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.
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.
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.