Biden's campaign admits that they're full of sh**t

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How about we see what he actually does first?

Well, he had 36 years in the Senate and 8 years as VP, so I think we have a good idea.

It's totally impossible for anyone to ever change their mind over the course of 50 years.

Obviously Biden has changed his mind on some issues like amending the constitution to overturn Roe v. Wade, but it seems pretty clear that he'll be favorable to Wall Street on the issues mentioned here.

[Beet]

Figures. More hate for my girl Warren. I’m about to jump ship from Biden.

Eh, stick with Biden. Warren will have more leverage with a Biden administration. I was her biggest supporter on here.

[Intell]

Sanders supporters are such entitled white college kids holy.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

How about we see what he actually does first?

Well, he had 36 years in the Senate and 8 years as VP, so I think we have a good idea.

Silence, Republican!

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I didn’t even have to look at the username to know who posted this topic.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I didn’t even have to look at the username to know who posted this topic.

This.
jfern seems to have more problems with Joe Biden than many (most?) blue avatars, which is almost hilarious.

[free my dawg]

Ever since recent events (starting with Kamala Harris being selected as VP), I've begun to sympathize with the jferns of the world, who are willing to vote third-party in their safe blue states. To put it bluntly, the actions of the establishment have undone all of the progress they've tried to make in the last four years, and Biden has been complacent in it.

I don't have this problem with the NHDP. I think they've done a great job at unifying with progressives. Berniecrats like Mark MacKenzie, Mindi Messmer, and Andru Volinsky have had key roles in the primary. Good progressives who aren't explicitly aligned with the movement like Molly Kelly, Dan Feltes, and Rebecca Perkins Kwoka are also seen as key assets. They don't take sides based on ideological concerns, and if you beat the establishment's candidate, they'll welcome you in as a part of the team anyway.

A stark contrast to the Nebraska "Democrats'" two-year tantrum over their candidates losing their primaries.

I've spoken at length about Kamala Harris. To say the least, I was vehemently opposed to her nomination. While I realize the potential she brings to the ticket, I think she's an incompetent politician who failed upward, and I also don't believe she's a unifying figure in the party. Since then, the DNC has doubled down on marginalizing with the left and allying with the right.

Nancy Pelosi has decided to break her no-incumbent stance and endorse Joe Kennedy's failed campaign to primary Ed Markey. She says it's all an attempt to back her caucus, but that's a lie. When Tim Walz ran for governor, Pelosi stayed out. When Loretta Sanchez ran for Senate against a powerful incumbent, Pelosi didn't take sides. When Colleen Hanabusa was in the middle of a competitive primary, and needed her Speaker's endorsement, she didn't answer the call. Twice. And twice, Colleen Hanabusa lost.

Either you take Pelosi's word at face-value, and she endorsed Kennedy due to her personal connections, or she endorsed because Markey was getting too close to The Undesirables. Given how a key piece of Kennedy's gameplan was to tie her to The Bernie People, I'm more willing to believe the latter.

The convention was disgusting. Sure, you have great moments, like Michelle Obama, Ady Barkan, and the Bidens themselves, but it gets bad when you realize there were no leftist voices besides Warren, Barkan, and Bernie. Actually, the original plan was to shelf Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Like it or not, she's an impeccable woman who can motivate the marginalized. If it weren't for Bernie, she would have no role.

But of course, they roll out the red carpet for John Kasich to attack her in the press conference before his speech, and he does not answer to it.

Admittedly I overblew the roll call controversy. Looking back at the names, I only found one other controversial name aside from Fred Guttenberg and John Lynch. If they aren't leftists, they are at least pragmatic. But there is some truth to what I said. I don't think it's controversial to say that people who would vote third-party in a swing state - no matter who the nominee is - have no place at the convention. I think we can all agree that those who outright endorsed Republicans should be persona non grata. I especially think that those who endorse neo-Nazis over left-wing Democrats have no place in the party.

This story may not seem much, but the drip-drip of similar stories, combined with everything the DNC has done, backs it up. From Ted Kaufman's austerity comments to Biden's own "nothing will change" leak, it only backs up the attitudes I've seen in the Democratic Party. The center (or, in recent years, the right) is welcomed into the party with open arms and hearts. The Democratic establishment caters to their every whim and need in order to chase their votes. If Meghan McCain and SE Cupp hold their votes hostage in exchange for a less progressive VP nominee, then we should listen to them.

But for the left? We don't have to worry about them. Give them some symbolic representation and lip service. They don't need to be triangulated to, because they'll just Vote Blue No Matter Who like good little girls and boys! What are they gonna do about it - vote for Trump?

With Democrats being more like MacArthur and Alben than jdb or R2D2, and the left becoming ever-more aware that the party is marginalizing them (and that's the most generous assertion I can make), can you blame them for werewolfing and voting third-party?

And this isn't coming from the jferns and HockeyDudes of the world. This is coming from the guy responsible for "Silence, Republican". The Democratic establishment has turned "I'm going to fight for our future nominee with the same energy I fought for Bernie" into "I don't like it, but I have to vote for him to stop Trump." I thought he would unify. He chose to double down on marginalizing the left and appeasing the unappeasable.

Six months ago, I was dunking on people for voting for not voting for Biden. Now, the only reason I'm 100% behind him is because I'm in a swing state. And if people like me are starting to lose faith in the Democratic Party, then it'll be even worse in 2022 or 2024 after another 2 years of the same failed policies that gave us Trump.

[Ferguson97]

Ever since recent events (starting with Kamala Harris being selected as VP), I've begun to sympathize with the jferns of the world, who are willing to vote third-party in their safe blue states. To put it bluntly, the actions of the establishment have undone all of the progress they've tried to make in the last four years, and Biden has been complacent in it.

I don't have this problem with the NHDP. I think they've done a great job at unifying with progressives. Berniecrats like Mark MacKenzie, Mindi Messmer, and Andru Volinsky have had key roles in the primary. Good progressives who aren't explicitly aligned with the movement like Molly Kelly, Dan Feltes, and Rebecca Perkins Kwoka are also seen as key assets. They don't take sides based on ideological concerns, and if you beat the establishment's candidate, they'll welcome you in as a part of the team anyway.

I've spoken at length about Kamala Harris. To say the least, I was vehemently opposed to her nomination. While I realize the potential she brings to the ticket, I think she's an incompetent politician who failed upward, and I also don't believe she's a unifying figure in the party. Since then, the DNC has doubled down on marginalizing with the left and allying with the right.

Nancy Pelosi has decided to break her no-incumbent stance and endorse Joe Kennedy's failed campaign to primary Ed Markey. She says it's all an attempt to back her caucus, but that's a lie. When Tim Walz ran for governor, Pelosi stayed out. When Loretta Sanchez ran for Senate against a powerful incumbent, Pelosi didn't take sides. When Colleen Hanabusa was in the middle of a competitive primary, and needed her Speaker's endorsement, she didn't answer the call. Twice. And twice, Colleen Hanabusa lost.

Either you take Pelosi's word at face-value, and she endorsed Kennedy due to her personal connections, or she endorsed because Markey was getting too close to The Undesirables. Given how a key piece of Kennedy's gameplan was to tie her to The Bernie People, I'm more willing to believe the latter.

The convention was disgusting. Sure, you have great moments, like Michelle Obama, Ady Barkan, and the Bidens themselves, but it gets bad when you realize there were no leftist voices besides Warren, Barkan, and Bernie. Actually, the original plan was to shelf Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Like it or not, she's an impeccable woman who can motivate the marginalized. If it weren't for Bernie, she would have no role.

But of course, they roll out the red carpet for John Kasich to attack her in the press conference before his speech, and he does not answer to it.

Admittedly I overblew the roll call controversy. Looking back at the names, I only found one other controversial name aside from Fred Guttenberg and John Lynch. If they aren't leftists, they are at least pragmatic. But there is some truth to what I said. I don't think it's controversial to say that people who would vote third-party in a swing state - no matter who the nominee is - have no place at the convention. I think we can all agree that those who outright endorsed Republicans should be persona non grata. I especially think that those who endorse neo-Nazis over left-wing Democrats have no place in the party.

This story may not seem much, but the drip-drip of similar stories, combined with everything the DNC has done, backs it up. From Ted Kaufman's austerity comments to Biden's own "nothing will change" leak, it only backs up the attitudes I've seen in the Democratic Party. The center (or, in recent years, the right) is welcomed into the party with open arms and hearts. The Democratic establishment caters to their every whim and need in order to chase their votes. If Meghan McCain and SE Cupp hold their votes hostage in exchange for a less progressive VP nominee, then we should listen to them.

But for the left? We don't have to worry about them. Give them some symbolic representation and lip service. They don't need to be triangulated to, because they'll just Vote Blue No Matter Who like good little girls and boys! What are they gonna do about it - vote for Trump?

With Democrats being more like MacArthur and Alben than jdb or R2D2, and the left becoming ever-more aware that the party is marginalizing them (and that's the most generous assertion I can make), can you blame them for werewolfing and voting third-party?

And this isn't coming from the jferns and HockeyDudes of the world. This is coming from the guy responsible for "Silence, Republican". The Democratic establishment has turned "I'm going to fight for our future nominee with the same energy I fought for Bernie" into "I don't like it, but I have to vote for him to stop Trump." I thought he would unify. He chose to double down on marginalizing the left and appeasing the unappeasable.

Six months ago, I was dunking on people for voting for not voting for Biden. Now, the only reason I'm 100% behind him is because I'm in a swing state. And if people like me are starting to lose faith in the Democratic Party, then it'll be even worse in 2022 or 2024 after another 2 years of the same failed policies that gave us Trump.

What specifically are you looking for the Democratic Party to do to appease the left?

[free my dawg]

What specifically are you looking for the Democratic Party to do to appease the left?

I actually had a conversation with jdb about this recently. My thoughts were:

* Pick a damn side. Either candidates are responsible for their supporters' behavior or they aren't. Either primary challenges are good and provide competition for incumbents or they're divisive. Treat #NeverBernie people the same way you'd treat #BernieOrBusters. It's pretty clear, given her rise to power, that the first argument I mentioned was a smear to distract from actual issues people face.

If some random Bernie supporter calling a black WFP boss an Uncle Tom is an issue that requires Bernie's condemnation, a Biden supporter calling him a self-hating Jew or whitesplaining MLK to Nina Turner requires his. If a Bernie supporter wishing cancer on the WFP president is disqualifying, a high-profile Kamala supporter wishing COVID on Warren is too. If Jessica Cisneros challenging Henry Cuellar is divisive, then Joe Kennedy challenging Ed Markey is too. Right now, the civility question is a one-way street used to bludgeon the left, not make politics a better place.

It's actually a reason why people on the Bernie side (myself included) turned into a skeptic about Warren. Instead of refuting the narrative and turning the focus back on our issues, she embraced it more than almost every other candidate (except Bloomberg). There's a huge stigma that she'd choose self-interest and her image over enacting our common policy goals (especially contrasting her and Pete/Amy).

We can't go back in time and undo these things. But an admission that they've held the left to a higher standard in an attempt to divide the party and a public apology would work wonders.

* Don't portray us as white-adjacent, especially if you're white. I think we've all seen my takes on how "Bernie Bro" is a paternalistic term. It's no different from the Bernie people calling Buttigieg "Mayo Pete" - the terms were both meant to stereotype these candidates as fighting for the interests of white people (and, in Bernie's case, male-adjacent). "Bernie Bro", in particular, was coined explicitly by a white male.

"Bernie Bro" is essentially a subtler version of Joe Biden's "you ain't black" comments or Gloria Steinem's comments about female Bernie supporters just wanting sex.

* Stop marginalizing us. This doesn't mean we let divisive voices like Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib speak at the convention. This doesn't mean we let the BernieOrBust people into the committee. This means giving strong leftist voices in our party a fair shake. Whether you like AOC or not, she deserved a hell of a lot more than a 1-minute procedural spot. She can help motivate young people of color to vote.

I can't tell you how insulting it is, as a member of the left, to see our clarion voice pushed to the side while they embrace people like John Kasich and Rick Snyder. When I say "The DNC hates socialists more than fascists", this is the type of stuff I mean. These people would be completely fine with Trump's corruption and erosion of democracy (and were!) or their attempt to stifle women's healthcare if they were the ones doing it. The fact that they're the ones being catered to is a joke.

* Stop the coronations. Obviously, you'll have some A-list candidates (Gideon and Bollier come to mind), and they've dodged some bullets (see: Laura Moser). Here, they've allowed a conservative to win in a blue state, or, in the case of Kentucky, protected an abjectly incompetent candidate from defeat. Charles Booker may not have been able to win, but with Amy McGrath's warchest, he might have been able to keep it close.

Superdelegate reform was a huge start, but the entire damn system should be eliminated altogether. It's inherently undemocratic and divisive. In 2016, when you have a few people essentially overturning 6 primary elections, that becomes a problem.

It also feeds into the mentality that the national establishment's candidates are the One True Democrats while any of their challengers are no different than Republicans. A lot more people have this than you think.

* Come at the establishment with the same energy you come at us with. If Hakeem Jeffries defies Pelosi's ceasefire orders and attacks The Squad, publicly condemn him like you condemned AOC's Chief of Staff or Pocan for attacking the Problem Solvers Caucus. Don't ask him to delete it behind closed doors or allow him to commission a poll about it. Strip him of leadership if you have to. Deplatform all traitors to the party instead of just deplatforming traitors from the left. Enforce actual unity, not left-wing submission.

We aren't really asking for much. We're asking for representation in policy and for everyone to be held to the same standards.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I agree with a lot of what SawxDem says.

While I understand from a messaging standpoint why we’re boosting people like Kasich and Snyder, it makes no sense to sideline prominent progressives like AOC. She’s nowhere near as big a problem as Tlib or Omar, and has played the game very well. If we’re making the argument that the country is united against Trump from across the political spectrum, why are we alienating a huuuge part of our party?

While I do have faith in Biden to want to and try to unite the disparate factions of our party, I also have genuine worries that he’ll elevate corporate and centrist Dems who are antagonistic towards the left for no reason (Dimon at Treasury blehhh). That’s why it’s important to vote for him in November and hold his feet to the fire on staffing and policy.

And it’s equally important not to allow Harris a coronation next time. She needs to be challenged and prove herself a capable nominee, not just handed the nomination because she’s next in line or because “it’s time for a black woman”. She’s proven herself a good #2 so far, so she’s got the capability. Let’s see her perform and earn it.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Eh, I actually think the "pick a side" mentality just really just flies in the reality in the truth of the matter: the Democratic Party is just too big to properly represent all of its factions. I'm growing more sympathetic to the school of thought that progressives would be better off pushing their own agendas  as a separate entity in areas that are friendly to them (no matter how much it plays to dogwhistling I guess) and just govern in coalition rather than as direct members of the party. I actually do believe that the center in the party has a larger and louder constituency than the left of the party, and there's actually a lot of space for the Democratic Party to grow there (not to say that it doesn't have space to grow on the left as well). From a "democratic" POV, I actually do think these folks deserve to have their views represented too, and the best way to do that might very well be to have separate political entities.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Sorry sawx, but those all seem like such minor reasons to go back to condemning the Democratic Party.

Treat #NeverBernie people the same way you'd treat #BernieOrBusters.

The #NeverBernie folks are like 50-100 people who post mean things on Twitter.  The Busters are hundreds of times larger.  They've had several conventions where they've gotten together to trash the Democratic Party, including one just a week or so ago.  They trashed the 2016 DNC.  They absolutely swarm their targets on Twitter with hatefulness.  The reason they became an issue in the primary was because they kept showing up to people's houses or disrupting candidate's events.  We had an entire megathread of daily objectionable things that they did just in real life (not online).  And of course, the data shows clearly that they threw the 2016 election to Trump.  Meanwhile, all you can point to from the #NeverBernie crowd is like 3 or 4 isolated incidents that get replayed over and over and over and over and over and exaggerated about to ridiculous extremes (see: Lindy Li).

There was no "Whine, bitch and moan about #NeverBernie people" megathread because it's 50-100 people on Twitter who don't do anything.  You continue to follow Bernie's lead in drawing a false equivalence between these two groups to excuse the absolutely deplorable behavior of the Busters, which continues to this day (see the Markey race).

Don't portray us as white-adjacent, especially if you're white.

"Bernie Bro" is essentially a subtler version of Joe Biden's "you ain't black" comments or Gloria Steinem's comments about female Bernie supporters just wanting sex.

Has anyone from the official Democratic Party leadership ever made these comments or are you still complaining about randos on Twitter and a few pundits like Joy Reid?  I don't think the Democratic Party is doing this.

Stop marginalizing us. This doesn't mean we let divisive voices like Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib speak at the convention.

The problem is that elected progressives are a very small group, and non-elected progressives are by-and-large extremely divisive.

Who else would you have wanted to speak at the convention?  On Rose Twitter the main person everyone was agitating for was Nina Turner, the most divisive person on the planet.  Are you looking for Ro Khanna, no-name congressman from California?  Mark Pocan, no-name from Wisconsin?  Raul Grivalja actually did speak in 2016 when he endorsed Bernie, and this year he didn't endorse Bernie and didn't speak.

At the end of the day, the five names people associate with the progressive movement are Bernie, Warren, AOC, Omar, and Tlaib.  Omar and Tlaib are absolutely awful people and an embarrassment to your movement.  Bernie and Warren got huge, prominent speaking roles and were highlighted as leaders of the party.  The AOC speech issue has been litigated endlessly on this forum and in the press but at the end of the day this is such a minor issue.  AOC is hardly "marginalized" when she's the most well-known House member in the country and featured in every single Republican attack ad for her stupidity.

Biden put together a unity committee with Bernie where he let the Sunrise Movement ratf--kers and AOC help with his climate platform, among other progressive involvement.  That's the opposite of marginalizing.

Stop the coronations. Obviously, you'll have some A-list candidates (Gideon and Bollier come to mind), and they've dodged some bullets (see: Laura Moser). Here, they've allowed a conservative to win in a blue state, or, in the case of Kentucky, protected an abjectly incompetent candidate from defeat. Charles Booker may not have been able to win, but with Amy McGrath's warchest, he might have been able to keep it close.

What are you talking about?  McGrath wasn't coronated, she almost lost the damn primary.

Is a "coronation" just when a bunch of establishment Democrats all endorse the same politician in a primary?  How is that any different from all the progressives endorsing the challenger in a primary?  Endorsements are not a coronation.  The Democratic Party infrastructure hasn't done anything to push primaries one way or another, it's just people like Pelosi making endorsements.

Come at the establishment with the same energy you come at us with. If Hakeem Jeffries defies Pelosi's ceasefire orders and attacks The Squad, publicly condemn him like you condemned AOC's Chief of Staff or Pocan for attacking the Problem Solvers Caucus.

They have to come at the progressives with that energy because meeting with y'all behind closed doors and being polite and conciliatory simply doesn't work.  How many times has Pelosi met with AOC in private and tried to get her to cool her jets, only to have AOC come out a week later and trash Pelosi for not supporting some do-nothing political suicide bill?  Do you really think the party hasn't privately tried to get Omar and Tlaib and Jayapal to dial down the awfulness?  Hakeem Jeffries doesn't do things like that.  If your lot were easier to work with instead of constantly trying to pick fights and tear down the party, we wouldn't have to fight fire with fire.

Ayanna Pressley has made herself easy to work with and avoided being a deplorable moron in public, and she's been welcomed into the party with open arms and gets touted as a future leader.  The issue isn't "being a progressive."  It's "being a horrible person."

We aren't really asking for much.

No you're really not, which is why it's bizarre that this huge post is supposed to be your list of reasons for going back to hating the Democrats.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What are you talking about?  McGrath wasn't coronated, she almost lost the damn primary.

The McGrath primary was the case of the state Dem establishment (supporting Booker) clashing with the national Dem establishment (backing McGrath). McGrath narrowly won.

[GeneralMacArthur]

What are you talking about?  McGrath wasn't coronated, she almost lost the damn primary.

The McGrath primary was the case of the state Dem establishment (supporting Booker) clashing with the national Dem establishment (backing McGrath). McGrath narrowly won.

Well, that's how it was presented in the media, but I really doubt voters in Kentucky saw it as a proxy war.

It's also not like the national Dem establishment picked this fight.  The DSCC endorsed McGrath on February 13, when polling was McGrath 65 - Booker 7.  As late as a month before the election, the polling was McGrath 62 - Booker 13.  Booker didn't start rising in the polls until a couple weeks before the election, which is when the race suddenly got national attention and was framed as a proxy war.

Furthermore, the only individuals who made endorsements in the race were progressives.  Bernie, Warren, AOC, Pressley, Castro and Steyer all endorsed Booker.  Obama, Hillary, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Buttigieg, the DNC, etc. all stayed out of it.  That doesn't look to me like the national Dem establishment "coronating" McGrath.  That looks like them letting her fly solo while the whole progressive infrastructure came in for Booker at the last minute.  Which is how it looked at the time as well.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

What are you talking about?  McGrath wasn't coronated, she almost lost the damn primary.

The McGrath primary was the case of the state Dem establishment (supporting Booker) clashing with the national Dem establishment (backing McGrath). McGrath narrowly won.

Correct. And Booker would have likely won if McGrift hadn't been popular when the mail in voting started. A year with normal primarily physical voting, we wouldn't have to put up with her BS again.

[NYSforKennedy2024]

Trump gave me a tax holiday. (I don't care about the future of SS so don't cry to me).

Biden´s gonna let the banks pull another '08.

The choice is CLEAR.

[YE]

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1304548797645811715?s=20

On more positive news.

[Horus]

AOC should've been given longer than one minute. She's the future of the party, no doubt. But the convention is over now, and she's all in for Biden.

[DaleCooper]

What are you talking about?  McGrath wasn't coronated, she almost lost the damn primary.

The McGrath primary was the case of the state Dem establishment (supporting Booker) clashing with the national Dem establishment (backing McGrath). McGrath narrowly won.

Correct. And Booker would have likely won if McGrift hadn't been popular when the mail in voting started. A year with normal primarily physical voting, we wouldn't have to put up with her BS again.

It made sense for them to endorse McGrath early. She was practically running unopposed for months.

[free my dawg]

Treat #NeverBernie people the same way you'd treat #BernieOrBusters.

The #NeverBernie folks are like 50-100 people who post mean things on Twitter.  The Busters are hundreds of times larger.  They've had several conventions where they've gotten together to trash the Democratic Party, including one just a week or so ago.  They trashed the 2016 DNC.  They absolutely swarm their targets on Twitter with hatefulness.  The reason they became an issue in the primary was because they kept showing up to people's houses or disrupting candidate's events.  We had an entire megathread of daily objectionable things that they did just in real life (not online).  And of course, the data shows clearly that they threw the 2016 election to Trump.  Meanwhile, all you can point to from the #NeverBernie crowd is like 3 or 4 isolated incidents that get replayed over and over and over and over and over and exaggerated about to ridiculous extremes (see: Lindy Li).

There was no "Whine, bitch and moan about #NeverBernie people" megathread because it's 50-100 people on Twitter who don't do anything.  You continue to follow Bernie's lead in drawing a false equivalence between these two groups to excuse the absolutely deplorable behavior of the Busters, which continues to this day (see the Markey race).

There's no false equivalence. The #NeverBernie people are the same, small group of psychotic supporters (which, to be fair, is largely made up of #KHive people) who wind up making all of their support base look bad. In the case of the #KHive, they were literally holding their votes hostage if Kamala wasn't declared the nominee, swarming people on Twitter, doxing rival candidates' supporters, and wishing COVID on Warren.

People of actual renown and influence in the Democratic Party are completely okay and follow these people - including Kamala's ****ing husband. But there's no vetting and no calls for condemnation. Kamala's support base doesn't get a narrative or a nickname. The KHive just gets cute puff pieces where they (rightfully) downplay the toxic elements.

(If we're going to talk about who's excused toxic supporters, I'm not the one who said calling someone a self-hating Jew was okay. I'm also not the one who apologized for someone who viciously harassed Bernie supporters online)

Don't portray us as white-adjacent, especially if you're white.

"Bernie Bro" is essentially a subtler version of Joe Biden's "you ain't black" comments or Gloria Steinem's comments about female Bernie supporters just wanting sex.

Has anyone from the official Democratic Party leadership ever made these comments or are you still complaining about randos on Twitter and a few pundits like Joy Reid?  I don't think the Democratic Party is doing this.

There was Tom Perez deleting a chair-throwing joke - which some Bernie supporters took as a reference to the fake news story about the Nevada state convention.

It was a fairly common theme on MSNBC this year. We heard Chuck Todd, specifically, mock the backlash against the term.

In 2016, it was Hillary Clinton's own press secretary. In fact, just this year, Clinton herself used the term. You and I both know that the DNC uses this one-sided narrative.

Stop marginalizing us. This doesn't mean we let divisive voices like Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib speak at the convention.

The problem is that elected progressives are a very small group, and non-elected progressives are by-and-large extremely divisive.

Who else would you have wanted to speak at the convention?  On Rose Twitter the main person everyone was agitating for was Nina Turner, the most divisive person on the planet.  Are you looking for Ro Khanna, no-name congressman from California?  Mark Pocan, no-name from Wisconsin?  Raul Grivalja actually did speak in 2016 when he endorsed Bernie, and this year he didn't endorse Bernie and didn't speak.

At the end of the day, the five names people associate with the progressive movement are Bernie, Warren, AOC, Omar, and Tlaib.  Omar and Tlaib are absolutely awful people and an embarrassment to your movement.  Bernie and Warren got huge, prominent speaking roles and were highlighted as leaders of the party.  The AOC speech issue has been litigated endlessly on this forum and in the press but at the end of the day this is such a minor issue.  AOC is hardly "marginalized" when she's the most well-known House member in the country and featured in every single Republican attack ad for her stupidity.

Biden put together a unity committee with Bernie where he let the Sunrise Movement ratf--kers and AOC help with his climate platform, among other progressive involvement.  That's the opposite of marginalizing.

Yes, someone like Ro Khanna, Grijalva, Jayapal, or Pocan would have been nice to see too. Maybe even find the time to squeeze someone like Bowman and Jones in. It's a major issue that there were only three were there, and one of the rising stars of the party was nearly sidelined for being too far left.

Stop the coronations. Obviously, you'll have some A-list candidates (Gideon and Bollier come to mind), and they've dodged some bullets (see: Laura Moser). Here, they've allowed a conservative to win in a blue state, or, in the case of Kentucky, protected an abjectly incompetent candidate from defeat. Charles Booker may not have been able to win, but with Amy McGrath's warchest, he might have been able to keep it close.

What are you talking about?  McGrath wasn't coronated, she almost lost the damn primary.

Is a "coronation" just when a bunch of establishment Democrats all endorse the same politician in a primary?  How is that any different from all the progressives endorsing the challenger in a primary?  Endorsements are not a coronation.  The Democratic Party infrastructure hasn't done anything to push primaries one way or another, it's just people like Pelosi making endorsements.

Fair enough. I'll admit I was wrong in the case of McGrath. But the way the party united around Hickenlooper was absolutely revolting and shameful.

Come at the establishment with the same energy you come at us with. If Hakeem Jeffries defies Pelosi's ceasefire orders and attacks The Squad, publicly condemn him like you condemned AOC's Chief of Staff or Pocan for attacking the Problem Solvers Caucus.

They have to come at the progressives with that energy because meeting with y'all behind closed doors and being polite and conciliatory simply doesn't work.  How many times has Pelosi met with AOC in private and tried to get her to cool her jets, only to have AOC come out a week later and trash Pelosi for not supporting some do-nothing political suicide bill?  Do you really think the party hasn't privately tried to get Omar and Tlaib and Jayapal to dial down the awfulness?  Hakeem Jeffries doesn't do things like that.  If your lot were easier to work with instead of constantly trying to pick fights and tear down the party, we wouldn't have to fight fire with fire.

Ayanna Pressley has made herself easy to work with and avoided being a deplorable moron in public, and she's been welcomed into the party with open arms and gets touted as a future leader.  The issue isn't "being a progressive."  It's "being a horrible person."

I would personally call Jeffries abusing his leadership position and official accounts to attack AOC (again - against Pelosi's orders!) much more awful than criticizing Pelosi or Davids, but that's just me.

I've already established that "being a horrible person" is a standard that only the left gets held to.

We aren't really asking for much.

No you're really not, which is why it's bizarre that this huge post is supposed to be your list of reasons for going back to hating the Democrats.

It's the constant needling, the constant hostility, and the constant marginalization of left-wing voices (even reasonable ones!). But more importantly, it's the constant double standards. Right now, this was a make-or-break year to show unity. They failed to do so.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

What are you talking about?  McGrath wasn't coronated, she almost lost the damn primary.

The McGrath primary was the case of the state Dem establishment (supporting Booker) clashing with the national Dem establishment (backing McGrath). McGrath narrowly won.

Correct. And Booker would have likely won if McGrift hadn't been popular when the mail in voting started. A year with normal primarily physical voting, we wouldn't have to put up with her BS again.

It made sense for them to endorse McGrath early. She was practically running unopposed for months.

That was a case for recruiting someone else, especially after her team actively moved to push a much better candidate who was exploring a bid out of the race (Matt Jones). This behaviour should not have been rewarded.

[tjstarling]

Fair enough. I'll admit I was wrong in the case of McGrath. But the way the party united around Hickenlooper was absolutely revolting and shameful.

Huh? The endorsement of Hickenlooper makes more sense than any establishment support for McGrath. You can make the case that he’s been a lackluster candidate, but why is it “revolting and shameful” or surprising for the party to endorse a twice elected governor with widespread name recognition over a candidate who basically loses every race he runs in?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Fair enough. I'll admit I was wrong in the case of McGrath. But the way the party united around Hickenlooper was absolutely revolting and shameful.

Huh? The endorsement of Hickenlooper makes more sense than any establishment support for McGrath. You can make the case that he’s been a lackluster candidate, but why is it “revolting and shameful” or surprising for the party to endorse a twice elected governor with widespread name recognition over a candidate who basically loses every race he runs in?

For lots of reasons, but perhaps most importantly because the ethics issue was live at the time he was recruited and it turns out he had no better solution than not showing up in court. Recruitment 101 would have involved asking him about how he'd deal with that and and politely withdrawing if he had no plan better than this one.

[tjstarling]

Fair enough. I'll admit I was wrong in the case of McGrath. But the way the party united around Hickenlooper was absolutely revolting and shameful.

Huh? The endorsement of Hickenlooper makes more sense than any establishment support for McGrath. You can make the case that he’s been a lackluster candidate, but why is it “revolting and shameful” or surprising for the party to endorse a twice elected governor with widespread name recognition over a candidate who basically loses every race he runs in?

For lots of reasons, but perhaps most importantly because the ethics issue was live at the time he was recruited and it turns out he had no better solution than not showing up in court. Recruitment 101 would have involved asking him about how he'd deal with that and and politely withdrawing if he had no plan better than this one.

Fair enough. The ethical issues are a legitimate concern, though I suppose the party simply could have processed the issue and decided it wasn’t damaging enough to be overly concerned about (which one could argue is a moral indictment of the party). But my impression was that Sawx was approaching this from an ideological standpoint, and it’s not clear at all that this was a race where progressives should have been thrown a bone given the particular choices available in that primary.

[free my dawg]

Fair enough. I'll admit I was wrong in the case of McGrath. But the way the party united around Hickenlooper was absolutely revolting and shameful.

Huh? The endorsement of Hickenlooper makes more sense than any establishment support for McGrath. You can make the case that he’s been a lackluster candidate, but why is it “revolting and shameful” or surprising for the party to endorse a twice elected governor with widespread name recognition over a candidate who basically loses every race he runs in?

For lots of reasons, but perhaps most importantly because the ethics issue was live at the time he was recruited and it turns out he had no better solution than not showing up in court. Recruitment 101 would have involved asking him about how he'd deal with that and and politely withdrawing if he had no plan better than this one.

Fair enough. The ethical issues are a legitimate concern, though I suppose the party simply could have processed the issue and decided it wasn’t damaging enough to be overly concerned about (which one could argue is a moral indictment of the party). But my impression was that Sawx was approaching this from an ideological standpoint, and it’s not clear at all that this was a race where progressives should have been thrown a bone given the particular choices available in that primary.

You're right. I think he's too conservative, especially on environmental policy.

I also think Romanoff, warts and all, could have won. It wouldn't be locked down, but I do think any Democrat could beat Gardner.