Democratic (Party) Direction

Yes, and they're wrong.

Well yeah perception continues to be reality for people who have no idea how elections are run.

I just feel like complaining that people in power groomed their successors - through entirely legal means - and that there is some kind of party mechanism or legal avenue that can prevent that, is somehow fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of political power.

Knowing what I know now about Wisconsin voter fraud, Russian bots, and the uniqueness of the Trump candidacy, I'm sure Warren or my boy Sanders would have lost in 2016 too. That's my mea culpa.

Like, yes, of course the sitting President (ANY sitting President), concerned for the safeguarding of their legacy and the direction of the country, will make moves to exercise their power in a way that will secure those goals. They'll talk to people they knows are interested in running, encourage some, discourage others, point some towards resources, deprive others of resources, network, cajole, argue, intimidate exert pressure. This is power, it's how it works and it's what it's for. This is not illegal or even unethical. When you're at the top of a political machine - which is what a party is - you have been selected to exercise that power, and people inevitably do.

xp

It’s always impossible to know how the narrative of a campaign will play out but I think a candidate with the perception of being more progressive would have pushed Trump into more of a traditional GOP candidate role, rather than someone who could effectively bs being to HRC’s left on certain things with people who wanted to believe that.

I mean people made disingenuous anti-wars arguments that HRC was going to start a nuclear war over emails.

It's dirt that Obama strongarmed Hillary into the nomination that then gave us President Donald Trump

this is so ridiculous. What does "strongarm" even mean in this sentence? That he had private discussions with Biden, Warren etc. that he thought Hillary should get the nomination? Why is that wrong? And what's more, how is that a subversion of the Democratic primary process? They could have ignored Obama and run anyway, without Obama's blessing, and if they had secured the necessary votes, they would have won. It's the votes that matter. The rest is normal jockeying for power that is inherent in having a functional party structure at all.

Like, yes, of course the sitting President (ANY sitting President), concerned for the safeguarding of their legacy and the direction of the country, will make moves to exercise their power in a way that will secure those goals.

This would make more sense if the two biggest names he helped keep out weren't his own VP (with a much closer relationship than Obama/Clinton) and a strong Senate ally.

That's why it stinks - there's much more "your turn" quid pro quo than doing the best thing to win 2016 and protect his legacy.

idk why it's such a mystery that Obama thought Hillary would be the most likely to win and continue/secure his policies, he was pretty vocal and open about both. Biden and Warren both had drawbacks he likely viewed as bigger liabilities than Hillary's. There's nothing that "stinks" about it - do you think Hillary bribed him or something?

They could have ignored Obama and run anyway

I’ve found that the rigged primary argument tends not to work on anyone who remembers that there was primary in 2008.

Hmm, I wonder why the only serious challenger was an elderly socialist with nothing to lose, who's "not even a Democrat!"

I know you know the answer to this - which is they wanted the President on their side, duh. Bernie didn't care if he had any support from the Dem establishment, a party he's never wanted to belong to.

If Obama didn't think that Hillary was the best person to continue his legacy, he would have advocated for somebody else. The DNC party apparatus is not more powerful than a sitting president, especially not THIS apparatus

I'm not entirely sure what you wanted Obama to do, be a better prognosticator? stay out of it entirely? (lol right) Promote Biden (who couldn't even beat Hillary in the last primary)? Promote Warren, who he was not particularly chummy with iirc, and lose a Senate seat? None of those options make sense.

xp

There's nothing that "stinks" about it - do you think Hillary bribed him or something?

No, I think Obama worked to clear the field in favor of a poor campaigner and deeply unpopular politician who lost to Donald Trump. To wit, maybe the lesson should be 'don't do that.'

If Obama had not cleared the field, maybe we get Hillary anyway, maybe we don't - but since she lost there doesn't seem to be much upside to doing so.

This particular Dem president, we should remind ourselves, did not need the DNC and treated it like a leper for nine years.

the DNC can be all-powerful, or it can be incompetent. can't be both. and I think we know which one it leans toward

lol so you're angry that Obama overestimated Hillary's chances ok

yeah that really "stinks", let's get to the bottom of this mystery!

xp

if only Obama had magically looked into the future to read BWHW twitter threads, we would have avoided this current apocalypse, so true

If only Obama could have figured out that the person he defeated in 2008 despite her being the Anointed One was maybe not a super-competent politician.

...who looked like she was going to beat Trump?

milo, did you skip the post I wrote twenty minutes ago? In retrospect, I think Dems were doomed in 2016.

sorry Obama isn't as smart as you thought he was

still missing how his failure in judgment is an indictment of the primary system, the Democratic Party or even the DNC.

xp

great relitigating everyone

tbh I'm more interested in what it means that figures like Brazile and Warren now feel comfortable stating the game was rigged

still missing how his failure in judgment is an indictment of the primary system, the Democratic Party or even the DNC.

still missing things I didn't talk about at all?

"Dirt", "stinks" etc imply unethical or possibly illegal - at the v least scandalous - behavior.

tbh I'm more interested in what it means that figures like Brazile and Warren now feel comfortable stating the game was rigged

was waiting for someone to point this out. seems like future of the party is disowning the clintons.

Yep

the DNC can be all-powerful, or it can be incompetent. can't be both. and I think we know which one it leans toward

― bodak horseman (voodoo chili), Thursday, November 2, 2017 6:36 PM (thirty-eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is an empty rhetorical device btw, would you say the same about facebook? the trump administration?

also, did....anyone read the brazile piece?

the DNC can be all-powerful, or it can be incompetent. can't be both. and I think we know which one it leans toward

― bodak horseman (voodoo chili), Thursday, November 2, 2017 6:36 PM (thirty-eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is an empty rhetorical device btw, would you say the same about facebook? the trump administration?

― k3vin k., Thursday, November 2, 2017 7:20 PM (ten minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

those are organizations with far more power than the DNC, so no I would not say that.

k i’m sure that line is drawn very scientifically

It's almost as if ppl don't understand how parties, power and politics work in this country. LBJ was also told when it wasn't his time, for ex.

― Οὖτις

it's too bad literally nothing has changed about party politics since 1960

Is there another element to this story than both campaigns being asked to share money and Bernie saying “no”?

I think so, if I'm understanding this right?

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

And this: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670

A Twitter thread:

Okay, I am at home, I got a bunch of links open and I am ready to start explaining in mindnumbing detail the HVF.

— Elizabeth Rogers (@ahumorlessfem) November 3, 2017

wow checkmate berners!!!

we're going to be re-litigating this until 2020 i was just thinking we should probably just be cool w/ that

i quit reading that twitter thread after "that user and abuser sanders"

But wait! The Berners screech in that annoying voice of theirs

at last, the abigail adams to eric garner's james madison

haha i had a very similar thought

Donna Brazile is lying about numerous aspects of the Democratic primary race, to try to make herself relevant to Bernie Sanders fans. Now Elizabeth Warren has fallen for Brazile's lies. What a shit show. All because Bernie & his fans can't handle that he lost by MILLIONS of votes

— Palmer Report (@PalmerReport) November 2, 2017

this is hard-hitting stuff

haha the fuckin palmer report

opened that tweet and immediately discovered that barack obama follows them, yeesh

Obama follows a lot of people.

A Twitter thread:

Okay, I am at home, I got a bunch of links open and I am ready to start explaining in mindnumbing detail the HVF.
— Elizabeth Rogers (@ahumorlessfem) November 3, 2017
― grawlix (unperson), Friday, 3 November 2017 02:37 (twelve hours ago) Permalink

I though the point of the story was that the Clinton campaign was given de facto control of the DNC in exchange, not that the HVC is some kind of corrupt slush fund.

*HVF

"re-litigating": use other words, doinks

It's about the future, not about two people who aren't going to be president

future of the party in 2001 was disowning the clintons.

Gore even tried it the year before, but didn't have much else

charlie pierce weighs in:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a13148225/donna-brazile-dnc/