Donna puts the blame on HRC and DWS for the DNC debacle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Bernie is not a democrat, he is a socialist. If he would like to become a democrat, then maybe he can get more support from the DNC.

2) What Hillary did was highly unethical, but it was legal. I don't like it, I don't like her, but she didn't break a law.

Would you prefer he caucuses with the senate republicans instead, then?

We might as well lose something ELSE with your blunt, stupid, party-or-nothing outlook

My point on the party thing is that why do you expect the DNC to support a non-democrat?

Would you expect the RNC to support a member of the Libertarian Party? I wouldn't.

The DNC absolutely WANTED Bernie to run within their primary. If he had run as a third party, they would have whined endlessly about him pulling a Nader and ruining Hillary’s chances.

As it turned out, he wasn't needed to ruin Hillary's chances. She did just fine by herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like some of you people should have helped Hillary write her “What Happened” book.
More excuses than can be imagined............

Excuses?! I see Hillary being blamed here, not adored. Personally, I don't see how any serious, thinking person can be anything but disgusted at the self-absorption of the party leaders on both sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Bernie supporter, I feel forever burned by the big Democrat machine. Trumps presidency is exactly what the DNC and party deserve. There needs to be consequences for what DWS and HRC did, and Trump is it. Unlike the rest of the stupid chicken littles around here, I'm a pragmatist. I wanted Bernie, but you know what? I'll accept Trump. Things aren't so bad right now, it looks like the economy is finally starting to take off, and if I get a tax cut, great, I'll take it. He'll be in office one term and then he's gone. The country will survive, and we'll move on. But still I do take a lot of guilty pleasure in seeing how all the big party-boss Dems are still wrapped around their own axles over getting beat last year. It serves them right. They HAD a winning candidate, and they shafted him. You made your bed, DNC. Now sleep in it.

I agree with you, but I don’t think the party insiders really care too much about losing, for the most part. They’re satisfied as long as the gravy train keeps rolling.

Sadly, you're probably right. And although I can't prove it, based on some of the things I've read here over the years, I suspect many republicans might feel the same way about their party, too. I really began to suspect this back during the 2012 primary season. I still remember a lot of people not really being all that happy with Romney, but thinking the machine was in control, and there was nothing they could do. Then four years later, it was the Democrats turn to have the same exact thing happen to them. With the same result. This is not a coincidence.

Me four.

Bernie's line about people not worrying about the Titanic sinking as long as they get to stay in First Class is right on. The Democratic leadership is wholly concerned with their own careers and is totally indifferent to the plight of their voters. Anyone who really cares about beating Trump needs to look beyond the current crop of Democratic leaders: they'll never beat Trump or doing anything meaningful for voters.

Absolutely. They’re looking out for themselves, not the rest of America.

It reminds me of when I worked at Naral, and a major anti-choice decision was issued. I overheard a couple execs in the break room talking about what a boon it would be for fundraising. I believe some of them were actually happy about it.

Different organization (think handguns) and when Sandy Hook happened, people were almost jubiliant and were talking about new hires because the bucks were pouring in.

I totally believe it. The DNC is not looking out for you, folks. Naral is not looking out for you.

If people still don’t understand what’s going on, I don’t know what it will take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Bernie is not a democrat, he is a socialist. If he would like to become a democrat, then maybe he can get more support from the DNC.

2) What Hillary did was highly unethical, but it was legal. I don't like it, I don't like her, but she didn't break a law.

Would you prefer he caucuses with the senate republicans instead, then?

We might as well lose something ELSE with your blunt, stupid, party-or-nothing outlook

My point on the party thing is that why do you expect the DNC to support a non-democrat?

Would you expect the RNC to support a member of the Libertarian Party? I wouldn't.

The DNC absolutely WANTED Bernie to run within their primary. If he had run as a third party, they would have whined endlessly about him pulling a Nader and ruining Hillary’s chances.

They also needed a primary opponent to tune HRC up for the big dance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Bernie is not a democrat, he is a socialist. If he would like to become a democrat, then maybe he can get more support from the DNC.

2) What Hillary did was highly unethical, but it was legal. I don't like it, I don't like her, but she didn't break a law.

Would you prefer he caucuses with the senate republicans instead, then?

We might as well lose something ELSE with your blunt, stupid, party-or-nothing outlook

My point on the party thing is that why do you expect the DNC to support a non-democrat?

Would you expect the RNC to support a member of the Libertarian Party? I wouldn't.

Party over country! Party over people! All hail the party!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Bernie is not a democrat, he is a socialist. If he would like to become a democrat, then maybe he can get more support from the DNC.

2) What Hillary did was highly unethical, but it was legal. I don't like it, I don't like her, but she didn't break a law.

Would you prefer he caucuses with the senate republicans instead, then?

We might as well lose something ELSE with your blunt, stupid, party-or-nothing outlook

My point on the party thing is that why do you expect the DNC to support a non-democrat?

Would you expect the RNC to support a member of the Libertarian Party? I wouldn't.

Your point is that the party works for itself, not for the voters. The big story in American politics isn't a big new rise in the far right, but rather a collapse in support for the Democrats. The DNC is a racket, nothing more, and the voters have figured that out. And it has nothing to do with being leftist or anything else idealogical. As many have remarked here, Democrats and associated organizations are almost entirely cynical operations aimed at advancing their careers, be damned the cost to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Bernie is not a democrat, he is a socialist. If he would like to become a democrat, then maybe he can get more support from the DNC.

2) What Hillary did was highly unethical, but it was legal. I don't like it, I don't like her, but she didn't break a law.

Would you prefer he caucuses with the senate republicans instead, then?

We might as well lose something ELSE with your blunt, stupid, party-or-nothing outlook

My point on the party thing is that why do you expect the DNC to support a non-democrat?

Would you expect the RNC to support a member of the Libertarian Party? I wouldn't.

The DNC absolutely WANTED Bernie to run within their primary. If he had run as a third party, they would have whined endlessly about him pulling a Nader and ruining Hillary’s chances.

They also needed a primary opponent to tune HRC up for the big dance.

Off topic, but has anyone ever figured out the role of Martin O'Malley in the primary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Bernie is not a democrat, he is a socialist. If he would like to become a democrat, then maybe he can get more support from the DNC.

2) What Hillary did was highly unethical, but it was legal. I don't like it, I don't like her, but she didn't break a law.

Would you prefer he caucuses with the senate republicans instead, then?

We might as well lose something ELSE with your blunt, stupid, party-or-nothing outlook

My point on the party thing is that why do you expect the DNC to support a non-democrat?

Would you expect the RNC to support a member of the Libertarian Party? I wouldn't.

The DNC absolutely WANTED Bernie to run within their primary. If he had run as a third party, they would have whined endlessly about him pulling a Nader and ruining Hillary’s chances.

They also needed a primary opponent to tune HRC up for the big dance.

Off topic, but has anyone ever figured out the role of Martin O'Malley in the primary?

Pretty sure the copy of the script I saw included a character called "Boring politician with strong jawline".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Bernie is not a democrat, he is a socialist. If he would like to become a democrat, then maybe he can get more support from the DNC.

2) What Hillary did was highly unethical, but it was legal. I don't like it, I don't like her, but she didn't break a law.

Would you prefer he caucuses with the senate republicans instead, then?

We might as well lose something ELSE with your blunt, stupid, party-or-nothing outlook

My point on the party thing is that why do you expect the DNC to support a non-democrat?

Would you expect the RNC to support a member of the Libertarian Party? I wouldn't.

The DNC absolutely WANTED Bernie to run within their primary. If he had run as a third party, they would have whined endlessly about him pulling a Nader and ruining Hillary’s chances.

They also needed a primary opponent to tune HRC up for the big dance.

Off topic, but has anyone ever figured out the role of Martin O'Malley in the primary?

Pretty sure the copy of the script I saw included a character called "Boring politician with strong jawline".

He played the role of “useful idiot."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Bernie is not a democrat, he is a socialist. If he would like to become a democrat, then maybe he can get more support from the DNC.

2) What Hillary did was highly unethical, but it was legal. I don't like it, I don't like her, but she didn't break a law.

Would you prefer he caucuses with the senate republicans instead, then?

We might as well lose something ELSE with your blunt, stupid, party-or-nothing outlook

My point on the party thing is that why do you expect the DNC to support a non-democrat?

Would you expect the RNC to support a member of the Libertarian Party? I wouldn't.

Party over country! Party over people! All hail the party!

I know you're a conservative sh!t-stirrer posting here just to troll people like me.... but I grudgingly admit you're right about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Bernie supporter, I feel forever burned by the big Democrat machine. Trumps presidency is exactly what the DNC and party deserve. There needs to be consequences for what DWS and HRC did, and Trump is it. Unlike the rest of the stupid chicken littles around here, I'm a pragmatist. I wanted Bernie, but you know what? I'll accept Trump. Things aren't so bad right now, it looks like the economy is finally starting to take off, and if I get a tax cut, great, I'll take it. He'll be in office one term and then he's gone. The country will survive, and we'll move on. But still I do take a lot of guilty pleasure in seeing how all the big party-boss Dems are still wrapped around their own axles over getting beat last year. It serves them right. They HAD a winning candidate, and they shafted him. You made your bed, DNC. Now sleep in it.

I agree with you, but I don’t think the party insiders really care too much about losing, for the most part. They’re satisfied as long as the gravy train keeps rolling.

Sadly, you're probably right. And although I can't prove it, based on some of the things I've read here over the years, I suspect many republicans might feel the same way about their party, too. I really began to suspect this back during the 2012 primary season. I still remember a lot of people not really being all that happy with Romney, but thinking the machine was in control, and there was nothing they could do. Then four years later, it was the Democrats turn to have the same exact thing happen to them. With the same result. This is not a coincidence.

I am not sure about corruption on a scale demonstrated by what went down at the DNC, but the reason we have Trump as the president is precisely because several self absorbed candidates refused to drop out even though it was apparent to them that they had no chance of winning. Their only reason for staying in the trace was to be enticed away with a VP offer. The biggest of these selfish a-holes is Kasich, and later on Rubio. But Kasich's presence gave Trump narrow margin wins in several important states at pivotal moments in the primary. I honestly don't believe Trump expected to win - this was a publicity stunt, another feather in his cap.

Please. We have Trump because the establishment, a bipartisan group, has massively failed the populace. Endless and moronic Middle East wars, financial perfidy, and a general disregard for most Americans lead a substantial number of people to be willing to roll the dice on Trump. Everything else is just noise from the political class.

This.

I voted for Obama the first time. Sat out 2012 in frustration and disgust, and voted Trump this time. Proudly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Bernie is not a democrat, he is a socialist. If he would like to become a democrat, then maybe he can get more support from the DNC.

2) What Hillary did was highly unethical, but it was legal. I don't like it, I don't like her, but she didn't break a law.

Would you prefer he caucuses with the senate republicans instead, then?

We might as well lose something ELSE with your blunt, stupid, party-or-nothing outlook

My point on the party thing is that why do you expect the DNC to support a non-democrat?

Would you expect the RNC to support a member of the Libertarian Party? I wouldn't.

Party over country! Party over people! All hail the party!

I know you're a conservative sh!t-stirrer posting here just to troll people like me.... but I grudgingly admit you're right about that.

Sorry, I'm a registered Dem in a super blue area. I just think we can do massively better and prefer laughing about our situation to crying about it.

[Anonymous]

Donna is telling other insiders that Bernie would have won and to move left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Bernie is not a democrat, he is a socialist. If he would like to become a democrat, then maybe he can get more support from the DNC.

2) What Hillary did was highly unethical, but it was legal. I don't like it, I don't like her, but she didn't break a law.

Would you prefer he caucuses with the senate republicans instead, then?

We might as well lose something ELSE with your blunt, stupid, party-or-nothing outlook

My point on the party thing is that why do you expect the DNC to support a non-democrat?

Would you expect the RNC to support a member of the Libertarian Party? I wouldn't.

Party over country! Party over people! All hail the party!

I know you're a conservative sh!t-stirrer posting here just to troll people like me.... but I grudgingly admit you're right about that.

Sorry, I'm a registered Dem in a super blue area. I just think we can do massively better and prefer laughing about our situation to crying about it.

I am a conservative and this is what I think happened.....
The DNC was all in for Hillary. Brazile’s piece makes that clear. Neither the Hillary camp, nor the DNC, anticipated the Bernie wave. They did not anticipate his popularity. But, as other posters have put it..... they HAD to have him run as a Dem for fear of a third party candidate. They gave him half-hearted “support;” just enough to not appear to be biased and enough to keep him on the Dem ticket. But, they didn’t really support him at all. They couldn’t have the Democratic party move as far left as Bernie because they would lose donors and votes.
So, Bernie took them by surprise. The other candidates were probably recruited to run by Dems, just to make it look like it was a race. But, they chose really weak, ineffective candidates to run... and notice, they were all white males. This was intentional, because remember.... the DNC was all in for Hillary.

[Anonymous]

I will never again support the Democratic Party in any way as long as the same corrupt hacks maintain control over it.