Hillary Clinton is a lying sack of crap and the press is cancer.

Exhibit A:

Why does the mainstream press INSIST on shoving her in front of every camera when anyone that has eyes to see will tell you she is smearing a politician who has an actual future just because she didn't win her precious Iron Throne? It's beyond disgusting, even if you don't support Bernie Sanders. This shallow beast of a woman would rather kamikaze what is left of her own party than try to be supportive.

These are dark days for our country. All she has to offer is shade and self-centered demagoguery. Her supporters are blind to the destruction they left in their wake, just by ignoring literally every poll ever that said that Bernie had the better chance of winning in the general election. It's easy to blame Trump and his supporters for their special brand of stupid, but by the gods, a whole lot of name-brand Democrats continue to suffer the delusion that this flaming sack of bitchness deserved to be the first woman president. News flash: you are even dumber.

Well this is a constructive discussion that's totally not an angry, pointless, rant because someone said something a little mean about a politician that you support.

Regardless of your thoughts on Hillary Clinton, she is spot on here. Democrats squabble among each other much more than the GOP does. The GOP is great at unity among the party and (generally) get in line behind their leader come election. While Democrats last election spent time feuding among each other because of stupid purity tests. The GOP too has purity tests but they recognize that winning elections, regardless of where they are, are more immediately important than small differences between each other.

With that said, Bernie Sanders isn't even a Democrat lol. He's an opportunist who has spent his entire time in politics as Independent and only ran as a Democrat because he wanted a piece of the party's pie.

I mostly agree. The sheer balls on her for blaming Bernie for her loss is astounding.

We all know Hillary sucks.

@perfect_blue: That's pretty accurate. The Democratic party has a strong strain of "Democrats and Republicans are the same!" sentiments.

More on topic, people still care about Clinton?

So you claim that it is important to unify the democratic party and immediately go on to attack Bernie as being a phony democrat? Ok great work there... lol. This is another reason Clinton lost, she and her supporters were really eager to jump on accusing people of things they were equally guilty off which made Clinton's side look like the biggest hypocrites.

But Bernie isn't a Democrat. He has caucused his entire political career as an Independent. This is a simple fact. Fair enough to him in any case, he can do what he pleases and it's brought him political success.

I see what you are trying to say and that's fair, but I just want to clarify my post. I pointed this out to illustrate that it isn't his job to unify the Democratic party. So Clinton expecting him to "go easy" on her is naive, because he isn't a Democrat. The unifying needs to come from the party base and rally behind the candidate no matter who they are because to any sane Bernie supporter, a Clinton presidency is infinitely better than a Trump one. Full disclosure: I'm not a Democrat or even American.

Oh ok I get it now. I think it is also disingenuous for Clinton to attack Bernie like that since, for me, the democrats gave their back to Bernie first. There were many reasonable voices that put Bernie as a stronger opponent against Trump than Hillary as well as all major polls showed that to be the case and the Democratic party still chose to put several obstacles in Bernie's way and put their whole support behind Hillary. So from the start they were not unifying anything because they weren't being fair. Granted, as you say, that could be somehow "justified" in that Bernie was seen more as an outsider but that's exactly why I think Hillary's stance is so hypocritical as you are also sort of implying. She calls for unity when she needed it but was ok with turning a blind eye for unity when it was benefiting her. I'm also not american BTW.

One of the reasons it might be true that democrats are currently "squabbling" more than republicans is because of that 10-15 year delay on being completely corrupt. You have those who want to issue platitudes while doing the exact same thing as the republicans, and then those who think the democratic party can go back to representing blue collar america. We've seen this from republicans as well, it was simply in the 90s when a large portion of voters stared recognizing how the republicans were simply doing everything wall street and corporations wanted. This is also why they only manage to get the people who are so stupid that they will vote republican every election, no matter what. This is why they never add to their pool. The one time they had a chance to do this was with Ron Paul, but if you're corrupted why him over Mitt?

So was she correct? Meh, maybe. But only because the democratic party is corrupted and fake and its a death rattle for voters. If this continues we are going to see exactly what we see with republicans, where the democrats also cannot add new voters and will only get the people who are only voting democrat because of delusions.

Heh... Bernie's so democrat, that he's not democrat.

Im democrat, but i cannot even begin to call myself that anymore because of how bullshit the democrats are.

Ill go with a different label if that is what it takes, i really don't care. But the point is that if you are to say "these are the general stances democrats take" and we go down the check list, Bernie is more of a democrat than Hillary. In fact if we were to do that with every politician, he is more democrat than anyone else.

He simply wants nothing to do with this ultra corrupted party............ Malcolm X called it. Democrat voters are chumps because the democrats do not even begin to do what they say they represent. youtube.com/watch?v=JWbuSCGGWeI

I don't know if the "The View" is what I would count as the press

The Democrats have to squabble more then the GOP. It is the nature of being the liberal party. Conservatives (at least claim to) favor stability and the status quo. Liberals (at least claim to) favor progress. A natural result of this is that liberals must constantly cannibalize their own party to keep up.

As example: Gay Marriage.

10 years ago to be elected as the Nominee for the Democratic Party you had to be a champion for marriage inequality. It was a simple prerequisite. If someone claimed the Nominee was only pretending to be homophobic to get votes in the heartland, the Democratic Party collectively would bristle. How dare question their Christ ordained belief in heterosuperiority!? Implying they secretly viewed homosexuals as equals was taboo. You can't question their faith like that!

Even Barack Obama stepped up to the plate in 2008 and tried to sell America on separate but equal.

Flash Forward to 2016 and anyone who didn't change their position in 2011-12 (when equality got popular support among the Democratic party) was literally considered deplorable by the Democratic Nominee for President. You know, despite the fact that she herself championed inequality for decades, and only changed her mind when polls changed. You can't have massive swings like that without pushback. The people to the right of center get left behind. The people left of center get super ticked off. After all, the jerks who fought tooth and nail against them are now showing up to take all the credit. One second after all the hard work was done.

That is the role of the liberal party. They tell you the ideas you held as absolute truth 10 years ago are evil. You must now adopt the set of idea, and we will all pretend we wont consider them evil in 10 years.

By contrast, the role of the conservative party is to absorb those who get left behind when they refuse to evolve. Your view on homosexuals could have come from 2008CE or 2008BCE for all they care. They just want you to call it AD and BC, cause change is bad.

Good question. It is hilarious how her merely existing makes people froth at the mouth in anger, case in point this thread.

Makes you wonder what would change if she was a man.

How does one become a "real Democrat", exactly? Send some Japanese to internment camps? Call black people, "Super predators"? Drone strike some more brown kids?

Does it?

From the "right" we saw the exact same thing with Bill and Obama.

From the "left"... well most of the people who cant stand Hillary would probably have voted for Elizabeth Warren.

Its almost as if its really hard to even determine if her sex has a role in this, simply because of how horrible of a candidate and human being she is.

I think people are misunderstanding blue. He didn't say that Sanders isn't a Democrat because of his policies. He said he's not Democrat because he is literally not a part of the party. He has caucused as an independent over the course of his career which means he has not been a meaningful part of that infrastructure. I don't really care one way or another, but that understandably caused some friction amongst those who did spend their careers taking part in party work/support when he suddenly wanted to use that infrastructure for a presidential run.

Thank you.

I really didn't think people would have trouble understanding that post.

We read what we want to read...

Precisely!

She's such a narcissist. It's disgusting.

I voted for Jill Stein and Hillary's existence disgusts me.

Many feel the same way and voted either Trump or 3rd party.

We

certainly

do.

To be fair, the only reason why he didn't caucus with the democrats was because of their opposition to everything they currently claim to support. Saying Sanders is an opportunist for joining the democrats when the party moved sufficiently to the left is extremely inflammatory. People misunderstanding an inaccurate statement that is designed to inflame isn't all that uncommon. After all, they have to figure out what silly idea the writer has in their head before they can even start addressing it.

Jesus christ, she just won't go away. She lost because of the Russians, the media, the alt-right, Bernie Sanders and let's not forget sexism and misogyny. Poor woman.

"This shallow beast of a woman would rather kamikaze what is left of her own party than try to be supportive." This is a very telling statement that a lot of people refuse to even consider.

Wow OP sure has his panties in a twist. I think it's safe to say that those on the right are the ones that need to get over Hilary.

it's the White Bernie bros that cost Hillary the election, not Bernie. The media did warn us about the toxic sexist and racist white males within Bernie base, but Bernie refused to call out his white male base.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-racist-side-of-bernie-sanders-supporters

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7/2/1544622/-Bernie-Bros-Enough-of-Your-Sexism-Racism-Etc

If Bernie is gonna be blame, then he needs to be blame for convincing White Liberals bros that America belong to them and no one else

I believe Hillary could have won the electoral college votes if the DNC and herself, by going with the flow, didn't make sure everyone knew she "deserved" to win. The party of the people didn't want include the people, and instead looked more like she had been in the tree house above the masses before the democratic party primaries had even begun. She did well against Obama and didn't need the perception of a free ticket, but that is what she got, and that turned many off.

Also nobody won the popular vote that matters after you tally the EC votes. https://mises.org/blog/26-percent-eligible-voters-voted-trump Which off the New York times tally, and is just by the numbers.

To walk around waving your hand in the air saying those who didn't vote were just too lazy is a mentality that is self defeating and only pushes those who voted by not voting farther away.

May the Democratic Party let go of their tree house, and Super Delegates, and at least try to appear like the party of the people once again. It isn't hard, and certainly looking like they did this past presidential election is harder in the mirror.

And yet they are too lazy to take a few minutes to vote. And those who don't vote are more culpable for the mess.

@CreasianDevaili: "those who voted by not voting"

That'll show 'em!

Haha, not voting isn't voting. Neither the candidates nor the parties care about what you want when you don't even choose to vote because you've given up even the small bit of voice that even the least politically engaged citizens are supposed to have.

The candidates will happily cater to those who do vote knowing that you've taken yourself out of consideration - either as a supporter or as opposition.

So, lets pay attention to voting patterns here.

The democrats, the only time they win is when a candidate can excite the progressive base that would not vote for a republican like Hillary or Al Gore. When they fail to get that base, they lose because the republicans will simply have the people who will vote R no matter what and end up controlling a wider range of states and delegates. Because of this spread, the idiots who vote d for the of voting d, are not enough, they need more.

If your argument is that when Democratic constituencies fail to vote while Republican constituencies do vote then Republicans win, I agree.

What's you're point?

Oh I voted, but unless you're happy with how the election went then you do care about them. I am very sure Hillary cares more after she lost than before.

Some just refused to vote for either of them. Some scribbled in names like Bernie Sanders or others who were never on the ballot. Those can be essentially counted as voting by not voting because they were pretty much thrown away.

So some didn't vote. Many reasons why they didn't vote. Voting turnouts were down, as well. You say the candidates are happy about that. I think you're so far up your own butt to understand how silly what you said actually sounds like.

Not true. I claim the candidates, the parties, and the system don't care about those who don't vote.

Not voting is a completely ineffective way to implement change.

No.

The "argument" or, statement of fact, is that both parties have groups of people who will vote for them no matter what. This past election was basically that base for both parties.... same with 2000. If this is the road taken, republicans will always win because of our electoral college.

However when democrats draws excitement is when they get an advantage that republicans cannot get, and that is a large portion of independents and then they win.

See, you sarcastically said "Yah! Not voting will show them!", as if it does not do this, when in fact it does. Because without those people they dont win and luckily for us, democrats are as sociopathic as republicans and are only concerned for their own careers. So if they do want to further their career with these positions, eventually they are going to have to cater to the independents who are better democrats than the democrats are.

Yeah, Candidates spending all their time and money in swing states means they are as happy as a damn cat on catnip. Hint: Votes from registers voters were down. Try not to Trump it all together.

Also it was pretty dang effective in getting democrats riled up. Maybe, as per my original post, they will do it better in 2020.

They're going to have to do it better before then, because that's when REDMAP 2.0 occurs.

So redmap is essentially the successful redistricting project that helped win majorities for the republicans, however I googled Redmap 2.0 and I'm unclear as to what the next phases are. Could you explain or give a link that details the steps?

Correct.

Redistricting reoccurs every 10 years (with the censuses). REDMAP was a long term (10 year) plan by the Republican party to get their party members elected in large numbers in strategic areas and states so as to enable them to control that redistricting process to a high degree. It has been a significant component to their recent success, and why they currently control such a large portion of the government(s).

If Democrats don't get their officials elected in a similar manner, Republicans will continue to control the redistricting process and solidify their advantages from it for another decade. Gaining political advantage is a long term project that builds over time, and the redistricting process is a crucial tool for doing so.

Don't get hung up on the REDMAP 2.0 terminology. I simply used it as a reference to the next 10 year cycle following the original REDMAP you read about.

Honestly, Hillary needs to go away. Her moment is gone. She needs to let her party move forward.

She's done with politics so I'd say she has..........but the republicans want to keep talking about her....in effect they aren't moving on.

Why are people so easily triggered by Hilary Clinton. Im no fan, but jesus people treat her like the boogie man

@narutosup: It's easy playing the Bernie Bro race card while supporting a candidate who had absolutely no policy stance against the War on Drugs and privatized prisons, isn't it?

Pardon my inner super predator for not getting it.

i think she's just trying to sell books at this point.

She still would have been better then Trump....and if you say otherwise no matter how much you dislike her(she disgusts me and ill admit I voted for her) then you are a fucking liar and a cad.

Please tell us what else you can see in your alternate universe crystal ball that sees what is, was, and would have been.

Fact of the matter is, Donald Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney did in 2012.

While we are blaming Bernie supporters for their sexism, Jill Stein got three times the percentage of general election votes in 2016 than what she got in 2012.

So, hilariously, Hillary's candidacy pushed tons of left-leaning voters TO VOTE FOR ANOTHER WOMAN. It's just not coming together, is it?

Gosh, if only Bernie had supported her at the convention or fundraised for Democrats, what a world we would live in! Lolz

I disagree with the news that Hillary still thinks Bernie cost her the election, but I find people are blowing this way out of proportion. I still voted for her, because, she's still way more qualified than Trump to be President, and Republicans in general are far more toxic for the country. I agree though, Bernie would have had that election in the bag, the DNC undermined the primary process by tilting things in her favor as much as possible against Bernie. They snubbed the progressive base, but I don't feel that's why she lost. I think she lost by those swing voters that wanted to kill establishment politics, to shake up Washington. Bernie was one candidate I think many believed would try to do that. When he wasn't on the ballot, there was just Trump. Her projection that she'd win was contingent on Gary Johnson getting like 8-10% of the vote conservative vote. Meh, I never believed it, I just think he was a safe excuse for people who were going to vote for Trump who were too afraid to admit it, just like the "Tea Party" was a rebranding of GOP politics where people were too afraid to associate with the GOP after all the shame the Bush reign of terror did to the party, to the country, to the world, but it's still the same goddamn thing.

So, what are we to do now? I mean, I won't defend Hillary's position. But, what as a Democrat voter am I supposed to do about this? Beyond supporting progressive candidates. I mean, I'm not going to get so fed up with establishment that I'll go do something stupid and vote for the next Trump (pretty much any Republican), or start getting my news from Breitbart or some non-establishment news channel funded by the Russians. I'm still going to watch the same news shows, I'm going to chime in whenever I can against their stance should I disagree. But I find hiding away in some kind of echo chamber away from other Democratic voters to be among those I agree with more only isolates progressives from the rest of the party; it's our party, these are our information channels, we shouldn't have to run from them. Stand your damn ground.