The State of the Democratic Party Post-2016

[Luminesa]

And if you consider Hillary to be the only valid choice that would not have fucked us over then that was the worst example of Representative Democracy in history

Absolutely. Not a single candidate anywhere else could have been voted in an election more corrupt than this one.

/Sarcasm

[G-Tech Corporation]

And if you consider Hillary to be the only valid choice that would not have fucked us over then that was the worst example of Representative Democracy in history

Absolutely. Not a single candidate anywhere else could have been voted in an election more corrupt than this one.

/Sarcasm

*carefully hides all of Africa behind door labeled "Not Democracies"*

[The Flutterlands]

And if you consider Hillary to be the only valid choice that would not have fucked us over then that was the worst example of Representative Democracy in history

Absolutely. Not a single candidate anywhere else could have been voted in an election more corrupt than this one.

/Sarcasm

In U.S history then.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Absolutely. Not a single candidate anywhere else could have been voted in an election more corrupt than this one.

/Sarcasm

In U.S history then.

Tammany Hall chuckles in the wings.

[The Black Forrest]

Trump was a roll of the dice with long odds, but it was a roll. Clinton was a guaranteed neoliberal shitpile. I understand your sentiments.

I leaned Trump in hopes of national capitalism, a step in the right direction, and against Clinton for the neoliberal and social progressive nonsense.
Trump managed to keep a lid on conservative social values, other than on immigration.[/quote]

No he wasn't. He had no serious plans.

Clinton would have been better simply because the Repubs would have been watching EVERYTHING she did.

[Cekoviu]

Carter and Mondale are why the DNC has a system where they can put their finger on the scales in the primaries to head off a candidate that might have wide party appeal but not general election appeal. Hell, they had every reason to feel validated on that front as they had a social democrat who wasn't even a member of the party until he needed the nomination running against a, by all objective measures, thoroughly qualified candidate while the republicans were on track to nominate a bloviating baboon with absolutely no recourse to stop what looked like the absolute destruction of their party.

I would have preferred Sanders by a mile. But I also get why they did what they did and it would be disingenuous hindsight on my part to pretend I saw the outcome the way it played out. It made perfect sense and now it's on them to fix the fix.

I thought it was pretty obvious from the start that Clinton was a weak candidate, and it still boggles me that the party big-wigs didn't see it. I don't think Sanders was an ideal alternative. I just don't get why the party never made any serious effort to look around for other options and see if they could get someone with less baggage than Clinton.

Once again,
ʘ ʹ ʩαІІ∈у '⑳

[USS Monitor]

I thought it was pretty obvious from the start that Clinton was a weak candidate, and it still boggles me that the party big-wigs didn't see it. I don't think Sanders was an ideal alternative. I just don't get why the party never made any serious effort to look around for other options and see if they could get someone with less baggage than Clinton.

Once again,
ʘ ʹ ʩαІІ∈у '⑳

The fact that everyone ignored him is part of the problem.

[Ngelmish]

Carter and Mondale are why the DNC has a system where they can put their finger on the scales in the primaries to head off a candidate that might have wide party appeal but not general election appeal. Hell, they had every reason to feel validated on that front as they had a social democrat who wasn't even a member of the party until he needed the nomination running against a, by all objective measures, thoroughly qualified candidate while the republicans were on track to nominate a bloviating baboon with absolutely no recourse to stop what looked like the absolute destruction of their party.

I would have preferred Sanders by a mile. But I also get why they did what they did and it would be disingenuous hindsight on my part to pretend I saw the outcome the way it played out. It made perfect sense and now it's on them to fix the fix.

I thought it was pretty obvious from the start that Clinton was a weak candidate, and it still boggles me that the party big-wigs didn't see it. I don't think Sanders was an ideal alternative. I just don't get why the party never made any serious effort to look around for other options and see if they could get someone with less baggage than Clinton.

Clinton had strong points as a candidate too, although it can't be denied that the party (the GOP was guilty of this too) drastically misread the political moment. I think it comes down to the fact that there really was a widespread feeling across the party, and one that percolated down to voters, that Clinton really had done the work, put in her time, served the party and that it was her turn if she wanted it to be. I still maintain that if a candidate less toxic to the party than Bernie Sanders had given her that kind of stiff opposition, they may have realized that her qualifications notwithstanding, she was less than ideal as a campaigner.

Absolutely. Not a single candidate anywhere else could have been voted in an election more corrupt than this one.

/Sarcasm

In U.S history then.

You should read up on the 19th century.

[Collatis]

Absolutely. Not a single candidate anywhere else could have been voted in an election more corrupt than this one.

/Sarcasm

In U.S history then.

*looks at 1876*
*looks at 2000*
*looks at every election during Jim Crow*

And that's only considering presidential elections.

[Arlenton]

Look on the bright side. Democrats are more united now than when the party had both hippies and segregationists.

[Vassenor]

So apparently some of the emails released following the Podesta hack were edited, particularly to add CLASSIFIED protective marking where there was none before.

[The Flutterlands]

In U.S history then.

*looks at 1876*
*looks at 2000*
*looks at every election during Jim Crow*

And that's only considering presidential elections.

We never had an election when we only had one "viable" option and that option being a dirty cheater?

[Senkaku]

*looks at 1876*
*looks at 2000*
*looks at every election during Jim Crow*

And that's only considering presidential elections.

We never had an election when we only had one "viable" option and that option being a dirty cheater?

Hey, look, the goalposts are just accelerating faster and faster!

[Petrasylvania]

So apparently some of the emails released following the Podesta hack were edited, particularly to add CLASSIFIED protective marking where there was none before.

AP is Fake News in 3... 2... 1...

[Ngelmish]

*looks at 1876*
*looks at 2000*
*looks at every election during Jim Crow*

And that's only considering presidential elections.

We never had an election when we only had one "viable" option and that option being a dirty cheater?

Losing is not the same thing as being cheated. Back a competent candidate next time.

[Cekoviu]

Once again,
ʘ ʹ ʩαІІ∈у '⑳

The fact that everyone ignored him is part of the problem.

It's because he's not as notable as Hillary or Bernie, I think. Hill's husband was previously president and Bernie was loud and revolutionary, so the mild-mannered governor of Maryland wasn't going to be nearly as popular, sadly. But I feel like he would be a happy medium that most Hillary and many Bernie supporters could get behind if they actually knew he existed -- not a Republican-lite forced to move to the left like Hillary and not as easy to accuse of communism as Bernie (it might help if he didn't describe himself as a socialist when he's not, though). While I think he's too far economically to the right, his progressive social policies and his likability for both the more centrist and the more center-left end of the Dems makes him somebody who would be a great uniting candidate and somebody who I could feel a lot better about than Hillary if he could actually get some recognition. I personally prefer Sanders' policies, but he's getting very old and he's probably too far to the left to actually be elected or even get past the Democratic primary if he chooses to run in 2020 -- the center-right faction of the Democrats is still too strong, and Repubs who voted for Hillary because they didn't like Trump, but wouldn't go as far to the left as Bernie no matter what, might go for the Libertarian candidate or even Trump.

[Northern Davincia]

Look on the bright side. Democrats are more united now than when the party had both hippies and segregationists.

They still have those groups. The hippies are unchanged and the segregationists dwell in universities.

[Collatis]

*looks at 1876*
*looks at 2000*
*looks at every election during Jim Crow*

And that's only considering presidential elections.

We never had an election when we only had one "viable" option and that option being a dirty cheater?

*continues to look at 1876*

[Arlenton]

Look on the bright side. Democrats are more united now than when the party had both hippies and segregationists.

They still have those groups. The hippies are unchanged and the segregationists dwell in universities.

?????

[Northern Davincia]

Couldn't we have all just votes for the giant meteor? That would have given us a swift death at least...

Not a swift death.
It most likely would have been a slow death.

We could have voted for Cthulhu. Because why vote for the lesser of two evils?

https://cthulhuforamerica.com/
He has a lot of great policies for this planet. The Great Old Ones are generally more ethical than most political parties.

[Arlenton]

We never had an election when we only had one "viable" option and that option being a dirty cheater?

*continues to look at 1876*

That election was beyond fucked.

[Cekoviu]

They still have those groups. The hippies are unchanged and the segregationists dwell in universities.

?????

I think Davincia is saying university students are "segregationists" because they tend to be liberal and opposed to racism.

[Vassenor]

?????

I think Davincia is saying university students are "segregationists" because they tend to be liberal and opposed to racism.

Anti-racist is code for anti-white after all.

[Collatis]

*continues to look at 1876*

That election was beyond fucked.

Indeed. It's worth noting, however, that had the election been conducted fairly from the start, Hayes would have almost certainly won without the need to cheat

?????

I think Davincia is saying university students are "segregationists" because they tend to be liberal and opposed to racism.

[Saiwania]

From my understanding, Clinton makes a very unpopular candidate, but a somewhat popular administrator. There's no way she'd be as unpopular as Trump in polling as of right now.

I think that could happen, if a Hillary Clinton presidency would bring about TPP and a hot proxy cold war with Russia.