Chuck Schumer just threw Hillary Clinton under the bus

[Allybeboba]

From CNN

An excerpt...

'In the 2016 campaign, there was no one more loyal to Hillary Clinton than her one-time Senate colleague Chuck Schumer. He defended his fellow New Yorker and the race she ran at every turn.
Which makes what Schumer said about Clinton over the weekend all the more intriguing.
"When you lose to somebody who has 40% popularity, you don't blame other things -- Comey, Russia -- you blame yourself," Schumer, the top ranking Democrat in the Senate, told The Washington Post over the weekend. "So what did we do wrong? People didn't know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that."...'

It ends with..
'All of which means Clinton continues to fill that leadership vacuum with a message much more focused on reshaping her own personal narrative than re-positioning her party to persuade voters in 2018.'

Article
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/politi...016/index.html

With all that stated in that article. Who do you all think could campaign for the DNC in 2018? I know I have a list of at least 5-6 contenders. Three of which are female.

[Underverse]

I feel like Schumer could be a reasonable candidate. But as a disclaimer, I know very little about him.

[Elegiac]

I feel like Schumer could be a reasonable candidate. But as a disclaimer, I know very little about him.

He's a tosser and even more of a party hack than Pelosi, which is saying something.

[Acidbaron]

I believe that horse has had enough.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

See, it's sad that Hillary is still making the news.

This goes a long way to show how badly shaped the DNC is now.

It's frightening to think they haven't done anything to fix this yet.

[Elegiac]

See, it's sad that Hillary is still making the news.

This goes a long way to show how badly shaped the DNC is now.

It's frightening to think they haven't done anything to fix this yet.

Shit takes time. Obama tapped the higher levels of the Democratic Party to staff his administration but didn't make an effort to refill the well; so now all we're left with is a line of succession hierarchy in the Senate, Pelosi in the House, and two nobodies running the DNC.

We're starting to see a couple of new faces in the party like Kamala Harris, but it's gonna be a while before the Democrats can recover organically. They really don't have a solid figurehead and thanks to years of failed Third Way politics and a Republican hatchet campaign, not a very positive image with most people.

[Endus]

That's the lightest and most undamaging "bus" I can think of; that title is ridiculously hyperbolic.

1> Clinton was just the candidate. The DNC was free to push their message however they liked. Blaming Clinton exclusively just avoids taking the blame themselves.

2> Clinton isn't in government, and isn't seeking election, and hasn't been since the end of her presidential campaign. Blaming her because the Democratic Party can't fill their leadership vacuum is beyond ridiculous.

I'm not a fan of Clinton; I was saying back when she announced her candidacy that she was a terrible pick, if only because of the conspiracy nonsense surrounding her; as low as Trump's approval rating was, Clinton's was never that much higher. But blaming her for all the failures of messaging is just shifting blame, and Clinton has nothing to do with anything the Democratic Party's done over the last 6 months or so, that's all on them.

[Machismo]

The Democrats need to run away from Hillary as fast as possible. She was a terrible candidate, and hurts the party.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Shit takes time. Obama tapped the higher levels of the Democratic Party to staff his administration but didn't make an effort to refill the well; so now all we're left with is a line of succession hierarchy in the Senate, Pelosi in the House, and two nobodies running the DNC.

We're starting to see a couple of new faces in the party like Kamala Harris, but it's gonna be a while before the Democrats can recover organically. They really don't have a solid figurehead and thanks to years of failed Third Way politics and a Republican hatchet campaign, not a very positive image with most people.

Pretty much that, yes. In the short term, the best is to stop pushing the anti-Trump agenda and start working on preventing healthcare abolition. Preventing the environment from being obliterated. Preventing the disgusting anti net neutrality agenda. Allowing marijuana legalisation. Investing more in mental health. Investing more in education. Investing more in the development of new technologies and renewable energies.

The DNC needs to move from the anti-Trump party to a Pro-something. What does the DNC stands for? Obama, even if he left the DNC in a fairly bad shape, had a message. That's really all you need if you seek to beat Trump.

I think that's what makes me so hostile toward the DNC in its current state. Nothing but spite against Trump.

[Breccia]

The Democrats need to run away from Hillary as fast as possible. She was a terrible candidate, and hurts the party.

No reason. Clinton holds no public office, has no outward signs of running or campaigning, and is out of the headlines unless Trump says "but her emaaaaaaaaaaails".

Basically, what @Endus said. Clinton is no longer an issue. The issues are the increasingly hypocritical, increasingly dishonest, increasingly unethical behavior of Trump and his team that is destroying the GOP agenda and hemorrhaging staff members while the criminal investigation is ongoing.

Clinton is a hypothetical. Trump is an actual. The problems are his, not hers.

[Endus]

Pretty much that, yes. In the short term, the best is to stop pushing the anti-Trump agenda and start working on preventing healthcare abolition. Preventing the environment from being obliterated. Preventing the disgusting anti net neutrality agenda. Allowing marijuana legalisation. Investing more in mental health. Investing more in education. Investing more in the development of new technologies and renewable energies.

The DNC needs to move from the anti-Trump party to a Pro-something. What does the DNC stands for? Obama, even if he left the DNC in a fairly bad shape, had a message. That's really all you need if you seek to beat Trump.

I think that's what makes me so hostile toward the DNC in its current state. Nothing but spite against Trump.

If only the Democrats had a clear and freely available explanation of their platform ideals and goals somewhere, like a website, or something.

Oh, wait. https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

Rather than ask "what does the DNC stand for?", you could've typed that into a Google search and found the answer for yourself. Don't blame the DNC because you couldn't be arsed to take a look.

[Elegiac]

Pretty much that, yes. In the short term, the best is to stop pushing the anti-Trump agenda and start working on preventing healthcare abolition. Preventing the environment from being obliterated. Preventing the disgusting anti net neutrality agenda. Allowing marijuana legalisation. Investing more in mental health. Investing more in education. Investing more in the development of new technologies and renewable energies.

The DNC needs to move from the anti-Trump party to a Pro-something. What does the DNC stands for? Obama, even if he left the DNC in a fairly bad shape, had a message. That's really all you need if you seek to beat Trump.

I think that's what makes me so hostile toward the DNC in its current state. Nothing but spite against Trump.

Part of the issue is that the United States is -not- a parliamentary government. In systems where the Lower House forms the government, you typically see the emergence of shadow governments with a formalised set of policies existing in contrast to the party in power. In the United States, Congress is not responsible for the formation of the government and the opposition party not beholden to forward alternative policies outside of campaign season; the expectation until recently was that Congressional rules would encourage a level of compromise that made such a thing needless. Of course, the Freedom Caucus and their deplorable voters pretty much torpedoed that.

So yes, you have the right of it in that Schumer and Pelosi need to really kick into high gear and present a set of alternative governing policies, an alternative healthcare bill that helps fix what is wrong with the ACA that should be published everywhere to contrast with the backdoor dealings the GOP is going with. But they're old souls and still operating under pre-Tea Bagger rules.

Which is, again, why I'm convinced we need more young people at the forefront of the Democratic Party willing to actually set the legislative agenda rather than simply react to what the GOP is futzing around with.

- - - Updated - - -

If only the Democrats had a clear and freely available explanation of their platform ideals and goals somewhere, like a website, or something.

Oh, wait. https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

Rather than ask "what does the DNC stand for?", you could've typed that into a Google search and found the answer for yourself. Don't blame the DNC because you couldn't be arsed to take a look.

The complaint is less that the party doesn't have a set of policies, is that they're not operating in the strategy that is typical of parliamentary opposition parties; i.e. having a fully fleshed out alternative legislative agenda.

Moreover, while the information is there, let's just be real here and say the Democrats absolutely suck at marketing. There's a reason things like 'Obamacare' have stuck where 'the Affordable Care Act' is something of a wilderness term for people in the know.

[Machismo]

No reason. Clinton holds no public office, has no outward signs of running or campaigning, and is out of the headlines unless Trump says "but her emaaaaaaaaaaails".

Basically, what @Endus said. Clinton is no longer an issue. The issues are the increasingly hypocritical, increasingly dishonest, increasingly unethical behavior of Trump and his team that is destroying the GOP agenda and hemorrhaging staff members while the criminal investigation is ongoing.

Clinton is a hypothetical. Trump is an actual. The problems are his, not hers.

It's not just Hillary, but the entire corrupt mentality of the DNC. The DNC needs to make it very clear that they are not going to pick favorites, and want to pout the party's platform first. They did not do that in the last election, not by a long shot. Hillary is cancerous, so she's going to take her shots from many, many Democrats in the next 18 months. Her biggest use will be as a punching bag.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

If only the Democrats had a clear and freely available explanation of their platform ideals and goals somewhere, like a website, or something.

Oh, wait. https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

Rather than ask "what does the DNC stand for?", you could've typed that into a Google search and found the answer for yourself. Don't blame the DNC because you couldn't be arsed to take a look.

Endus, you're missing the point and it's making you look ridiculous. You don't think I know what the DNC stands for, fundamentally?

It's not about "what is available if I do some research". Perhaps you're an optimist, but that's not how US politics work. We may do in Canada, I know I went on all three platforms and read carefully what each party stood for between Liberals, Conservatives and the ridiculous spin-in-their-own-grave-after-Layton NDP. Actually, RIP that. We don't do that in Canada, but our media organizations tend to be more thorough on our politics. Well, I did, but can't say that much about everyone else.

It's about what the candidate vehiculate. It's about the message that the party sends. You're fantastically delusional if you think that American politics are anything else than an overhyped popularity contest. This election was all about the candidates. You had a populist versus an anti-Trump election. That's how it was perceived and that's how it happened.

The message has to be represented by the candidate. To hope that, somehow, people would be mature and objective enough in the politics of divisiveness... Common. Don't be ridiculous.

[Endus]

The complaint is less that the party doesn't have a set of policies, is that they're not operating in the strategy that is typical of parliamentary opposition parties; i.e. having a fully fleshed out alternative legislative agenda.

Moreover, while the information is there, let's just be real here and say the Democrats absolutely suck at marketing.

I'd agree with both of those statements. The issue is not that the Democrats don't HAVE a platform, it's that the average voter can't be arsed to look up platforms to begin with, and wants a 5 second sound bite to make their voting decisions on.

Which is a condemnation of those voters; to be clear. I recognize that it's how things work now, but that doesn't make it not-asinine.

And I agree about having a workable solution. The Democrats shouldn't have stuck with backing the ACA; they should have a replacement for the ACA ready to go. One that includes a public option, say. This was a big failure of the RNC; they didn't HAVE a plan for replacing the ACA. They just said they wanted to, because Obama was associated with it, and now we're stuck with them trying to repeal it without being able to agree on what (if anything) to replace it with. This is not a pattern to mimic.

Honestly, if voters are going to be this easily led by stupid-ass soundbites, the way forward is going to be to forgo platform development, in favor of straight-up marketing and branding. Which is awful. I'm not defending it. But US politics is entering Idiocracy levels of silliness; that movie's stopped being funny and started being darkly prophetic.

- - - Updated - - -

It's about what the candidate vehiculate. It's about the message that the party sends. You're fantastically delusional if you think that American politics are anything else than an overhyped popularity contest. This election was all about the candidates. You had a populist versus an anti-Trump election. That's how it was perceived and that's how it happened.

That message has to be represented by the candidate. To hope that, somehow, people would be mature and objective enough in the politics of divisiveness... Common. Don't be ridiculous.

The issue is that the entire campaign was derailed by Trump being bombastic and ridiculous. Which forced Clinton to respond to the asinine things he said. And he kept saying more asinine things so quickly that Clinton either had to let them pass and focus on messaging, or address her opponent's comments. She tended to favor the latter, and I'm not actually convinced the former would have served her any better.

About the only thing that might've worked would've been trying to out-bombast the guy. Be ridiculous. If he calls you "crooked", call him a clown-faced racist wearing a bad toupee. If he says you're weak, comment on how tiny his hands are. Sure, this is all stupid bullshit, but stupid bullshit won Trump the election.

[Elegiac]

I'd agree with both of those statements. The issue is not that the Democrats don't HAVE a platform, it's that the average voter can't be arsed to look up platforms to begin with, and wants a 5 second sound bite to make their voting decisions on.

Which is a condemnation of those voters; to be clear. I recognize that it's how things work now, but that doesn't make it not-asinine.

And I agree about having a workable solution. The Democrats shouldn't have stuck with backing the ACA; they should have a replacement for the ACA ready to go. One that includes a public option, say. This was a big failure of the RNC; they didn't HAVE a plan for replacing the ACA. They just said they wanted to, because Obama was associated with it, and now we're stuck with them trying to repeal it without being able to agree on what (if anything) to replace it with. This is not a pattern to mimic.

Honestly, if voters are going to be this easily led by stupid-ass soundbites, the way forward is going to be to forgo platform development, in favor of straight-up marketing and branding. Which is awful. I'm not defending it. But US politics is entering Idiocracy levels of silliness; that movie's stopped being funny and started being darkly prophetic.

I don't hold marketing and branding to be mutually exclusive with platform development; marketing and branding has -always- been a necessity in a popular government. Moreover, as misanthropic and distrustful of populist government as I am, I don't hold that the American electorate is in fact getting more stupid; it's as stupid as its always been, but it shows more because we're in something of a policy void - by which I mean that neither of the two parties has an active platform that most people like.

Let's be clear here, regardless of individual issues the general trend in the United States is a wholehearted rejection of the Third Way. Republicans don't like it because it was a Clinton-era brainchild with globalist overtones, Democrats are increasingly less disposed towards it because it's become clear it's little more than Diet Conservatism. It was an ideological compromise trying to incorporate the public success of the Reagan Era, but now that that era's chickens have come home to roost it's left a very bitter taste in most people's mouths. This last election was ultimately not one of identity politics, or even national sectionalism. It's wholesale, national rejection of an establishment that both sides feel has failed them and the pisswater policies born of that establishment's running policy.

The Democrats had their greatest success within the last few decades when they had the appearance of being motivated and specific goals, by which I mean the agenda set after 2008. But once they started getting bogged down and sacrificing actual reform to their traditional Third Way MO, the public turned against them. The Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus exist solely to spite the establishment, and they have set the legislative agenda. The Democrats as they are are simply 'the alternative because the other guys are far worse', operating on rules that have long since become irrelevant due to deplorable antics and holding to a set of ideologies that most people neither want nor care about.

The long and short of it is ultimately that Obama sold out despite promising change, and most people have given up caring about politics for the time being leaving only the most dedicated or the most wicked to run the show.

[Antiganon]

As far as legit candidates for 2020 go, the DNC has a few, but none have shown themselves to be the type of firebrand that the DNC is going to need to energize the base, swing the independents, and put Trump out on the street where he belongs. There are definite contenders (Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, among others) but no real frontrunner as of right now. That will all likely change immediately after midterms.

As far as the party platform is concerned, the points are there, in black and white, for anyone to read:
RAISE INCOMES AND RESTORE ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS
CREATE GOOD-PAYING JOBS
FIGHT FOR ECONOMIC FAIRNESS AND AGAINST INEQUALITY
BRING AMERICANS TOGETHER AND REMOVE BARRIERS TO OPPORTUNITIES
PROTECT VOTING RIGHTS, FIX OUR CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM, AND RESTORE OUR DEMOCRACY
COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE, BUILD A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY, AND SECURE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
PROVIDE QUALITY AND AFFORDABLE EDUCATION
ENSURE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ALL AMERICANS
PRINCIPLED LEADERSHIP
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS AND KEEP FAITH WITH OUR VETERANS
CONFRONT GLOBAL THREATS
PROTECT OUR VALUES
A LEADER IN THE WORLD

This is the headlines from the link @Endus posted earlier. Click the link for (very) detailed plans dealing with multiple facets of each of these issues.

The major problem is that none of this was properly communicated in 2016. After watching the ads, I got that the DNC was pro-education, and anti-Trump. Nothing else came through strongly.

I knew (from his campaign ads and rhetoric alone) Bernie Sanders was in favor of aggressive wealth redistribution, single-payer health care, campaign finance reform, student loan reform, and a whole host of other far left (by American standards) policy positions. I had no idea (again, based solely on campaign ads and rhetoric) what Hillary was for other than "Bernie is too radical and won't win the general.". I had no idea (again, based on ads and rhetoric) what the DNC-at-large was for.

I am a passionate, informed, dedicated voter. I make efforts to research the candidates on the ballot in my district, including at the state and local level. The vast majority of voters don't. They generally pick who they want for President, and vote party line all the way down to town dog catcher.

If the DNC wants to have any real gains in 2018 (in the House, the best they can really hope for in the senate is to not lose seats), they need to come out STRONG as being FOR their policy points, rather than AGAINST the GOP. If they want to flip Congress and the White House in 2020, they need to put a STRONG presidential candidate forward, someone of unimpeachable (lol) moral character, someone capable of driving those points home to the people who will never bother to try and learn for themselves what the party stands for. Hillary Clinton was 1000% NOT that person.

[Dextroden]

I'd agree with both of those statements. The issue is not that the Democrats don't HAVE a platform, it's that the average voter can't be arsed to look up platforms to begin with, and wants a 5 second sound bite to make their voting decisions on.

Which is a condemnation of those voters; to be clear. I recognize that it's how things work now, but that doesn't make it not-asinine.

And I agree about having a workable solution. The Democrats shouldn't have stuck with backing the ACA; they should have a replacement for the ACA ready to go. One that includes a public option, say. This was a big failure of the RNC; they didn't HAVE a plan for replacing the ACA. They just said they wanted to, because Obama was associated with it, and now we're stuck with them trying to repeal it without being able to agree on what (if anything) to replace it with. This is not a pattern to mimic.

Honestly, if voters are going to be this easily led by stupid-ass soundbites, the way forward is going to be to forgo platform development, in favor of straight-up marketing and branding. Which is awful. I'm not defending it. But US politics is entering Idiocracy levels of silliness; that movie's stopped being funny and started being darkly prophetic.

- - - Updated - - -



The issue is that the entire campaign was derailed by Trump being bombastic and ridiculous. Which forced Clinton to respond to the asinine things he said. And he kept saying more asinine things so quickly that Clinton either had to let them pass and focus on messaging, or address her opponent's comments. She tended to favor the latter, and I'm not actually convinced the former would have served her any better.

About the only thing that might've worked would've been trying to out-bombast the guy. Be ridiculous. If he calls you "crooked", call him a clown-faced racist wearing a bad toupee. If he says you're weak, comment on how tiny his hands are. Sure, this is all stupid bullshit, but stupid bullshit won Trump the election.

This shit bugs me. People should be smarter than to be feed soundbites. But that was literally the campaign strategy to fight Trump. He said something stupid? Play it twenty times a day.

Any message of "This is why you should vote for us" was virtually replaced by "This is why you shouldn't vote for him". Why would it then not make sense for people to not vote for Trump because he is terrible and nothing else?

A lesson to consider for the tenth time. Someone being shit doesn't automatically make the opponent good. That kind of vanity lead to this situation and will keep things entertaining in 2020. Maybe no one will learn anything and John Kerry will get to try again.

[Vargur]

Hillary and Trump are too old to be relevant anymore. They have high chances of dying of old age any moment now ffs.

[Mafic]

Democrats just need to adopt the platform of Europe and they would be better. They are afraid of being called socialists but they are called that anyways when the vast majority of Democrats lean right or are centrist.

The Democratic party is holding onto 90's center left nostalgia of the third way and can't let it go. Time to turn the page! It has been almost two decades since that era and the party needs to have goals like the Republicans do. Republicans have grass root support in small communities, towns, cities, etc.

Republican constituents are more motivated and more organized goal wise. What is holding back the Republican party from outright domination of politics in the US? Incompetence by the Republican reps.

But the difference from Republican constituents and Democratic constituents is that Republican constituents still accomplish things without the aid of Republican reps. Democratic constituents are still waiting for the other shoe to drop from Democratic reps and this is why the Democratic party as a whole has fallen behind.