Wow. I’m shocked at the timing, but ultimately I think it was a smart move.
Smart? How so?
She does not have the funding or popularity to continue the campaign. Rather than risk her current role, it was a smart move to assess everything and make the decision she did.
Also fuck caucuses and fuck Iowa and New Hampshire.
This is probably an ignorant question, but how did we get to the point that Iowa and NH are so important? Why does our voting system seem to not make any sense for democracy?
Also fuck caucuses and fuck Iowa and New Hampshire.
This is probably an ignorant question, but how did we get to the point that Iowa and NH are so important? Why does our voting system seem to not make any sense for democracy?
It isn’t an ignorant question. I live in Iowa and have no clue why we go first.
From what I understand it was a result of the 1968 dem national convention. There was violence and they needed to make a change. Iowa had one of the most complex processes for caucusing so to give them time to complete the process, they went first.
Why it still is this way, well I can’t answer that. I think the fact that Iowa is very white and moderate is the reason some powers to be want it to stay this way. There is a lot of force behind keeping it first, but I hope that is eroding.
This is probably an ignorant question, but how did we get to the point that Iowa and NH are so important? Why does our voting system seem to not make any sense for democracy?
It isn’t an ignorant question. I live in Iowa and have no clue why we go first.
From what I understand it was a result of the 1968 dem national convention. There was violence and they needed to make a change. Iowa had one of the most complex processes for caucusing so to give them time to complete the process, they went first.
Why it still is this way, well I can’t answer that. I think the fact that Iowa is very white and moderate is the reason some powers to be want it to stay this way. There is a lot of force behind keeping it first, but I hope that is eroding.
wanderingback, keep in mind this is the process for a party to choose a candidate it's not the process to elect the president. Different rules apply.
Based on this article, the fact that Iowa went first was kind of a fluke at first but then became ingrained in Democratic politics.
In an attempt to avoid the public anger exhibited that year, party officials changed the presidential nomination process to make it more transparent and democratically accountable. Part of the new rules established by the Democratic National Committee were scheduling guidelines that required at least 30 days between major state and local political processes.
In 1972, there we no available hotel rooms in Des Moines for the week when the Iowa Democratic State Convention was going to be held, so it was moved up earlier in the calendar. This change, combined with the new 30-day waiting period, meant that the Democratic caucus would be scheduled for January 24—the first nominating contest of the cycle.
I’m now arguing with people I like about why she shouldn’t settle for being some loser’s VP. If I’m Kamala, it’s SCOTUS or I bide my time and run again.
Also, I am insanely pissed we lose out on Doug, too. Fuck this shit!
Senate Majority Leader first. They fucking BETTER.
I am bummed and a little shocked. I wish her voice was still part of the process. But, she has the most to lose (except perhaps Booker) from staying in too long if she didn't get the nomination. For that reason, I understand her decision.
I'm also sure Trump and his supporters would have tried to politicize her participation in impeachment hearings to the point it may have changed some minds in his favor. I don't think this was nor should it have been her deciding factor, but I do think her dropping out will provide better optics for the hearings in the Senate.
I fucking blame the Bernie people for this. They defined her with lies before she even launched.
Absolutely! And I just found out that they started going after her mental health platform, which actually sounded great. I'm just so angry and disillusioned right now.
share.memebox.com/x/uKhKaZmemebox referal code for 20% off! DD1 "J" born 3/2003 DD2 "G" born 4/2011 DS is here! "H" born 2/2014 m/c#3 1-13-13 @ 9 weeks m/c#2 11-11-12 @ 5w2d I am an extended breastfeeding, cloth diapering, baby wearing, pro marriage equality, birth control lovin', Catholic mama.
I fucking blame the Bernie people for this. They defined her with lies before she even launched.
Absolutely! And I just found out that they started going after her mental health platform, which actually sounded great. I'm just so angry and disillusioned right now.
Most of that criticism was aimed at her teaming up with Charlamagne tha god for the rollout, not the platform - which I think is yet another mistake that came from her team.
Post by 5kcandlesinthewind on Dec 3, 2019 17:20:45 GMT -5
I just gave to Castro and Booker again, though I wouldn’t be surprised if one of them is next to go.
Also, they just played a Tom Steyer ad right before news came back and did a story on Kamala dropping out. Way to twist the fucking knife! I’m going to need to stick to ChrisEvansInASweater Twitter for the foreseeable future.
I am sorry about this, though from what I have read I can understand why she made this choice even if I don't like it.
I am angry at the media and pundits with their "electability" discussions that continue to give white men (especially Christian, cis, hetero ones) so of the benefit of the doubt to the detriment of everyone.
Absolutely! And I just found out that they started going after her mental health platform, which actually sounded great. I'm just so angry and disillusioned right now.
Most of that criticism was aimed at her teaming up with Charlamagne tha god for the rollout, not the platform - which I think is yet another mistake that came from her team.
All the complaints I read were specifically about the platform and what she wanted to do. They were from supposed mental health professionals and clients, but all happened to be Bernie supporters, as well. (I don't mean everything that's out there, just everything I read.)
She absolutely did. But here's the problem, she was a "centrist" from the start. Reasonable, willing to give a little, and had platforms that really balanced the scales. The Democratic party is pushing so hard to the left that she's really not that appealing to the rabid primary voters. (And none of this takes into account the issues inside of her campaign, which almost certainly contributed.)
I honestly feel like we are making the same mistake as Republicans, just in the opposite direction. And while I don't think the party's platforms are wrong, I do think that if we continue this trend, we're going to become so polarized that there will never be any hope of getting things done. The parties will just stonewall one another back and forth every 4 years. Democracy was never meant to be this way.
I don't know. I'm feeling pretty demoralized right now.
See here, I don't get this. The DNC doesn't want to support Bernie or Warren because they're too far to the left. Biden and Buttigieg have their own serious issues from a general election campaign perspective. Why did Bloomberg and Steyer jump in (and kneecap her campaign in the process, each in their own ways) rather than just supporting her? She seems like SUCH an obvious choice.
I know that on here and on Twitter the democratic party is pushing to the left. But the base lies with African Americans who, as a whole, are not as extreme-left, not to mention we'll need indy's in the rust belt where it matters. She checked off every one of those boxes, and yet two billionaire white men will be on the debate stage.
Democrats and the DNC need to tread very lightly.
Let’s hold up a minute.
The Overton window has shifted so far that traditional Democratic ideas like healthcare and supporting labor and working families is somehow “extreme left”? Don’t repeat that narrative.
ObamaCare’s individual mandate is essentially the health care plan endorsed by *Newt Gingrich* and the GOP in the 90s.
You’re playing into GOP talking points by pretending the parties haven’t both shifted dramatically to the right. The things Warren and even Sanders are proposing are not extreme. They are a reset to a party that supports a working class.
Absolutely! And I just found out that they started going after her mental health platform, which actually sounded great. I'm just so angry and disillusioned right now.
Most of that criticism was aimed at her teaming up with Charlamagne tha god for the rollout, not the platform - which I think is yet another mistake that came from her team.
I am kind of pissed that people are taking about her campaign’s mistakes. There’s a time and place, sure. But her number 1 mistake was having the audacity to hope for a fair shake. Notice that we don’t hear much about Biden’s mistakes. Or Bernie’s. And until people are willing to talk honestly about that, I don’t want to hear much about her rollouts or where she directed her efforts. It wouldn’t have mattered, not one bit.
Most of that criticism was aimed at her teaming up with Charlamagne tha god for the rollout, not the platform - which I think is yet another mistake that came from her team.
I am kind of pissed that people are taking about her campaign’s mistakes. There’s a time and place, sure. But her number 1 mistake was having the audacity to hope for a fair shake. Notice that we don’t hear much about Biden’s mistakes. Or Bernie’s. And until people are willing to talk honestly about that, I don’t want to hear much about her rollouts or where she directed her efforts. It wouldn’t have mattered, not one bit.
I enjoy talking about the strategic aspects, while still holding larger issues in my hand and reading people's thoughts about them. Both are relevant to current events and politics.
See here, I don't get this. The DNC doesn't want to support Bernie or Warren because they're too far to the left. Biden and Buttigieg have their own serious issues from a general election campaign perspective. Why did Bloomberg and Steyer jump in (and kneecap her campaign in the process, each in their own ways) rather than just supporting her? She seems like SUCH an obvious choice.
I know that on here and on Twitter the democratic party is pushing to the left. But the base lies with African Americans who, as a whole, are not as extreme-left, not to mention we'll need indy's in the rust belt where it matters. She checked off every one of those boxes, and yet two billionaire white men will be on the debate stage.
Democrats and the DNC need to tread very lightly.
Let’s hold up a minute.
The Overton window has shifted so far that traditional Democratic ideas like healthcare and supporting labor and working families is somehow “extreme left”? Don’t repeat that narrative.
ObamaCare’s individual mandate is essentially the health care plan endorsed by *Newt Gingrich* and the GOP in the 90s.
You’re playing into GOP talking points by pretending the parties haven’t both shifted dramatically to the right. The things Warren and even Sanders are proposing are not extreme. They are a reset to a party that supports a working class.
As a Canadian, the policies that are identified as socialist and left wing by the Democratic Party are really not left wing or socialist at all. I took a politics class in high school (circa 2002) and the teacher defined American political parties as compared to Canadian. The Democratic Party (at that time) fell to the Right in terms of policy of the Conservatives, which is our right wing party. So your most liberal choice is more conservative than our most conservative choice (generally speaking).
As centralsquare mentioned the US has gotten even more conservative as the Overton window has shifted Right throughout the years. It’s noticeable from here as I have frequented this board for the past 12 years.
See here, I don't get this. The DNC doesn't want to support Bernie or Warren because they're too far to the left. Biden and Buttigieg have their own serious issues from a general election campaign perspective. Why did Bloomberg and Steyer jump in (and kneecap her campaign in the process, each in their own ways) rather than just supporting her? She seems like SUCH an obvious choice.
I know that on here and on Twitter the democratic party is pushing to the left. But the base lies with African Americans who, as a whole, are not as extreme-left, not to mention we'll need indy's in the rust belt where it matters. She checked off every one of those boxes, and yet two billionaire white men will be on the debate stage.
Democrats and the DNC need to tread very lightly.
This is true but Harris also made a huge strategic error by targeting Iowa rather than South Carolina, which has a large African American base.
I would claim the opposite, actually. Her original plan was to target SC and California, since CA is now on Super Tuesday. Since CA moved up and there are so many delegates to award by Super Tuesday (almost 1/3rd of all delegates, I believe) a lot of people thought Iowa and NH would be LESS important this year. But old habits die hard and when her campaign realized Iowa was still going to count, and people going into SC having finished 5th or worse in Iowa or NH were going to already be behind, they were already behind the 8 ball. After the reorganization of her staff, she was also losing in her home state, and not polling as well as expected in SC, so it was a story of trying to concentrate on too many things and not doing well at any of them.
Also, fuck Iowa and NH. I've been to both states, but sorry, they're both over 90% white, and they shouldn't matter THIS much. It shouldn't be impossible to become the nominee when you don't do well in a state with less than 10% of the country's population that is not demographically similar to the country as a whole.
The Overton window has shifted so far that traditional Democratic ideas like healthcare and supporting labor and working families is somehow “extreme left”? Don’t repeat that narrative.
ObamaCare’s individual mandate is essentially the health care plan endorsed by *Newt Gingrich* and the GOP in the 90s.
You’re playing into GOP talking points by pretending the parties haven’t both shifted dramatically to the right. The things Warren and even Sanders are proposing are not extreme. They are a reset to a party that supports a working class.
As a Canadian, the policies that are identified as socialist and left wing by the Democratic Party are really not left wing or socialist at all. I took a politics class in high school (circa 2002) and the teacher defined American political parties as compared to Canadian. The Democratic Party (at that time) fell to the Right in terms of policy of the Conservatives, which is our right wing party. So your most liberal choice is more conservative than our most conservative choice (generally speaking).
As centralsquare mentioned the US has gotten even more conservative as the Overton window has shifted Right throughout the years. It’s noticeable from here as I have frequented this board for the past 12 years.
What other countries label their political agendas has limited usefulness in this context. There are also nations that have policies to the right of our GOP. This matters how?
ETA: Also 2002 is multiple political lifetimes ago.
What’s “extreme” about today’s left is their willingness to let it all burn if they don’t get their way or preferred candidate. There is no compromise. You are “the establishment” if you support a public option, etc. It’s not simply about policies that in Canada would be seen as “so right.”
What’s “extreme” about today’s left is their willingness to let it all burn if they don’t get their way or preferred candidate. There is no compromise. You are “the establishment” if you support a public option, etc. It’s not simply about policies that in Canada would be seen as “so right.”
People keep using the term "establishment" and I don't think they know what is actually means. I am calling people out on it left and right on my friends' FB posts. Kamala Harris was establishment... AYFKM? So that's been fun and by fun I mean banging my head against brick wall fun.
What’s “extreme” about today’s left is their willingness to let it all burn if they don’t get their way or preferred candidate. There is no compromise. You are “the establishment” if you support a public option, etc. It’s not simply about policies that in Canada would be seen as “so right.”
What’s “extreme” about today’s left is their willingness to let it all burn if they don’t get their way or preferred candidate. There is no compromise. You are “the establishment” if you support a public option, etc. It’s not simply about policies that in Canada would be seen as “so right.”
People keep using the term "establishment" and I don't think they know what is actually means. I am calling people out on it left and right on my friends' FB posts. Kamala Harris was establishment... AYFKM? So that's been fun and by fun I mean banging my head against brick wall fun.
Also the establishment kind of is not so bad.
Trump is an anti-establishment guy, and he turned the GOP from a party that was run of the mill gross and corrupt into a white nationalist money laundering ring that is an arm of the Russian government.
People who are committed to the Democratic party will behave in the best interest of the party. The DNC may suck, but I'd rather a team of people committed to building a good party, than some outsider who wants to burn it all down, or will govern without any regard to what it does to Dems down ticket or the party's future success.