Yes, it is supposed to be level and yes, the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And no, "the republicans do it too" is not a good argument. Nah and nah. We just need a Democratic party that's more responsive to to the labor left. This cycle has been a good start since we got a good chunk of the platform and both the presidential & vice presidential candidate are against TPP. If we get Bernie (or a top surrogate) atop the DNC as well, then all's good.
Since when? They only actively avoided taking sides in 2008 because the DNC committee was split between Obama and Clinton. The DNC was whole hog for Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000. ...Does history just come hard to you guys?
Yes, I wonder who all those disaffected Bradley & Dean voters went for in 2016. Does learning from history just come hard to you guys?
If they end up voting for Hillary - and history says they will - I hope you have the courage to stick around so I can hang this quote around your neck.
Yes, that's exactly the point of contention. The DNC took sides with the winner, and the other candidate's supporters rallied around the DNC candidate. They weren't unhappy with the DNC taking sides then. They are now, because the process "is supposed to be fair." No it's not. It's supposed to be where the Democratic Party chooses its presidential candidate. If it were fair, Republicans would get to help pick.
With what's going on right now on the floor... I mean ... you can feel the tension even on tv! ... I think the DNC was abso-fooking-lutely were looking out for the party's interest b/c Bernie was f***ing delusional in thinking he had a chance and more important, that his continuing poking at windmills would have zero repercussions. What goddamn idiot. In case it's not clear: the repercussions of tilting at windmills after being crushed to oblivion in the primary is that he validated his "movement" just going stupid.
That's a strong argument, but it's naive to think that if only Bernie would shut up everything would be rolling along smoothly ... Alarm bells should be ringing within the political establishments, including the Democrats. 2014 was the lowest turnout since 1942. A whopping 36% of Americans decided to partake in the business of directing this nation. States like California, Texas and New York where the youngest, most diverse and most dynamic Americans live were below 33%. Party affiliation is in decline down to around only 55% identifying as Democrat or Republican. Congressional job approval is at record lows. Business as usual is good for short term harmony, but something is fundamentally broken if the Democratic party is not cutting through to people. We underestimate how different this younger generation of Americans really is. The way they communicate and network socially and identify with institutions is not compatible with how our political parties function. There is a breakdown of communication and ignoring it will make this country even more ungovernable and more erratic in the future. Say what you will about Bernie, he had a way to cut through the noise and reach those kids. Instead of wishing that away what the Democrats need to do is understand how to recreate that in the future with and how to harness its potential in constructive ways.
He may have gotten them to turn out for rallies, but that never translated to the actual voting booth.
Who wants Bernie to shut up or the Berners to go away? I'd have voted for him quite happily if he had won the nomination, even if the Republicans had found someone reasonable to nominate against him. I think the first night of the convention demonstrated that they've gained and been ceded a huge influence on the cycle, even to the point of everyone ignoring the conflict between his ecology position and his TPP position. But they really belong in a world where they are the leftist party and the Democrats are the conservative one, and the Republicans are an extremist group. Look, in 1970 the SDS and the YSA and those types in effect promoted bad results like Kent State and Czechago in order to radicalize ordinary people against the corrupt system; what they got was Nixon and Agnew and "a kidney stone of a decade" (Garry Trudeau,) but no revolution of the masses. In fact, they were helping to lay the groundwork for Trump. Seems to me the "Bernie or I'll take my ball and go home" types are taking a similar approach-- "let Trump get elected and then you'll be sorry you didn't buy me that ice cream." I'm concerned that we will all be sorry in a way they do not forsee, and wish they would take just a little broader view of history. It moves very slowly, I'm sorry to say, and backs up almost as often as it shoots forward...
Really, the idea that the nominee should not get to pick their own running mate is pretty much unprecedented in modern times, isn't it? Shows how self absorbed (and stupid, IMO) the berniebots are.
I'ma gonna get us focused on what is really important @Barbara @Demosthenes 757369064792686592 is not a valid tweet id Why HELLO THERE young fair housing lawyer Tim Kaine. pic.twitter.com/t4uomC6tPX— Caitlin Doughty Updates (@TheGoodDeath) July 25, 2016
I can live with women being stupid horny like men, but I draw the line at stupid violent. Ladies, we don't need you deciding that today is a good day for dying. We have enough idiot young men doing that already.
758638437029195777 is not a valid tweet id A lot of people were tweeting "cool dad" stuff about Tim Kaine last night during/after his speech but I think Sara had the best and longest series of tweets (at least of people I follow) - I'll let you go read them if you wish, I'd have trouble deciding which ones were the best They made my read-thru of last night's tweets quite enjoyable.
Forget Dukakis in the tank, forget Trump making fun of John Kerry riding his Serotta. Governor Hog here: Nice vest, doofus.