Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The problem is that their history of hand-selecting candidates isn't very good over the last several election cycles. Why not let the voters decide?
That goes to the quality of the judgment and values, not an indictment of trying to support candidates which are more likely in their interest. Which is to elect Democrats, whoever they are.
Given the state of the party in 2016, it's hard to argue that it WASN'T bad. When the decisions you make and approaches you take leave you as the minority in all three branches of the gov't, I think it's safe to say you're doing it wrong. When you lose to Donnie Two Scoops, I think it's safe to say you're doing it wrong. Is their momentum going into 2018? Yup...."anyone but Donnie Two Scoops" will express itself in an uptick. However, if the Dems can't figure out how to get out of their own way it's not going to go well. Incidents like this have a way of stopping momentum dead in it's tracks.
Again, you can say that's a quality of poor judging on choosing. Not that a party generally trying to push electable candidates.
Right, but one of the biggest problems that the Democratic Party currently has is that Independents feel that they have their thumb on the scales during the primary process. This does nothing to alter that perception.
If everyone paid attention, they'd realize that Republicans do it, too. Or did you forget the #nevertrump movement or talk to deny him the needed votes at the convention or the idea of one of the R candidates to all pool their votes or the establishment coming out against him. See also Roy Moore and tons of other races.
I don't understand your point. Isn't the issue that they aren't choosing people who are "electable"? The distinction you are attempting to make doesn't make sense at all. Perhaps I am not understanding.
If the DNC or whichever branch this is had a better finger on the pulse on who could get elected, then they're doing the thing which is common and frankly in their interest. And depending on how you think the interest of the Democratic voters lie, maybe in their interest, too. Like is it better to have 1 senatorial candidate run vs another or to take the gavel away from Mitch McConnell.
I see better where you're trying to go. To try and fit the analogy, I'd suggest the "coach" here is the party platform that's been agreed upon. That's the measuring stick. I've said many times that the Dems are on the same path the GOP is to implosion, only at different spots. There's still time for the DNC to right the ship and change course, but they need to have a unifying message. IMO, that message needs to be the party platform. It should be the standard, not some subset of assistant coaches who think they know better even if it's been shown over and over and over again that they really don't know better.
i don't think it is outrageous for the Dems to support candidates in primaries. they can't support all the candidates equally after all. it's a tactical decision to allocate resources for them. they hopefully vet their endorsed candidate.
It would be interesting -- at least for the scant handful of parliamentarians on this board -- to speculate about Obama's progression through the party ranks in a Canadian-style system. In a Turtledovian kind of way, of course.
Sure. With some tweaks for local preferences. Bernie might play well in Vermont, but would get thrashed in Alabama.
He's obfuscating the fact that DCCC/DNC pushes spineless candidates with no principles who don't represent voters at all, most of them backed by the same special interests as corporate Republicans, by conflating it with a desire to 'win elections,' even though this strategy failed spectacularly in 2016. It doesn't matter whether the party wins, just so long as the donors win.
Whatever the DCCC/DNC does doesn't change elections. Show me the proof that a few dollars and facebook posts changed the results of a primary.
Saying the DCCC are scumbags for fighting against their own constituents to promote astroturf corporate tools is not the same thing as saying they don't have the right to be astoundingly corrupt. They have the right to do it, I just find it reprehensible is all.
Show me the proof that they made the difference in any election.
No offense to you personally, but I'm getting kinda tired of a group of mostly white mostly male progressives continue to say that Clinton beat Sanders because she was "hand selected" or because a fix was in rather than acknowledging the actual reason she won the primary race comfortably- all the votes she got from African-Americans and/or women. Disregarding minority voter preferences isn't very progressive IMO.
Either you're in favor of leaking the conversation for transparency purposes or you're not. Doing it this way makes them look more "in the bag" than the DCCC. If there's personal details unrelated to the candidates or the election they can be bleeped out.
Donald Trump says thank U very much Kim. It’s this kind of position that brought us Donald Trump in the first placeDonald Trump says thank U very much Kim. It’s this kind of position that brought us Donald Trump in the first place
Is Donald Trump confusing me with the leader of North Korea?Is Donald Trump confusing me with the leader of North Korea?
I agree with this. I won't blindly support any opposition to Trump, but it would need to be really bad to get me to not vote against Trump.
This works better at the local level where there is direct impact to your daily life at stake and I encourage people to get involved WAY earlier in this process. However, the further up the #### floats, the more black/white things get and the more similar the ideas/candidates get. There are a few exceptions of course at the national level, but not many.
You've gotta be kidding me. This is the DCCC supporting one candidate over another in a primary race based on electability, which is not really even controversial. I could give you 500 stronger examples of the GOP being the party of "crony insiders" rather than "the people" from this year alone. This happened two days ago.
We should all get behind ranked choice voting like Maine is playing with in their gubernatorial primaries this spring. It takes the fear out of your vote inadvertently helping the candidate you like the least.
Expected from the GOP; hypocrisy from the DNC. Just like sex scandals the other way around - the DNC aren't expected to have as high a moral compass. That's the way that they've set themselves up.
Like I said before there's no hypocrisy in the DCCC strategizing about the best way to win congressional elections. That's literally what they do. They might be doing a crappy job of it in this case, but that doesn't make it hypocritical, it just makes it dumb.
