Ok, I admit that many of my comments in this thread might seem to be non-sequiturs.
I didn't read The Intercept piece. Or the Times piece that Alex pointed us to.
There are too few hours in the day for me to do more than skim much of the news. And I don't regard The Intercept as an honest broker, myself.
But the whole thought process behind the articles, as present here, doesn't make much sense to me. And I jumped in the middle to make that opinion known.
People don't vote for ideas. They vote for candidates.
All the "Democrats don't stand for anything" polling and so forth doesn't mean anything. It's lazy reporting. Hillary stood for all kinds of things, and lots of very good things. The press didn't report those things, and too many voters couldn't be bothered to read her positions for themselves. Yes, Atrios is right that it's never a winning strategy to blame the voters. But counter-factuals aren't reality either. Sure, Hillary should have done some things differently, but the idea that she and the Democratic Party don't stand for anything is nonsense.
In the meantime, while non-Democrats go on and on about how Democrats need to change, Trump and his minions continue to try to destroy everything.
Sorry if I seem a little testy about this stuff, but I am.
There's still too much talk about how horrible Hillary and the DNC are. Yet those critics seem to have little or nothing to say about things like the Senate vote tomorrow that will (if the Trumpers and Teabaggers succeed) directly make the lives of tens of millions of people much worse, and kill tens of thousands.
I'm doing my part to keep that from happening. I'm writing letters, I'm donating to people and organizations that are fighting in the trenches, I'm marching in the streets. And I'm trying to wake certain civil aviation people up to the dangers. ;-)
If you (generic you) want to get my attention, tell me specifically what you want to do and why. Tell me what candidates support your position and how voting for them will make things better (I have no time for purity candidates who don't understand how politics actually works). Telling me how horrible our side is while offering nothing concrete to make it better and (nearly) completely ignoring the bad things that the GOP is doing right now is not a way to get me to take you (generic you) seriously.
What are these critics in the press doing except telling everyone else that they're doing it wrong? People who won the Presidency twice (WJC and BHO) and who were elected twice to the Senate and served with great ability as SoS (HRC). People who know more than a little about politics in the USA - in fact, they know a lot.
Why do so many of these "Democrats are doing it wrong" stories neglect to note the impact of voter suppression activities by the Teabaggers?
Etc., etc. You know my litany.
Anyway, I'll try to take the time to be more, er, sequitur. ;-)
By the by, I did see this McClatchyDC piece this evening:
(Emphasis added.)
If that is true, then it's important to understand why. Was it apathy, or was it ever more blatant voter suppression? Or a combination? Or something else?
It's that kind of stuff that (it seems to me) is vitally important to know. Not whether white working-class voters in West Virginia think that Hillary is History's Greatest Monster or only the World's Greatest Monster Since 1945... :-/
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
There are too few hours in the day for me to do more than skim much of the news. And I don't regard The Intercept as an honest broker, myself.
But the whole thought process behind the articles, as present here, doesn't make much sense to me. And I jumped in the middle to make that opinion known.
People don't vote for ideas. They vote for candidates.
All the "Democrats don't stand for anything" polling and so forth doesn't mean anything. It's lazy reporting. Hillary stood for all kinds of things, and lots of very good things. The press didn't report those things, and too many voters couldn't be bothered to read her positions for themselves. Yes, Atrios is right that it's never a winning strategy to blame the voters. But counter-factuals aren't reality either. Sure, Hillary should have done some things differently, but the idea that she and the Democratic Party don't stand for anything is nonsense.
In the meantime, while non-Democrats go on and on about how Democrats need to change, Trump and his minions continue to try to destroy everything.
Sorry if I seem a little testy about this stuff, but I am.
There's still too much talk about how horrible Hillary and the DNC are. Yet those critics seem to have little or nothing to say about things like the Senate vote tomorrow that will (if the Trumpers and Teabaggers succeed) directly make the lives of tens of millions of people much worse, and kill tens of thousands.
I'm doing my part to keep that from happening. I'm writing letters, I'm donating to people and organizations that are fighting in the trenches, I'm marching in the streets. And I'm trying to wake certain civil aviation people up to the dangers. ;-)
If you (generic you) want to get my attention, tell me specifically what you want to do and why. Tell me what candidates support your position and how voting for them will make things better (I have no time for purity candidates who don't understand how politics actually works). Telling me how horrible our side is while offering nothing concrete to make it better and (nearly) completely ignoring the bad things that the GOP is doing right now is not a way to get me to take you (generic you) seriously.
What are these critics in the press doing except telling everyone else that they're doing it wrong? People who won the Presidency twice (WJC and BHO) and who were elected twice to the Senate and served with great ability as SoS (HRC). People who know more than a little about politics in the USA - in fact, they know a lot.
Why do so many of these "Democrats are doing it wrong" stories neglect to note the impact of voter suppression activities by the Teabaggers?
Etc., etc. You know my litany.
Anyway, I'll try to take the time to be more, er, sequitur. ;-)
By the by, I did see this McClatchyDC piece this evening:
BALTIMORE
African American activists have a message for Democrats: If you want to win back the White House, strongly consider a black person on the ticket.
On their list are a growing roster of black politicians, notably Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J. and Kamala Harris, D-Calif., former Attorney General Eric Holder and Deval Patrick, former governor of Massachusetts.
Turnout among African Americans in the 2016 presidential election was the smallest in 20 years. It’s a big concern as the NAACP holds its annual convention this week in Baltimore, its first major gathering since the election.
Hilary Shelton, head of the NAACP’s Washington bureau, said “It could be difficult” for Democrats in the future without an African American on the ticket.
But he added that the black community is “very sophisticated” politically, and having an African American is not essential if white candidates “are speaking our language, which means that they’re addressing our concerns, they’re going to get our support.”
[...]
(Emphasis added.)
If that is true, then it's important to understand why. Was it apathy, or was it ever more blatant voter suppression? Or a combination? Or something else?
It's that kind of stuff that (it seems to me) is vitally important to know. Not whether white working-class voters in West Virginia think that Hillary is History's Greatest Monster or only the World's Greatest Monster Since 1945... :-/
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
