• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Democrats Are Desperate for Bernie Sanders' Email List

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gruco

Banned
Jun 10, 2004
5,250
1
0
Why are we still having the Hillary V Bernie arguments?

We already know who lost big time and who's pertinent right now. That immediately invalidates like 85% of opinions here.
The person who lost is both of them. Did you mean one specifically? Regardless of which candidate you reference, not sure how their loss could invalidate 85% of the thread. Can you explain?
 
Jul 25, 2015
4,582
0
0
Bernie should probably give it up, especially with the upcoming by-elections for Minnesota and Montana, both states he won and appeals to the union roots of. He also won Rhode Island but the only thing I know about that state politically is that it gave us Lincoln Chafee so idk how much he appeals there

That said, I think the best reason to keep it is that keeping it gives some leverage to Ellison and encourages the DNC to get its act together to reforming and reorganizing. I'm not sure if this is worth sacrificing better odds at MT-AL and two state house seats for.
 
Jun 27, 2015
12,540
2
345
Well one of them is a sitting senator the other... I actually don't know where Hillary is. Probably best to to avoid the public eye for eternity.

She wasn't in office before running. He was. What exactly are you expecting, and why are we still playing this immature Bernie vs Hillary bullshit? Why??
 

tbm24

Member
Apr 17, 2013
5,276
1
0
It's not a question of Democrats being immobile. They're not.

But they are making a lot of the wrong moves. They're failing to read both their base AND the Republican party they're opposing.

Democrats in Congress are desperately trying to play politics as usual. We give a little here, you'll give a little there. We'll work with you where we can and gently oppose you when we can't. We'll all play by the established rules and respect norms.

Meanwhile, Republicans have shown no intention of working with Democrats on anything or playing by the established rules. At the same time, liberals are literally marching in the streets while Democrats in Congress stay silent or give sideline support because they're too afraid of being painted as obstructionist by a demographic that already hates their guts regardless.

I can agree with that. The Democrats are stuck in a hard place when it comes to how you approach the current reality. The cards are stacked heavily against them no matter what they decide to do. Democrats in congress have taken part in the women's march and the protests against the travel ban. The travel ban in particular was fought more directly by mayors, governors, and states legislatures than congress given their actual power available to fight with. I'm focusing on the collective effort and as it stands congress is probably the weakest arm of the party at the moment. I don't believe it's fair to say they've been hanging on the sidelines in the main issue they can confront which is cabinet nominations and the coming SC nomination.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 8, 2006
50,641
0
0
It's not a question of Democrats being immobile. They're not.

But they are making a lot of the wrong moves. They're failing to read both their base AND the Republican party they're opposing.

Democrats in Congress are desperately trying to play politics as usual. We give a little here, you'll give a little there. We'll work with you where we can and gently oppose you where we can't. We'll all play by the established rules and respect norms.

Meanwhile, Republicans have shown no intention of working with Democrats on anything or playing by the established rules. At the same time, liberals are literally marching in the streets while Democrats in Congress stay silent or give sideline support because they're too afraid of being painted as obstructionist by a demographic that already hates their guts regardless.

Democrats flat out did not show up to two committee hearings in order to block Price and Mnuchin's nominations from moving forward. They've been pulling all-nighters to protest DeVos and Sessions. They've whipped up crowds at those marches they're supposedly staying on the sidelines for, run to airports and demanded CBP let them see detained travelers, and held impromptu rallies at the SCOTUS steps because fuck Gorsuch.

I think they understand their base, or at least, have a better read on them/us now than they did three weeks ago (and frankly, who saw the biggest protest in U.S. history coming? that surely changed the Democratic calculus for the better). But there is a limit to being obstructionist or not playing by the old rules when you don't have the power to either actually obstruct things or change the rules the way Republicans can/do now.

Also, the Democratic Party is not limited to the couple hundred Dems on the hill. Mayors, governors, and attorneys general have come out swinging hard on Trump. Which is frankly more heartening to me, because it's the states, not Congress, where we're best positioned to make some major power shifts in the next two years.
 

Abelard

Member
Jun 6, 2016
568
0
0
She wasn't in office before running. He was. What exactly are you expecting, and why are we still playing this immature Bernie vs Hillary bullshit? Why??

My point is it's disingenuous to say one is not pertinent, I would say Hillary was pertinent as well is she did hold office. Your hatred of Bernie does not make him any less relevant in politics.

I think its a necessary phase for the party, Bernie and Hillary just represent things far more abstract- centrism vs progressiveness, money in politics etc. Its a necessary battle as the old establishment (Bush, Clinton) lay dying at the hands of one man- in many ways, its time for the Democratic party to return to being the party of Roosevelt rather than the party of Bill Clinton.
 
Oct 7, 2009
7,620
0
0
Based on what? Do you seem them still pushing Hilary Clinton? Do you see them shunning Sanders? Are they not being vocal about Trumps appointments? Are they not looking for a new DNC chair? What have they done that shows they're not trying to earn it?


Oh, I think they've been doing a fine job. I have no problem with them getting the list. I'm just trying to summarize why someone might see this bit of news and have it rub them the wrong way. At a glance, it comes across as fixing a wound with a band-aid, or something to that effect. In aggregate, though, I think they've been pretty smart.
 
Jun 27, 2015
12,540
2
345
My point is it's disingenuous to say one is not pertinent, I would say Hillary was pertinent as well is she did hold office. Your hatred of Bernie does not make him any less relevant in politics.

I think its a necessary phase for the party, Bernie and Hillary just represent things far more abstract- centrism vs progressiveness, money in politics etc. Its a necessary battle as the old establishment (Bush, Clinton) lay dying at the hands of one man- in many ways, its time for the Democratic party to return to being the party of Roosevelt rather than the party of Bill Clinton.



This is the same persecution complex shit out of nowhere that always crops up in these threads. You imagine hate out of thin air. Look through my posts in here, which should be easy considering I've made like 2-3.
 

RiccochetJ

Member
Jan 5, 2010
12,979
1,400
1,265
Denver, USA
Why are a lot of you assuming that the people on the email list would all of a sudden be on your side? I can only speak for myself, but I want the current democratic party to burn to the fucking ground and from it's ashes rise a true candidate I will wholeheartedly support. I'm older so I think that burning something to the fucking ground may take the full 4 or 8 years to get what I want.

We're half way through February and I'm wondering where September went.
 

rec0ded1

Member
Mar 12, 2010
2,769
0
0
You are suggesting replacing the head of the Democrats in the house (not actually their campaign head for either house or senate, and not in any sense a leader of the party in terms of recruitment, and not remotely anyone concerned with the presidency) with two Senators, and it's not even clear those two Senators would be interested in working together, also all three of the people being discussed are one foot in the grave due to age. This doesn't seem like a very thought through plan.

Agreed long term plan is best. I just think there's momentum behind the ideas and actions Democrats like Sanders, Warren, Franken and some others have taken. watching them call shit out and stand up reenergizes people big time. I'd like to see newcomers and old from the DNC take that torch, harness whatever that secret sauce is and reinvigorate the party. Wishful thinking.
 

royalan

Member
Jan 19, 2011
34,431
0
0
Philadelphia
www.yobrando.com
Democrats flat out did not show up to two committee hearings in order to block Price and Mnuchin's nominations from moving forward. They've been pulling all-nighters to protest DeVos and Sessions. They've whipped up crowds at those marches they're supposedly staying on the sidelines for, run to airports and demanded CBP let them see detained travelers, and held impromptu rallies at the SCOTUS steps because fuck Gorsuch.

I think they understand their base, or at least, have a better read on them/us now than they did three weeks ago (and frankly, who saw the biggest protest in U.S. history coming? that surely changed the Democratic calculus for the better). But there is a limit to being obstructionist or not playing by the old rules when you don't have the power to either actually obstruct things or change the rules the way Republicans can/do now.

Also, the Democratic Party is not limited to the couple hundred Dems on the hill. Mayors, governors, and attorneys general have come out swinging hard on Trump. Which is frankly more heartening to me, because it's the states, not Congress, where we're best positioned to make some major power shifts in the next two years.

No, you're absolutely right. Democrats are showing some gumption now. I will give them credit for that. But frankly, it shouldn't have taken the largest protest march in history. It shouldn't have taken their base threatening to turn on them for voting to confirm some of Trump's cabinet nominees. It shouldn't have taken Trump actually attempting to go through with his Muslim ban. Because this energy in the grassroots of the Democratic party has been obvious since November 9th, and if Democrats are going to channel it, they need to start getting ahead of it.

I have nothing to say against the bold. I agree with you. But my comment was specifically on Democrats in Congress.
 
Jun 27, 2015
12,540
2
345
Why are a lot of you assuming that the people on the email list would all of a sudden be on your side? I can only speak for myself, but I want the current democratic party to burn to the fucking ground and from it's ashes rise a true candidate I will wholeheartedly support. I'm older so I think that burning something to the fucking ground may take the full 4 or 8 years to get what I want.

We're half way through February and I'm wondering where September went.

Who's doing that? It's an email list. The vast majority of email lists are filled with people who are only vaguely interested, but it's still a valuable asset nonetheless.

And what happened in September?
 

Blader

Member
Oct 8, 2006
50,641
0
0
No, you're absolutely right. Democrats are showing some gumption now. I will give them credit for that. But frankly, it shouldn't have taken the largest protest march in history. It shouldn't have taken their base threatening to turn on them for voting to confirm some of Trump's cabinet nominees. It shouldn't have taken Trump actually attempting to go through with his Muslim ban. Because this energy in the grassroots of the Democratic party has been obvious since November 9th, and if Democrats are going to channel it, they need to start getting ahead of it.

I have nothing to say against the bold. I agree with you. But my comment was specifically on Democrats in Congress.

Well honestly, I think that's exactly what it should have taken. Or at least, that's what we needed. Senators and congressmen/women can only be a reflection of what their constituents demand of them, and those demands have now been laid out pretty loud and fucking clear. I don't know that that same energy was as clear before that. There were protests after the election, but even those felt of a completely different tenor than what we've seen over the last three weeks; they were much less organized and less focused than the protests now. Shit, man, on November 9th I was walking around like a zombie; I wasn't calling up Elizabeth Warren's office going, okay, here's what we need to do for the next four years. :lol

It's the mass protests and phone calls and organizing campaigns that guide our elected reps. House and Senate Dems are doing a better job of fighting now than three months ago because we're doing a better job of fighting now than three months ago.
 

RiccochetJ

Member
Jan 5, 2010
12,979
1,400
1,265
Denver, USA
Who's doing that? It's an email list. The vast majority of email lists are filled with people who are only vaguely interested, but it's still a valuable asset nonetheless.
Read the thread.

And what happened in September?
For my immediate world at the time? Nothing. Today a coworker and I were talking and she reminded me about an email she sent to me. As we searched, it turned out the email was from September. We both laughed about it. That's where the September came from :p
 

royalan

Member
Jan 19, 2011
34,431
0
0
Philadelphia
www.yobrando.com
Well honestly, I think that's exactly what it should have taken. Senators and congressmen/women can only be a reflection of what their constituents demand of them, and those demands have now been laid out pretty loud and fucking clear. I don't know that that same energy was as clear before that. I mean, we were traumatized! Or at least I was, and certainly everyone in my social circles. Shit, man, on November 9th I was walking around like a zombie and crying at Hillary and Kaine's concession speeches; I wasn't calling up Elizabeth Warren's office going, okay, here's what we need to do over the next four years. :lol

It's the mass protests and phone calls and organizing campaigns that guide our elected reps. House and Senate Dems are doing a better job of fighting now than three months ago because we're doing a better job of fighting now than three months ago.

I understand and respect your viewpoint.

I'm just of the mind that Democratic legislators need to allow themselves to be guided by their principles at the very moments when it's hardest. After all, we elected these people for a reason, and that reason wasn't to be immobile bots until we took to the streets and gave them their next instruction. I don't think it's unfair to expect Democrats to remain in tune with their constituents. And, to be fair, some Democrats did. The CBC has been opposed to and speaking out against Trump almost since day 1.

The sad fact is many of these Democrats broke their own stated principles to work with Trump in these early months. I think that more than anything contributed to the criticism Democrats are currently facing from their own side.
 

TyrantII

Member
Oct 26, 2013
6,918
0
0
Boston
Why are a lot of you assuming that the people on the email list would all of a sudden be on your side? I can only speak for myself, but I want the current democratic party to burn to the fucking ground and from it's ashes rise a true candidate I will wholeheartedly support. I'm older so I think that burning something to the fucking ground may take the full 4 or 8 years to get what I want.

We're half way through February and I'm wondering where September went.



History says there's a better chance this type of irresponsible thinking creates everlasting harm for generations. Political vacumes rarely lead to optimal outcomes for those of us that value human rights and liberty.
 
Jul 25, 2015
4,582
0
0


History says there's a better chance this type of irresponsible thinking creates everlasting harm for generations. Political vacumes rarely lead to optimal outcomes for those of us that value human rights and liberty.
Everything about the current Democratic party is shaped by people who did the exact same thing to the New Deal incarnation of the party. It's not like Bill Clinton and the DLC woke up in 1992 and went "hey wait, what if we ran as being pro-business and professionals and ditch labor and populism?" The Clintons (well mostly Bill at first because it was the 70's) along with the other young new Democrats of the time (Paul Tsongas, Mike Dukakis, Al Gore, Gary Hart, Dick Gephardt) all entered and restructured the Democratic party by casting out the old leadership and inserting themselves into positions of power, first by taking lower offices and reforming the nominating process and then by use that process to push their own candidates (first Dukakis, then Clinton, then Gore). Eventually that became party orthodoxy such that a Democrat like Warren or Sanders are way outside of the mainstream. They even have their own Bernie-like figure in McGovern.

Unless that was the joke, ha.
 

TyrantII

Member
Oct 26, 2013
6,918
0
0
Boston
Unless that was the joke, ha.

That's not breaking everything, nor burning it down.

They built a coalition in the party and grew it organically, and found a way to finally win in 1992.

And that's sort of the point. Party politics isn't zero sum, but you start playing game theory against your own and there goes your hand as well.
 
Jul 25, 2015
4,582
0
0
That's not breaking everything, nor burning it down.

They built a coalition in the party and grew it organically, and found a way to finally win in 1992.

And that's sort of the point. Party politics isn't zero sum, but you start playing game theory against your own and there goes your hand as well.
Their goal really was to enter the party and completely reshape it to the point where it's mostly unrecognizable in its current form. They were unsuccessful at first (McGovern, obviously, got creamed after they got him nominated, and Hart lost pretty convincingly to Mondale during the last breath of the New Deal) but by 1988 they'd basically won. The only candidate who didn't fit in with this crowd was Jesse Jackson, but otherwise it was Dukakis, Biden, Gore, Gephardt, the whole gang. It's also not really a coincidence that the Democrats were really weak at the presidential level between '68-'92. The South left them for obvious reasons but they simultaneously underwent a radical shift before the Watergate Babies had taken control of the party, at which point it was much more ideologically coherent and successful at getting what it wanted.

They didn't "burn the party to the ground" but they basically neutered it in the process of reshaping it to their ends, and by the time it regained its footing it was fundamentally different. You say "it's not zero sum" but I'm not really sure what the compromise is here. When the Watergate Babies cast out the New Dealers, they did so ruthlessly and effectively. Obviously it didn't happen overnight but it happened. The new left is frustrated with the old guard and wants to take over. The old guard, obviously, doesn't want that. I'm not sure how they compromise here.
 

ErasureAcer

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
11,303
0
0
39
Minnesota
Perez should not be DNC chair.

How did Bernie do it? He spoke for us.

Bunch of fucking idiots the status quo are. Not fucking rocket science. Get wrecked Perez.
 

Tall4Life

Member
Apr 20, 2016
6,075
0
255
Ohio
As for Donna Brazille, I won't say a word in her defense, other than you're fucking crazy if you think that Hillary Clinton needed a heads up that she would get a question on the Flint water crises in a debate happening in Flint.
You do realize that's still breaking the fucking rules, no? Maybe this example can help you.

My team, the Patriots were "caught" "cheating" multiple times. I put that in quotes because I dont fully believe it's true. But anyhow, lets assume it is true. They broke the rules, they should get punished and reprimanded. Guess who they were caught cheating against. The Jets in Spygate and the Colts in Deflategate. They didnt need to tape the Jets to beat them, they are the fucking Jets! They didnt need to deflate the balls to beat the Colts, they were already thrashing them! But guess fucking what. They still cheated. Even if it wasn't necessary.

So yes, it is absolutely ridiculous to let it go that Brazille leaked a question, even if it was obvious. Because that's still against the fucking rules.
 

Seventy70

Member
Jul 27, 2014
3,016
0
0
Perez should not be DNC chair.

How did Bernie do it? He spoke for us.

Bunch of fucking idiots the status quo are. Not fucking rocket science. Get wrecked Perez.

The DNC has come off as absolutely delusional. They should forget about this kind of stuff for a second and come back down to earth. It rubs me the wrong way too because it feels like this is just some kind of sport to them. Talk to the people, understand the people. All this data nonsense comes after. They are over complicating things way too much. Trump won because the Democrats were too busy trying to play fifth dimensional chess when they didn't need to. I can understand why people are soured on the DNC too. It feels like they are constantly trying to work around the people rather than with them.

They are acting like that person that wants to get in shape but focuses way too much on the supplements and not enough on actually working out.
 

Nuu

Banned
Nov 21, 2015
1,347
0
0


History says there's a better chance this type of irresponsible thinking creates everlasting harm for generations. Political vacumes rarely lead to optimal outcomes for those of us that value human rights and liberty.

This is quite possibly the dumbest comic I have ever seen. And you comparing his point of reshaping the party to some sort of crazed revolution is loltastic.
 

Abelard

Member
Jun 6, 2016
568
0
0
This is quite possibly the dumbest comic I have ever seen. And you comparing his point of reshaping the party to some sort of crazed revolution is loltastic.

I wonder what he thinks about the civil war or the new deal or civil rights act.
 

Big Baybee

Member
Sep 15, 2009
12,296
0
0
Perez should not be DNC chair.

How did Bernie do it? He spoke for us.

Bunch of fucking idiots the status quo are. Not fucking rocket science. Get wrecked Perez.
I'm not for or against Perez, but what are your problems with him besides him being "status quo"?
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
9
525
Burnaby, BC
I wonder what he thinks about the civil war or the new deal or civil rights act.

Must have missed the part of the Civil War where one side purposely destroyed itself and conceded pretty much all of government to the otherside for undefined but likely lengthy number of years in the name of one day mythically rising from the ashes like a phoenix to save everyone you forsook by destroying yourself in the first place.
 

Nuu

Banned
Nov 21, 2015
1,347
0
0
What made Sanders and similar movements so successful isn't due to top notch data or fancy connections. It was that the movement was genuine. That's why it was successful and that's something the Democratic Party just can't do in its current state.

Funny enough that comic is actually a satire on shitty webcomics that use all of the same ideas. So it really shouldn't be used for that argument, lmao

Okay that explains it.

I wonder what he thinks about the civil war or the new deal or civil rights act.

Or the Revolutionary War/Rebellions of that era. This concept of "change only comes in a gradual slow pace" is the biggest amount of bullshit that centrists keep trying to have people adopt. Change comes in big waves and the small tides it leads until the next big wave comes. The New Left (is that what we are calling them?) simply want to form another big wave.

Must have missed the part of the Civil War where one side purposely destroyed itself and conceded pretty much all of government to the otherside for undefined but likely lengthy number of years in the name of one day mythically rising from the ashes like a phoenix to save everyone you forsook by destroying yourself in the first place.

What the hell are you talking about?
 

Dingens

Member
Apr 7, 2015
1,353
0
0
Are they honestly asking someone to hand over millions of private e-mail addresses with the owners name attached?
Is there no protection of private data for stuff like that in the US?
I'm not sure what's more worrying... that it's done this way or that people are ok with it.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
9
525
Burnaby, BC
What the hell are you talking about?

The comment that started this chain of conversation to which the comic was posted as a response to.

Why are a lot of you assuming that the people on the email list would all of a sudden be on your side? I can only speak for myself, but I want the current democratic party to burn to the fucking ground and from it's ashes rise a true candidate I will wholeheartedly support. I'm older so I think that burning something to the fucking ground may take the full 4 or 8 years to get what I want.

We're half way through February and I'm wondering where September went.
 

Nuu

Banned
Nov 21, 2015
1,347
0
0
The comment that started this chain of conversation

Exactly. He basically said that the party would go through extreme restructuring. Arguably what the Tea Party has done to the Republican Party the past seven years. Hence why he said current Democratic Party.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Oct 28, 2007
10,875
0
0
Bernie didn't offer this up when he was endorsed Clinton?

Piss right off you old twat.
Eh. I dunno.

I get that this is political war and we need to win but at the same token I'm kinda against people and organizations just handing over my email address to other people. It's not a secret or anything, it just kinda smells.

I do think that Sanders and the DNC need to coordinate more often. That said I 100% agree with the criticism of the DCCC's fundraising efforts. They are total chicken little shits. I want to be involved, I want legitimate emails when something happens, I do not need nor want 6 people emailing me in the same day about the same thing with hysterical headlines and writing. I get it's scary times but they're doing it almost every fucking day. And what's with the useless fucking polls? The Condemn this person or that person emails? These emails are disgusting to read and if the DCCC wasn't something fighting against Trump I'd unsubscribe and never give those fools anything. Not that the DNC getting Sanders' list means those assholes would run it, my Texas Democratic party doesn't bombard me with hyperbolic nonsense every day, the DNC proper doesn't, so it could turn out ok, just, again, I'm not a fan of people just giving out people's emails.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
9
525
Burnaby, BC
Exactly. He basically said that the party would go through extreme restructuring. Arguably what the Tea Party has done to the Republican Party the past seven years. Hence why he said current Democratic Party.

He said burn it to the ground and take the losses for the 4 to 8 years (it'd probably take longer). Burn it to the ground isn't restructuring it's dissolution
 

kinoki

Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
Apr 27, 2006
6,105
0
0
37
Stockholm
Democrats. You can win the next election by nominating someone of the people for the people. A younger nominee that brings out the Sanders and Trudeau crowds to the voting booths. Don't get greedy by contributions from Hollywood millionaires, focus on the message.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Nov 13, 2011
16,594
0
0
Democrats. You can win the next election by nominating someone of the people for the people. A younger nominee that brings out the Sanders and Trudeau crowds to the voting booths. Don't get greedy by contributions from Hollywood millionaires, focus on the message.
Good luck winning 51 Senate seats, 218 House seats, Governorships, AG posts and so on without high net worth donors.

It's not one election. It's hundreds. And the next large group of them isn't in 4 years.
 
Jun 30, 2016
2,253
0
0
Bernie didn't offer this up when he was endorsed Clinton?

Piss right off you old twat.


Who is to say he didn't? Maybe they want to khthxbye Bernie and he wanted more input.

For all the talk of two way streets it seems like Bernie always has to be the one to bow down.

Dude has made his entire life career by not shutting up.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
9
525
Burnaby, BC
Mr.Shrugglesツ;230062417 said:
Who is to say he didn't? Maybe they want to khthxbye Bernie and he wanted more input.

For all the talk of two way streets it seems like Bernie always has to be the one to bow down.

Dude has made his entire life career by not shutting up.

More input?

They gave him more say and input into crafting the party platform than basically any other losing candidate ever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.