“We don’t want big money out of politics; the other side’s coffers are overflowing with oil subsidies and NRA blood money.”
And that’s the impasse, in neon letters 20-feet high: you’re not liberal/progressive. Sure, you’ll send out your clown candidate to pay lip-service to getting money out of politics but just like her, you actually want your party wallowing in the same dirty money as the other side, the same bribery/donor service cycle that sells out everyone to right-wing Big Money interests (or at the very least are entirely indifferent to it and to its destructiveness).
“Actually, the Dems are just fine. We’re the majority, after all.”
No, actually, the Republicans now have 33 governors, both chambers of the legislature in 32 states, both houses of the U.S. congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, and while the 38% of registered voters who are Democrats is bigger than the 31% who are Repubs, that’s not a majority. And a “majority of Americans” didn’t vote for Clinton either. She didn’t even get a majority of those who did vote. Doing a great job.
“And, given the full-throated pushback we’re giving both Trump and the Perez/Sanders live sex show, we look pretty fucking unified to me. What we’re doing is cleaning house.”
You mean trying to rid the party of the guy who is not only the most beloved politician associated with it but the most beloved in the U.S.? I guess those Demos in congress, currently polling alongside Trump in popularity, are the fallback?
“‘Clinton was a weak candidate who ran a weak campaign.’ Yep, so weak she got 2.8 million votes more than Trump. The popular vote isn’t a participation trophy. It fucking matters. A weak candidate wouldn’t have gotten that margin”
She was facing the most disliked major-party presidential candidate in the history of polling; a candidate who was any better than utterly weak would have rolled right over him. He’s just finished his first 100 days with the lowest approval rating of any president in the history of polling and he still beat her in the polling.
“It takes a special kind of idiocy to believe the DNC did not remember to rig the 2008 primary, but did remember to rig the 2016 primary by 3.7 million votes”
In 2008, there were two Establishment candidates. There’s no meaningful “popular vote” in a primary/caucus process. That the DNC was doing its best to rig that process last year is an on-the-record fact. I’ve just written a pretty long piece that covers all of this. Don’t be talking “gaslighting” while you’re telling your readers in virtually every paragraph to not believe their lying eyes.
“‘Bernie woulda won!’ Imagine that two athletes try out for the U.S. Olympic team. One beats the other’s score by a 10% margin and gets to go to the games, where her roided-out opponents trip her just before the finish line. Only insane troll logic would insist that the less-qualified guy would’ve gone home with the gold.”
We have a substantial pile of relevant data on this point from the campaign; all of it, without any major exception, points to Sanders rolling over Trump in a one-sided rout as the most likely outcome of such a contest. I’ve already put all of that together too. One can never make such an assertion with complete certainty but anyone arguing the contrary doesn’t only do so without any facts, they do so in defiance of all of the facts.
“and who got his ass kicked in the South”
Yes, and didn’t all those Southern states, which he didn’t even try to contest, contribute so much to the Democratic victory in November?
“would have been torn to shreds once the GOP’s smear machine got to work airing his own mountainous dirty laundry.”
We already know that’s false because the Clintonite smear-machine already plastered that information all over the press for months in exactly the way you just did and Sanders is still the most popular pol in the U.S. today.