Well you have me up a stump. If you are siding with 'the Party', and perhaps that's what has me confused, Then I wish it was about being a Hillary defeat syndrome' problem. That is, if you mean 'Democratic Party' by the DNC and it's multiple fund raising and campaign committees?
If your talking decisions taken by the party then I would give that a second thought. Your saying that the party gets to decide who we get to vote for and are happy with the structures/barriers they have in place? Part of that would be double dealing during the primary campaign.

If so, then whats it all about?

Is it about winning? Then I would have to bring up the slow motion wipeout over the last few cycles. Or the ceding of major regions of the country that have assured us a republican senate for years to come.

Is it about giving up a battle today to win a long term decisive victory? That slow and steady arc of progress?.... We don't have that long. By most measures the needles are moving in the wrong direction on all the dials.
Is there some success with the leadership that I've overlooked that balances some of these negative gains over the decades?

Smart? Is it smart to allow a candidate into the race but have only done so after it was decided by party leadership who the winner should be and worked to accomplish that? It's not democracy and possibly not legal but it is something. Criminally stupid comes to mind. Why would you put on that performance? It's insulting to a large swath of your base and alienates who knows how many. Is that hyperbole? I dunno, I think it was a big pile of arrogance,incompetence, and corruption. They sure as heck heven't made it rain for a LOT of people. Donors maybe... The wrong kind for third worlders and underextracted but that's a differant kind of rain (death).
If they thought of it as a farce that would help to burnish Clinton's resume, who the hell are they to decide?

Progress? Name it cause most progress is going in the wrong direction. Against popular opinio, in many cases. Might be that primary thing. Manchin is on the senate energy committee and a ranking member is he not. Cortez's 'New Green Deal' committee will be recommendation only, with no subpoena power. A big majority of voters want to see something happen. Next stop: environmmental ecocide? What will the party decide?! Stay tuned because you can't always get what you want-for most people anyways.

Sanders was not a democrat?.... Then why was he allowed to run as such? His vote in the Senate maybe? He's his own man and if you've seen him over the years then you know he's not for sale. Might account for his popularity over Clinton's resume application. Not saying you weren't watching sanders Jeff, just trying to make a point.

Again, I don't know who you think the Democratic Party is and maybe I've misunderstood what you wanted to frame in your argument. I'll always be happy to argue against a neoliberal democratic candidate or a corrupted funding apparatus with you. You did get me off the bench after all. Might be some groaning about that but we are talking politics after all so....

Another perspective on Sanders running. By the guy from the front: Matt Taibbi's op-ed

Edited by chunkstyle (12/22/18 04:18 AM)