TLDR summary of what happened:

Hillary Clinton has many blind spots, but she would have been an effective, mature and stable President. Not a perfect President, but a decent one.

Meanwhile un-entertaining trash wins video game and Hugo awards

yep most of these people posting have no clue what T9 was or surfing the net on WAP...

Yes, you’re right, “contempt for people who are poor, but also don’t enjoy being shuffled around by an inhuman bureaucracy,” is much more elegantly worded for liberals. Either way, nobody likes the poor, who are, ideologically, a national embarrassment in a country founded on the idea of opportunity.

I honest to God thought your comment was about liberals until I got to the word “conservative.” The degree to which both sides make the exact same criticism of one another is truly shocking.

I agree. And if we actually SEE bipartisan talks that lead to compromise from Democrats, there will be something to criticize. My read is that Republicans are not interested in bipartisan talks on this issue, the Democrats know that, and this talk is just to highlight Republican failure.

FYI we’re Splinter now

Right? That’s what they don’t get. This isn’t Sanders’ movement, because it’s not about him, it’s about what he says.

“the left wing of the party, for which Sanders has become the proxy”

True. Another poster pointed out that it almost doesn’t matter, so long as the dems manage to finally unite behind something, anything, and send a singular strong message.

Here here. Whether it’s single-payer or, as I believe, ethics reform that should be front and center, the party absolutely must stand united and get off the god damn fence about whatever it is they’re going to be united about.

I do want to emphasize that I, personally, am very much all for single-payer healthcare. You’re totally preaching to the choir on that front.

My only concern in this post is what’s going to get the majority of dems to actually pick their asses up and drive to polling stations and vote next year, particularly in swing districts where the loyal GOP base can outdo them simply by existing, because dems have had historically low turnouts.

Voters don’t actually care whether you work together. They care about results, and whether the government is doing things that materially benefit them.

See? This the kind of thing I’m talking about. They are so terrified of going left, that they have fetishized “bipartisanship” and centrism, even though there is none to be had!

Ethics reform and anti-corruption is about things like campaign laws, financial laws, and rooting out the shit that is Washington. Basically a *genuine* ‘drain-the-swamp’ campaign and not the fake-ass shit Trump peddled.

And just to go kinda further with this whole thing about why I really don’t think single-payer should be the focus of 2018 elections is because while single-payer *might* be popular with a majority in say, California and New York, that is quite simply not where the dems need to win seats.

What you appear to be saying is that single-payer should be on the platform as an act of pandering to a constituency, but never actually pursued. You see single-payer as a poison pill, but what about the anger currently splintering the left because the Dems talk nice from time to time, but never follow it up with real…