Forum Thread

Donna Brazile

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 31 1 2 3 Next
  • Strongly Liberal
    Independent
    Ohio
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Donna was upset because as chairwoman of the DNC it was her responsibility to get Democrats elected.

    She wanted to fund Democrats in red states and they said no.

    Here's why.

    The Democratic party under Obama , Clinton et al. strategy is to not fund any red state candidate. It's a waste of money. For years , the Democratic party has tried to get some seats in these states , so they can build America and help people who voted for Democrats ,it's the way it's supposed to be.

    Mean while , the Republicans just tear down and obstructed progress. They have no ideas. They only want to destroy government to prove it does not work. With them in charge ,that is true. So ,Obama always gives the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves that is his strategy . Always has been . It works. So let the red states go then. Let the Republicans have them. They will all wind up , like Kansas.

    Meanwhile the Democrats concentrate on the states they can win. It's a good strategy , it's kind of sad that the people in red states are abandoned by the Democratic party. But maybe after a while they will finally tire of republican idiocy. When there are all Republicans in all failing states , as there already are, the Dems can say , see what you are?

    So Donna is now trying explain that the primary was fair , under the Democratic rules . Rules that say super delegates get to decide , not the people. And it was her responsibility , despite their strategy , and her authority as the chairwoman , so I get her frustration. And I am glad she is speaking up. The Democratic party needs reminded who actually votes. They seem to forgot who we the people are.

    They need to get rid of super delegates , have open primaries and lose the electoral college. Because the electoral college is why our election system is broken. Entire states get completely ignored . It's even a strategy !

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I honestly have no idea what she is doing other than trying to save face after being pushed out of the DNC. Well, that and trying to generate controversy in order to sell more copies of her forthcoming book.

    Bernie Sanders lost the primary by millions of votes. He lost because millions of more Democratic voters chose Clinton over him. The DNC didn't force anyone to vote for Clinton and the DNC didn't force anyone to vote for Bernie. He was given ample opportunity to win the primary and he lost.


    With regards to super delegates - I respectfully disagree.

    I'm actually fine with the super delegate system, especially since it's never actually overruled the will of the Democratic primary voters. It was close in 2008, but Obama still won the popular vote 51-49%. 2016 was far different. Clinton won the popular vote 55-43%.

    Super delegates serve an important role by being a check against demagoguery and nationalism. If the Republican Party had super delegates then we probably wouldn't have a bumbling neanderthal with the keys to our nuclear codes.

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Maindawg

    You are saying what I have felt for a long time. How can we not reach out to all Americans and learn to build some bridges when there are gaps in ideas. I don't like that there even is a strategy. New strategies should include win every possible political race and then represent the people well. I don't mean to be Snarky but these types of questions should be asked more often.

    I am in favor of phased house cleaning (in the party management) and replacement persons wanting to work hard towards improvement. This machine is not working well and too much is at stake. Major donors should expect a better return on their funds.

    Mr. Perez, there's a clean up on aisle 2, 5, 12, 19, 20, 21, 27, 34, 45, through 50. Geographically 65% of the state's probably are those red states written off by the DNC... we should be able to get 30 - 65% in every state. If there are a dozen states where we are not succeeding then as a party we need to find out why.

    There are a number of things we should be noticed trying to do. Getting on television and spreading a common message is a start. Recruiting more volunteers nationwide should be seen on social media.

    Town hall meetings. It should be obvious that as a party we are listening. Much is needed but until we gain more Democrats in local, state and federal positions. We need Barack Obama to give his time towards suggestions on how we can best communicate to a base that is shell shocked and lowering their expectations.

  • Strongly Liberal
    Independent
    Ohio
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    It's because they are strapped for cash , on the Democratic side z for some reason. The Republicans can rely on the Koch's , the NRA , and Russia . Which , they did.

    So the strategy is an economic reality. It's not to be mean . It's not because Obama does not care about these people in red states. It's because the Democratic party is on a tight budget. And that is a result of everything else. The domination of the right wing billioniares over the entire world . It's reality. It's growing pains for a young country trying to find its way . It's just our latest attempt at working within a broken , antiquated system .

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Maindawg Wrote: It's because they are strapped for cash , on the Democratic side z for some reason. The Republicans can rely on the Koch's , the NRA , and Russia . Which , they did.

    No! A million times, no!

    Democrats are not strapped for cash. There are plenty of Democratic multi-billionaire donors who are far richer than the Koch brothers will ever be, but the crazy thing is that they aren't actually trying to take over the world. They are simply trying to make this country a better place.

    Donald lost by three millions votes. The Democrats problem isn't a get out the vote effort; it's the electoral college.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Her timing was bad, at least for the democrats. It puzzling, she had to know in advance that releasing her book right before the election would have a negative impact on democrats and swing voters.

    My best guess is she had little to no control over when the book was released, and the timing was all about money; before the election probably being the better time to start a book tour than after.

    I also saw here on ABC'S The Week with George Stephanopoulos, and she was very defensive, and seemed to be using some of trump tactics, when challenged\criticized\etc, push back twice as hard, double down on everything, and then deflect to another political target. She would make a good Press Secretary for trump.

    Maybe she is right, but she is selling her book like trump; not good.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    She's pissed off and disgruntled. Evidently, she had a strong disagreement with the DNC head or she's pissed off with another or other members of the DNC. Her timing is perfect in an attempt to undermine the DNC. Her loyalty to the party is in question, and she should be kicked out of the DNC if she already hasn't been booted, let her join the FOX news crew, she floated a bunch of lies with her accusations, she'll fit in there perfectly.

    and it's true that democrats have wasted money on red state voters, why continue that trend? people who solidly vote republican will keep voting republican.

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    It has to be what's wrong with Donna. What's wrong with Bernie ? Don't ever question the holier than thou DNC. This isn't Vegas where you're trying to decide where to place bets. It is about serving people.

    Narrow views.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    That coming from an independent is expected, most independents that supported Sanders didn't vote for Clinton, they voted for Trump, you get exactly what you voted for.

    BTW, Sanders is NOT A DEMOCRAT, and the democrats or the DNC let the rats into the party, now it's time to open the door and let the rats out. On Brazile: you never, ever shit in your own back yard, never!

  • Strongly Liberal
    Independent
    Ohio
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Wow. No one understands . Donna wanted to help the Democrats get elected. They would not allow her to do her job.

    That's all it was about. She is a good democrat ,she is still working , and she does not get paid for her work, but she works to get Democrats elected , and in case you missed it zthey all just did. So calm down.

    And Bernie always caucuses with Democrats . He is more liberal than the party , he is a counter weight to the right. We need him. It would not be a bad thing to have a independent president. Might be the best thing.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Maindawg Wrote:

    Wow. No one understands . Donna wanted to help the Democrats get elected. They would not allow her to do her job.

    That's all it was about. She is a good democrat ,she is still working , and she does not get paid for her work, but she works to get Democrats elected , and in case you missed it zthey all just did. So calm down.

    Meh - I wouldn't put so much weight on individual people having a thumb on the scale at the DNC. Donna has already drastically walked back many of her most damning criticisms and that's because they simply don't add up when put under the microscope.

    She also certainly gets paid for her work. She earned over $100,000/year heading the DNC. She is a lecturer at University of Maryland, Professor at Georgetown, and a fellow at Harvard. Harvard alone pays an average of $50,418/year to their fellows. And she's a paid contributor on CNN, NPR, and ABC.

    I'd hardly call any of that "not getting paid for her work."

    I'm actually a fan of Donna Brazile, but she appears to be more focused on selling her book than anything else.

    Maindawg Wrote: And Bernie always caucuses with Democrats . He is more liberal than the party , he is a counter weight to the right. We need him. It would not be a bad thing to have a independent president. Might be the best thing.

    In theory everyone wants an Independent President, but the reality is that it's basically impossible and would simply split one of the two major political parties and guarantee the other major party victory.

    Even if an Independent magically wins the Presidency, how will he or she build a coalition to get things passed in Congress? Unless you have a huge sea change and we start electing dozens of Independent Senators and hundreds of Independent Congresspeople then an Independent President won't accomplish a damn thing.

    As you correctly pointed out - Bernie is an Independent yet he caucuses with the Democrats. That's because there's no Independent caucus and he would literally be talking to a room of one person (himself) if he didn't caucus with a major political party.

    I just don't see a sea change happening where we elect hundreds of "Independent" candidates all of a sudden. I also hate the word independent in the context of politics because there's no such thing as a political independent. The vast majority of "Independents" aren't actually independent and their voting habits prove it. Anti-abortion "independents" vote with Republicans and pro choice "independents" vote with Democrats. Both call themselves "independent," but neither of them are after you peel back the first layer of the onion.

    People vote with their tribes. That's what Republicans did in 2016 and Democrats did after the bitter primary of 2008. Fear of the "other" overrides everything else.

    The only thing a left of center Independent candidate would do is split the Democratic Party and guarantee a Republican President.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I helped democrats get elected too, I voted for them.

    You still don't crap in your own back yard, never, ever! Brazille needs to find a job at FOX noise since she's pandering to them now.

    We don't need a president with socialist values, voters won't go for that. But keep on thinking an independent would ever have a chance of being elected in the USA, it's nice to dream.

    e.g. "Ralph Nader's name appeared in the press as a potential candidate for president for the first time in 1971, when he was offered the opportunity to run as the presidential candidate for the New Party, a progressive split-off from the Democratic Party."

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader#2008_...

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dockadams Wrote:

    I helped democrats get elected too, I voted for them.

    You still don't crap in your own back yard, never, ever! Brazille needs to find a job at FOX noise since she's pandering to them now.

    We don't need a president with socialist values, voters won't go for that. But keep on thinking an independent would ever have a chance of being elected in the USA, it's nice to dream.

    e.g. "Ralph Nader's name appeared in the press as a potential candidate for president for the first time in 1971, when he was offered the opportunity to run as the presidential candidate for the New Party, a progressive split-off from the Democratic Party."

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader#2008_...

    Exactly! The only thing an Independent candidate would do is split the Democratic Party and guarantee a Republican victory. “Democrats fall in love, while Republicans fall in line”
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dockadams Wrote:

    I helped democrats get elected too, I voted for them.

    You still don't crap in your own back yard, never, ever! Brazille needs to find a job at FOX noise since she's pandering to them now.

    We don't need a president with socialist values, voters won't go for that. But keep on thinking an independent would ever have a chance of being elected in the USA, it's nice to dream.

    e.g. "Ralph Nader's name appeared in the press as a potential candidate for president for the first time in 1971, when he was offered the opportunity to run as the presidential candidate for the New Party, a progressive split-off from the Democratic Party."

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader#2008_...

    Exactly! The only thing an Independent candidate would do is split the Democratic Party and guarantee a Republican victory. “Democrats fall in love, while Republicans fall in line”
    I can't understand all of this; why this mess; I guess it was a kind of power play by Hillary as well "curly" head.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: I can't understand all of this; why this mess; I guess it was a kind of power play by Hillary as well "curly" head.

    Politicians use "power plays" all the time. You can't be a politician in any country on the entire planet without being willing to play rough and tumble.

    I've spent a significant amount of time reading up on Donna's claims and they simply don't add up. Multiple major publications are finding discrepancies in her book and now she's walking back many of her claims because they don't align with the facts.

    Anyone who has ever signed a contract where someone gives you a massive amount of money should understand that there's usually stipulations. Most people don't give tens of millions of dollars away and say "do with this what you will."

    Once again - there is zero evidence Bernie lost a single vote due to this contract. There is zero evidence Bernie was harmed in any way whatsoever because of this contract. He went toe-to-toe against Hillary and lost bigly. Millions of votes bigly.

    Get over it.