The 2016 Democratic Candidates

[Thundercrack85]

Funny how there was a Democratic debate tonight and almost no one on here is talking about it.

We watching Star Wars, man.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

We watching Star Wars, man.

Maybe that's why they scheduled it there. Everyone is out and about, which means no one pays attention to the other candidates besides Sanders and O'Malley. Even the press didn't feel obliged to cover it as many said the press room was basically empty for the entire debate. I can see their point of contention with the debate schedule. Feels almost like the DNC scheduled it this way because they wanted it over before it even got started. Best description I found on Twitter was the debate felt like a show that was cancelled but still has 4 episodes left to film and air.

 

[TheCommissioner]

I watched some of it, I think O'Malley looked a lot better than recently

 

[childeroland]

Would anyone care about the debate even if it were scheduled differently? O'Malley and Sanders have no shot at the nomination unless Clinton's emails actually reveal the smoking gun the GOP is/was looking for or she kicks a puppy to death on live TV. What's the point?

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Maybe that's why they scheduled it there. Everyone is out and about, which means no one pays attention to the other candidates besides Sanders and O'Malley. Even the press didn't feel obliged to cover it as many said the press room was basically empty for the entire debate. I can see their point of contention with the debate schedule. Feels almost like the DNC scheduled it this way because they wanted it over before it even got started. Best description I found on Twitter was the debate felt like a show that was cancelled but still has 4 episodes left to film and air.

Yes, everyone knows the DNC purposefully hid the debates so that no one can truly challenge Hillary. This has been an ongoing topic for the past 6 months. Everyone knows the DNC has their full support behind Hillary. Getting her the nomination is seen as nothing more than a formality at this point. It's really shady stuff.

 

[Decepticonus]

I really hope she doesn't though. I really want Sanders. It could happen. I mean in '08 she lost to this no name senator by the name of Obama, is it?

 

[Kelly]

That wasn't even a debate, it was simply long campaign commercials for the candidates. It was the worst debate I have seen in a long time...and I actually like all of these candidates, but the debate itself was just pitiful.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

I really hope she doesn't though. I really want Sanders. It could happen. I mean in '08 she lost to this no name senator by the name of Obama, is it?

 

[Decepticonus]

those ass-****s

 

[chaseter]

DNC corrupt!? Next in the news, water is wet.

 

[Matt]

This logic is flawed for a couple of reasons:

1) "If you can't win, cheat." You realize Clinton is winning, right?

2) The Sanders campaign has already acknowledged wrong doing, apologized, and fired staffers for this. Clearly it isn't a frame job.

3) It isn't "impossible." Sanders provided the DNC with information and documents and as a result, had his data access restored.

Schultz is undoubtedly a Clinton crony, but Sanders is overplaying the martyr hand.

 

[hippie_hunter]

This logic is flawed for a couple of reasons:

1) "If you can't win, cheat." You realize Clinton is winning, right?

2) The Sanders campaign has already acknowledged wrong doing, apologized, and fired staffers for this. Clearly it isn't a frame job.

3) It isn't "impossible." Sanders provided the DNC with information and documents and as a result, had his data access restored.

Schultz is undoubtedly a Clinton crony, but Sanders is overplaying the martyr hand.

I'm taking a middle ground on this one.

On one hand, I think Hillary could learn a few things from Sanders on how to handle a "scandal." Add in Secretary Ash Carter's response to his email mishap along with Sanders' response to the data lapse in his campaign, a simple sorry goes a long way and puts a kibosh on something that shouldn't be a scandal as opposed to acting like an arrogant tool and dragging the whole thing out. Also, I think that this is just another reflection of just how bad of a Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is for the Democratic Party. It's clear that Sanders himself had nothing to do with the data lapse, when he found out about it, he acted appropriately by punishing those involved, cooperated with the DNC, and apologized. Disciplining Sanders was clear overkill and completely unnecessary.

But on the other hand, it's exactly as you say. Hillary is winning, and she is winning because she has a vastly superior organization, she has a powerful brand name, she has the Democratic Party on her side, most Democrats recognize that she is the pragmatic progressive choice, etc. This is all happening without cheating. Now I certainly believe that the DNC is trying to make this as easy as possible for Hillary, but facts are facts, there is no conspiracy against Sanders.

There is one thing I do disagree with you though, I don't think that it's Sanders overplaying the martyr card. The people overplaying the martyr card are the supporters of Sanders who delude themselves into thinking that everything is going against them because the system is so determined to keep Sanders down and delude themselves into thinking that Sanders actually has a chance against Hillary Rodham Clinton, let alone the general election. These are the same people who condescendingly talk down to black people as to why Bernie is the best candidate for the black community, the same people who think that a "revolution" is on the way that will engage more people in the system and magically go over to Bernie, the same people who think that Bernie will appeal to moderates and conservatives along with inspiring a non-existent bloc of uber-lefties who have never voted into voting (they're as idiotic as Cruz supporters with this logic). Sanders' biggest problem isn't his message or the candidate, Sanders' biggest problem is his supporters.

 

[Matt]

I'm taking a middle ground on this one.

On one hand, I think Hillary could learn a few things from Sanders on how to handle a "scandal." Add in Secretary Ash Carter's response to his email mishap along with Sanders' response to the data lapse in his campaign, a simple sorry goes a long way and puts a kibosh on something that shouldn't be a scandal as opposed to acting like an arrogant tool and dragging the whole thing out. Also, I think that this is just another reflection of just how bad of a Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is for the Democratic Party. It's clear that Sanders himself had nothing to do with the data lapse, when he found out about it, he acted appropriately by punishing those involved, cooperated with the DNC, and apologized. Disciplining Sanders was clear overkill and completely unnecessary.

I am of two minds on this also. On one hand, Wasserman-Schultz's Clinton advocacy is insane. If she wanted to be her campaign manager, she should've been her campaign manager. The Chair should be advocating nothing more than a fair primary that leads to the best candidate for the Party. WAsserman-Schultz has gone far beyond that. She has basically fixed this election, pressuring Biden and other possible contenders like Schweitzer to stay out of the race, using influence with donors to box out other candidates, the debate scheduling, etc. The ultimate irony here is that there was no need to fix the race. Hillary was always going to win. I think Wasserman-Schultz is so obsessed with avoiding a 2008 situation (or perhaps obsessed with whatever cabinet post/ambassadorship Clinton has promised her), that she overplayed her hand.

Her behvior will cost her the Chair and any standing in the party. She is already under heavy fire within the party for her obvious bias. Look at the big push to get Biden in the race. There were pushes from senior Democrats to get Kerry or Gore to declare. This isn't a shot at Clinton. It is a shot at Wasserman-Schultz who went out of her way to keep younger, possibly more viable candidates like Kirsten Gilibrand, Brian Schweitzer, and Deval Patrick out of the race. She made it impossible for them to build the infrastructure needed (warning donors against giving to them, warning potential prominent supporters against endorsing them, etc). If they entered, their campaigns would've fallen just as flat as O'Malley's because Wasserman-Schultz made it impossible to build the infrastructure.

That takes us back to Gore and Kerry. They had the infrastructure and money in place. Their camp had no interest. The rumors weren't from them. It was from senior Democrats trying to push them in. This was more or less done as a challenge to Wasserman-Schultz. My point is, people are not blind to her shenanigans and she will face consequences (especially should Hillary lose...Schultz will lose any prominence or influence she has in the party).

ALL THAT BEING SAID...I don't blame her for actively working against Sanders. As someone recently pointed out to me, Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat. He has spent 30 years in D.C. staunchly refusing to join the party, criticizing the party, etc. He only joined the party in early 2015 when he realized he could not mount a presidential campaign that would get any recognition as an independent. So in essence, you have someone who is not a Democrat attempting to hijack the Democratic Party's nomination. He goes so far as to continue to declare as he campaigns for the Democratic nomination that he is not a Democrat.

It is no different than what Trump is doing with the Republican nomination (a guy who switches parties whenever convenient and is now trying to steal the nomination because that party is more opportune). Just as I do not blame senior Republicans for talking about a brokered convention to avoid Trump, I don't blame Wasserman-Schultz for her treatment of Sanders.

He is not entitled to anything. The Democratic Party is not a public institution. It is a private political party. As a Democrat, I really don't like the idea of a non-Democrat stealing my party's nomination. It is no different than if Marco Rubio switched to the Democratic Party and sought the nomination, simply because there are less people in the field. I would expect the Chair to stand against that under those circumstances. These are no different.

But on the other hand, it's exactly as you say. Hillary is winning, and she is winning because she has a vastly superior organization, she has a powerful brand name, she has the Democratic Party on her side, most Democrats recognize that she is the pragmatic progressive choice, etc. This is all happening without cheating. Now I certainly believe that the DNC is trying to make this as easy as possible for Hillary, but facts are facts, there is no conspiracy against Sanders.

There is one thing I do disagree with you though, I don't think that it's Sanders overplaying the martyr card. The people overplaying the martyr card are the supporters of Sanders who delude themselves into thinking that everything is going against them because the system is so determined to keep Sanders down and delude themselves into thinking that Sanders actually has a chance against Hillary Rodham Clinton, let alone the general election. These are the same people who condescendingly talk down to black people as to why Bernie is the best candidate for the black community, the same people who think that a "revolution" is on the way that will engage more people in the system and magically go over to Bernie, the same people who think that Bernie will appeal to moderates and conservatives along with inspiring a non-existent bloc of uber-lefties who have never voted into voting (they're as idiotic as Cruz supporters with this logic). Sanders' biggest problem isn't his message or the candidate, Sanders' biggest problem is his supporters.

This is all very true. Sanders's supporters are absolutely obnoxious. That said, Sanders is guilty of it also. His entire debate performance was finger wagging and saying "woe is me, everyone is trying to suppress my ideas."

 

[hippie_hunter]

I am of two minds on this also. On one hand, Wasserman-Schultz's Clinton advocacy is insane. If she wanted to be her campaign manager, she should've been her campaign manager. The Chair should be advocating nothing more than a fair primary that leads to the best candidate for the Party. WAsserman-Schultz has gone far beyond that. She has basically fixed this election, pressuring Biden and other possible contenders like Schweitzer to stay out of the race, using influence with donors to box out other candidates, the debate scheduling, etc. The ultimate irony here is that there was no need to fix the race. Hillary was always going to win. I think Wasserman-Schultz is so obsessed with avoiding a 2008 situation (or perhaps obsessed with whatever cabinet post/ambassadorship Clinton has promised her), that she overplayed her hand.

Her behvior will cost her the Chair and any standing in the party. She is already under heavy fire within the party for her obvious bias. Look at the big push to get Biden in the race. There were pushes from senior Democrats to get Kerry or Gore to declare. This isn't a shot at Clinton. It is a shot at Wasserman-Schultz who went out of her way to keep younger, possibly more viable candidates like Kirsten Gilibrand, Brian Schweitzer, and Deval Patrick out of the race. She made it impossible for them to build the infrastructure needed (warning donors against giving to them, warning potential prominent supporters against endorsing them, etc). If they entered, their campaigns would've fallen just as flat as O'Malley's because Wasserman-Schultz made it impossible to build the infrastructure.

That takes us back to Gore and Kerry. They had the infrastructure and money in place. Their camp had no interest. The rumors weren't from them. It was from senior Democrats trying to push them in. This was more or less done as a challenge to Wasserman-Schultz. My point is, people are not blind to her shenanigans and she will face consequences (especially should Hillary lose...Schultz will lose any prominence or influence she has in the party).

Democrats have been irritated with Wasserman-Schultz for quite some time beyond how she has handled the 2016 election. I would be surprised if she keeps her Chairmanship when she is up for re-election. The Obama Administration is fed up with her because of her ineptitude and how she comes off as too partisan and does nothing but do talking points. She's a terrible fundraiser. Hillary isn't to fond of her either. Democrats in the House view her as someone who only thinks of herself as opposed to the party.

ALL THAT BEING SAID...I don't blame her for actively working against Sanders. As someone recently pointed out to me, Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat. He has spent 30 years in D.C. staunchly refusing to join the party, criticizing the party, etc. He only joined the party in early 2015 when he realized he could not mount a presidential campaign that would get any recognition as an independent. So in essence, you have someone who is not a Democrat attempting to hijack the Democratic Party's nomination. He goes so far as to continue to declare as he campaigns for the Democratic nomination that he is not a Democrat.

Very true.

It is no different than what Trump is doing with the Republican nomination (a guy who switches parties whenever convenient and is now trying to steal the nomination because that party is more opportune). Just as I do not blame senior Republicans for talking about a brokered convention to avoid Trump, I don't blame Wasserman-Schultz for her treatment of Sanders.

I think the mindset is different with the GOP than with the Democrats. If Bernie gets nominated, sure they'll lose, but it wouldn't be a disaster for the party as a whole. Trump on the other hand will just outright destroy things and the GOP leadership will need to go into crisis mode with Trump as opposed to Sanders.

He is not entitled to anything. The Democratic Party is not a public institution. It is a private political party. As a Democrat, I really don't like the idea of a non-Democrat stealing my party's nomination. It is no different than if Marco Rubio switched to the Democratic Party and sought the nomination, simply because there are less people in the field. I would expect the Chair to stand against that under those circumstances. These are no different.

I can at least understand Sanders doing it though. He isn't changing parties out of convenience, he wants to actually wants to make his views more mainstream and wants to use a sensible mainstream party to do it. It's different than what Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter have done.

This is all very true. Sanders's supporters are absolutely obnoxious. That said, Sanders is guilty of it also. His entire debate performance was finger wagging and saying "woe is me, everyone is trying to suppress my ideas."

He's guilty of it to a degree. But he's nowhere near as obnoxious as his supporters.

 

[SV Fan]

Democrats have been irritated with Wasserman-Schultz for quite some time beyond how she has handled the 2016 election. I would be surprised if she keeps her Chairmanship when she is up for re-election. The Obama Administration is fed up with her because of her ineptitude and how she comes off as too partisan and does nothing but do talking points. She's a terrible fundraiser. Hillary isn't to fond of her either. Democrats in the House view her as someone who only thinks of herself as opposed to the party.

Personally I think it would do much better for the party to get somebody who seems serious and tries not to come off overly partisan then a person who is a cheerleader. Both DWS and Priebus need to be canned. I think the RNC made a huge mistake not keeping Michael Steele who I thought was the perfect person to be in charge of the RNC due to his overall tone, likability and it doesn't hurt he was a minority

 

[Matt]

Democrats have been irritated with Wasserman-Schultz for quite some time beyond how she has handled the 2016 election. I would be surprised if she keeps her Chairmanship when she is up for re-election. The Obama Administration is fed up with her because of her ineptitude and how she comes off as too partisan and does nothing but do talking points. She's a terrible fundraiser. Hillary isn't to fond of her either. Democrats in the House view her as someone who only thinks of herself as opposed to the party.

I think that is why she has tied herself to Hillary as much as she has. Hillary may not love her, but should she win, she will reward her. If Hillary loses, Schultz is done. She's made too many enemies and hasn't been good enough to justify it. She won't lose her House seat due to her district being very liberal, its impossible for a Democrat to lose. But she will be relegated into nothingness by House leadership. Hillary wins, she gives her a nice cabinet post or an ambassadorship. Schultz will have an exit strategy.

Very true.


I think the mindset is different with the GOP than with the Democrats. If Bernie gets nominated, sure they'll lose, but it wouldn't be a disaster for the party as a whole. Trump on the other hand will just outright destroy things and the GOP leadership will need to go into crisis mode with Trump as opposed to Sanders.

True. But I think that is only the case right now because Bernie isn't a serious contender. If the race were packed with 10 candidates, and Bernie, who realistically has the support of maybe 15 % of the Democratic Party were winning, due to his control over a very small and vocal minority in a crowded field, I think the response from Democratic leadership would be very similar. Bernie, like Trump, represents a fringe group. The difference is, Trump's fringe group could carry him to victory due to the packed Republican field. With 10 candidates, 15 % will carry the day.

I can at least understand Sanders doing it though. He isn't changing parties out of convenience, he wants to actually wants to make his views more mainstream and wants to use a sensible mainstream party to do it. It's different than what Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter have done.

I disagree. I think Sanders would like to paint that image, but I don't buy it to be genuine. I think Sanders is as opportunistic and disingenuous as Hillary, and like Trump, is playing off of the fears of desperate people (just a very different type of desperate people with less racism). But I am very cynical.

He's guilty of it to a degree. But he's nowhere near as obnoxious as his supporters.

Truth.

 

[Victarion]

Matt, my main criticism of Hilary in the debate was her foreign policy. Keeping up the fight against Assad, and possibly Putin, strikes me as idiotic since we've got to deal with ISIS. Since you cite pragmatism as one of Hilary's strengths, do you think she'd actually be willing to jettison her dreams of nation building and work with Assad and Putin?

I feel like her stance toward are enemies is too lenient, but that's probably an issue where I'll never see eye to eye with Hilary.

Anyway, I'm asking because I haven't seen or heard much from Hilary's campaign. Everything's been about the parties' Frankensteins.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

[YT]PbnKGopT0Uc[/YT]