HRC would have been a great president...but she's never going to run again.

[Ken Burch]

47. I wasn't the one claiming caucuses were unfair to HRC.

Last edited Tue Jul 25, 2017, 02:24 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't think they were.

What I was referring to there was the lie that caucuses somehow gave the other candidate an unfair advantage. They didn't. It was just that that candidate had a better caucus operation and thus won more delegates than some people felt that candidate should win.

The caucuses are a bad system...but the only valid reason to change them is to replace them with an inclusive system, not to stick it the supporters of a past candidate who did better than you think that candidate had a right to do.

And if not refighting means nobody should still be claiming we should have nominated someone else, it should equally mean that nobody should still be arguing that the runner-up in the primaries shouldn't have been allowed to run or should have felt obligated to withdraw after Super Tuesday. The result in November would have been exactly the same if our nominee had been nominated without significant opposition, and would still have been the same if that candidate had run on a less progressive platform.

After Occupy, there HAD to be an anti-corporate candidate. There had to be someone running who reached out to the spirit of that movment. The times required it.

And I supported HRC in the fall(as did most supporters of that candidate), which proves I'm not hostile to her or refighting the primary.

We all agree on voter registration and re-registration. There's no debate on that, and nobody is saying the party should try to win the votes of working-class whites INSTEAD of trying to make sure that people of color can vote

Please stop acting as if there are disputes where there aren't, as if only some of us are antiracist and antioppression. We're united on those issues now and most of us always were.