Jon Stewart torched the DNC and Democratic leadership as "lost" after learning from a candidate with a massive lead that he's heard zilch from the party.
Bernie overwhelmingly lost against Hillary, he was really only popular on the internet with people that don’t vote in the first place, he never stood a fucking chance.
Aside from Trump himself, I would go so far as to say that the one single person in the entire world who bears more responsibility for Trump’s presidency than anyone else is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
The voters clearly expressed their preference for Sanders and Sanders easily led both Clinton and Trump in polling, and then the DNC effectively fraudulently nominated Clinton anyway (with their technically valid but obviously corrupt defense being that they weren’t required to accept the voters’ preference).
They set the stage for Trump and the oligarchs to just walk right in, and then tried to blame everybody but themselves when they walked right in.
I recall no indications that the RNC preferred Jeb. In fact, after 4 mediocre years with George HW, and the 8 disastrous years in which the negligence, incompetence, and corruption of the George W Bush Administration was responsible for the avoidable deaths of well over 10,000 American citizens, countless foreign nationals, and the worst economic downfall since the Great Depression, I don’t remember ANYONE looking forward to another Bush administration.
Even though he was the one Bush who wasn’t a self serving dipshit, and probably would have made a decent president (he had done a great job as governor of Florida) his political viability on the National stage was destroyed after his father’s, and especially his brother’s, failures as president. I don’t recall him winning a single primary race, or even finishing in the top 3.
They had plenty of candidates that year, but none of them could get any traction because the media only had eyes for the trainwreck that is Donald Trump, and combined with Russian propaganda and manipulation of social media, he was kept at the forefront at all times. In America, especially back then, just being familiar is good enough to be politically viable, even if it’s for all the wrong reasons.
What happened, the alternate reality they created to seize absolute power was itself seized by the now president that could talk shit better than they could. It was inevitable. He seized control of the party in the process of overthrowing the Republic. He mucked it up too, yet because the Democrats are so weak and worthless he won anyway. Or less charitably because the Democrats are the controlled opposition which is the truth.
Well, maybe they should have spoken up. I know they had issues with running another Bush, but Hillary was carrying similar baggage, and they would have cancelled each other out, for the most part. How could they possibly think Trump would be better?
What Dems can’t seem to understand is that Bernie was NEVER going to get the Democratic Nomination because he’s NOT A DEMOCRAT.
The Presidential Nomination is the biggest award a party can give to a candidate. It essentially puts them at the head of the party. Bernie is a card-carrying Independent. He is NOT a member of the Democratic party. The party (The DNC) wants reward their own members, and give the nomination to a party member who has been supportive of the party over the years, and gathered the support of most of the country.
But Bernie has never been a Democrat, and is often nearly as critical of the Dems as he is of MAGA. He might caucus with the Dems, but he doesn’t raise money for them, his agenda is entirely different, and his successes are not their successes. The DNC feels about him almost the same as they feel about a MAGA candidate, or any candidate from any other party.
How would you feel if a Libertarian hijacked the DNC’s infrastructure and forced the party to support him, just because he got a bunch votes under their banner? He doesn’t like you, he doesn’t hang out with you, he doesn’t help you, he just called himself one of you so he could run, and he has no intention of following any of your policies. He’s just using your party to get what he wants, without regard to what the party wants.
Now, when it comes to the corrupt DNC, ALL of that sounds great to me, but it’s terrifying to the DNC. At the time, it came down to having two candidates - one who has dedicated their life to the party, and who has an excellent resume, including 8 years in the White House already, or a popular outside interloper who is trying to exploit the system for their own personal gain.
Take out the emotion of Bernie getting screwed, and you can understand why the DNC made that decision, even though we hate it. And guess what? They’d make that same decision 10 out of 10 times. They simply won’t give their precious nomination to an outsider.
Edit: Yeah, I get downvoted for this opinion every time I express it, but it’s true, and we all know it.
Bullshit. I do not find this to be an insightful take.
You speak as if the Democrats are acting in good faith and not the controlled opposition of fascists which they are. The leadership is, whether they know it or not and they should know it.
Perhaps YOU don’t, but if someone has never considered this idea, then it IS insightful, even if they don’t like it. But that doesn’t make it wrong, just unsavory. That’s the way MAGA thinks: I don’t like it, therefore it’s wrong.
You speak as if the Democrats are acting in good faith
Not at all. I don’t think either party exists in good faith. In fact, I think the point of political parties is to take “good faith” out of the equation, and make decisions based on cold political calculations, and money, of course. You can’t allow nebulous concepts like good faith, morals, fairness, truth, etc. muddy the waters. Let’s just boil it down to inhuman Math.
I’m a lifelong Independent, since I first registered to vote 50 years ago this year. I declined to declare a party then, and I haven’t since, with the only exception being in 2016, when I switched my registration so I could vote for Bernie in the primary, and then changed my registration right back.
I was one of you people, angry that Bernie never got a fair shot, but then I started thinking about it, and realized that he suffered the biggest problem with a two party system - even though the Independents are a larger share than either the Dems or the MAGAs, they don’t have ANY power in a 2 party system, because the two parties make sure to ice out any third party, as they should. Nominating a non-party member is a huge betrayal to party members who would have liked to have that nomination. Besides, the president is essentially the leader of the party. A party can’t have a leader that isn’t a member of their party, and has an agenda that is at odds with the party’s agenda. Otherwise, why have parties at all?
Frankly, that’s what happened to the Republicans. They allowed a really bad candidate to hijack their party, simply because he had popularity, and they were so desperate and pusillanimous, they made a deal with the Devil. I’m not saying that Bernie would have been as bad as Trump, but it shows how allowing an outsider to lead your party, can end in disaster. The Republicans let in the disease, while the Dems vaxxed themselves against the threat, and Bernie got caught in it.
Running as an Independent is a complex and dangerous calculation, and looking back, I wish he had. In a 3 way race between Bernie, Hillary, and Trump, Bernie might actually have won it, especially since a significant chunk of Trump’s support were originally Bernie supporters who refused to vote for Hillary after the DNC edged him out. If he had gone Independent, he might have beaten Trump. That’s on Bernie.
The president wasn’t given the Republican party, he took it from the party.
You are a spousing a defeatism that is just not accurate. We can seize control of the Democratic Party, we came close to doing so without any real leadership, they’re weak they’re unpopular and they’re doomed to fail.
It’s not “Defeatism,” it’s the simple truth. The DNC was NEVER going to give an Independent candidate their nomination, and they never will. That is the NATURE of a political party. If any outsider can come along and claim a party’s nomination, what’s the point of a party?
What if a Republican decides that his primary is too crowded, so he declares as a Democrat, but still runs as a Republican, and Republicans vote for him in huge numbers? Is the DNC obligated to give that disengenuous candidate their nomination? If they can be forced to give it to a good candidate like Bernie, then they can be forced to give it to a terrible one like a MAGA.
The truth may hurt, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
Parties have rules, and votes decide leadership. They barely held on to it the preceding two elections before the last one where they just anointed the most unpopular candidate they could find.
they just anointed the most unpopular candidate they could find.
BOTH parties do that! The system seems to filter out the best candidates, and reward the worst. If there was ever proof that the system is broken, it’s that.
That’s not accurate at all, the Democrats were the only ones to force a new candidate without a primary. The current president won a crowded primary I would remind you.
The Democrats had four plus months to go and claimed it was not enough time to run a contest and indeed not a single Democrat threw their hat in the ring despite the anointed never breaching 30% approval all term before her anointment, not having won a single state in the primary she participated in, and being hated by both the actual left, which does not include the Democratic sheep obviously, and all across the right.
I blame Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Hillary Clinton for not letting Bernie battle Trump in 2016. Trump didn’t win that election, Hillary lost it.
Bernie would have shone a light on their corruption, and they can’t have that.
Bernie overwhelmingly lost against Hillary, he was really only popular on the internet with people that don’t vote in the first place, he never stood a fucking chance.
Yes.
Aside from Trump himself, I would go so far as to say that the one single person in the entire world who bears more responsibility for Trump’s presidency than anyone else is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
The voters clearly expressed their preference for Sanders and Sanders easily led both Clinton and Trump in polling, and then the DNC effectively fraudulently nominated Clinton anyway (with their technically valid but obviously corrupt defense being that they weren’t required to accept the voters’ preference).
They set the stage for Trump and the oligarchs to just walk right in, and then tried to blame everybody but themselves when they walked right in.
Nailed it. The Republicans tried to throw the election in 2016, and the DNC was all like “Hold my beer, let me show you how it’s done”.
Yes in 2016 the RNC wanted Jeb. They tried to stop Trump taking over their party.
I recall no indications that the RNC preferred Jeb. In fact, after 4 mediocre years with George HW, and the 8 disastrous years in which the negligence, incompetence, and corruption of the George W Bush Administration was responsible for the avoidable deaths of well over 10,000 American citizens, countless foreign nationals, and the worst economic downfall since the Great Depression, I don’t remember ANYONE looking forward to another Bush administration.
Even though he was the one Bush who wasn’t a self serving dipshit, and probably would have made a decent president (he had done a great job as governor of Florida) his political viability on the National stage was destroyed after his father’s, and especially his brother’s, failures as president. I don’t recall him winning a single primary race, or even finishing in the top 3.
They had plenty of candidates that year, but none of them could get any traction because the media only had eyes for the trainwreck that is Donald Trump, and combined with Russian propaganda and manipulation of social media, he was kept at the forefront at all times. In America, especially back then, just being familiar is good enough to be politically viable, even if it’s for all the wrong reasons.
What happened, the alternate reality they created to seize absolute power was itself seized by the now president that could talk shit better than they could. It was inevitable. He seized control of the party in the process of overthrowing the Republic. He mucked it up too, yet because the Democrats are so weak and worthless he won anyway. Or less charitably because the Democrats are the controlled opposition which is the truth.
I agree with your take, but I had insider knowledge I didn’t disclose. They were trying for Jeb in 2015
Well, maybe they should have spoken up. I know they had issues with running another Bush, but Hillary was carrying similar baggage, and they would have cancelled each other out, for the most part. How could they possibly think Trump would be better?
What Dems can’t seem to understand is that Bernie was NEVER going to get the Democratic Nomination because he’s NOT A DEMOCRAT.
The Presidential Nomination is the biggest award a party can give to a candidate. It essentially puts them at the head of the party. Bernie is a card-carrying Independent. He is NOT a member of the Democratic party. The party (The DNC) wants reward their own members, and give the nomination to a party member who has been supportive of the party over the years, and gathered the support of most of the country.
But Bernie has never been a Democrat, and is often nearly as critical of the Dems as he is of MAGA. He might caucus with the Dems, but he doesn’t raise money for them, his agenda is entirely different, and his successes are not their successes. The DNC feels about him almost the same as they feel about a MAGA candidate, or any candidate from any other party.
How would you feel if a Libertarian hijacked the DNC’s infrastructure and forced the party to support him, just because he got a bunch votes under their banner? He doesn’t like you, he doesn’t hang out with you, he doesn’t help you, he just called himself one of you so he could run, and he has no intention of following any of your policies. He’s just using your party to get what he wants, without regard to what the party wants.
Now, when it comes to the corrupt DNC, ALL of that sounds great to me, but it’s terrifying to the DNC. At the time, it came down to having two candidates - one who has dedicated their life to the party, and who has an excellent resume, including 8 years in the White House already, or a popular outside interloper who is trying to exploit the system for their own personal gain.
Take out the emotion of Bernie getting screwed, and you can understand why the DNC made that decision, even though we hate it. And guess what? They’d make that same decision 10 out of 10 times. They simply won’t give their precious nomination to an outsider.
Edit: Yeah, I get downvoted for this opinion every time I express it, but it’s true, and we all know it.
Bullshit. I do not find this to be an insightful take.
You speak as if the Democrats are acting in good faith and not the controlled opposition of fascists which they are. The leadership is, whether they know it or not and they should know it.
Perhaps YOU don’t, but if someone has never considered this idea, then it IS insightful, even if they don’t like it. But that doesn’t make it wrong, just unsavory. That’s the way MAGA thinks: I don’t like it, therefore it’s wrong.
Not at all. I don’t think either party exists in good faith. In fact, I think the point of political parties is to take “good faith” out of the equation, and make decisions based on cold political calculations, and money, of course. You can’t allow nebulous concepts like good faith, morals, fairness, truth, etc. muddy the waters. Let’s just boil it down to inhuman Math.
I’m a lifelong Independent, since I first registered to vote 50 years ago this year. I declined to declare a party then, and I haven’t since, with the only exception being in 2016, when I switched my registration so I could vote for Bernie in the primary, and then changed my registration right back.
I was one of you people, angry that Bernie never got a fair shot, but then I started thinking about it, and realized that he suffered the biggest problem with a two party system - even though the Independents are a larger share than either the Dems or the MAGAs, they don’t have ANY power in a 2 party system, because the two parties make sure to ice out any third party, as they should. Nominating a non-party member is a huge betrayal to party members who would have liked to have that nomination. Besides, the president is essentially the leader of the party. A party can’t have a leader that isn’t a member of their party, and has an agenda that is at odds with the party’s agenda. Otherwise, why have parties at all?
Frankly, that’s what happened to the Republicans. They allowed a really bad candidate to hijack their party, simply because he had popularity, and they were so desperate and pusillanimous, they made a deal with the Devil. I’m not saying that Bernie would have been as bad as Trump, but it shows how allowing an outsider to lead your party, can end in disaster. The Republicans let in the disease, while the Dems vaxxed themselves against the threat, and Bernie got caught in it.
Running as an Independent is a complex and dangerous calculation, and looking back, I wish he had. In a 3 way race between Bernie, Hillary, and Trump, Bernie might actually have won it, especially since a significant chunk of Trump’s support were originally Bernie supporters who refused to vote for Hillary after the DNC edged him out. If he had gone Independent, he might have beaten Trump. That’s on Bernie.
The president wasn’t given the Republican party, he took it from the party.
You are a spousing a defeatism that is just not accurate. We can seize control of the Democratic Party, we came close to doing so without any real leadership, they’re weak they’re unpopular and they’re doomed to fail.
It’s not “Defeatism,” it’s the simple truth. The DNC was NEVER going to give an Independent candidate their nomination, and they never will. That is the NATURE of a political party. If any outsider can come along and claim a party’s nomination, what’s the point of a party?
What if a Republican decides that his primary is too crowded, so he declares as a Democrat, but still runs as a Republican, and Republicans vote for him in huge numbers? Is the DNC obligated to give that disengenuous candidate their nomination? If they can be forced to give it to a good candidate like Bernie, then they can be forced to give it to a terrible one like a MAGA.
The truth may hurt, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
Parties have rules, and votes decide leadership. They barely held on to it the preceding two elections before the last one where they just anointed the most unpopular candidate they could find.
BOTH parties do that! The system seems to filter out the best candidates, and reward the worst. If there was ever proof that the system is broken, it’s that.
That’s not accurate at all, the Democrats were the only ones to force a new candidate without a primary. The current president won a crowded primary I would remind you.
The Democrats had four plus months to go and claimed it was not enough time to run a contest and indeed not a single Democrat threw their hat in the ring despite the anointed never breaching 30% approval all term before her anointment, not having won a single state in the primary she participated in, and being hated by both the actual left, which does not include the Democratic sheep obviously, and all across the right.