Will the democrats change and represent their membership?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Will the democrats change and represent their membership?

«‹›5 »

Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed.
Yes	33	6.38%
No	343	66.34%
Keith Ellison	54	10.44%
Pete Buttigieg	71	13.73%
Jehmu Green	16	3.09%
Total:	416 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

jBrereton posted:

Maybe it is a very good idea to not represent their membership and instead represent the public at large.

That's not how political parties work, for better or for worse.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2017 21:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:55

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

The Liebermans and the JeffersonClays of the Democratic party still have a pretty tight grip on it, and have made it absolutely clear they'll see the Democratic party vanish from national politics altogether before they admit they were wrong about anything or resign. It remains to be seen if the bastards can be replaced or if the party is doomed. The election of Perez to DNC chair shows that DNC members totally out of touch, but Perez himself might be an adequate chairperson.

Then there are "Democrats" like Fulchrum who actively want the party to fail, just to spite the left wing.

Fulchrum posted:

You're a loving idiot who took every opportunity to derail and troll his own thread over the course of a couple months. Shame you'll gently caress this one up, too.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2017 21:57

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

khwarezm posted:

How the hell did you get that from his post?

He got it from his last thread that he hosed up, where I mentioned that the GOP does more to achieve what their base wants when they have power, e.g. endless bills to repeal Obamacare, seriously damaging the legitimacy the courts for a chance to install a pro-life Justice to SCOTUS, brinksmanship over the budget and debt in order to extract concessions from the President, etc etc. These are all horrible things, but they play well with the base so the GOP does it. It's not so much that we should want the Democrats to act this way, but some pandering in the form of at least trying to do what we want them to do would be nice, as opposed to immediately acting as though they're embarrassed to even have a base in the first place. It's nice to say "we're the party for all Americans" but when you get elected and then immediately ignore the people who voted for you, you tend not to do well in politics.

Yada yada yada - anyway I mention this stuff in the other thread and immediately Fulchrum / deak (he's deak? lol) wants to know which bills the GOP have passed since Jan 20 which directly and tangibly benefit Republicans, and nothing else.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2017 23:14

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Fulchrum posted:

I like how the only one of those that was even close to what their base wants and not just pure spite also happens to be the exact same action they would do if they wholly served their corporate masters and wanted a supreme Court Justice who would defend Citizens United v. Clinton to his dying breath.

And how it ignores that the right wing base is a bunch of brainwashed rage monsters who reject any and every narrative Fox doesn't vomit down their throats, while you regularly keep going to Breitbart to hear how the Dems have betrayed you. They made the base love what they wanted to do anyway, they don't adhere to what the base wants, you dumb gently caress.

nice rant - now do the one where white people are subhuman filth and the only way the Democats can win elections is to trick people into voting for them

# ¿ Mar 5, 2017 23:44

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

JeffersonClay posted:

And look at the substantial shifts in GOP opinion on free trade and Russia since Trump got the nomination. He told the base to get hosed on those issues and they loved him for it.

And this supports your argument that the Democrats can triangulate their way back to political relevancy because _______________.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2017 23:44

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

JeffersonClay and Fulchrum have got to be the most effective advocates against the Democratic party I've ever heard of. I think I'd rather vote straight-ticket socialist for the rest of my miserable life and just let the GOP rule supreme forever, if it meant I wouldn't have to make the same mark on ballot as either of these two. For gently caress's sake - you're both just awful people, each in your own way.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 06:05

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Fulchrum posted:

So you want the whole world to burn just to spite liberals.

If I were that kind of evil, I believe this is where I'm supposed to say, welcome to the Republican party.

It's more like you're already throwing enough fuel on the fire to kill us all, so I'll just vote my conscience while I still can rather than cast my lot with the likes of you.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 06:14

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Fulchrum posted:

Ah Mr. Trump, was wondering when you'd join us.

I guess the only way to address the faults of American foreign policy is to join the Republican party, then?

It's actually quite amazing what an excellent job Trump has done of loving over people like you. You don't recognize the broken clock principle and are so zealous in your hatred of Donald Trump that you automatically parse anything he says as 100% the opposite of reality. And the thing is you're right 95% of the time of course, it's just that the other 5% of the time he's got you believing wrong things, like America has sensible foreign policy in the Middle East. It's not even that clever or diabolical a tactic on his part - it's just that you're such a mindless partisan even an idiot man-child with a double-digit IQ can play you like a fiddle.

Food for thought.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 09:37

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Fulchrum posted:

That's the only way to engage in that level of false equivalence horseshit on that level and disengage from all nuance and reality, yeah.

You just called someone "Mr. Trump" because they suggested that American ME foreign policy isn't all that great. So...

Fulchrum posted:

Is rhat the thing Bernie Bros used to jusyofy spreading Breitbart propaganda horseshit all over the forums because thwy werent afraid to TELL THE TRUTH!, unlike the Clinton News Network?

Whereas you never stopped for one second to realise why you share the exact same opinion as an idiot man-child with a double digit iq that you acknowledge is a loving idiot on everything else. It must be because he's secretly completely brilliant at this one single thing and only you and he are brilliant enough to recognise it. I mean, you being a moron is impossible, so it's the only explanation!

Like I said, you don't comprehend the broken clock principle.

It's inevitable that I will share some opinions with Donald Trump. I probably also have some opinions that Adolf Hitler also held. If you consider this a mark against my character I think you should meditate on the meaning of truth and the nature of reality for a while. Then, light yourself on fire.

Kilroy fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Mar 6, 2017

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 09:59

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

VitalSigns posted:

I served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, thanks, what were you doing in 2004.

Fulchrum/deak right now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNC-T99IxWo

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 10:03

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Les Grossman is like 100x more likeable than Fulchrum/deak though.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 10:04

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Fiction posted:

it was the person the party all lined up behind not six months ago, and those people are still in power at the dnc. the fact that they could be so tone deaf speaks volumes about the current state of the party.

No don't you see, it's time for unity and to forget the past, and that includes any policy anyone has ever proposed and anything they've ever said or done since... now.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 18:41

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Frijolero posted:

Are you actually butthurt that Bernie's progressive wing got a seat at the table?

Don't pin this Haiti talk on me. You're the one who keeps harping about it.

This is interesting. Note the language there: "the 2016 plaform that the party gave to Bernie to write". Bernie Sanders did not actually write the 2016 party platform all by himself, of course, but JeffersonClay frames it that way anyhow - I wonder why? He certainly views the platform as a concession to "the left" or to Sanders' supporters - he's said as much in the past - but here he just says "Bernie wrote the platform". It's pretty clear that, despite his claims to the contrary, he views the "Sanders people" as just sort of a mindless cult which will obey their Jewish grandpa in all things - we'd probably all go far-right ethno-nationalist if he asked us to, right? JeffersonClay praises the left and "Sanders people" whenever words are cheap, but he can't help but leak his actual thoughts in every word he says, and of course his actions (rejecting any point of policy or strategy from the left out of hand) speak for themselves.

He also doesn't take the platform very seriously, since he's framing it as just some thing Bernie Sanders cooked up over a long weekend or something. I usually think the platform is important, for what that's worth, but reading stuff like this (along with Hillary's half-hearted advocacy of it during the lead up to the election) it's hard not to come to the conclusion that, this time, it wasn't important.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 19:28

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Yeah I can only speak for myself but the idea that we're all reading Breitbart and parroting the talking points here is pretty laughable. I never read Breitbart, like at all. Someone posted some of their poo poo on my FB feed a couple times so I checked it out and it made my head hurt it's so stupid. I think I have it blocked now, actually.

They hate Hillary, and they'll make up poo poo about her, and every once in a while I guess they probably have something there with a grain of truth? This is going back to what I was saying earlier - Fulchrum/deak is so desperate to maintain the purity of his hatred for Trump and the rest of the hard right, that he'll automatically take the opposite stance of whatever they say. This turns out to be the correct course of action most of the time, but even so, taking that attitude makes you incredibly easy to manipulate.

Like, I do agree that Trump or Breitbart saying a thing, is evidence that the thing is false. It's just not ironclad reliable 100% of the time, Fulchrum. Sometimes even the biggest idiot or most duplicitous bastard is right about something.

Except for you deak - you're the broken clock that somehow manages to never be right, not even just twice a day.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 21:27

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Fulchrum posted:

I know that your brain has very little power to it, so I'll use small words here.

The thing you said only works if dumb person agrees with smart person. Smart person wrong and dumb person right does not happen and is not what you said. What you said is only in make believe.

You thinking dumb person right and smart person wrong cause dumb person agree with you makes you dumb.

A broken clock is right twice a day. When a broken clock and the atomic clock are saying different things, THE BROKEN CLOCK IS WRONG YOU IMPOSSIBLY DENSE poo poo!

This is the exact same loving reasoning that mother fuckers use to try to deny climate change!

Okay cool but at least we established that I don't read Breitbart.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 21:39

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Frijolero posted:

Someone please report this fool already.

I reported him when he claimed in the last thread that all white people are subhuman filth, and nothing happened. I don't think he's going anywhere.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 21:40

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Fulchrum posted:

They took one look at your posts and agreed with me.

Doubling down on your racism, I see. Nice work :thumbsup:

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 21:54

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Fulchrum posted:

So you're still trying to claim you're not a useful idiot while crying about racism against whites?

I'm not really "crying" about racism against whites. This is a dead comedy forum and anyway you're not a mod so any racism you might harbor is totally impotent anyway. I don't like seeing people so utterly lost that they cling to bigotry, but in most cases (and definitely in your case) my pity for them is overshadowed by my disgust.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 22:01

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Stairmaster posted:

if democrats refuse to change then who are leftists supposed to vote for?

Just vote for the most leftist person on the ballot IMO, regardless of party affiliation. If that's the Democrat, wonderful. If not, also wonderful.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 22:03

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Crowsbeak posted:

Current Affiars has a great article about purifying the party. I think you may all enjoy this.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/02/after-the-dnc-what-now

Good stuff. Thanks.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 03:11

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Main Paineframe posted:

And for all that backing, she still had quite a bit of trouble fending off Bernie, with plenty of establishment Dems (like Ellison and Wisniewski) backing him over Clinton. Sure, the Democratic leadership widely supported her...but that doesn't seem to help her much among the voters! If that is the best Clinton's "grip on the party" can do, I'm not too worried about the Iron Fist of Clinton sweeping aside charismatic, powerful campaigners in 2020. Even if she's stupid or insane enough to run in 2020, she'll be a sideshow...assuming, of course, that the left can come up with a solid candidate to run against her instead of collapsing into a pile of infighting and apathy like it usually does.

The left already did come up with a solid candidate to run against her, and you've just handwaved away what they did to beat him, and you're already gearing up to blame the left for it when they do it again in 2020. You know for all the blame you heap on leftists for not steering the Democratic party in the right direction, you're awfully quick to ignore the machinations of the people actually leading the party, who have made it clear they'll keep the hold they've got on it even if it means the Democrats are a minority party forever. Where are these charismatic and powerful campaigners going to come from, Main Paineframe? The Democrats have done a great job making sure that the people with the most influence in the party, and therefore the people most likely to rise to national prominence within it, are the ones who put the interests of the donor class above all else. Maybe it's time to pin the failures of the Democratic party on the people who actually loving lead it, rather than on a left that has tried but so far failed to put it back on track? Expecting leftists to reliably come out and vote for center-right candidates and volunteer for their campaigns is of course incredibly stupid, but what's really infuriating is chastising the left for "infighting" and "apathy" when exactly what any reasonable person would expect to happen, happens. There actually isn't much infighting on the left - you kinda have to have something to fight over, like power, and the left doesn't have a hell of a lot of that, Main Paineframe. The "infighting" you're moaning about is centrists wagging their fingers at anyone to the left of Chuck Schumer who wants a say in the direction of the party. The apathy is about what you'd expect to happen when people who don't feel like they have any good choices to make at the ballot box, don't loving go to the ballot box, don't volunteer for campaigns, and when both major political parties are actively hostile to them, don't bother running for office.

Now I'm all for doing something about the latter, but I don't think it's something that's going to happen from within the Democratic party, and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that either, if the number of left-wing organizations existing entirely outside the DNC is anything to go by. Rather, the left will grow as a political force outside the Democratic party, until such time as it either swallows what's left of the Democratic party whole, or squashes it beneath its boot. Trying to take over the Democratic party with anything less than overwhelming organizational force is pointless - establishment centrists don't share power.

Kilroy fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Mar 19, 2017

# ¿ Mar 19, 2017 08:44

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

DeadlyMuffin posted:

I completely agree, which is why I was so disgusted when he quit the Democratic party.

He runs in the Democratic primary for his Senate seat every term, and wins. He's a Democrat in all but name which is better than being a loving Blue Dog.

# ¿ Mar 19, 2017 21:09

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

DeadlyMuffin posted:

I think he should be trying to change the party from the inside. I was really hopeful that he would do that, and was very disappointed that he left. And if your definition of "Blue Dog" is "anyone who is an actual member of the Democratic party" then I don't know what to tell you.

I think he should as well and the thing he does with the Democratic primary there is pretty weird imo (he wins it, then doesn't accept the nom so he can still run as an independent, iirc). Still, he's doing more for the Democratic party than most Democrats in Washington, so if he's also doing some idiosyncratic old man poo poo I'm willing to let it pass.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 01:10

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

JeffersonClay posted:

Socialism polls 50 points behind Free Enterprise, 25 points behind Capitalism, and 18 points behind Big Business. Socialism and Hillary Clinton have similar approval ratings. So the suggestion that Republicans wouldn't have any negative advertising to run against Bernie is strange.

Hey take your centrist apologism and gently caress off back to your own version of this thread, tia.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 01:32

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

DeadlyMuffin posted:

Bernie's abandonment of the Democratic party after the election also really got to me.

About the only sense that Bernie is not a Democrat is that he doesn't have a (D) next to his name on the ballot in Vermont. That does mean something, but I think you're overreacting. Like I said he ran in and won the Democratic primary for Senator from Vermont every time he ran for Senator. Hell he even endorsed the initial frontrunner for the DNC chair before the JeffersonClays of the party realized they couldn't be seen compromising with progressives and leftists. For the Democratic party, change at this point pretty much has to come from the outside. You're not going to get it by trying to reason with the likes of those dumb assholes who insisted a vote for Tom Perez wouldn't split the party because the progressives don't have anyone else to vote for. Basically a lot of the DNC delegates need to be replaced and a lot of Democratic elected officials have to lose their seats to a primary challenges, and the rest of them scared so shitless of it happening that they will finally come around to the idea that politics is not about who can fill the largest rooms for a $10,000 / plate dinner. The more a guy like Bernie is seen as outside of that, even if it's largely superficial like in his case, the better.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 06:14

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

KomradeX posted:

For fucks goddamn sake and people will still defend the Right Wing of the Dems to their death. No wonder Left Wing action has no traction in America it get's attacked by the very people who in theory should be for it. gently caress the donor class and the consultants they're all parasites

Have you considered that perhaps the reason Colorado for Coloradans was able to torpedo the single payer initiative there, is that leftists in Colorado didn't fight hard enough? :smug:

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 08:21

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

JeffersonClay posted:

Considering the bill was opposed by majorities of democratic voters and politicians in CO, perhaps we should change the thread title to Will the democrats change and stop representing their membership?

I thought you were going to gently caress off with this stuff and poo poo up your own thread with your predictable boring centrism apologia bullshit? No?

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 17:23

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

The Dem field was cleared for Bernie to run for Senate in Vermont the first time.

There were three other candidates in the Democratic primary in 2006, which Bernie ran in and won. I don't know why you keep bringing this up as some sort of gotcha when this is now the third time I've pointed out that you're just completely wrong.

http://www.ourherald.com/news/2006-09-07/Front_Page/f02.html

quote:

In his attempt to be the Democratic candidate for U. S. Senate, U.S. Rep Bernard Sanders is faced by four little known candidates: Larry Drown of Northfield, Craig Hill of Montpelier, Peter D. Moss of Fairfax, and Louis W. Thabault of South Burlington.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 21:26

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Four little known candidates with no institutional support, when there were a number of high profile candidates who didnt run, after Democrats made it clear Bernie was the preferred candidate.

Such as? Who were these high-profile folks who were going to crush it in the Democratic primary, but dropped out after getting a note from the DNC that read "no thanks, we'll take the socialist?"

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 21:51

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

I wasn't, but keep tilting at windmills dude.

I'm pretty sure you were (and again, for the third time as well), but if you've got some inside info on someone who had that seat on lockdown and gave it up after the DNC asked them for a favor, then you may be on to something here. Shame I can't find anything about it in any source which mentions the 2006 Democratic primary for Senator from Vermont.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 21:53

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

hmmm guess I need to keep up with posts

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 21:55

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/13/party_shuns_vermont_democrats_in_race/?page=full

This is... not what you claimed at all:

quote:

Ian Carleton, the chairman of the Vermont Democratic Party, said the party's efforts to secure the nomination for Sanders is a concession to political reality: Polls indicate that Sanders is so popular in Vermont that no Democrat has a real chance of beating him.

Yeah, we know they didn't run another Democrat in his place after he turned down the nomination to run as a Democrat, because they didn't want to split the ticket. I've said in the past that I think it's stupid that he does this, but you keep trying to draw comparisons between this and what the DNC did for Hillary and what people here are worried they will do for Chelsea. It doesn't hold water.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 22:04

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Raskolnikov38 posted:

i think the article was written before the primary election but bernie won as the democrat candidate, declined it, and thus no one else could run as a democrat in the general

Yeah I noticed that and what I gather is that Sanders announced he would run as an independent, and the Democrats in Vermont were like "gently caress" because they don't want to split the ticket but they also can't just not run anyone. So they convinced Sanders to run in the Democratic primary and pinky-swore that if he won and then declined the nomination to run as an independent, they wouldn't run someone else in his place. Like I've said I think this is all pretty dumb, but on the other hand he ran in the primary and even if didn't have the (D) next to his name on the ballot, the fact remains he was the guy Vermont Democratic primary voters wanted on it. I don't see the problem here.

And of course it completely blows out of the water BI NOW GAY LATER's claim that there were some heavy-hitting Vermont Democrats who were totally going to take that seat from Bernie, but chose not to because the DNC asked them for a favor. So thanks for posting that BI NOW GAY LATER!

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 22:13

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

That's literally what clearing the field means in most races. I am not at all endorsing them doing it for Hillary in the presidential primary, just pointing out that they did it for Bernie (which they did.)

I don't even care that they did, but y'all have these weird ideas that Bernie is some kind of politician that is "above" the game, when he's not at all.

It's really not and anyone could have run in that primary against Bernie if they'd wanted. There is nothing in your article to indicate that Vermont Democrats, or national Democrats, were keeping people off the primary ballot in favor of Bernie - there was simply no one who could have won the primary against Bernie.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 22:17

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

That's again, not what I said. I said there were people who would have ran. Is it this hard for you to admit Bernie isn't perfect and has been the beneficiary of the same party politics you hate so much?

In the primary? Who was going to run in the primary but didn't because the Democratic party asked nicely? The very article you posted claimed there were no Vermont Democrats capable of defeating Bernie.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

They didn't because Schumer and Reid made it clear that he was their preferred candidate.

WHO?

Note that I'm not talking about whatever Democrat would have run in the general had Bernie not participated in the Democratic primary. I'm asking specifically for the name of this mystery person who totes would have beaten Bernie and secured the nomination for the general, but didn't because ~~the DNC~~ Reid and Schumer, apparently, asked them not to.

Kilroy fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Mar 20, 2017

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 22:20

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

mcmagic posted:

Biden, Brown Warren all probably beat her.

Surprisingly, we're not rehashing the 2016 Democratic primary for President here. We're rehashing the 2006 Democratic primary for Senator from Vermont.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 22:24

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Raskolnikov38 posted:

i can't tell if this is progress or regression

Regression. BI NOW GAY LATER is defending the DNC's actions in the 2016 primary by claiming they did something similar for Bernie in 2006. I guess we are rehashing the 2016 primary after all, it's just a bit more abstract than usual.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 22:28

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Main Paineframe posted:

You think that's scary? Just consider the rage supernova that would occur if a Bernie-backed candidate somehow managed to lose to Chelsea Clinton.

Well considering how that went down with the DNC chair election, I'd say a lot of rage would probably be justified.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 22:35

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Nope! I am not at all defending the DNC clearing the field in the presidential election -- to the extent that this happened -- because I don't think it's a good idea to do in a national race. Really they shouldn't ever get involved with it, but it has happened and will continue to happen. I don't even *care* that Bernie had a field cleared for him in a safe senate race that assured a victory for Dems, I am simply trying to point out that when you complain about the idea of a hypothetical house seat getting cleared for Chelsea as "nepotism" that you miss that it's happened for a whole lot of people over the years, including the guy who y'all hold up as some paragon who's above the kind of shady poo poo that happens in politics.

Yeah, and I keep pointing out that they didn't clear any field for Bernie - he cleared the field himself and then Vermont Democrats worked within that framework to avoid splitting the ticket. That's miles apart from the hypothetical with Chelsea, and not what happened in 2016 either.

Go ahead, post another article that supports my point.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 22:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:55

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

You're like talking to a log. Like Bernie benefited from the political system of power and money to have an easier road to his senate seat. This isn't difficult to imagine, but apparently impossible for you to even consider without a written note from Chuck Schumer saying they didn't want a contested primary in Vermont and were perfectly fine letting Bernie do his thing if it meant getting a senate seat.

So "no one" then. Your own source points out that Democrats believed there was no one capable of beating Sanders in the Democratic primary. They weren't worried about a contested primary they were worried about Bernie splitting the ticket with a Democrat in the general.

You keep saying you don't care, which I totally believe. I believe you've got no problem with Democrats ratfucking popular candidates off the ballot in favor of technocrats - but that's not what happened in 2006 so your attempts to tu quoque your way to legitimacy don't work.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 22:44

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Will the democrats change and represent their membership?

«‹›5 »