The Democratic Civil War Is Getting Nasty, Even if No One Is Paying Attention

Jul 2011
34,083
2,546
Tennessee
#1
I read this morning before going to work. thought it would be an interesting article to post on the forum. given the donna brazille article at politico that's already posted on the forum, it makes it even more interesting.

--------------------------------

On the morning of October 5th, President Trump was on one of his Twitter rants from the White House, denying as “fake news” an NBC report that his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, had called him a “moron” and threatened to resign. Elsewhere in Washington, the drama over whether Tillerson was actually on his way out threatened to overwhelm other news stories for a second straight day. But, when I arrived at the townhouse of Stanley Greenberg, the veteran Democratic strategist, on Capitol Hill, later that morning, it was not the distractions of the Trump White House that had him worked up. Greenberg was still fuming about Hillary Clinton.

Clinton was guilty of “malpractice” in how she conducted her 2016 Presidential campaign, Greenberg told me. Even worse, he said, Democrats were repeating the same political mistakes a year later. “Look at Virginia right now,” Greenberg said, as soon as we sat down in his second-floor office. “We have a candidate”—Ralph Northam, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee—“running as Hillary Clinton. He is running on the same kind of issues, and has the same kind of view of the world. It’s the Republicans who talk about the economy, not the Democrats.” This was the approach that doomed Clinton against Trump. The electorate was angry in 2016 and remains angry now, Greenberg said, and Northam, a Norfolk doctor, didn’t get it. Neither did Clinton and the team of Obama veterans who staffed her Brooklyn headquarters. “If you live in the metro areas with the élites, you don’t wake up angry about what’s happening in people’s lives,” Greenberg said.


https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...ting-nasty-even-if-no-one-is-paying-attention
 
Likes: 1 person
Feb 2011
15,396
9,870
The formerly great golden state
#2
I read this morning before going to work. thought it would be an interesting article to post on the forum. given the donna brazille article at politico that's already posted on the forum, it makes it even more interesting.

--------------------------------

On the morning of October 5th, President Trump was on one of his Twitter rants from the White House, denying as “fake news” an NBC report that his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, had called him a “moron” and threatened to resign. Elsewhere in Washington, the drama over whether Tillerson was actually on his way out threatened to overwhelm other news stories for a second straight day. But, when I arrived at the townhouse of Stanley Greenberg, the veteran Democratic strategist, on Capitol Hill, later that morning, it was not the distractions of the Trump White House that had him worked up. Greenberg was still fuming about Hillary Clinton.

Clinton was guilty of “malpractice” in how she conducted her 2016 Presidential campaign, Greenberg told me. Even worse, he said, Democrats were repeating the same political mistakes a year later. “Look at Virginia right now,” Greenberg said, as soon as we sat down in his second-floor office. “We have a candidate”—Ralph Northam, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee—“running as Hillary Clinton. He is running on the same kind of issues, and has the same kind of view of the world. It’s the Republicans who talk about the economy, not the Democrats.” This was the approach that doomed Clinton against Trump. The electorate was angry in 2016 and remains angry now, Greenberg said, and Northam, a Norfolk doctor, didn’t get it. Neither did Clinton and the team of Obama veterans who staffed her Brooklyn headquarters. “If you live in the metro areas with the élites, you don’t wake up angry about what’s happening in people’s lives,” Greenberg said.


https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...ting-nasty-even-if-no-one-is-paying-attention
Democrats keep running on the same sets of issues, and that means they're having a "civil war?"
Meanwhile, the Republicans are ever so united in support of Trump, right?
 
Jul 2011
34,083
2,546
Tennessee
#3
May 2012
64,663
12,254
By the wall
#4
Democrats keep running on the same sets of issues, and that means they're having a "civil war?"
Meanwhile, the Republicans are ever so united in support of Trump, right?
The republicans are at least addressing issues.

Can you tell me one position in the upcoming DNC platform they have been talking about?

There is none, all they are doing is running on hate Trump, racism, and sexism.

They are going to get smoked in the mid-terms if they don't change that.
 
Feb 2011
15,396
9,870
The formerly great golden state
#5
I think using the term "civil war" is over done but there is a great deal of conflict in the party.

if you haven't read this yet, you should.

http://politicalhotwire.com/current-events/182117-yes-appears-dnc-did-rob-bernie-sanders.html
Clinton having taken control of the primary still doesn't mean that there is conflict within the party. The party united behind her once the primary was over. While it's true that money played a huge role in the election, as it always does, more people thought that Clinton had a better chance to win the general than did Sanders, with the unfortunate "S" word hung about his neck.

Of course, Democrats don't always agree on everything, and neither do Republicans. That is as it should be.

But, once the primary was over, which prominent Democrats refused to endorse Clinton?
Which prominent Republicans didn't endorse Trump until after the election was over?

If there is a civil war in any party, it's the Republican Party, and Trump is the center of it.
 
Feb 2011
15,396
9,870
The formerly great golden state
#6
The republicans are at least addressing issues.

Can you tell me one position in the upcoming DNC platform they have been talking about?

There is none, all they are doing is running on hate Trump, racism, and sexism.

They are going to get smoked in the mid-terms if they don't change that.
Yes, if the Trumpeteers can replace Obamacare with something that works better, if the middle class doesn't see its premiums go up as a result of the attempt, if Mexico pays for the wall, if tax reform is passed and middle class voters are actually paying less, if that tax cut doesn't result in astronomical deficits, if there are once again high paying jobs in manufacturing in the USA, then no doubt the Democrats will be "smoked" in the next couple of elections.

If not, then not.
 
May 2012
64,663
12,254
By the wall
#7
Clinton having taken control of the primary still doesn't mean that there is conflict within the party. The party united behind her once the primary was over. While it's true that money played a huge role in the election, as it always does, more people thought that Clinton had a better chance to win the general than did Sanders, with the unfortunate "S" word hung about his neck.

Of course, Democrats don't always agree on everything, and neither do Republicans. That is as it should be.

But, once the primary was over, which prominent Democrats refused to endorse Clinton?
Which prominent Republicans didn't endorse Trump until after the election was over?

If there is a civil war in any party, it's the Republican Party, and Trump is the center of it.
Yes but our party will improve because of it, the democrats are just spiraling downwards.

We will throw out the "do-nothing" RINOs and install real conservatives making us stronger, the democrats have no positive outcome here.

They have no other group in the background waiting to seize control from the far-left liberal whack jobs that currently run it.
 
May 2012
64,663
12,254
By the wall
#8
Yes, if the Trumpeteers can replace Obamacare with something that works better, if the middle class doesn't see its premiums go up as a result of the attempt, if Mexico pays for the wall, if tax reform is passed and middle class voters are actually paying less, if that tax cut doesn't result in astronomical deficits, if there are once again high paying jobs in manufacturing in the USA, then no doubt the Democrats will be "smoked" in the next couple of elections.

If not, then not.
Like I said, at least they are addressing the issues even if they aren't passing, democrats aren't touching any issues at all.
 
Jul 2011
34,083
2,546
Tennessee
#9
Clinton having taken control of the primary still doesn't mean that there is conflict within the party. The party united behind her once the primary was over. While it's true that money played a huge role in the election, as it always does, more people thought that Clinton had a better chance to win the general than did Sanders, with the unfortunate "S" word hung about his neck.

Of course, Democrats don't always agree on everything, and neither do Republicans. That is as it should be.

But, once the primary was over, which prominent Democrats refused to endorse Clinton?
Which prominent Republicans didn't endorse Trump until after the election was over?

If there is a civil war in any party, it's the Republican Party, and Trump is the center of it.
I think you are ignoring what Greenburg is saying in the article.

he's being highly critical of his own party and tells you why he's doing that.

have you read the donna brazille article on politico?

it fits perfectly with the New Yorker article I posted for this thread.
 
Mar 2012
52,886
34,995
New Hampshire
#10
Yes, if the Trumpeteers can replace Obamacare with something that works better, if the middle class doesn't see its premiums go up as a result of the attempt, if Mexico pays for the wall, if tax reform is passed and middle class voters are actually paying less, if that tax cut doesn't result in astronomical deficits, if there are once again high paying jobs in manufacturing in the USA, then no doubt the Democrats will be "smoked" in the next couple of elections.

If not, then not.
Cant say I fully share that view. I and others were saying this stuff way back in 2015 and 2016. Each week it became "oh he is still there, well next week he wont win." It never happened. In fact nobody here thought he could win going into election day with a 41% approval. We were all wrong. Politics has become upside down land and its become harder to figure out what will happen. As one of my friends who is an avid NeverTrumper said "just because I loathe Trump doesn't mean I am still not a republican." So who knows? If I have learned anything its that people are political weirdos.