Clinton blasts Sanders for 'lasting damage' in 2016 race

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

The Democrats running Kamala Harris (hopefully she loses and Bernie wins) will only ensure Trump's 2020 victory (if he is able to last that long), and Trump is already gearing up Ivanka to run for president and she is trying to structure herself for a run at the presidency if you've been paying attention to her moves recently (this is why Trump has her living in the white house).

Let's say Kamala or some other Dem wins (and Bernie either didn't run or lost) - would you support the Dem nominee?

 

[BLΔCK⁂W⊙LF]

Let's say Kamala or some other Dem wins (and Bernie either didn't run or lost) - would you support the Dem nominee?

Of course I would support the Democratic nominee. But I am not the country nor does the country hold my views (middle America mostly).

 

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

Clinton lost because her party didn't (and still doesn't) recognize the white middle class to which Trump was able to capitalize on. Nor does the party recognize that Capitalism as we have it now is the prime reason we have a Trump and a country that is veering down a more fascist route. People want their jobs protected, and want a country that panders to their needs. Having unfettered competition leads to worry because, unfortunately, more and more people will be left on the back burner if the only thing that matters is "are you better than the next?". This is why Trump won. A free market is a bad idea given a society such as this one that dislikes the free market idea, because they will displaced by more efficient business structures and machines. Hilary Clinton failed to realize this and Trump didn't, and Bernie Sanders didn't fail to realize this but he lost against Clinton.

The Democrats running Kamala Harris (hopefully she loses and Bernie wins) will only ensure Trump's 2020 victory (if he is able to last that long), and Trump is already gearing up Ivanka to run for president and she is trying to structure herself for a run at the presidency if you've been paying attention to her moves recently (this is why Trump has her living in the white house).

This is why the democratic party needs to be overtaken by more outspoken, more energetic or brazen, middle class focused left. This left will have to sideline its focus on smaller groups like LGBTQ, etc..., and focus on white middle class, Blacks, and Hispanics as its target audience. Out with the small-minded thinking. Some posters in this very thread are kind of dumb. If you think Hilary Clinton was a better candidate than Bernie, you are a stupid person. And most people in the cocktail circuit think they are smart but aren't. They have very little understanding of history and the country's sentiments, worries, and outright fears. These types of people only think they are smart which is why I cannot stomach them more than I can stomach an idiotic Trump voter.

I personally like unfettered competition and capitalism because it is a much fairer system in theory (in practice, not so much), but given the country's climate and history, I know it would be downright idiotic to base my platform on a free-market narrative whilst not speaking on white middle class concerns. They are the majority and want to be pandered to. Obama won because he focused on the white middle class, and was more of a smarter version of Trump in his '08 run.

Fascism will be the way of the future as this society become more increasingly refined and people are displaced by more competitive people and machines. Hilary Clinton is too stupid to realize this and so is the democratic party.

I definitely agree with you that many in the Dem Party (the "cocktail circuit" as you call them) think they're much more intelligent than they really are. It's cultural. The party should definitely be focusing its message on economic equality/pushing back against the pervasive control of our government by various special interests. It's a message that would win election after election because it excites voters/increases turnout (the only reason Hillary lost). But at the same time - it's stupid to say as a Dem that you shouldn't focus on smaller groups because like it or not, the idea that the Dem party is a champion of smaller/less politically powerful groups is one of its organizing principles (it's why for instance black voters have a favorable view of immigrants (even illegal), even though they are seen as economic competitors). Secondly, you can't on one hand argue that identity politics should be minimized, then say you need to start catering more towards the white working/middle class. Obama won because he was perceived as being on the side of the working/middle class, full stop. Whether they're white or black, that message will resonate.

BTW your post reads like it was created by an SEO content machine.

Who you working for?

 

[BLΔCK⁂W⊙LF]

I definitely agree with you that many in the Dem Party (the "cocktail circuit" as you call them) think they're much more intelligent than they really are. It's cultural. The party should definitely be focusing its message on economic equality/pushing back against the pervasive control of our government by various special interests. It's a message that would win election after election because it excites voters/increases turnout (the only reason Hillary lost). But at the same time - it's stupid to say as a Dem that you shouldn't focus on smaller groups because like it or not, the idea that the Dem party is a champion of smaller/less politically powerful groups is one of its organizing principles (it's why for instance black voters have a favorable view of immigrants (even illegal), even though they are seen as economic competitors). Secondly, you can't on one hand argue that identity politics should be minimized, then say you need to start catering more towards the white working/middle class. Obama won because he was perceived as being on the side of the working/middle class, full stop. Whether they're white or black, that message will resonate.

BTW your post reads like it was created by an SEO content machine.

Who you working for?

I did not make any mention on minimizing all forms of identity politics. I said the democrats should center their messaging around middle class whites. Middle class Blacks have a host of other issues that won't impact middle class whites. Touching upon certain systemic issues that Blacks and Hispanics have is a must imo, but it should not be the main focus. The focus should be on addressing the fears of the white middle (and working) class as they are the deciding factor in the election cycle. The democrats will always maintain a large Black voting block - especially amongst middle class Blacks so it is unnecessary, and a waste of time to allocate resources towards that voting block. But if Blacks see their issues as being the same as whites, then alright. I've been reading articles by economists the past few years detailing how the Black middle class is shrinking, and Black middle class kids today will not be middle class tomorrow, whereas that trend will not affect white kids in the future.

As for smaller interest groups, the Democrats can and should focus less on those groups that are very small/negligible in comparison to the three groups I mentioned above. It is not a stupid idea because the current President did just that (he alienated groups of people and gave 15 second lip-service to other groups). I am talking about messaging, not actual policy. A more nationalistic tone - both economically and culturally - are necessary in this day and age. People are concerned with their very identity being targeted (check out Generation Z and the way in which they would have voted the 2016 election cycle), and people feel that there is very little job security which also prompts them to lean more towards authoritarian leaders touting nationalism as opposed to globalization.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Me too, but seeing this I'm almost glad she lost. She'd have been terrible, and this loss is the sucker punch the left needed. We're gonna be OK

How would she be terrible? She's incredibly competent.

Resist the urge to be the a$$hole in the mirror. You're better than that.

 

[BLΔCK⁂W⊙LF]

How would she be terrible? She's incredibly competent.

Resist the urge to be the a$$hole in the mirror. You're better than that.

She's definitely competent, but lacked proper messaging.

 

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

I did not make any mention on minimizing all forms of identity politics. I said the democrats should center their messaging around middle class whites. Middle class Blacks have a host of other issues that won't impact middle class whites. Touching upon certain systemic issues that Blacks and Hispanics have is a must imo, but it should not be the main focus. The focus should be on addressing the fears of the white middle (and working) class as they are the deciding factor in the election cycle. The democrats will always maintain a large Black voting block - especially amongst middle class Blacks so it is unnecessary, and a waste of time to allocate resources towards that voting block. But if Blacks see their issues as being the same as whites, then alright. I've been reading articles by economists the past few years detailing how the Black middle class is shrinking, and Black middle class kids today will not be middle class tomorrow, whereas that trend will not affect white kids in the future.

As for smaller interest groups, the Democrats can and should focus less on those groups that are very small/negligible in comparison to the three groups I mentioned above. It is not a stupid idea because the current President did just that (he alienated groups of people and gave 15 second lip-service to other groups). I am talking about messaging, not actual policy. A more nationalistic tone - both economically and culturally - are necessary in this day and age. People are concerned with their very identity being targeted (check out Generation Z and the way in which they would have voted the 2016 election cycle), and people feel that there is very little job security which also prompts them to lean more towards authoritarian leaders touting nationalism as opposed to globalization.

Chasing the myth that if only we could focus on "addressing the fears" of white middle/working class voters is a recipe for disaster. White voters haven't given a majority of their votes to a Democrat since 1968 (a coincidence of course) - largely because, according to research from Gallup and others, that they view political advancement/economic opportunity as a zero sum game. In other words the only way this group of people will no longer feel "targeted" and feel more "secure" is by taking away security/advancement from minorities.

That being said, I hope people who happen to read these posts are ready for what is to come. The policies/strategies sound eminently reasonable and non-threatening - but are in fact just dressed up revanchism. This is how they're going to try and "take back the country."

 

[DEAD7]

 

[ryderldb]

Just accept the L and shut the fukk up. She sounding like the bitter bytch she is.

 

[I_Got_Da_Burna]

 

[SupremexKing]

Clinton blasts Sanders for 'lasting damage' in 2016 race



"When I finally challenged Bernie during a debate to name a single time I changed a position or a vote because of a financial contribution, he couldn't come up with anything," Clinton wrote. "Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."

Note how carefully worded her clam is. "Because of a financial contribution" basically means there's no provable quid pro quo. Doesn't mean it hasnt happened. And we all know that it has,

"Sure, even hardcore Sanders supporters will admit there is no evidence of direct quid pro quo when talking about large donations various parties made to the Clinton Foundation when Clinton was secretary of state. But it would be difficult not to worry about at least the potential for a conflict of interest, when weapons manufacturers and Saudi Arabia were making donations to the Clinton Foundation while their weapons deals were approved by the State Department, oil companies were doing the same before the State Department approved the oil sands pipeline project, and other fossil fuels donated at around the same time the secretary was advocating increased fracking abroad."

just the tip of the iceberg, not even gonna touch on her ties to Zionism and all the other fukkery whites generally bring to the planet.