uh huh.

if bernie actually did the work to attract me actual base of the party, which by the way are not college age kids but black people, specifically black women, he would not have lost the primary.

and since that election he had another 4 years to work on his extreme deficit with black voters, but had zero outreach with that cohort. instead he doubled down on the youth vote.

that's not a strategy to win a primary. but it's a perfect strategy to try to split off young voters into not supporting the democratic choice in the future. and not shutting down conspiracy theories about rigged primaries doesn't help either. what it does is create distrust where there shouldn't be, fracture the party to turn against itself instead of the real threat which is the republican party, and in fact increase the chances that republicans win in greater margins because the super bernie side refuses to be smart and do damage limitation by not voting for the viable non republican candidate.

and by the way a few additional things that need to be considered:

1. if he wants the democratic nomination, why doesn't he formally join the party? what he was asking for has been equal access to resources without a full commitment to the party. you all would rightfully object if I declared I'm running for president as a democrat even though I'm a registered non partisan. what makes him any different from me as far as the party is concerned?
2. it really is rich how you are all upset about the democrats (allegedly) putting the thumb on the scale for a candidate so now there is a pledge that all people in dnc leadership have to agree to that formally states that leadership will be neutral in all party races from now on. so which is it, you don't want the dnc influencing races or do you not want the voters in the districts to decide who their candidates should be without party influences?
3. you also all think that the super progressive democratic candidate will play everywhere in the country. sure, it may work where I live. but I'm a blue(r) dot in a state trump won by 31 points. you have to run candidates that will win and super liberals in places like appalachia, oklahoma, or wyoming would consider it a good race if they lost by 50 points.

what it seems like to me is that what the vast majority of people here want is to destroy the democratic party from the ground up in the name of a stupid purity test the vast majority of the party does not agree with, and they want to do it while the most dangerous, insane person who is also the head of a violent cult is in the white house. you're trying to make your own left wing cult with either bernie or aoc as the head and the rest of the party is not with that.

as I said above I'm not a registered democrat. I find myself politically closer to aoc and bernie. and I'M telling y'all that following and supporting hogg's move will end the democratic party or any viable non republican party for generations.

i agree with hogg that the party needs a reset, but the vice chair of the party should not be the one making that comment because it gives all appearances that the party will be picking and choosing the primary candidates and throwing their weight behind their preferred candidate. that's going to lead to party fractures and a lot of hard feelings. you want to ensure more republicans winning easier than they should on the local level? have the party pick the candidate instead of the people in the district.

that's why i am very glad the chair has pretty much laid down the law. the party leadership (save one) is committed to electing democrats wherever they are whoever they are. one person in leadership is committed to electing specific democrats to office.

which if you think about it is a colossal failure. he's down in florida. he's had ample opportunity to elect his chosen democrats in florida with his pac. how successful were his candidates? and you've got people who see that (lack of) success he had in florida and say, "yeah, let's take that plan and apply it nationwide, even if the better democrat for an area isn't someone that hogg prefers."

what hogg is doing is wrong and destructive enough to irreparably splinter the party. it's bad enough that he might be voluntold to resign.

but what carville is talking about doing is stupid moronic and only puts his name in the news again. he's not only got no standing, he'd be laughed out of court.

in a vacuum what hogg is doing is fine. but the vice president of the party is never the appropriate person to do that. the party is responsible for getting more democrats. if the democrats in office are not doing the job or made for the current moment it's up to the local grassroots orgs and activists to recruit, fundraise, organize, and turn out primary voters for better democrats. the party has no business getting involved in any democratic primary unless there is an obvious planted republican stalking horse involved.

and if the local folks back in the district cannot or will not find a quality qualified candidate to run, that's in them not the national party.

can I just say as a cis male how weird it is how everyone forgets trans men exist and that everything they say that applies to trans women also applies to trans men. I'm surprised how no one has ever brought up a 14th amendment equal protection clause argument against these laws because clearly the the intent of the laws and the language of these laws was written exclusively for trans women.

and then there are the opposite cases, where in order to comply with the law, manly masculine men would be forced to use the women's restrooms.

you know, with women.

especially the easily frightened at everything because they have been societally coddled and protected for the entire history of this country white women.

i don't know. I'm not ever going to personally deal with that, but I think that if all trans people were going to comply with these idiotic and pointless laws that don't protect the people they are written to protect the trans women probably would have it easier than trans men. I really don't see too many men being seriously traumatized seeing a woman in the men's room (especially when cis females have used men's rooms with men in them regularly at places like concert venues when the line to the women's room is long or too far away).

but then again I don't really give a shit, just flush and wash your hands.

so how are we going to pay for it? where are we going to get the money?

I'm also in kentucky. I may save $25 but that's only because of my investments that aren't much and are getting smaller by the day.

they are doing this when the federal government is slashing disbursements to the states, especially the funds that those very same southern and very republican states rely on.

i honestly hope they do it. because it's going to jack up property taxes and sales taxes to sky high levels. you thought southern states were old and homogeneous now. wait until the next generation can't afford housing, can't pay for the basics, can't even find poor poverty wage jobs, and have no social safety net to catch them because social safety nets is soshulizm and communust.

there's anti union as in "we think they're a nuisance but we are tolerating them" and anti union as in "we are going to do everything in our power, legally and otherwise to make sure a union does not form or actively work to break the union that is in existence now", companies like amazon and walmart and starbucks. if costco is anti union they are definitely not the second from what I've seen.

costco being anti union is news to me. especially since they are very loudly not dropping their dei program.

this is excellent news.

the public already hates him. and by wrapping his arms fully around the republicans the people will hate them both even more.

the smart ones are. the cultists are wrapping themselves in nationalism patriotism. the rest are just terminally unaware and don't vote.

we're having chili for dinner, but not that disgusting cincinnati style variety.

how about we just axe the white house correspondent entirely since they a) won't stand up for their colleagues and b) won't stand up to this administration or else they lose access.

the primary reason I stopped watching cable news since the election is the press being less than limp, weak, and feckless when it comes to anything dealing with republicans but somehow find their spines when a democrat is involved.

in other words, this is a reason for the workers to unionize.

puritans. you know the people so uptight that the english told them to get the fuck out (or rather they left to practice their uber conservative religion without consequences from the rest of the people).

for whatever reason to our extreme detriment the super conservative religions grow in this country and we've all (in general) been taught to not call that oppressive lifestyle out to be polite. it explains why evangelical christianity isn't really much of a thing outside this country.

how many people are going to blame trump for that when it happens?

I never had any issues finding toilet paper when I went to the store when I needed to get more. and things got better when stores started enforcing limits.

the party wins by following a simple 2 point plan:

1. actually listen to your base.
2. fire the democratic consultants who have led you all down disastrous results for 2 cycles.

I don't think it's a coincidence that democrats in special elections way overperform than in general elections lately.

that's funny. as far as the government is concerned if you aren't in a specialized position and are just doing a job you're just an irrelevant face in the crowd who doesn't matter. your positions were going to be the first to be slashed outright. and he told y'all that. and you voted for him anyway.

my concepts of sympathy for you.