Politics ‘What Are You Doing?!’ CNN’s Enten Warns Democrats Are In Trouble Ahead of the Midterms

[Phatguysrule]

Well, yeah, and that's a very good thing. Do you disagree?

I do disagree, because the current system prevented the best candidate from winning and allowed Trump to face lesser candidates with policy nobody really cared about.

What was/is the "Obama situation"?

Allowing the people to choose somebody other than the DNC preferred candidate.

You make simple politics sound so nefarious. Yes, different people have different preferences about candidates.
And some people have more power than others. Some people are more persuasive than others. Some people have more money than others. Some people get to sleep with supermodels.
All of that is 'unfair' in some sense, but it's also reality.

That's all fine. As long as the party isn't putting it's finger on the scale as it has proven to have done extensively. The current DNC chair even admits that's what the party did and has said publicly that doing so cost the party huge numbers of voters.

I like hearing them admit that, and I'm cautiously optimistic that it means they are eliminating that possibility.

And I have no objection to that, if it creates a winning non-fascist coalition.
I'm not advocating for middle-of-the-road-ness, I'm just saying that our system of politics has historically encouraged it.
Maybe that era is now over, we'll see.

barfo

If you have no objection to it then I don't know why you've argued so much against it.

Dems trying to go "middle of the road" has allowed all of our politics to shift ever more right, closer to fascism than I've been comfortable with since I was old enough to know what that means.

 

[barfo]

I do disagree, because the current system prevented the best candidate from winning and allowed Trump to face lesser candidates with policy nobody really cared about.

Are you saying it's good to let someone like Trump get elected if it's what people want? Should we have a system that self-destructs? We do, but is that really a good thing?

Allowing the people to choose somebody other than the DNC preferred candidate.

Oh, I see. Not buying what you are selling there. Obama won because he collected a sufficient amount of support. Bernie lost because he didn't collect a sufficient level of support.

That's all fine. As long as the party isn't putting it's finger on the scale as it has proven to have done extensively. The current DNC chair even admits that's what the party did and has said publicly that doing so cost the party huge numbers of voters.

Both things can be true. Yes, there was some stupid cheating stuff that happened. It pissed off Bernie's supporters, and rightly so.

But he clearly wouldn't have won (the nomination) anyway. He didn't have the votes.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Are you saying it's good to let someone like Trump get elected if it's what people want? Should we have a system that self-destructs? We do, but is that really a good thing?

If it's balanced it won't self destruct. It's not balanced, and I'm advocating that we put it back into balance. The DNC and RNC being unable to put their fingers on the scale is one step of doing that.

Oh, I see. Not buying what you are selling there. Obama won because he collected a sufficient amount of support. Bernie lost because he didn't collect a sufficient level of support.

Once again, the biggest reason (most often cited reason) people didn't vote for Bernie was because he was "trailing" Hillary by so many superdelegates (which wasn't true, because they hadn't even voted yet). Obama didn't have to worry about that. Because the while he was trailing in projected superdelegates at the start that wasn't trumpeted out the same way and many of them change their votes to support Obama as he gathered more popular support.

Both things can be true. Yes, there was some stupid cheating stuff that happened. It pissed off Bernie's supporters, and rightly so.

But he clearly wouldn't have won (the nomination) anyway. He didn't have the votes.

See above. That is specifically why Bernie fought to get the superdelegate rules changed back to the way they were in 2008 at the DNC.

 

[barfo]

Once again, the biggest reason (most often cited reason) people didn't vote for Bernie was because he was "trailing" Hillary by so many superdelegates (which wasn't true, because they hadn't even voted yet). Obama didn't have to worry about that. Because the while he was trailing in projected superdelegates at the start that wasn't trumpeted out the same way and many of them change their votes to support Obama as he gathered more popular support.

There's nothing unfair or shady about the superdelegates. It doesn't involve the party putting a thumb on the scales.
It may not have been a good system, but it was the system in place that year, and everyone knew the rules, including Bernie.
Bernie should have either lined up more superdelegates on his side, or done something else to minimize their impact. That was his job. He didn't do it well enough to win.
And it wasn't the party that publicized the superdelegate counts, it was the media. There's nothing shady about that either, any more than reporting on any preference poll is shady.

See above. That is specifically why Bernie fought to get the superdelegate rules changed back to the way they were in 2008 at the DNC.

The fact that the superdelegate system wasn't great for either the party or Bernie doesn't make it crooked. At all.
Yes, if the rules had been different, Bernie might have won. Lots of things could possibly have happened if reality was different.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

There's nothing unfair or shady about the superdelegates. It doesn't involve the party putting a thumb on the scales.
It may not have been a good system, but it was the system in place that year, and everyone knew the rules, including Bernie.
Bernie should have either lined up more superdelegates on his side, or done something else to minimize their impact. That was his job. He didn't do it well enough to win.
And it wasn't the party that publicized the superdelegate counts, it was the media. There's nothing shady about that either, any more than reporting on any preference poll is shady.



The fact that the superdelegate system wasn't great for either the party or Bernie doesn't make it crooked. At all.
Yes, if the rules had been different, Bernie might have won. Lots of things could possibly have happened if reality was different.

barfo

Thank you for agreeing with me. The DNC needs better rules (a better system) to get better candidates.

The current DNC chair even says that those rules allowed the DNC to put their finger on the scale. He regrets that they did that because that cost them a lot of voters who are not coming back. It was definitely crooked. 100%. That is not in dispute.

This isn't about Bernie losing. This is about a bad system. Bernie is just the biggest example of how bad it has been. And being that bad allowed Trump to become president and put us on the path we are currently on.

I'm advocating for that system be fixed (to continue being fixed, and to never go back). I'm also advocating that they narrow their talking points to a few things that help all of their constituents, and stop advocating for anything that hurts their constituents, or even negatively impacts them. They can't afford that.

 

[barfo]

Thank you for agreeing with me. The DNC needs better rules (a better system) to get better candidates.

The current DNC chair even says that those rules allowed the DNC to put their finger on the scale. He regrets that they did that because that cost them a lot of voters who are not coming back. It was definitely crooked. 100%. That is not in dispute.

If he's convinced you of that, then he's doing his job well. He needs to win back people who have been angry ever since Bernie failed to win.

This isn't about Bernie losing. This is about a bad system.

So the 'bad system' has already been fixed, as you've acknowledged, so what's your problem with the party now?

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

If he's convinced you of that, then he's doing his job well. He needs to win back people who have been angry ever since Bernie failed to win.



So the 'bad system' has already been fixed, as you've acknowledged, so what's your problem with the party now?

barfo

It has been partially fixed, largely due to Bernie forcing them to fix it.

I already covered what I want from the party.

 

[barfo]

It has been partially fixed, largely due to Bernie forcing them to fix it.

What remains to be fixed, rule-wise, in your view?

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

What remains to be fixed, rule-wise, in your view?

barfo

It's not necessarily specific rules I want fixed. I want them to want tough competition and I want them to want the people to pick the best candidate. The proof will be in the pudding. It would have been nice to have an actual primary for 2024 to see how that went.

I would imagine we would have had a much closer presidential race, and probably a Dem win over Trump.

*Edit* The current DNC chair is doing a decent job of saying some of the right things. But it still kinda feels like a fund raising ploy.

The party won't just come out and say we need Universal Healthcare and Universal education and we need to improve the social safety net and then talk about the data that proves it. They won't do that because they're afraid of losing their funding. I don't know how we get past that, but that may well cost all of us our democracy.

 

[Phatguysrule]

 

[Hoopguru]

Thank you for agreeing with me. The DNC needs better rules (a better system) to get better candidates.

The current DNC chair even says that those rules allowed the DNC to put their finger on the scale. He regrets that they did that because that cost them a lot of voters who are not coming back. It was definitely crooked. 100%. That is not in dispute.

This isn't about Bernie losing. This is about a bad system. Bernie is just the biggest example of how bad it has been. And being that bad allowed Trump to become president and put us on the path we are currently on.

I'm advocating for that system be fixed (to continue being fixed, and to never go back). I'm also advocating that they narrow their talking points to a few things that help all of their constituents, and stop advocating for anything that hurts their constituents, or even negatively impacts them. They can't afford that.

Trump would have lost the first time the DNC hadn't screwed up the first time by being slippery.
Then the third time around they obviously fucked that up too.

 

[barfo]

Trump would have lost the first time the DNC hadn't screwed up the first time by being slippery.
Then the third time around they obviously fucked that up too.

But they must have done great in 2020, right?

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

But they must have done great in 2020, right?

barfo

That was where money in politics screwed us. Unfortunately people ran on Bernie's platform to gain support, then threw the platform under the bus when offered funding and DNC support (and cabinet positions) to ditch that policy and support Biden's DNC donor friendly policy.

Remove corporate and billionaire money from the system and that doesn't happen, IMO.

 

[tlongII]

That was where money in politics screwed us. Unfortunately people ran on Bernie's platform to gain support, then threw the platform under the bus when offered funding and DNC support (and cabinet positions) to ditch that policy and support Biden's DNC donor friendly policy.

Remove corporate and billionaire money from the system and that doesn't happen, IMO.

I don’t see how you can remove corporate and billionaire money from politics at this point.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I don’t see how you can remove corporate and billionaire money from politics at this point.

It would take a constitutional amendment. You'd have to put a cap on political donations and require tracking of all donations by candidates.

Then you'd ideally want to encourage every American to donate by offering $100 tax credit that could be donated to any cause. Then you could just log into your IRS page and allocate that $100 to any cause or candidate you like.

That would create over $15 billion per year in donations that would be up for grabs.

*Edit* If you can't get the constitutional amendment (because it's very difficult) perhaps you could just do the tax credit thing to offset the amount that billionaires and businesses are giving. Maybe make it $200 instead.

Or make it exactly offset the total of large dollar donations. So you give a percentage of your allotment to given causes or politicians, and then the amount is calculated to exactly offset the amount of large dollar donations.

 

[tlongII]

It would take a constitutional amendment. You'd have to put a cap on political donations and require tracking of all donations by candidates.

Then you'd ideally want to encourage every American to donate by offering $100 tax credit that could be donated to any cause. Then you could just log into your IRS page and allocate that $100 to any cause or candidate you like.

That would create over $15 billion per year in donations that would be up for grabs.

No way that happens. Congress will want to stay on that gravy train.

 

[Phatguysrule]

No way that happens. Congress will want to stay on that gravy train.

Certainly, as long as we don't support politicians like Bernie Sanders that will be the case.

We could actually do it without Congress by getting 75% of the states on board.

 

[Hoopguru]

But they must have done great in 2020, right?

barfo

The correct way imo. There was a primary/convention/ and positive synergy. Joe appealed to more Americans thats why he won. It was handled wrong imo this last time around.

 

[Hoopguru]

Unforced Errors.....it happens with all competition.