“The short-term strategy is, win the House of Representatives,” stated the former president, garnering applause. “Because that’s going to be the circuit breaker that will give us control of one major component of the federal government. With that as a bulwark, we’re now able to block some of the worst impulses that are coming out of this White House.”
The former president laid out a two-pronged strategy for Democrats: to reclaim a House majority next year, and to work on honing the party’s messaging in the coming years.
“Long term, let’s tell a story, a better story about who we are as Americans and what we share,” Obama said, according to excerpts shared with CBS News. “We have to tell the story that makes people who feel outside that process, we’ve got to bring them back in.”
The DNC chair is appointed by a committee of over 400 people with no obligation to follow the President’s recommendation (though they usually do). The DNC is a private organization with no obligation to the people. The responsibility of electing our leaders comes down to us. And as a populace, we looked at Clinton and Trump and chose Biff Tannen with the golden toilet. It’s not like America didn’t know who Trump was when they elected him… both times. This is a problem with our culture and our people, not something we can comfortably pin on old leaders or outside forces. You think the country that re-elected a felon would have given Bernie 8 years?
These two points are contradictory. When a private organization can define who is allowed on the ballot, you understand that means “we” have no choice in the matter right?
Yeah, I’ve been advocating for ranked voting forever. But as long as we’re stuck with 2 parties, we’re stuck with an either-or decision.
Well when the DNC allows one primary candidate to hold it hostage because they let her control of the DNC Treasury, it’s their fault when they fuck everything up for the country.
And when a Dem wins the presidential election they nominate a chair and the DNC vote is performative…
Obama could have named anyone, going off memory but the first time he didn’t nominate at all, and the second time was for the neoliberal who gave 2016 to Hillary, likely at Biden’s recommendation.
And you’re making my point, trump couldn’t have beaten anyone in a fair election, the only two times he’s won and when Dems had rigged primaries to force historically unpopular candidates.
Biden even managed to beat him, like 40 years after his first disasterous primary. That’s my point, Bernie would have stomped trump.
Trump polled more historically unpopular than Clinton and Harris, and one of the main points of discussion to follow was how incongruent the polling was with the votes. You can’t Monday morning quarterback this productively. And in any case, it sidesteps my point. Were Clinton and Harris great candidates? No. In a well America, should they still have beaten Trump handily? Absolutely. We’re not well, as a nation, and you can’t lay that at Obama’s feet.
Bernie polled well with a segment of voters who ended up going to trump. That would have turned the whole race. Instead we had Clinton’s baggage and corporate puppetry running against a guy who represented the puppeteers.
Buddy…
You’re acting like we didn’t know Bernie was a stronger candidate during the primary…
Things don’t magically become real these one you admit them, they’re true before you realize it too
You should continue that quote.
The very end?
You saying people can’t follow logic to it’s logical conclusion…
Because you don’t agree with it? Then try to use logic.
Don’t just insist that reality was different so you get your warm and fuzzies.
And absolut shit ton of people were ringing alarm bells not just in 2016 during the primary, but back in 2008 when Obama and the party instead of seizing it.
It’s oke you just started paying attention, I’m sincerely glad. But stop fucking acting like nothing was realized before you personally did so that’s the shit trump does with his “nobody knows” and you won’t stop saying “nobody knew” despite a shit ton of us, and we weren’t exactly shy about it.
This is not a puzzle I’m trying to get you to solve. You needn’t hypothesize about intention or my experience or alternate histories. I’m literally saying:
The issues people have with Clinton and Harris, however valid they may be, do not amount to a reason to vote for Trump or refrain from voting. That is the disconnect from reality that I’m addressing.
In a “well” nation, clinton and harris should have never been considered as candidates for the nominal “progressive party.” They hsould have nevre been secretary of State nor Vice President, let alone senators. The disconnect you have in blaming anyone except the private corporation that appointed them is something you should reflect upon.
Are you equating Harris and Clinton’s shortcomings with Trump’s?