2016 Democratic Thread

[Princess Dye]

Cubs were on Colbert. I remember watching the Colbert Report after the Sox won in '05, and he actually did a short segment about us.

[lostfan]

It was the most obvious thing ever. Of course Sanders endorsed Clinton. Its either that or turn into the next Joe Lieberman who gets ostracized from his party for not falling in line.

 

These guys are full of s*** on the campaign trail. They all fall back into line when it is said and done.

 

The only shocking thing is how many Republicans are still refusing Trump, which makes me feel better about some of those guys having some morals.

The excuses Republicans are giving for not going to the convention are funny as hell.

 

"I need to mow my lawn"

"I have a breakfast meeting" (checks calendar, fills in "breakfast meeting")

"I'm taking my kids to New Jersey to see a literal dumpster fire"

 

(all of these are actual excuses/reasons given)

[StrangeSox]

It was the most obvious thing ever. Of course Sanders endorsed Clinton. Its either that or turn into the next Joe Lieberman who gets ostracized from his party for not falling in line.

 

These guys are full of s*** on the campaign trail. They all fall back into line when it is said and done.

 

The only shocking thing is how many Republicans are still refusing Trump, which makes me feel better about some of those guys having some morals.

 

Lieberman was ostracized for being a backstabbing s***bag who kept sabotaging his own party's goals. Sanders ran as an independent for years and was still regularly welcomed to caucus with the Democrats in the House and then the Senate.

[southsider2k5]

Lieberman was ostracized for being a backstabbing s***bag who kept sabotaging his own party's goals. Sanders ran as an independent for years and was still regularly welcomed to caucus with the Democrats in the House and then the Senate.

 

If he had refused to kiss the Clinton ring, he damned well would have met the same fate.

[Chi Town Sox]

I was a Bernie supporter. I'm glad he's ending his campaign and endorsing Clinton. I'm voting for Clinton along the same "lesser evil" lines and am fine with that since I get to choose between the orange baby-hands narcissist scammer and a centrist Democrat who's drifted left over the years partially in response to Sanders' campaign.

 

She's not the complete opposite of Sanders and he is smart enough to recognize that. Trump and what the Republican party generally represent are much, much farther away from Sanders' views than Clinton, and he correctly understands that a President Clinton is, at worst, much less damaging to his own causes than a President Trump.

 

His supporters who melted down over the non-indictment and are now melting down over what anyone could have seen coming a couple of months ago are a small fringe of his supporters. An overwhelming majority are going to vote (D) come November.

 

I was saying that we haven't seen two same-party candidates be so different in quite a while. It's quite the change from his "political revolution".

 

[StrangeSox]

If he had refused to kiss the Clinton ring, he damned well would have met the same fate.

Yes, if he had actively sabotaged the Democratic Party's chances at winning the Presidency and filling at least one SC seat, the Democrats would not be very nice to him. I fail to see why this is supposed to be a bad thing.

[southsider2k5]

Yes, if he had actively sabotaged the Democratic Party's chances at winning the Presidency and filling at least one SC seat, the Democrats would not be very nice to him. I fail to see why this is supposed to be a bad thing.

 

Not obeying isn't a part of the Democratic code. Either you fall into line or you get kicked out the club. It is what it is. The Republicans actually tolerate more open thinking in that respect.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Not obeying isn't a part of the Democratic code. Either you fall into line or you get kicked out the club. It is what it is. The Republicans actually tolerate more open thinking in that respect.

 

The GOP is far more driven by ideological purity than the DNC. Republican politicians who step a foot outside of party lines are quickly declared RINOs, and every time the GOP starts losing elections, the explanation is "the candidate wasn't conservative (pure) enough".

[StrangeSox]

Not obeying isn't a part of the Democratic code. Either you fall into line or you get kicked out the club. It is what it is. The Republicans actually tolerate more open thinking in that respect.

 

Remind me which party has seen many of its members primaried out of office for not being ideologically pure enough, including the House majority leader and even forcing their Speaker into retirement? And who have since moved on to declaring their replacement speaker a traitor to the cause and even possibly a secret Muslim (because he grew a beard)?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

The GOP is far more driven by ideological purity than the DNC. Republican politicians who step a foot outside of party lines are quickly declared RINOs, and every time the GOP starts losing elections, the explanation is "the candidate wasn't conservative (pure) enough".

 

Seriously. "That one time Democrats did it to Joe Lieberman after years of him openly sabotaging the party" contrasted against dozens of GOP reps getting primaried out, open revolt against their own Speakers and party leaders.

 

edit and this whole tangent started with Bernie Sanders, the guy who has run as an independent for decades and still gets committee chairs from the Democrats. just lol.

Edited July 12, 2016 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Seriously. "That one time Democrats did it to Joe Lieberman after years of him openly sabotaging the party" contrasted against dozens of GOP reps getting primaried out, open revolt against their own Speakers and party leaders.

 

edit and this whole tangent started with Bernie Sanders, the guy who has run as an independent for decades and still gets committee chairs from the Democrats. just lol.

 

Because he always falls back into line with the Dems.

[StrangeSox]

Because he always falls back into line with the Dems.

 

You are straight-up delusional if you think ideological purity is more strongly enforced in the modern Democratic Party than in the party that is constantly under primary threats and has sabotaged its own leadership repeatedly in just the last few years.

[southsider2k5]

Remind me which party has seen many of its members primaried out of office for not being ideologically pure enough, including the House majority leader and even forcing their Speaker into retirement? And who have since moved on to declaring their replacement speaker a traitor to the cause and even possibly a secret Muslim (because he grew a beard)?

 

There is a big difference between it being done by the party itself, versus the party running other candidates.

[southsider2k5]

You are straight-up delusional if you think ideological purity is more strongly enforced in the modern Democratic Party than in the party that is constantly under primary threats and has sabotaged its own leadership repeatedly in just the last few years.

 

The fact that no one steps out of line because of the fear of reprimand and ostracizing is pretty clear to me.

[StrangeSox]

There is a big difference between it being done by the party itself, versus the party running other candidates.

 

Enforcement of ideological purity doesn't count if it comes bottom-up instead of top-down, even if that party in the end is much more ideologically pure.

 

Your one example is a Democrat who endorsed the Republican candidate for President and then did everything he could to sabotage their generational healthcare bill. That's not exactly a strong example of how everyone in the Democratic party must be lock-step, it's an example of Lieberman being an asshole.

 

The fact that no one steps out of line because of the fear of reprimand and ostracizing is pretty clear to me.

 

Evidence of this actually happening on the Democratic side is scant, but all of the evidence of it happening within the GOP constantly for years doesn't count because reasons.

Edited July 12, 2016 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Enforcement of ideological purity doesn't count if it comes bottom-up instead of top-down, even if that party in the end is much more ideologically pure.

 

Your one example is a Democrat who endorsed the Republican candidate for President and then did everything he could to sabotage their generational healthcare bill. That's not exactly a strong example of how everyone in the Democratic party must be lock-step, it's an example of Lieberman being an asshole.

 

 

 

Evidence of this actually happening on the Democratic side is scant, but all of the evidence of it happening within the GOP constantly for years doesn't count because reasons.

 

This is the evidence. Everyone is scared to step out of line, despite there being differences in philosophy. Even a guy like Bernie Sanders falls right back into line to his party bosses, despite his obvious divide.

 

On the other side of the ledger there are all kinds of guys who are refusing to endorse Trump.

 

One guy steps out of line on the Democratic side, and he is an "asshole" and pretty much taken out of an key positions by the party.

 

What punishments is the non-Trump GOP facing?

[bmags]

08-10 dems (mainly the house dems) whipped only the required dem members in order to pass a bill then largely would let vulnerable dems in conservative districts to vote against if desired. A lot of those dems lost to republicans, they were not primaried out. Dems also took in Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter.

 

Seems dubious. While you could make the argument that sanders was just muscled in by threat of "punishment" (he of 74 years of age and a longtime senator rarely in positions of power), it is more likely that the dems worked in a lot of his ideas in the platform, he sees a clinton presidency a high likelihood of making the US more like he wanted, whereas a trump presidency clearly would move it backward.

 

This is kind of the calculation that happens. Policies kind of matter a lot.

[StrangeSox]

This is the evidence. Everyone is scared to step out of line, despite there being differences in philosophy. Even a guy like Bernie Sanders falls right back into line to his party bosses, despite his obvious divide.

 

On the other side of the ledger there are all kinds of guys who are refusing to endorse Trump.

 

One guy steps out of line on the Democratic side, and he is an "asshole" and pretty much taken out of an key positions by the party.

 

What punishments is the non-Trump GOP facing?

 

 

Bernie not being an idiot and recognizing that the Democratic Party winning in November is much better for his political ideology than a Trump win isn't buckling under to pressure from the DNC, it's buckling under to pressure from basic reality. In the way you've framed it, any support of the eventual nominee by primary opponents ends up counting as the DNC enforcing rigid ideology, but you don't even consider any other much more obvious explanation.

 

Lieberman was and is an asshole and openly worked against the Democratic party. Why on earth would or should any political party reward that sort of behavior?

 

We're still months out from the election, but there's been plenty of primary threats against GOPers who aren't backing Trump, notably including their most recent speaker of the House. Going back to very recent history, we had their previous speaker forced into retirement by House GOP members who viewed him as a traitor, and we had the House Majority leader lose a primary race for not being ideologically pure enough. There are also many other reps who have faced the same fate for not being pure conservatives, and we'll have to see what the Trump fallout is going forward. Trump is, of course, his own unique phenomenon and not really directly comparable to top-down party enforcement of ideology either way, given that he's made his run without the support of the party. Oh, up until most of the party and definitely the top leadership all bent the knee and have been working with and supporting him for the same reasons Sanders is supporting Clinton, because they realize having a Republican in the WH is better long-term for their interests even if they don't like that particular individual.

[bmags]

This is the evidence. Everyone is scared to step out of line, despite there being differences in philosophy. Even a guy like Bernie Sanders falls right back into line to his party bosses, despite his obvious divide.

 

On the other side of the ledger there are all kinds of guys who are refusing to endorse Trump.

 

One guy steps out of line on the Democratic side, and he is an "asshole" and pretty much taken out of an key positions by the party.

 

What punishments is the non-Trump GOP facing?

 

This is so patently absurd. You have one example, Joe Lieberman, who was actively campaigning for John McCain and openly seeking the VP endorsement for him. Please show me the Republican actively campaigning for Clinton right now, and lets see the wonderful treatment they get.

[southsider2k5]

Bernie not being an idiot and recognizing that the Democratic Party winning in November is much better for his political ideology than a Trump win isn't buckling under to pressure from the DNC, it's buckling under to pressure from basic reality. In the way you've framed it, any support of the eventual nominee by primary opponents ends up counting as the DNC enforcing rigid ideology, but you don't even consider any other much more obvious explanation.

 

Lieberman was and is an asshole and openly worked against the Democratic party. Why on earth would or should any political party reward that sort of behavior?

 

We're still months out from the election, but there's been plenty of primary threats against GOPers who aren't backing Trump, notably including their most recent speaker of the House. Going back to very recent history, we had their previous speaker forced into retirement by House GOP members who viewed him as a traitor, and we had the House Majority leader lose a primary race for not being ideologically pure enough. There are also many other reps who have faced the same fate for not being pure conservatives, and we'll have to see what the Trump fallout is going forward. Trump is, of course, his own unique phenomenon and not really directly comparable to top-down party enforcement of ideology either way, given that he's made his run without the support of the party. Oh, up until most of the party and definitely the top leadership all bent the knee and have been working with and supporting him for the same reasons Sanders is supporting Clinton, because they realize having a Republican in the WH is better long-term for their interests even if they don't like that particular individual.

 

You hit the difference between the parties right on the head. For the Dem's it is about winning being most important. For the GOP it is about principles being most important. That is exactly what creates this difference in punishments for falling out of lock step march.

 

[bmags]

Claire McCaskill did not go to the 2012 convention, she is still a democratic senator sitting on the armed services committee.

 

Why didn't she fall in line and get punished?

[StrangeSox]

You hit the difference between the parties right on the head. For the Dem's it is about winning being most important. For the GOP it is about principles being most important. That is exactly what creates this difference in punishments for falling out of lock step march.

 

You've done an excellent job of completely contradicting yourself here. If it's about winning for Dems, then pushing ideological purity ahead of electoral chances doesn't even make sense. If the GOP is more about principles, then they are more likely (and this is actually backed up by reality!) to punish members for not being ideologically pure enough even if it worsens their electoral chances.

 

You've just gotta find a way to make a "dems R bad" argument no matter the situation, even if you end up saying the exact opposite things within a couple of posts.

[southsider2k5]

You've done an excellent job of completely contradicting yourself here. If it's about winning for Dems, then pushing ideological purity ahead of electoral chances doesn't even make sense. If the GOP is more about principles, then they are more likely (and this is actually backed up by reality!) to punish members for not being ideologically pure enough even if it worsens their electoral chances.

 

You've just gotta find a way to make a "dems R bad" argument no matter the situation, even if you end up saying the exact opposite things within a couple of posts.

 

lol, way to twist that into not what was said, but OK, the Dems never do anything wrong, bad, or anything else.

 

ALL PRAISE HILLARY!

[StrangeSox]

lol, way to twist that into not what was said, but OK, the Dems never do anything wrong, bad, or anything else.

 

It wasn't a twist. You yourself said that Republicans care more about "principles" or ideological purity than Democrats, who prioritize winning. If you're prioritizing winning, then being rigid is less of a concern. If you're prioritizing purging people who don't hold the right principles, then you'll do that ahead of worrying about winning, e.g. Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell being candidates

 

ALL PRAISE HILLARY!

 

Yes, this is a good response to the guy who said just a page ago that they don't particularly like Hillary and said they were voting for her for "lesser evil" reasons.

 

[greg775]

I don't know who I am voting for or if I am voting for all but it wasn't going to be HRC or Bernie. But to see him roast her for as long as he has and then sit up there and talk about how fierce she is, wow. His facebook followers are absolutely roasting him. All those donations to help him fight to the convention and then to bow out and support everything that he had said was evil. That's pretty disappointing.

What's he supposed to do? He obviously waited for the FBI guy to make his decision on Hillary before dropping out. Now that the rigged system has cleared Hillary, he knows it's over and he does what they always do: Back the nominee. He gave it his best shot against all odds (superdelate bulls***, FBI and attorney general fawning over Hillary), he really did. But with her not getting thrown in jail, he had no choice. I'd leave Bernie alone if I were his beloved supporters. He didn't sell out; he did what's always done. Back the winner.