Hou$e Democrat$ F...um, Autop$ied Them$elve$.
Not long ago, I reminded you that the Republican National Committee had autopsied the Republican Party in 2012, even though Republicans had done well in 2010 and not badly in 2012. (Well, except for the Big Mitt.) I mentioned that I had concluded in 2012 that the autopsy was as bogus as it had first sounded to me: The conclusion of the autopsy was basically that the Republican Party needed better messaging because, gosh darn it, not enough people realized how very inclusive the Republican Party was.
As you know, Democrats have been emulating Republicans since the Koch brothers funded and guided the Democratic Leadership Council (and the Clintons) in the 1980s, giving the Koch Bros their money's worth and then some. In that spirit, House Democrats, too, autopsied themselves, although Democrats skipped the pesky part about doing well at the polls before engaging in a bogus autopsy. And, now--be still my heart--the autopsy results!
The outcome of the 2016 blue version of the Republican autopsy of 2012? The real problem with Democrats is--wait for ittttt--the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee needs more money. Yeah, that's the ticket: Money is the reason neoliberals lose elections! What do the rookies know?
Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time.
Harry S. Truman
Oh, and, unlike the results of the Republican autopsy, which were widely broadcast to spread the word about Republican inclusiveness, the results of the House Democrat autopsy were secret. Because heaven forbid Democrats be transparent about anything. How do I know the results were supposed to be secret? Du-uh! It's right there in the headline of the politico.com story about the autopsy, for all the world wide web to see! Where else would secrets be, mon petit naïf?
Apparently, a clunky metaphor headline was indeed necessary because even most House Democrats didn't seem interested in learning why their number keeps dwindling. (Why should they care? If they lose an election, they'll only get a much better-paying--we assume--job as influence peddler and/or expert on insider trading, amirite?)
House Democrats bury 2016 autopsy
By Heather Caygle and John Bresnahan
04/27/17 06:57 PM EDT
House Democrats are going to extreme lengths to conceal a report on the party’s problems.
{snort}
After nearly five months, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) presented his investigative report to lawmakers during a members-only gathering at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee headquarters Thursday night.Only about two-dozen lawmakers showed up for the presentation, which sources described as "dense but thorough." But members were not allowed to have copies of the report and may view it only under the watchful eyes of DCCC staff.
The presentation didn't focus on Democratic messaging and instead was heavily skewed towards money -- how much the DCCC brings in, from where and how those funds are spent.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/27/house-democrats-2016-autopsy-23...
But, wait--there's more! The DCCC is not a diversity employer. (They must be hiring only Bernie Bros!) And, Democrats are heavy-handed behind the scenes and engage in (gasp!) finger-pointing after losing elections. Yeah, that's it. The reason that people don't vote for neoliberal candidates handpicked by the neoliberal DCCC (once headed by quintessential hater of "the left of the left," Rahm Emanuel) is all that finger pointing behind the scenes after the loss.
And, in conclusion 
Comments
They missed the real culprit of why they lost.
Us.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
I wish it was us.
I think it to be a minor miracle, a gift from the election gods, that HRC lost. Or maybe it WAS the Russians?!
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
I've seen Democrats post that Jill Stein cost Hillary four
states that could have given Hillary the electoral victory. If true, maybe it was us. If so, you're welcome, America.
I didn't bother to check the info, though. Bots are often delusional, especially about the left.
ETA: I just googled. I guess you have to assume that everyone who voted Green or Libertarian would have voted for Hillary, which is quite the
delusionstretch. However, here's a sampling of the inflammatory fake news headlines :http://www.salon.com/2016/12/02/jill-stein-spoiled-the-2016-election-for...
http://www.newsweek.com/susan-sarandon-third-party-candidates-jill-stein...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/gary-johnson-jill-stein-spoiler/
http://www.newsweek.com/susan-sarandon-third-party-candidates-jill-stein...
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/12/it-wasnt-the-white-workin...
but then, there's the other view:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/309510-cmon-...
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/11/no-johnson-and-stein-did-not-cost-h...
https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/11/14/how-third-party-voters-influen...
https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/11/14/how-third-party-voters-influen...
What in hell are some people thinking? All sane, reasonable people know that an election loss is never the fault of the candidate or the policies.
@HenryAWallace
Michigan's election results.
2,279,805 - Trump
2,268,193 - Clinton
173,057 - Johnson
50,700 - Stein
16,926 - Castle
2,236 - Soltysik
87,810 - did not vote for President
87,810: Number of voters this election who cast a ballot but did not cast a vote for president. That compares to 49,840 undervotes for president in 2012.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Says a lot when people arse themselves to vote during a
Presidential election, but do not fill in the top of the ticket.
Two more comments on this vote.
1. Had everyone who voted for Stein voted for Hillary, Hillary would indeed have carried Michigan, but so what? If the people who voted for Stein had any intention of voting for Hillary, they would have voted for Hillary. There's no reason to assume they would have voted for Hillary if Stein were not on the ballot. As a Stein voter in another state, I can assure you that I would have written in Daisy Duck before I voted for Hillary. If the Democratic Party wants my vote back, they can have it--the minute they run a good candidate I can trust who runs on policies I like.
2. The number of votes Stein got stands out from the rest for being a very round number for a number of popular votes. I'm not drawing any conclusions. I'm just saying.
Point #1
can not be emphasized enough. I'm so tired of the Democrats acting like they are entitled by birthright to third party votes, especially when they made no effort to court the Stein/Nader voters. Correlation does not equal causation and I know they like to believe voters have no where else to go, but that's exactly what is happening.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Stein got around 1% of the vote and still "cost"
Hillary several states. Speaks volumes, especially with the years of preparation and all the millions Hillary spent on her campaign.
I would not have voted for her if the Republicans ran Godzilla, so they can stop blaming the Greens.
Yes, but you know it's true!
More Democratic politicians would win elections if only more people hated by Democratic politicians would vote for Democratic politicians whose policies stink.
Just try to deny it, I dare you!
Russia, China, or DCCC staff? You pick.
Who are the Staff workers expected to impose those authoritarian rules? What happens if someone disobeys and takes a snapchat or whatever the latest thingy is? Or sneaks in a hidden cam? Beheading next for whistle blowers? Sheesh, I mean c'mon people this is preposterous behavior in a so-called democracy. Here I was worrying about becoming what I despise, well there's a good example of Ds becoming so R-like there is no difference.
Really truly dead, if only the masses could realize it. Then what?
Thanks
Democrats overtook Republicans some time ago.
Democrats were the first to have super delegated by quite a few years, rendering the party name more ironic than ever.
http://inthesetimes.com/features/superdelegates_bernie_sanders_hillary_c...
And, even though Republicans copied Democrats on super delegates, theirs are not as bad.
https://www.bustle.com/articles/141611-does-the-gop-have-superdelegates-...
It was President Carter and a Democratic Congress who replaced FDR's Bankruptcy Act of 1934, which held to account corporate officers and directors who had raided their corporations.
It was Democrat Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress that ended FDR's "welfare as we know it." It was Democrat Bill Clinton whose White House lobbied Senators hard for repeal of FDR's Glass Steagall and left mortgage derivatives unregulated (and those two pieces of legislation are still alive and well).
It was Democrat Barack Obama who promised, before his first inauguration, to deal with entitlements. (Bill Clinton wanted to, but got distracted by something or other. I forget what.) It was also Democrat Barack Obama who appointed the Cat Food Commission, cut fuel subsidies for the poor in the first budget he sent to Congress, signed SNAP cut after SNAP cut, came up with the Grand Bargain Commission and the sequester. It was Democrat Barack Obama's administration that immunized banksters as they were foreclosing on Americans like thugs.
So, as the essay said, the Koch brothers got their money's worth and then some.
Et tu Carter?
Just think. He was the best of a bad bunch of Democratic Presidents.
Hope? What hope. I no longer expect anything but the long, spiral down into chaos.
Don't get me wrong. If there is a better way, I will support it. I just don't see it happening.
Despondent rant, off.
Yaldabaoth, Saklas I'm calling you. Samael. You're not alone. I said, you're not alone, in your darkness. You're not alone, baby. You're not alone. "Original Sinsuality" Tori Amos
I like Carter a lot. I just don't dodge
inconvenient truths. One reason I like Carter is that, as best I can tell, he was not a hypocrite or a liar. No doubt as soon as I post this, someone will prove me wrong.
Late reply
but my work doesn't leave much time for keeping up.
Anyhoo,
I like Carter too. My comment was just to show that we are all fallible. Unlike Obama, I believe Carter did not have the intention of harming the American people.
Yes, in the final analysis I believe Obama did intend us harm. Some of this was harm by doing as little good as possible and some was blatant but it all still comes down to him being a President of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.
Yaldabaoth, Saklas I'm calling you. Samael. You're not alone. I said, you're not alone, in your darkness. You're not alone, baby. You're not alone. "Original Sinsuality" Tori Amos
If all Green
votes in WI, MI and PA (46 total) had gone to Hillary she would have had 273 EV's, just enough to win. But if all Libertarian votes had gone to Trump he would have crushed Hillary by even larger margins. Total Green Party votes in WI, MI, OH, PA and FL went up substantially from 2012 to 2016 but the Libertarian votes went up bigly more.
Libertarian total vote changes: 2012 and 2016:
WI - 20,439 to 106,674
MI - 7,774 to 172,136 (Libertarian was write-in only in 2012)
OH - 49,493 to 174,498
PA - 49,991 to 146,715
FL - 44,726 to 207,043
So plenty of conservatives went from Mitt in 2012 to Gary Johnson in 2016. All of the arguments on Jill Stein costing Hillary the election are nothing more than bullshit and trying to shift blame from a massively flawed candidate and a party that has had its head up its collective ass since Raygun scared the shit out of them in 1980 and 1984.
Fuckin' losers!
Dear Dems: You lost the WH, Senate, House, dozens of governors, state level SOS and AG and about 1,000 state legislative seats. Maybe...you're doing something wrong.
Facts? You want the Democrats to use facts?
They can't do that! Those numbers tell too real of a story, the fairy tale of sexist America is far easier to deal with, yes? And gee, I guess since the Libertarian party candidate was male that must be the reason....
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Few facts; volumes of victim cards.
Thank you. That speaks volumes about how powerful
Green voters are. We cannot elect a candidate President or even get Greens on the ballot for next time, but we can and did keep a candidate from becoming President. And that ain't nuthin'. That's not counting leftists in purple states who voted for Trump for the sole purpose of trying to ensure that Hillary lost.
You would think, wouldn't you, that Democrats would therefore be courting "the left of the left." But noooooo. They're way too
greedyclever for that.He's only one, but hopefully a beginning
a real anti-war, anti lobbyist/superpac/ progressive.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hMTArYoF0g]
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
So six members of Congress don't take PAC money--
and two of them are Republicans!
For those of us who don't know off the top of our heads where the 17th is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_17th_congressional_district
Too bad he doesn't have more time in. Feinstein is up for re-election next year and she really needs to go. Then again, they all do.
Ro Khanna
Ick. Be careful please who you accept at face value. Khanna is my congressman, and he campaigned as a "Business Democrat", taking out a good Democratic progressive incumbent, Mike Honda. I don't trust him much.
Oh, crap. You have again proven to me how easy I am.
I was about ready to send a donation. Fool me once....and you can probably fool me over and over and over.
Odd that he runs as a business guy, but won't take PAC money, isn't it?
He primaried Honda? I thought the Party was supposed to protect incumbents. Or is that only when the incumbent is worse than than the challenger?
primary
You must not be in California, you forget about our "top 2" primary. In both '14 and '16 Khanna ran against Honda in the Dem primary and then again in November. Fun fact: in Khanna's political career he's never run against a Republican.
I'm not sure what's up with the "no PAC money" thing. I see it as a gimmick; Khanna had plenty of money that wasn't necessarily clean even if it wasn't from a "PAC".
"I see it as a gimmick" listen to his words
thanks, he sounds right on message. In fact that is all he talked about as far as I could tell, "the message". His main point was why don't Ds talk more like Bernie? Fine, give me another ear worm why don't you? Let's See Action
Getting elected is one thing, getting shit done is quite another. See Bernie, for example. Speaking of him, I did bookmark the wikileaks page of DNC attacking him with the photo at poolside in Martha's Vineyard, for a DSCC fundraiser. Just to remind me, I think? I mean he looks good in a swimsuit for his age, but the optics are pretty bad there.
Peace
I'm right coast. Still, I probably should have known.
I took that Jimmy Dore
did his dd, sorry if I'm wrong on this. I can't believe that Jimmy
got it wrong, still not taking any PAC money is a good thing.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
@ggersh nothing to apologize
nothing to apologize for. neither of us knows all 535 congresscritters, especially the new ones. Thanks for posting this or I wouldn't have seen it. Interesting to see him working on his image.
Thanks, we need to know who our local guy/gal is
before trying to get out there, still all the
same I thought Jimmy would know better.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Here is another Dore segment on Khanna
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kykXC9qCapQ]
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Well I'll be damned
That's my problem too!
What a coincidence.
See? You proved their point! You weren't elected, either.
BTW, this is their definition of needing more $$: https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/
And I read somewhere that no hopeful who cannot put a million bucks into his or her own campaign need apply.
Oh, I'm feeling rather snarky, so here's their panel!
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sor9GzivGbk]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Thanks! We could all use a bit of snark of a Friday.
You are absolutely right about Johnson. More voters
went for him than Stein which means they were voting Repuke to start with. I almost skipped the POTUS space, too. I was that disgusted with tRump and $hrill. Marked it for the Greens at the last second. Anywho, the Dumbassed NC is as hopeless as it is crooked. Rec'd!!
Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.
Thanks, orlbucfan!
The reality is that anyone who wanted to vote for Hillary voted for Hillary. The others weren't going to vote for her.
I'm glad you voted Green. For me, a Green vote says clearly, "I want a candidate to the left of the Democratic Party candidate" and anyone who sends that message helps us all.
Their autopsy could be quite right:
This makes a lot of sense. Had they approached the vast pool of non-voters with a nice cash tribute, in exchange for their votes for Hillary, then Hillary would have won.
Apparently, they did not have the money they needed to get the job done. They were a couple of deep-pocket donors short.
You seem cynical.
Lily Tomlin
Here's my question: whatever gave these
opportunistic cretins the idea that that THEY could vote the way THEY want to BUT the rest of us are supposed to vote according to their demands?
These people sure have a strange view of 'voters rights'. Why not just be real and just call their idea of voter's rights the 'My Way or the Highway' Voter's Rights Act'?
These clowns and the concept of 'democratic principles' have absolutely nothing in common. Unless that freedom is theirs. The rest of us are just tax revenue and cannon fidder.
EDIT: came back to read the reply, saw that first sentence made no sense. Fixed it.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
You shouldn't be surprised at the authoritarianism
Obama was authoritarian and certainly Clinton is. It's the in thing in liberal circles nowadays.
Just shut up and obey.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
I'm no mind reader, but I've seen enough of their posts
in the last dozen years to hazard a guess. I think they would say they are pragmatic liberal grown ups who know just how important it is to vote Democratic, even if they have to hold their noses so tightly they bleed. We, on the other hand, are childish purists stamping our feets (sic) in the voting booth because
(a) the Democratic candidate didn't give us a pony (whatever the hell that means); or
(b) we are one-issue voters; or
(c) we expect to agree with a candidate 100% of the time ; or
(d) all the above.
Over on TOP
It's "disgusting" that you would criticize Obama for his $400K speaking fee.
Sure. The idea of making almost half a mill a pop
for an hour long speech during a post-presidency presents no temptation whatever to a sitting President. We'll never have to wonder about Obama's motives for giving the go ahead on TARP 2 or immunizing the banks for foreclosing like thugs and with no paperword. Or about Bubba's motives for lobbying so hard for repeal of Glass Steagall and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000. (What's that about avoiding even the appearance of impropriety?) Frigate. If you can't become a hundred millionaire three years out of office, what is point of running for President? And even after these people leave office, we're still paying through the nose.
This is beyond insanity. We need to start over from scratch.
Pfft. Truman had to beg Congress for a pension of 10K a year because he would not accept speaking fees. No wonder neoliberals call themselves New Democrats. Who wants to be associated with such a yuge losah?
Ah, yes, the post-hoc fallacy
Always blame the antecedents on the outcome.
This is caused by what is known in philosophical circles as Democratic Logic. A similar metaphor is shoot first, question later.
P.S., I voted Green, well, because I am.
Hmph. Rather clannish of you.