually, kdog, I wan't talking to you. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 09:37:28 PM EST
    My response was to shooter's post. Anyway, that's on me, because I should've identified that particular comment and not otherwise taken for granted that it would be obvious. My apologies for the confusion.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    To build on one of BTDs tweets (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 08:40:16 AM EST
    Sanders is not 'the guy' to carry the push for progressive goals. We want there to be 'a guy'. Some thought Obama was 'the guy'.  Some wanted to make Sanders happen. But he never was 'the guy'. I tried to say this at the beginning of the primaries. Regardless of the merits of his ideas, he just does not connect with the majority of people.

    Parent
    He was teed up to be "the guy" though (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 09:02:41 AM EST
    Ability to influence doesn't get much better than what Bernie was given. He is sadly the one who burnt that incredible rarely granted opportunity to the ground.

    Parent
    The problem (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 09:52:48 AM EST
    is that anybody thinks they need "a guy". I keep pointing out the gay rights movement and how they moved forward as a model to follow.

    Parent
    Heh, yes why, oh (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Nemi on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 03:53:11 PM EST
    Why Can't Hillary be More Like a Man?

    Parent
    Maher said (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 04:04:38 PM EST
    If it was between Hillary and Trump he would be voting for Hillary because she is the one who has balls.

    He's not wrong.

    Parent

    In other words.. (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 10:21:37 AM EST
    a "guy" with a lot of the same ideas but handsomer and waspier like, say, Robert Redford, who doesn't wave his arms around and sound like some guy who's worked in the NY garment district for forty years..

    To truly pass muster though, he would apparently also have to be able to perform the supramundane feat of publicly airing his ideas without ever once, in any fashion, insinuating that Hillary and Bill Clinton have ever been anything
    other than the foremost champions of progressive ideals in modern times, or there'll surely be hell to pay in one form or another.

    Parent

    How foolish of me to think comminucation skills (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 11:07:13 AM EST
    are important to try to communicate and propagate ideas most effectively. I have been waiting to be proved wrong about it for the last 5 months, and it did not happen.

    Parent
    Sander's recurring best "guy" and gal (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 10:48:14 AM EST
    moment was when he hammered on the point that we need many many gals and guys outside of politics at the grassroots level to get organized and work and raise hell for progressive change.

    Parent
    Absolutley true (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 11:08:16 AM EST
    And surely you know I use 'guy' in the collective sense...since the 'guy' people really wanted int he role was Elizabeth Warren.

    Parent
    Senator Sanders (none / 0) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 16, 2016 at 12:01:23 PM EST
    and the Windows 95 version of progressive politics.

    Hillary Wins D.C. Primary | 92 comments (92 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment