The Things Wrong With Dems

[JHan]

There are a lot of complaints about Democrats.

I feel we should break them down:

- Dem failures to get things done in Congress. If Dems can't get something done it's because they're either compromised or too "weak" to fight. Things like procedural votes and deals done when you're in a minority, or the understanding that majorities determine what you can do, is lost... completely. Paying too much detail to policy and getting it right and airtight, is just Dems lollygagging. Any errors of judgment are to be brought up constantly, even 30 years afterward. In fact, forever and ever even if the Dem expresses regret.

- Dems can't hold it together on votes, what's Chuck doing??? - re Kavanaugh. Seems the votes on Trumpcare and the Tax Bill are part of a history that was lost with the Library of Alexandria.

- Democrats are the only ones with agency. Always. Republicans and their evil-doing don't really exist. Does a Democrat get smeared unfairly by Republicans? It's obviously the Democrat's fault if only she didn't [something something something]. Even when there are countervailing forces making progress difficult it's still the Democrat's fault. Even in the face of powerful forces like the famed "Arkansas Project", The Birchers, The Federalists, The Mercers, the loonies who hate anything connected to the New Deal & Great Society or Lee Atwater-esque strategies, it's always down to what Democrats do: are we even sure Republicans actually exist in this schema of Powerful Dem Agency?

- "The Donor Class" - All Donors are Evil, and even aggregate donations from industries are evil. In fact, money is evil. And all industries are evil. Unless someone we like gets money from a venture capitalist then it's okay and if a group we like keeps their donors secret, that's okay too ....btw, we oughta do something about all this dark money in politics.

-"ACA is actually a conservative plan and Obama could have gone for Single Payer but he was too weak" & "Bill Clinton is the reason why everything is bad", "FDR was the greatest, purest politician ever and never compromised!" -File these under Historical Revisionism's Greatest Hits

- Dems are ALWAYS terrible at messaging. Always. And that's why they're seen as weak. The messaging is not even resonating enough with millennial gentrifiers in Brooklyn. When was the last time Chuck or Nancy offered a cri de cœur to young people in a tweet? This is why they both suck even though they keep winning their elections and house members keep placing faith in Nancy, but these facts are beside the point.

- The whole primary thing is corrupt because of SuperDelegates So what if caucuses are similarly problematic and Superdelegates haven't really done much in ages except go with the flow.

- DNC hates progressives and picks faves The DNC is God and rigs everything even though it isn't and hasn't and just organizes fundraising. Donna Brazille's book didn't prove anything on this score - Welcome to reality.

- Dems need to grow a spine. I am surprised they manage to stand upright. Then when they do something the backseat drivers approve of they are complimented with.. "About time they grew a spine: This must be a first! Never happen again from the spineless Dems!" I'm really surprised they're able to walk. Dems also always bring a casserole to a gunfight- this is actually pretty funny even though it's wrong. But who cares.

Dems are still to blame even though the media suffers from the disease of bothsideism

if

- Actual solid critiques don't appear often - like ignoring state parties which hurt Dems in Obama's second term in a big way, structural issues, securing and updating of data, and the need to improve digital presence.

/snark off.

I am not saying Democrats should never be criticized but hot takes that ignore context and political realities gets a no from me.

[PJMcK]

1. Really? (n/t)

[sheshe2]

15. Really. nt

[sheshe2]

2. +1000

I have read every word over and over on the inter tubes.

The GIF ties it all up.

Brava JHan.

[JHan]

12. ;) this also works:

[sheshe2]

13. Ha!

I love my President!

[betsuni]

23. Heh

[Hortensis]

3. I don't know how I get up in the morning.

Oh, yes! I remember. Almost 13,000 children are being held in miserable for-profit detention centers by the Republicans, the largest number ever. As many as can be are trafficked to the for-profit board and care industry, and some are even being trafficked into the for-profit adoption track (highest profit per head) instead of being united with their families.

And hundreds of other reasons.

[JHan]

4. .. and somehow, some way , someone can justify making this horror the fault of Dems.

[Hortensis]

5. There's something wrong with them.

When people claim one set of ideals but their actions sabotage them and produce very different results, I may not understand them but I know not to believe or trust them.

[Wellstone ruled]

6. Oh so agree,

seems these comments tend to come from some right wing think tank. BTW.like you,get up every day thinking about how I can make a difference.

Never to forget the 13k Kids in Cages sponsored by Jeff Sessions and his White Nationalist friends.

[mcar]

31. "Why aren't the Dems.....?"

Is a tired refrain from people who don't seem to know, or care, how government works.

[JHan]

32. +++++++++

[betsuni]

33. +1

[joshcryer]

94. This is the worst part of it.

What kind of fucking piece of shit human being can you be to knowingly traffic poor innocent children from their families for money?

I mean, they are narcissistic sociopathic motherfuckers taking government money to literally kidnap kids.

Lowest human scum on the planet.

It is inconceivable to me.

[Hortensis]

96. Or to fail to vote against just that?

Right or left wing, all who listened to what Trump and other Republicans promised and didn't try to stop them are enablers of something not just contemptible but evil.

[betsuni]

7. It's not fair. Democrats get all the criticism and even when you prove the accusation false,

doesn't matter. That gif is perfect.

[ismnotwasm]

8. These things are why I won't talk politics with people who parrot

So tired of it

[JHan]

9. George Lakoff has theorized it's gendered.

Republicans are seen as Masculine and get away with being assholes.

Democrats are associated with Women and Minorities so get blamed for everything.

I think he has a point. Some of his criticisms of Dems ( and Liberals) are good, but the wider narratives pushed by the Pundit Class don't help. And these narratives are constantly repeated.

[betsuni]

10. I was just thinking about that.

It's always the mother's fault. Kids turn out bad, husband runs off, whatever. Did too much of one thing, not enough of the other. Poor mommy can't win.

[JHan]

11. In a nutshell.

[sheshe2]

14. And!

It is always the WOMEN that have to clean up the mess the men leave behind.

That is why so many women are running and winning. It is time. Our time.

[ismnotwasm]

41. That is really interesting

And rings very true to me. Defending a anti-Hillary vote disgusts me. Saying “I made a mistake”— I totally get.

As far the many white women who voted for Trump or against Hillary well...

Someone tweeted that Susan Sarandon was white feminism in human form..this also rings true to me. She embodies the sheer privilege of whiteness and the cluelessness we tend to have about ourselves when challenged.

[JHan]

43. Yeah but even then, I'm not tempted to write off white women so easily..

mainly because it's a lil too simplistic. Middle-aged white women are a driving force behind the resistance and Hillary was actually the first dem in a long time ( since Nixon) to win college-educated white women. There's an intersect with religion and white households where women vote like their men. When HRC mentioned this she got all kinds of hell but it's a point to consider. Also, the tribalism among Republicans is rife. Tribalism is a factor in all politics but with Repubs it's insanity.

Susan can afford to play the revolutionary. She's gonna do her thing.

[ismnotwasm]

48. Oh I agree

It’s the ones who never can psychologically move beyond standpoint theory. Annoying AF

[Hekate]

97. Susan Sarandon is an entitled airhead, not "white feminism in human form." Screw that for a critique

Whatever else you may think of, well, anything, white women led 3 great movements in US history: Abolition of Slavery, getting women the Vote, and Second Wave Feminism in the 1960s-70s.

Now I'm mad.

[betsuni]

106. If Sarandon was "white feminism in human form" that would be ironic since she refuses to

use the word "feminist" to describe herself.

[Hekate]

107. Taking some random Tweet about a twit and using it to slur all white women goes way too far

Why not just slur all feminists? Why not slur all women?

Oh, right, that happens Every. Single. Day.

[JCanete]

16. Dems don't take the media and their owners to task in a meaninful consolidated way. We have ceded

the argument that the media is biased-which it IS- to Trump of all people. Magnificently ironic. We've allowed main-stream institutions to pretend to a liberal bent for decades now without any pushback. So many of our institutions, from education, to unions, to the Presidency, have suffered because of the media playing a very poor role as our 4th estate.

You cannot pretend that the media is venerable and not carrying the water of its corporate ownership, just to avoid confrontation with that media, and more importantly, the money behind it, and then expect to be seen as not complicit in the long-term impact of the messaging big-money has bought and rammed down people's throats.

I know its a rigged system. You clearly know its a rigged system. Dems have had to have known for decades that its a rigged system. The solution to fighting back against that has been to pretend it isn't rigged, to utter nary a peep about corporate media's conflict of interest.

So yes, on some level "Dems are still to blame even though the media suffers from the disease of bothsideism." it has been the wrong way to fight, and whether dems or republicans have taken office, the proof is in who have been the consistent winners in America, which is of course, those who own the messaging. The proof is in who have not seen an increase in pay vs cost of living for decades.

I have no idea who it is on the left that you think doesn't have plenty to say about how bought and paid for the GOP is. Given that the GOP has no shame and has no voters who will shame them, there's nothing to "blame" them for that they give a shit about. We can and should continue to call them out as shills. It would be easier if there was nothing to muddy the waters.

There are on the other hand, people to be won over by shaping a party that appeals not just to the current democratic base, but to the disaffected left-wing and painfully undecided middle-of-the-road voter. That involves rebuilding confidence in government, which involves messaging that you are going to do things differently than how things are done now. Not doing this actually does allow showboating politicians to swoop in and captivate voters on false pretenses, as Trump did. While I would vehemently disagree with you if you feel that way about Democratic Socialists and their role here, even if your characterization were right,, then that's an opening that exists because the main-stream democratic party hasn't gotten there first.

The ACA isn't a conservative wet-dream, but no corporations were hurt in the making of this mandate. Since they are price-gouging institutions continuing to price-gouge, that's a problem. The ACA is not exactly a liberal plan either.

Superdelegates have been discussed here and arguments have been made for why they have always had an impact do to the reporting of superdelegate votes into voting tallies, which is horribly misrepresentative. Caucuses have been discussed by lefties like TYT, who, like me, agree should be abolished, even if we lament that they are an opportunity for less well-funded out the gate candidates. Nobody I know of and respect is trying to prevent changes to caucuses. Also, the pointless pointless argument that we don't need to worry about supers because they have never flipped a vote, ignores what they could do and should never ever be allowed to do as far as this democrat is concerned, and frankly, avoids taking a position on the principle of superdelegates. You want to keep them as they were, then argue why we should, not why they have done no harm to date.

Our Revolution's decision to take untraceable money is absolutely a problem. Give me two candidates who make a prominent part of their campaign that they want money out of politics, and I assure you, I'll vote for the one who is not affiliated with any said pac. In the absense of a better option, I'll still take the candidate actually campaigning on changing the system, cognizent of the fact that the system is currently what it is. Because if they don't try to deliver on their message, that is at least proof positive that they lied to us when they campaigned. If a candidate makes no promises what can I hold that candidate accountable for?

Unlike the GOP, the Democrats are only ever as good as our most recalcitrant member. Somehow the GOP could elicit a whine from McCain or other Senators and then still make them vote for almost whatever they put on the table. Since his bid for President, only in McCain's last term against a hostile President did McCain really show any Maverick credentials.

Instead, our leaders don't do any arm twisting as far as I can tell. The most powerful people on our side were the Lieberman's, and the Manchins. There's no calling them out...there's no threatening to put our weight behind their challengers in the primary, or in Lieberman's case, just knocking him off ahead of time. I assure you that's the way the Republicans do it. The threat of primarying always looms. But instead, these hold-outs are the excuse for why we can't get better legislation passed. And ultimately that allows the party to be safer, less confrontational with big-money interests. After all, our hands are tied.

[JHan]

17. okay.

"The bizarro world argument that the media is biased-which it IS- to Trump of all people. Magnificently ironic. We've allowed main-stream institutions to pretend to a liberal bent for decades now without any pushback. So many of our institutions, from education, to unions, have suffered because of the media playing a very poor role as our 4th estate.

You cannot pretend that the media is venerable and not carrying the water of its corporate ownership, just to avoid confrontation with that media, and more importantly, the money behind it, and then expect to be seen as not complicit in the long-term impact of the messaging big-money has bought and rammed down people's throats. "

Okay, I'm not sure what you want Democrats to do about this. When Hillary herself expressed disdain for how the media sensationalizes things, she was excoriated. Who is the "We have allowed" - Are you saying Democrats have allowed this to happen? This is another example of Dems having incredible agency. I do think we could do better to react to a lot of the bothsidism narratives, but it's even better if Democrats and Liberals didn't swallow whole sale those narratives and repeat them.

"So yes, on some level "Dems are still to blame even though the media suffers from the disease of bothsideism." it has been the wrong way to fight, and whether dems or republicans have taken office, the proof is in who have been the consistent winners in America, which is of course, those who own the messaging. The proof is in who have not seen an increase in pay vs cost of living for decades.

The Reagan Years were destructive, shifts in the Market Place and lack of investment in labor also has something to do with it. You also have to look at cultural trends and the popularity of certain ideas and whether the electorate was ready for them. SCOTUS decisions have weakened the American worker's ability to sue employers and made it more possible for dark money to enter our politics. Note this happened with a conservative-leaning court. But there is nothing nebulous about what's going on here. You have one political party dedicated to destroying the progress achieved by Democrats. Citizens United itself involved Hillary Clinton, and forces who have been after the Clintons since their days in Arkansas - yet some on the left doubted Clinton's dedication to reverse the decision, as if Republicans and Democrats are on the same page when it comes to corporate personhood. When we sell arguments that both sides are the same or even insinuate it when they are not we suppress enthusiasm , we INFLUENCE an outcome that is not to our interest. You and I are both thought influencers in our own way.

Also, the pointless pointless argument that we don't need to worry about supers because they have never flipped a vote, ignores what they could do and should never ever be allowed to do as far as this democrat is concerned, and frankly, avoids taking a position on the principle of superdelegates. You want to keep them as they were, then argue why we should, not why they have done no harm to date.

You can't blame me for employing cynicism when complaints about supers only became a thing in 2016. Nary a word of complaint was heard in previous years, which means this power play to change the way things are isn't really coming from the base, but coming from recalcitrants still living in 2016. I am not impressed.

" Somehow the GOP could elicit a whine from McCain or other Senators and then still make them vote for almost whatever they put on the table.

Nancy Pelosi has to deal with a far more diverse bunch than McConnell, yet she's able to still whip votes like a pro. GOP majority dominance and ideological tunnel vision is being conflated with strength when all it has done is made D.C. hated in the eyes of the public. I see nothing admirable about Republicans and their cravenness.

Instead, our leaders don't do any arm twisting as far as I can tell. The most powerful people on our side were the Lieberman's, and the Manchins. There's no calling them out...there's no threatening to put our weight behind their challengers in the primary, or in Lieberman's case, just knocking him off ahead of time.

This is what I mean, the ignoring of political realities. Do tell me what Obama could have done when he needed Lieberman's vote and Lieberman refused to expand Medicare. The lesson here isn't Lieberman, the lesson is we need greater majorities so we don't need to compromise with a Leiberman. Like it or not you're going to have your Manchins. Not every State is the same.

"or in Lieberman's case, just knocking him off ahead of time." - I really don't understand what you're suggesting here. Lieberman is no longer an elected rep. If you have a good strategy of primarying Manchin, who is very popular in his State, with a replacement that will have a good chance against a Republican, then let's hear it.

[JCanete]

18. My point about Lieberman is that mainstream democrats helped to saddle us with him. The democratic

Last edited Sun Sep 16, 2018, 04:08 AM - Edit history (1)

base rejected him, but the fight to crush Lieberman and elect Lamont in the general was...hell I remember no fireworks at all. That should have been a democratic rallying cry. He betrayed us by using our system and then shirking its results.

And then we had to say "golly gee, we've got a Lieberman to appease guys..." weird that.

Manchin had a challenger not that long ago. This is a man signaling that he might vote for Kavanaugh. This is a man who has made plenty of previous moves like that. Back when it would have mattered, the party should have told him where its support was going to go if he failed to be part of a consolidated front against Gorsuch for instance. That might have been a deal breaker. Then he would have been forced to choose, or face a better funded(than she was) and certainly better amplified opponent in his primary.

Voting for somebody like Gorsuch is just beyond the pale. There's no justification for a lifetime appointment of a man like that from somebody on our side of the aisle. That is not, no matter how you slice it, Manchin working in the interests of his voters. It could be expedient regarding his reelection(far from certain with his base and the electorate, far more certain to piss off donors), but it does harm to vote with the GOP in this instance. Even if Gorsuch was going to get onto that court anyway, it does harm. . It presents a picture of bipartisan support. It makes Gorsuch look stately and moderate, and Trump's appointment of him reasonable.

And, its no one-off. Here we are again. We're about to have Manchin in the Senate for the next 6 years. He very well might vote for Kavanaugh. Assuming we take the Senate in a long-shot, it will be really interesting to see what we can count on him for.

As to the media, I am saying democrats have allowed this to happen, because democrats are the ones that stood to lose for it happening. The GOP and their owners didn't allow it...they engineered it. That needed significant push-back. Not going along to get along. Not playing on the warped field and then shaking the hand of the opponent with the ref in his pocket. This is why some people think that democrats are in it to lose. They get a portion of the funding the GOP does, they continue to accept that funding even though its clearly a game stacked against them. It takes away the weapons that they could pummel the GOP with, and just a little more often than not, they lose to the bigger money.

I don't remember Clinton's exasperation at the press's sensationalizing, but I feel like that isn't quite what I'm talking about anyway. That isn't going to the heart of the issue.

As to what the GOP does, it isn't that they power through and win that the public despises them for...it is what they are fighting for and who they are fighting for that is distasteful. It is that they are clearly hypocrites always playing politics, never holding any line of principle. But that they get stuff done? That's not the thing people don't like about them.

As I've previously stated on Supers...I didn't understand how they worked before. I'm sure a lot of people had no idea how they worked before. It came to light in the 2016 election. I don't at all like it. That said, there's no fireworks to be had here because there was an agreement made about them. This isn't going to be a wedge issue to campaign on going forward, so I'm not sure what political angle you think is being exploited at this point. IF you think supers should be defended as they existed, by all means, make that case. Otherwise, I don't understand why this isn't a change for the better.

Also, democrats and republicans are absolutely not the same, and whatever criticisms you see levied against Democrats, most of us on the left are clearly capable of distinguishing. Sanders has said the Republicans are beyond saving. They are wholly owned subsidiaries. He's working with the democratic party and supporting democratic candidates. I'm comfortable saying that he's signaled and spoken to obvious distinctions between the two.

I don't agree that heated fights in the primary depress enthusiasm, and I suspect the opposite is true. That's supporting our system of government, not opting out. That's bringing people into it, not alienating them.

Greater majorities...what a great idea. How do you propose we get those? I propose we do it by fighitng tooth and nail against the corruption of money in politics, and I've already explained why the other way doesn't work, in my opinion.

[betsuni]

19. Why didn't/don't Democrats stop (fill in the blank).

we've allowed
without any pushback
utter nary a word
wrong way to fight
messaging that you are going to do things differently than how they are done now
don't do any arm-twisting
Lieberman and Manchin most powerful people
no fireworks at all
Democrats are in it to lose

Blame the Democrats.

Obviously, the "disaffected left-wing" is disaffected because they want to be.

This is why Democrats lose:

[JCanete]

20. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I vote for Dems.

I have criticisms but I haven't opted out. I have a difference of opinion on how we should be trying to win, and that requires calling things the way they are, and disentangling ourselves from interests that get in the way of doing so.

Everything Samantha Bee just talked about is totally true. So... how do you register more voters? What does it take to do that? Waiting for a Trump to get into office to energize and expand our base? Do you have any criticisms for our party? Any things you think we should do differently?

[betsuni]

22. If you don't know that Republicans are the problem, I can't help you.

[JCanete]

50. How many different ways do I have to recognize that Republicans are a problem. But Republicans

are still just a symptom of money in politics. They are a product of that. They are the natural evolution of a system that has no meaningful checks on money influencing not just politicians but the mindset of the voters through media, coopted public education, etc.

The democratic voter base is so much better informed and far less misinformed. For that reason alone we have better candidates and better politicians that percolate to the top of our tickets, but big-money still has a say in who those candidates will generally be. I think our politicians think that we need that corporate money to compete. In fact that's exactly what Barney Frank said on the subject. I think that ultimately it hurts our ability to beat Republicans, rather than helps us.

[Hortensis]

25. JCanete, as we all know, by far most people vote for Democratic

candidates because they respect them and elect them to achieve goals they believe in.

Then there are those who claim to vote Democrat but insist they disrespect and don't believe, who expect betrayal. WTF? We know that because so many express their contempt for the Democratic Party and candidates constantly between one election and the next.

There's that huge dissonance between words and actions again. Above I spoke of people who claim to want goals the Democratic Party is fighting for but whose actions ultimately empower others fighting to keep Democrats from achieving them.

In this case, the claim is, in effect, that people vote for Democrats before and after they spend vast amounts of energy proving they don't believe in them and trying to recruit others with their messages of disillusionment and dissatisfaction. (Their version of GOTV, of course.)

The outcome of these is, of course, sabotage of both Democratic candidacies and sabotage of their own claimed goals and principles through empowerment of the right.

Why? I don't know. Psychologists must know. There's always been writing about self hate and self flagellating politics, but I have trouble feeling an understanding. But the behaviors are out there, and right here, for all of us to see.

One thing I am sure of is that people with this problem don't know it. They're passionately focused on what they must always imagine to be wrong with other Democrats and the Democratic Party, with nothing left over for their own behaviors.

[JCanete]

53. Oddly enough I see that sabotage from the other side...constantly going after liberals and their

progressive plans as offering unicorns does damage to those causes, and is outright false. If some of these things were unicorns, then the whole Democratic party just decided after the convention to believe in unicorns. Well how about that....

I agree with you that there is one brand of democratic vitriol that often seems to forget the GOP exists. It isn't nuanced and it assumes the worst of our politicians intentions. Some people oscillate on the spectrum between that and thinking that dems are misguided, and I myself can appreciate cynicism at times, but I do believe that former category of person is flat-out wrong.

I myself have criticisms for our party at the level of strategy. I have faith that our politicians are mostly good people who believe that they are approaching this battle in the right way. Among these people its obvious that some of this comes down to fundamental philosophical differences, but often its a matter of what we think helps us win.

Barney Frank laid out plainly that he does not think we can win if we don't take corporate money, even while he tried to hedge its influence on democrats by saying we take one tenth of what the GOP takes from the private sector. But that belies his point. It just shows how much folly the strategy is. How do you beat a team by using the same powerhouse approach that the opponent is using, when the opponent has 10 times as much power? Playing nice with big interests who fund us makes us less capable of reigning them in judiciously.

That said, our politicians ARE still the adults in the room. They are still the reasonable ones who make sure government doesn't literally break, and that our economy doesn't collapse..etc. But they continue to let the same winners win, and that has translated over the years into more and more money being available to rig the system against us in the hands of those who would not bat an eye to do so.

We need a class war. Rather, we need to recognize that one has been waged against us for a long time, and to start fighting back in a consolidated way.

[Hortensis]

58. Some good points. But where are the half of all Americans

who are Republican voters of enormous power in this picture?

When you castigate the Democratic leadership for "continuing to let" them win, so you imagine them courteously holding the door while many millions of Republicans march to the polls in large, committed, lie-filled numbers?

Weakness, stupidity, indulgence of viewpoints so irrational that they require avoiding truth every bit as much as trumpsters, indifference and complacence, and of course plain old spite against party and candidates expressed so frequently here, on the part of the worst of our left-wing voters and nonvoters, are what "let" them win. Another work is assist. One out of five young citizens voted. There were so many for whom indulgence of spite against the Democratic Party, and of course Hillary, trumped everything they claimed to stand for that this board had to make them leave. Many are still sneaking what they are around here of course.

I mention all those groups because without their assistance to the right, the many means of election thefts by enemies domestic and foreign, the social media lies, the assistance by corrupt MSM, the Russians, all together couldn't have kept us from winning the presidency and on Hillary's coattails likely both houses and many state governments. As it is, The People chose her.

All we needed to sweep the nation was for those saboteurs who claimed liberal values to vote them.

[JCanete]

122. The problem is what the Democrats have done is to continue to pretend that the republicans are

honest actors with a legitimate ideology, even though it is painfully obvious that they have no principles at all, only agendas that benefit the elite. The ends justify any means. Dems may think that's been a winning strategy, and it is certainly how Obama and Biden ran, versus say, Edwards who said we had to treat them as hostile. Between Clinton and Obama, we've won 16 years in the White House while being fairly conciliatory, but the question is whether or not those wins came at a bigger cost. To be fair, as the first black President, this was probably the only winning strategy for Obama. I don't question that, but I question the overall shape of our politics that has come from Democrats being punching bags who practice a lot of bobbing and weaving, and republicans always being the ones throwing the punches.

And over time there has been a massive failure of education in this nation at the hands of a media that has abdicated its duty or misinformed the public, and a government that has done a number on the public.

Even California, a primarily democratic government, massively rich state, has had shitty, poorly funded, public education for decades. why, among all the states in the Union did it take sooo damn long for us to just begin to attempt to properly fund schools? Why were we so low on the list?

This is just to emphasize that Nationally, across party, we have had a problem with priorities, and that problem, while mostly being Republican driven, has been in some ways facilitated or condoned by democrats. The fact that education sucks in this nation and that our voters are uninformed about civics and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the contribution of unions is a disaster that again doesn't simply rest at the feet of Republicans. No Child Left Behind doesn't simply rest at the feet of Republicans.

It is certainly the issue that Democrats have felt the need to navigate a world of pretending that the media is legit and pretending that Republicans are just a different ideological face of the same coin of government, but in my opinion the decision to go along to get along so as to not be pummeled by that corporate media for being whiners, has helped to pave the way to where we are today.

To say nothing of how meek we've generally been about voter purges, gerrymandering and electronic voting in general over the years, not as singular voices necessarily, but certainly as a united party.

And its those things (as well as a debacle of a war that had a massive death-toll) that have frustrated hold-outs or 3rd party voters on the left. I think they made a frustratingly wrong decision in this past election. I think they should have been more hopeful, and that post-convention all the signs pointed to a Democratic Party and GE candidate that recognized that what was needed was to listen to and to respond to that left with the most progressive platform the Democratic Party has ever had. I think they should have recognized that that is the best that can be hoped for, that that IS how change is accomplished.

Had our party leadership not listened, well in that circumstance all you have is a 3rd party protest vote or abstaining. If you think the way both parties are driving is ultimately taking us down the same road at various speeds, then I understand that vote. I do. I think if we really hate 3rd party spoilers there's a solution to that that would eliminate spoilers but also make 3rd parties more viable, and that that is something the Democratic party could and should push for rather than to just throw shade at 3rd parties for existing. We could push for run-off voting at state and local levels now. But yeah, in this last election, I think some people were bafflingly unmoved by the DNC's overtures and the threat of Trump.

I understand to some extent the "put the pedal on the gas to wake up the passengers as you drive towards that cliff" metaphor that Trump represents, but that's the desperate move you make if nobody is making a gesture to slow down and turn the car around. Sadly I think some people did willfully ignore the signs. They favored something scary dramatic, and its something that we have yet to see whether we can recover from.We also have yet to see whether or not this simply does more long-term damage to the political landscape, rather than righting anything, even if it wakes us up for an election cycle. We also have yet to see whether even democracy itself will survive the next 2 years. So yeah, I agree it was the wrong call that some people made, whether some did it for truly ideological or petty reasons.

[Hortensis]

123. Always "they." It's us. "It's the vote, stupid."

The right has many deluded and some genuinely evil people. What it doesn't have is the left's special little population of morally deluded weaklings and hypocrites who pretend to high values but vote against them or not at all, and of course our special type of complaisant fools who don't vote.

Conservatives' commitment to beating us is why the right wins elections even though there are more, supposedly, of us.

Because it's which party gets the most votes that will determine whether we will still have Social Security and Medicare 5 years from now and whether you will die of inadequately treated illness or live on in relative comfort to watch your great grandchildren grow up.

Maybe print it out and put it on your wall to remember? "IT'S THE VOTE, STUPID!"

[JCanete]

124. Yeah....part of the argument is how do you make sure we get the vote. I have a feeling telling

people to put that on their wall is not going to convincingly do the trick. I did vote for Clinton, so I don't think I need to be reminded.

Some people don't believe in our two party system for reasons I already laid out. We need to fight that cynicism but its worthless just blaming them for having it.

[Hortensis]

125. Apparently some of us could use another sign on the wall.

"WE HAVE THE VOTE."

[JHan]

26. Lieberman is not a new phenomenon in politics.

In the New Deal Era, FDR had to deal with Dixiecrats, and lieberman is a much better sight than them. We've always had lots of different Dems.

I think you're having difficulties acknowledging this.

Manchin had a challenger not that long ago. This is a man signaling that he might vote for Kavanaugh. This is a man who has made plenty of previous moves like that. Back when it would have mattered, the party should have told him where its support was going to go if he failed to be part of a consolidated front against Gorsuch for instance. That might have been a deal breaker. Then he would have been forced to choose, or face a better funded(than she was) and certainly better amplified opponent in his primary.

He's also a man who caucuses with Dems most of the time, representing a state where Appalachians like very "moderate" Dems. It would help you to try to figure out why they feel that way. He's also currently fighting to defend the ACA, he's made it a center point of his re-election campaign. Manchin's primary challenger lost- badly. Maybe progressives should focus their energies in red states, not to unseat people, but change ideas. ( And I also mentioned in my op that over the years, Democratic leadership had a responsibility to tend to state parties).

As to the media, I am saying democrats have allowed this to happen, because democrats are the ones that stood to lose for it happening. The GOP and their owners didn't allow it...they engineered it. That needed significant push-back. Not going along to get along. Not playing on the warped field and then shaking the hand of the opponent with the ref in his pocket. This is why some people think that democrats are in it to lose. They get a portion of the funding the GOP does, they continue to accept that funding even though its clearly a game stacked against them. It takes away the weapons that they could pummel the GOP with, and just a little more often than not, they lose to the bigger money.

which funding? what are you talking about? Are we back to all donors are bad?

I don't remember Clinton's exasperation at the press's sensationalizing, but I feel like that isn't quite what I'm talking about anyway. That isn't going to the heart of the issue.

I sense you don't remember much of what Clinton does actually.

"As to what the GOP does, it isn't that they power through and win that the public despises them for...it is what they are fighting for and who they are fighting for that is distasteful. It is that they are clearly hypocrites always playing politics, never holding any line of principle. But that they get stuff done? That's not the thing people don't like about them. "

The GOP have doubled down on white resentment and tribalism because their ideas suck and it works.

As I've previously stated on Supers...I didn't understand how they worked before. I'm sure a lot of people had no idea how they worked before. It came to light in the 2016 election. I don't at all like it. That said, there's no fireworks to be had here because there was an agreement made about them. This isn't going to be a wedge issue to campaign on going forward, so I'm not sure what political angle you think is being exploited at this point. IF you think supers should be defended as they existed, by all means, make that case. Otherwise, I don't understand why this isn't a change for the better.

The political angle is that an excuse needed to be created for why a primary challenger lost in 2016. It's not just me doubting the sincerity of it all, the Congressional Black Caucus is ticked off too - to put it mildly. If Sanders won the pledged delegates, and the momentum was behind him, Supers would have switched support to him because they understand their only role is in contested conventions - a power they still retain.

I don't agree that heated fights in the primary depress enthusiasm, and I suspect the opposite is true. That's supporting our system of government, not opting out. That's bringing people into it, not alienating them.

Clinton and Obama had a heated fight. Puma's were itching to raise a stink about structural issues which they thought hamstrung their candidate. Hillary ignored them and passionately campaigned with Obama to get him elected. If Hillary had gone on to say the primary was rigged, when it wasn't, and that structural changes were necessary, we wouldn't hear the end of it.

I think you just keep proving the point in my op.

[JCanete]

55. Yes, all corporate donors are bad, because they aren't contributing out of any kind of altruistic

motivation. For that matter, its very hard to know when rich people who have enough money to make a major impact are contributing for altruistic reasons or because they have pet interests that they want privileged or protected. I think It hurts us to take that money, it doesn't help us. And you will find, not surprisingly, that those big checks don't tend to go to the folks who make it a priority to get money out of politics. You will find that that money more often than not, is going to the "adults" in the room who understand that governance is about giving business interests a very influential seat at the table.

In Clinton's case she was certainly not being treated unfairly by the DNC. They like her brand, so it would have been an absurd argument to make. She was the frontrunner. Sanders on the other-hand is a wrench in the cogs. Frankly, its not a surprise that the DNC would be less than enthused about his candidacy and would by a simple fact of natural inclination, lean towards Clinton in its behavior. Particularly if they see Sanders as poison to the Democratic Party. That would only make sense, and I don't even begrudge it. I'll say there is evidence to that fact, however, I'll also say that it was actually relatively mild and benign. More tonal than anything.

You actually have no idea whether or not the DNC would flip an election away from a candidate like Sanders. Using the Obama Clinton example is not very convincing, given just how close these candidates were in so many ways. In fact, back to my last point, if the party leadership thought that Sanders was going to undermine the machinery that they think is so effective and important to electing democrats, that could be a damn good reason(at least in their heads) to blow up an election cycle (which it would) in favor of barring a certain type of candidate. I hope they wouldn't do this because it seems like brand damage that could not be easily recovered from, but then, if it is not a trigger that would ever be pulled, then why do we need to keep it? Why does the black caucus think its so important if it should never be used?

And actually, anecdotally, we have a poster here who claims to be a Superdelegate who has indicated that at least personally, he might be inclined to do exactly that. The very existence of supers came out of the idea that voters might choose a candidate that the leadership didn't think could win the GE, and that the leadership needed a course-corrector in its arsenal in such an event. Well what does that look like?

I'm not sure why you put that flippant comment about Clinton in and decided to ignore the crux of my point, which is that the media isn't called out for why it is bad. Not making that connection isn't really helping. Then it does get easily dismissed by the media as whining. That's how they like to frame it.

As to people in West Virginia liking Manchin, well he's a known quantity. I suspect playing moderate has helped him, and more than anything, not pissing off certain powerful financial institutions in the state has kept a target off his back. But that conpromises governing. My point wasn't necessarily that we needed to push him out either. My point was that if he was thinking of supporting candidates like Gorsuch, that we should have given him reason to think long and hard about that decision. And frankly, primary opponents from the left have the potential to pull the mainstream candidate in that direction.

And challenging people like Manchin in primaries has the potential to give your message visibility. On a state-wide scale that is potentially a long-shot, given that it takes a lot of volunteers and ultimately a lot of money, so I don't know whether in this case there was any lingering benefit, but I absolutely agree that establishing a progressive presence in these states is important. You cannot expect these states to do anything but stay red if you always run to the middle or center right to court the voters. If those are the choices, and that's the spectrum of politics, well progressivism will never get a foot-hold there.

As to Dixiecrats, well how did FDR deal with them? How did Johnson?

You're right about what the GOP has done, and how effective its been. We should be shaking up the tribal identities the GOP is fostering by fighting the class war. That has the potential of reshaping these borders because it names a different enemy. It redefines sides. Not doing so makes it really hard for us to penetrate that bubble.

[JHan]

57. okay

yes, all corporate donors are bad, because they aren't contributing out of any kind of altruistic motivation. For that matter, its very hard to know when rich people who have enough money to make a major impact are contributing for altruistic reasons or because they have pet interests that they want privileged or protected. I think It hurts us to take that money, it doesn't help us. And you will find, not surprisingly, that those big checks don't tend to go to the folks who make it a priority to get money out of politics. You will find that that money more often than not, is going to the "adults" in the room who understand that governance is about giving business interests a very influential seat at the table.

well I suppose you have the luxury of engaging in that kind of purity, but it has never existed in Politics.

Ever.

"In Clinton's case she was certainly not being treated unfairly by the DNC. They like her brand, so it would have been an absurd argument to make. She was the frontrunner. Sanders on the other-hand is a wrench in the cogs. Frankly, its not a surprise that the DNC would be less than enthused about his candidacy and would by a simple fact of natural inclination, lean towards Clinton in its behavior. Particularly if they see Sanders as poison to the Democratic Party. That would only make sense, and I don't even begrudge it. I'll say there is evidence to that fact, however, I'll also say that it was actually relatively mild and benign. More tonal than anything. "

Yes I Imagine they'd be skeptical of someone who has criticized the party versus a woman who has worked with Democrats, defended Democrats and successfully implemented Dem legislation. I've shared many times what Sanders could have done differently, starting in 2012. And frankly, the base liked her since she handedly won the pop. vote.

"You actually have no idea whether or not the DNC would flip an election away from a candidate like Sanders. Using the Obama Clinton example is not very convincing, given just how close these candidates were in so many ways. In fact, back to my last point, if the party leadership thought that Sanders was going to undermine the machinery that they think is so effective and important to electing democrats, that could be a damn good reason(at least in their heads) to blow up an election cycle (which it would) in favor of barring a certain type of candidate. I hope they wouldn't do this because it seems like brand damage that could not be easily recovered from, but then, if it is not a trigger that would ever be pulled, then why do we need to keep it? Why does the black caucus think its so important if it should never be used?

they haven't done what you have claimed and there's no historical evidence for it, I don't engage in hypotheticals. I mean at the end of the day, the reforms mean less complaining from certain quarters. for a little peace, I'll let it slide but my cynicism remains.

"And actually, anecdotally, we have a poster here who claims to be a Superdelegate who has indicated that at least personally, he might be inclined to do exactly that. The very existence of supers came out of the idea that voters might choose a candidate that the leadership didn't think could win the GE, and that the leadership needed a course-corrector in its arsenal in such an event. Well what does that look like?

Brush up on your history and really look into what primaries used to be like. Tad Devine was instrumental in implementing the concept after all.

And challenging people like Manchin in primaries has the potential to give your message visibility. On a state-wide scale that is potentially a long-shot, given that it takes a lot of volunteers and ultimately a lot of money, so I don't know whether in this case there was any lingering benefit, but I absolutely agree that establishing a progressive presence in these states is important. You cannot expect these states to do anything but stay red if you always run to the middle or center right to court the voters. If those are the choices, and that's the spectrum of politics, well progressivism will never get a foot-hold there.

America is a diverse polity. We all have to grasp this and do our best to spread our message while observing political realities.

As to Dixiecrats, well how did FDR deal with them? How did Johnson?

Triangulation in FDR's case, Johnson was well aware that the Dems lost the south for a generation by pushing the Civil Rights Act.

[JCanete]

59. I'll just say its not a purity argument I'm making. Its one of strategy, and I think mainsteam

thinking on this is the wrong one. You can't take a tenth of the pool being contributed to democrats and republicans alike and expect to have a fair fight. And it undercuts our potential weapons. It files down our bite. Sure, it helps these candidates kill in the primaries, but the way it benefits us in the GE is dubious.

I mean, this is tricky territory. I'm not convinced that doing this my way would work. Its an uphill battle. Money is required for political presence. Cutting out the big money makes the fight a tricky one. On the other hand, allowing it to continue to influence our politics on both sides of the aisle has had a demonstrable impact on our nation and the political landscape. We are so screwed because of it. The only question is whether we would have been screwed either way.

[JHan]

60. okay, well we already agree Dems need to take back congress.

For what you want to be really airtight, it will first require reversal of C. United and other SCOTUS decisions. This is not a quick fix so in the meantime I'm fine with allowing bank employees who happen to not be executives donate to campaigns.

[OilemFirchen]

29. I know, right?

I'll never forgive the Democratic Party for destroying the Fairness Doctrine. And they had a lot of nerve gutting the FCC's public interest standard and local ownership rules.

Those bastids!



(Because some have the attention span of a gnat):

[JCanete]

56. What about this one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996


Besides, as I said, this has mostly been engineered and promoted by the GOP. We're the ones who stand to lose for it. Democrats lose for it. We needed to be fighting this tooth and nail, not just rolling over on it all. So you pointing out that Republicans did this...that uh, doesn't really contradict me. Still, we made executive mistakes like the one above.

[OilemFirchen]

63. What about it?

Who knew how the Internet was going to develop back in 1996? I invested in several CLECs and I knew what the hell I was doing. I lost my ass, along with a shitload of others gambling on local providers. In retrospect it was a boondoggle that obviously benefited major providers, but the concept was in line with the FCC's intent to promote local ownership and competition.

It's unfortunate that Clinton had to pass a new Telecommunications Act to accommodate the Internet while faced with a large Republican majority in Congress. Do you think that GWB would have passed better legislation?

When, exactly, did the Democrats have the opportunity to rewrite the TCA to properly fit its intent? And when did they have the opportunity to reverse the decimation of the FCC which followed? Do you know how many months the Democratic Party has had control of both houses of Congress since 1996? Do you honestly think that's irrelevant?

[WhiteTara]

35. Our Revolution's decision to take untraceable money is absolutely a problem

are those people even democrats? I don't think so.

[Me.]

37. Is That Kin To Tax Returns That Remain Hidden?

[WhiteTara]

38. Yes, it seems that democrats are the only ones with any honor

and of course, there are those who sully our name, like Manchin; but OR doesn't seem to be an up and up organization and they are definitely not democrats.

[Me.]

40. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[JCanete]

54. um...you know that other organizations that support democrats do this right? The only reason

its a particularly big deal to me about Our Revolution, is that its part of their messaging to get money out of politics. For that reason I don't like how they structured their organization, but what they are doing is hardly beyond the pale of politics as usual.

[WhiteTara]

61. What they are doing is so hypocritical that

I can't take them seriously at all.

[shanny]

39. This.

And most especially, this: "the Democrats are only ever as good as our most recalcitrant member."

[treestar]

46. how would the threat of a more liberal candidate

in the primary twist Manchin's arm?

[JCanete]

52. I think that really depends on what kind of impact such a candidate could have...whether

populist messaging would have an impact if amplified in West Virginia...whether such a move would force Manchin to tac left on certain issues as a matter of keeping his base. It may do nothing. But incumbents tend to not like having serious challengers to them in the primaries. Its not something he would consider pleasant.

.

[Gothmog]

65. I live in the real world where one does not rely on magic

Magic does not work in the real world. I have been very active in the party in the real world including attending a national convention. The Democratic Party is working to make changes in the real world and such changes do not rely on magical voter revolutions where millions or billions or trillions of new voters magically appear

BTW, my kids are teasing me that I am one of the donor class. I am supporting a number of good candidates in the real world including candidates attacked by Our Revolution

[betsuni]

73. Omygerd, you are an elite wealthy donor class person!

[Gothmog]

79. My kids tease me about this but I know real members of the donor class

I give what I can and I also volunteer a great deal. I have worked on voter protection on every election since 2004 where I went to Florida as part of the Kerry Edwards voter protection team

[JCanete]

120. oops...my bad betsuni, thought this was posted to me and was confused. nt

Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2018, 03:19 PM - Edit history (1)

[Gothmog]

83. Are you kidding?

In the real world the media (other than Faux News which is not a media source) is doing a good job of covering trump and getting the facts out. Trump is attacking the media and calling it fake news because the media is holding trump's feet to the fire and pointing out his mistakes. The NYT and the Washington Post are both engaged in a journalism war to come up with facts about the trump administration and this coverage is working.

What more do you want the real media to do? If the media is ignoring trump's claims of fake news, how do you think that the Democrats can put pressure on the media and exactly what do you think that the media is not covering?

I live in the real world where magic does not work. Making claims that have no basis in reality will not change things. I know that you believe in magic and that if the media was nicer to sanders, then sanders magical voter revolution would generate millions or billions or trillions of new voters who will rise up and force the GOP to be reasonable and solve all of the world's ills. Magic does not work in the real world.

I am glad that the media has been active in holding trump accountable. The free press is doing its job right now and is doing a good job. I have seen far less of whataboutism and both sides to this under the current press. Trump's attacks on the media are backfiring and I think that the media is doing a great job.

Texas will turn blue some day but it will be due to hard work and not due to magic. I was amused to see a number of ads from the NRCC against Lizzie Fletcher this morning on the media. The GOP is having to divert significant resources to Texas to fight candidates like Collin Allred, Lizze Fletcher and Beto. Things can change but it will not be due to magical thinking

Right now, I will be happy to elect enough real Democrats to Congress and the Senate so that we have a check on trump. The media has been accurately reporting on trump and that reporting is helping fuel the possible Democratic blue wave. However any blue wave will take hard work in the real world and magical thinking will not be sufficient to help Democrats win in the mid terms.

[Hekate]

102. This, Gothmog

[JCanete]

119. oh, so your version of good media is at least covering the facts on Trump? That's the lowest

fucking bar I can imagine. Yeah, Trump the first class A-hole who is a destabilizer applying tariffs that pisses off a lot of wealthy Americans and who fucks with Trade agreements and is too ham-fisted not to create a scandal a day and to say stupid shit every time he opens his mouth is covered by the media. we're Saved! All it takes is for us to have somebody who is universally hated in the White House for the media, which also did almost no vetting of him through the primaries, and propped him up at every chance it got, to finally doing its job.

We literally had the "media" saying "Trump became president this day." Fuck them.


Besides, the point isn't the people in the media are corrupt or that many of them are cognizent that they are carrying water for big money...its that they got hired because they are the kind of people who have a world-view that isn't contentious with big money interests.Its their lens, not their facts. They don't typically outright lie...they probably believe themselves to have integrity and to value truth. But what they privilege as a story and what they bury matters...how they conduct their "he said she said" debates matters. They have often been a horrible excuse for a fourth estate, and you should know that given the election coverage that helped lose Clinton the White House. How sexy was the email scandal that they dredged up for the last 2 weeks before the GE? Nobody even understood the email scandal, they just understood that it was a scandal. The media took Comey's sabotage and ran with it.

And now you want to defend the media and its quality? You are certainly an interesting individual.

[Gothmog]

129. The real world is a nice place even though magic does not work

Your complaints are amusing. Right now we are seeing a newspaper war between the NYT and the Washington Post that is amazing. Trump can not have a screaming fit in the WH without it being reported within a day. Rachel Maddow and MSNBC are leading the ratings and we are seeing first class reporting on trump and other issues. In the real, world competition works and the press has a profit motive to find and report the facts about trump.

The paranoia about big money and carrying water amuses me. In the real world there is a profit motive to beat the other media sources on stories and so we are seeing some amazing reporting. The media has risen up to address trump and the GOP. I lost count this morning of the number of times that I heard persons on MSNBC say that trump and grassley are lying about FBI investigations.

If the media and the real world is so corrupt, what do you propose? Having sanders stamp his foot and invoke his magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters will magically appear to force the GOP to be reasonable. These same magical new voters could also force the press to cover the news the way you want it to be covered. I am amused that some sanders supporters are irked that the media is not taking his proposals seriously. Magic does not work in the real world and so the press knows to focus on things other than silly proposals and plans that can only be adopted if millions or billions or trillions of new voters magically appear.

I am a corporate lawyer who lives in the real world. I trust the profit motive of news organizations who are in strong competition to report the facts. I am happy to see Rachel Maddow and MSNBC win the ratings wars. The success of these shows are proof that the press is not carrying water or is corrupt.

The real world is a nice place. Magic does not work but hard work does. I prefer to address issues that actually exist in the real world. Progress is being made but this progress is due to hard work and not due to magic.

[JCanete]

131. Goth you're a broken record and you need new material. No, I don't propose that Sanders use magic

or that this is about what Sanders should or could do at all. Why the hell are you so silly? I propose that there is a glaring conflict of interest that most media has, and that the very competition you are lauding resulted in a shit load of empty coverage of even Trump's empty podium because Trump was good for ratings leading up to the GE. There's your profit motive. Brilliant. What were newspapers writing leading up to the Iraq war?

What I propose is that democrats stop taking shit....stop pretending the media is doing its job and that that conflict of interest doesn't exist.

Wapo has a certain audience. Wapo caters to it. So what. It does all kinds of reporting with an obvious establishment slant.

Look up
Irrefutable - The Washington Post

also from the wapo editorial regarding the Iraq invasion...

"
Yet, even if the operation does not go smoothly or fast, it must go forward. Saddam Hussein has threatened his neighbors, and the United States, with war and weapons of mass destruction for two decades; he has violated the cease-fire that ended the Persian Gulf War and defied multiple disarmament orders from the United Nations Security Council. The war that has now begun stands to end the single greatest threat to peace in the Middle East; it will help establish that rogue states will not be allowed to stockpile chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in defiance of the international community."

Who were the major news voices opposed to this invasion again? There were all kinds of voices in the wilderness with credentials telling us this was all bullshit, but who were the big papers leading with those people's words? Ratings wars are nothing at all compared to parent company interests and pleasing your advertisers. Sorry Goth, you're just wrong here.

[Gothmog]

134. So democrats are supposed to stamp their feet and wait for a magical voter revolution?

Democrats are being helped by the press coverage right now. The fact that the press is ignoring sanders and his proposals does not matter. The press coverage that the Democrats are receiving is helping to fuel voter resentment against trump and the GOP and we are seeing signs on this resentment in the polling.

I like living in the real world. If you have any proposals that do not rely on magic or magical thinking to work, let me know. In the mean time, I will work to elect real democrats

I will also be watching MSNBC and I just renewed my subscription to the Washington Post. Being informed is a good thing

[JCanete]

121. by the way, what's a "real" democrat?

[Gothmog]

130. Are you being defensive?

You will know if you are a real democrat. Real democrats are actually members of the party and support the party. Real democrats do not vote for Jill Stein or Nader. Real Democrats do not listen to idiots like Nader and Sarandon. Real democrats live in the real world and do not rely on magic or magical thinking to justify their positions.

[JCanete]

132. That explanation falls flat. You were talking about electing 'real democrats', not about

the voting public. Who runs in democratic elections who aren't real democrats? What makes them not real?

I have consistently voted democratic but I'll listen to all people and make up my mind. I'm not scared of hearing
people's opinions.

Your magical thinking line is getting tired, doesn't reflect any position Sanders has expressed, ignores that Sanders showing has absolutely had a lasting impact on the Democratic party and all of the candidates who are considered front-runners, except for maybe Biden, so there is an indication that even if you aren't, others who care to be elected are taking into account that "magical" voter revolution.

[Gothmog]

133. Any yet you complain that the press is not paying attention to sanders and his silly proposals

Magic does not work in the real world which is why sanders has no significant legislative accomplishments and why most people ignore his silly proposals

[JCanete]

136. Most people are not ignoring his proposals. and the news walks a fine line. If it ignores for too

long what people are following on social media it starts to look illegitimate. As Social Media started becoming a big thing, cable media in particular had to begrudgingly start acknowledging stories that it had been ignoring, because it does trade in credibility. The problem is if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it did it make a sound? So while social media is at least a separate watchdog on the media that circumvents their pipeline, which acts as a check of sorts on media coverage, we all know that social media has presented a different set of problems now, since too many people have found their own bubbles so that they can live in the echo chambers of their own beliefs.

[Gothmog]

137. Magic does not work in the real world

sanders has not achieved even one major legislative accomplishment in the real world. The press knows this and so has largely ignored sanders latest silly proposals. Hoping that millions or billions or trillions of social media users will rise up and force the real world to take sanders' proposals seriously is amusing and reminds me of the sanders magical voter revolution.

Have fun waiting for magic to work. I will continue to live in the real world. Change is possible but it takes hard work and magical social media or magical voter revolutions are not going to work in the real world.

[JCanete]

141. Change has happened to superdelegates, and I remember a certain poster posting a few threads

about how people were up in arms about that....was that magical thinking that got that to change?

[Gothmog]

143. The quid pro quo for the superdelegate rule is that sanders cannot run without joining party

Sanders cannot run in 2020 using the same games he used in 2016 and is using this year in Vermont. Under the new rules, sanders has to formally join the party and run as a member of the Democratic party. This rule will make it very difficult for sanders to run using the same tricks

In addition sanders will have to release all of tax returns under ballot access laws in a number of blue states. Do you really think that sanders will release ten years of full tax returns?

After sanders encouraged or allowed his delegates boo Congressman John Lewis at the national convention, do you think that sanders will increase his support with African American or Southern voters or will this support decline? My whip still works for the party and could make some great ads on the Congressman John Lewis incident.

Do you really think that sanders will run?

Change does occur but not due to magic. Come visit the real world

[JHan]

138. I get that you're upset at corporate media..

...so am I, at times. Confirmation bias afflicts all media, it doesn't matter what publication or blog you follow in the media ecosystem. Which is why I try - as best as I can - to approach new information critically/skeptically ( which is not the same as denialism) If you follow Jacobin and Common Dreams, do you assess what they publish critically? Do you question their assumptions or what they choose to push as a lede?

As for Sanders, when a left-leaning think tank points out flaws in his proposals, ( for example) it's a bad look for his supporters to question the motives of that think tank, which has a good reputation, just because they dare to point out a flaw. This leads you into Trumpian territory, where any criticism is seen as a threat. Jacobin went so far in one of their columns to say that we should ignore fact checkers!

During the election, it wasn't just the Corporate Media which had a hand in spreading disinformation about Clinton and Donald Trump - entities like Wikileaks, Russia Today, and far left publications, also did their bit to spread false narratives about Clinton to drag her to Donald Trump's level which in turn normalized him.

It's fair to say that since 2016, Legacy Media houses have done a good job exposing the Trump administration. The problem is that Trump is an expert manipulator of the media and they're dealing with a President not interested in norms in any way ( unlike his predecessors)

Political editorial boards develop a schema about politics and politicians which informs how they cover both. When I defend Schumer against unfair attacks, I am pointing to that Schema - the same with Clinton and other Democrats.

[JCanete]

140. I disagree with you that it is bad to question reporting or motives. It is bad to do this in a

reactionary way, but I don't feel like I've been reactionary when it comes to Tapper's reporting or Factcheck.org's bizarre focus on how the author of the Mercatus study wants his study to be interpreted, rather than on the numbers his study produced.

And not pointing out these intrinsic biases in the media has been a very big problem with democrats, while we've let the republicans frame the message when it comes to media...we've let them AND the media itself proclaim that media has a liberal bias even though the logic of that is absolutely absurd. The math does not add up. There is no profit motive for having a liberal bias...certainly not one that trumps advertising dollars and propaganda that values a parent company's bottom line. Hell I've even heard this propagated as truth by one of NPR's pundits.

And thus Democrats have been on the defensive for decades now, allowing corporate media to frame every debate and every issue, and to filter it all to the audience under the auspice of having a liberal taint. You have to point out its conflict of interest. There is one, and what has resulted from it is a lot of players in this industry that don't even themselves appear to be aware that they are perpetuating mythology.

That doesn't mean the people doing the reporting or fact-checking are lying or hiding things, although there are obvious examples in our media of both, but it does mean that the people who get hired on to these companies reflect a certain perspective, and tend not to never be far left, although weirdly(not really), there is plenty of mainstream news that tips far far right. Clearly there's a distaste in the whole industry for particularly left-leaning pundits and factcheck organizations, which news outlets and major political parties are responsible for either giving credence to or ignoring.

Generally speaking I think its fair to question any outlet or perspective, particularly when their bread-and-butter seems to align with the kind of reporting they do.

Greenwald and Dore for instance, have valuable perspectives at times, but both seem so one-sided in their rhetoric regarding Clinton or Russia that I'm very cautious when something they say makes its way to my ears. Dore was jumping onto the maybe story about Feinstein protecting Kavanaugh, which seemed incredibly half-baked. I agree with you that confirmation bias abounds, and worse, people develop brands that attract a certain audience. They carve out niches that depend upon them being inflexible on these issues. Dore seems to have absolutely done that. That need for capital and fame could get in the way of personally evolving.

I do think in some cases those who are outside of the mainstream enough, at least have a greater opportunity to take a step back. They aren't swept up in the same narrative and assumptions. They may construct their own... and some do(or all do to some extent) but being on the outside affords more of a chance for some self reflection.

If Trump manipulates the media, then its because companies are staffed with shitty producers and editors. I think its more an issue of being a symbiotic relationship. They aren't being wagged by Trump. They are benefitting by covering what they choose to cover. I don't think there's anything brilliant about Trump, I think he simply behaves in a way that he himself would respond to. I have a very hard time accepting that he's an expert at this. He's just gotten a shit load of help .

[JHan]

142. I never, ever said that it's bad to question reporting.

I specifically said that one must be skeptical of all media and critically assess information.

And not all media are the same: BBC is not the same as Fox News.

And whatever thing of value Jimmy Dore has to say was probably said much better by someone else. He's a conspiracy theory monger and irrational. Greenwald also routinely makes bad faith arguments and believes himself to be the greatest journalist ever which clouds his judgment, he too has an ideological agenda.

[JCanete]

144. Fair enough. And true, Fox and BBC are absolutely not the same. Fox isn't interested in maintaining

any level of credibility. It is interested in fostering a dedicated, dumbed down audience that will eat up whatever crap it feeds them. For that reason, it doesn't need to toe any factual line. Nor does Sinclair.


I agree with you on both of those individuals, which is why I mentioned them. You are right about Dore, I think anything he gets right is probably found in other forms. Greenwald and Wiki certainly need to be taken with a grain of salt, and their reporting/editorializing/leaking taken in the context of what is possibly an anti Democratic Party agenda rather than anti-establishment ideology as a whole(not that the latter would have it right, but at least it would feel less like there was a very specific axe to grind).

[Gothmog]

139. So Democrats are to hold their breath and refused favorable media coverage?

You do realize that there is an important election coming up and the Media has been giving Democrats and Democratic candidates favorable coverage. Do you propose that we rely on the magical sanders voter revolution to occur or do you want Democratic candidates to hold their breaths and not talk to the media until you say that it is okay.

I would like to win as many House and Senate races as possible in the upcoming elections. I really thing that waiting for a magical voter revolution is not a good idea. I also think that Democratic candidates should continue to talk to the media. I am not sure what you mean by holding the media to task other than a threat for all Democrats to hold their breaths and pout.

I am glad that Democratic candidates are getting good coverage right now and I would like to see as many democrats elected to office. I do think that the concept of accusing the media of

carrying the water of its corporate ownership

makes any sense.

Go ahead and keep pouting if you want. I live in the real world and I am working to elect Democrats to congress and the senate. It makes no sense to me to pout and hold my breath when there is a great deal of work to be done in the real world

[JustAnotherGen]

21. Wonderful analysis

And if all of those things were "fixed" - the problem would be the Democratic Party makes me happy - so I'm going to be angry about that now.

[brer cat]

24. Absolutely spot on!

Snark aside, ignoring context and political realities are essential elements of much Democratic Party bashing. "Democrats are the only ones with agency" is a very big file.

[TheFarseer]

27. Im honestly not sure what the point of this is.

Is it to start a discussion or just shit on anyone that has any criticism of the democratic party?

[JHan]

28. My points were clear.

[betsuni]

34. What are your criticisms of the Democratic Party?

[NurseJackie]

42. How DARE anyone defend Democrats and the Democratic party, eh?

[JHan]

49. It's divisive to point out unfair attacks, Kafka couldn't make this up.

[treestar]

45. the particular criticisms were stated

and some valid ones suggested at the end, too.

[TheFarseer]

62. It made no sense

To point out the often made criticism that the establishment puts their thumb on the scale in primaries and then pretty much declare anyone that thinks that is an idiot if you are actually trying to have a discussion.

[JHan]

66. You're invested in blaming "the establishment" for the results of 2016 primaries..

But this is your opinion, which had no real bearing on reality. I won't cite 2008 AGAIN in this thread.

There's a reason Clinton won with older millennials and other demographics among the base . Her ideas resonated, her competency and grasp on the issues impressed Democrats. Not just one or two. Unless you're suggesting that in a year where populism was the rage, Clinton's pop vote win and thrashing of her opponent is only down to establishment shenanigans. Yes, do tell those (approx)) 4 million that their choice was only down to what "the establishment" wanted.

Clinton talked about paid family leave, universal pre-k, Alzheimer research funding, her scope was massive so she resonated among a cross-section of the base. This wasn't due to rigging or some Coronation, despite what some would want us to believe.

[TheFarseer]

67. You honestly can't see the advantage

of having the Democratic establishment behind you in the Democratic primary??!! It wouldn't be an advantage to have almost literally every elected Democrat endorsing and doing events for you? It wouldn't be an advantage to have the fund raising and party infrastructure behind you? Not to mention the media (which has an obvious bias towards those that spend tons of money on TV ads) saying how pragmatic and statesman like you are and how your opponent is impractical and can't get any of this done and on top of that might be a racist and a sexist. This is not often mentioned, but Clinton had a HUGE advantage in mail in votes, which is fair but is also a very establishment tactic. Then, right before the California primary-the most populous state, they declared Clinton the winner making it completely stupid to go out and cast a vote for the other guy and "being part of history" is you cast a vote for Clinton. If you really can't see the advantage of having the establishment behind you, then there's just no use talking to you. And I'm not even saying she was a bad candidate (although I think we could have done better) or she is a bad person or would have been a bad president. I'm just saying she obviously had an advantage in the primary.

By the way, you never addressed my point that it's crappy to start an open discussion by declaring that one opinion is stupid.

[JHan]

68. I agreed with her critiques of his plans..

saying how pragmatic and statesman like you are and how your opponent is impractical and can't get any of this done

because they were correct.

Then, right before the California primary-the most populous state, they declared Clinton the winner making it completely stupid to go out and cast a vote for the other guy and "being part of history" is you cast a vote for Clinton.

California is a semi-open primary and perhaps the most diverse state in the Union. Clinton consistently polled ahead of Sanders, yet the establishment felt some need to put in a fix......, in a state she was comfortably ahead. Yes, voting for Clinton was meaningful for many women. Yes it was historical. Obama's election was historical too???

Then, right before the California primary-the most populous state, they declared Clinton the winner making it completely stupid to go out and cast a vote for the other guy and "being part of history" is you cast a vote for Clinton.

"they declared" - Listen, California's election results aren't certified until 30 days after the election, to factor in provisional ballots and mail-ins but you know, mail-ins are establishment so this was rigged too apparently.

Once more, why would the "establishment" want to "fix" the vote in California through an early announcement of a win when Sanders was still way behind Clinton, where even a win in California would not have been enough to give him the edge? This criticism is surreal. He was still way behind her in pledged delegates.

But let's go down History lane. In 2008 Clinton won California too, earning 38 delegates more than Obama, and the final number of pledged delegates at the end of it all was 1766 for Obama and 1639 for Clinton. At no point was Sanders that competitive. And btw, Obama was not the "establishment" choice in 08 at first. In any case, as soon as Clinton realized she didn't have enough, she released her pledged delegates and introduced Obama at the convention, and they both put forth a united front. 2016 was a complete contrast to this with contested convention nonsense and Busters booing John Lewis of all people.

So yes, I have zero time for "establishment rigged the primaries" surrealism. That this remains a thing after a decisive trouncing is mind boggling.

[betsuni]

69. +1

[Gothmog]

71. Magic does not work in the real world

[TheFarseer]

80. Here goes

1. That’s like, your opinion, man. We already have Medicare. A majority of Americans support Medicare for all. Most industrialized countries have single payer. I don’t see why it’s so crazy. I also have to add that I was one of those people that wanted gay people to shut up about their rights because it was costing us elections 10-15 years ago and I freely admit now that I was totally wrong.

2. Everyone called the Democratic primary the night before California. That’s just a fact.

3. At my caucus location, one candidate won the head count 500 something to 200 something. Then the mail-in votes were announced and suddenly it was almost dead even. I heard this happened at almost every caucus location in almost every caucus state. It’s legal but clearly one side used that tactic better.

Anyway it’s pointless to debate this now, you just triggered me as I have already more or less stated.

[JHan]

81. Ah yes , of course we're back to...

Last edited Tue Sep 18, 2018, 12:51 PM - Edit history (2)

Anyone-who-ever-pointed-out-a-flaw-in-Sanders'-proposals-is-against-universal-healthcare-for-all-Americans.

In other words unless you agree with everything Sanders says, you don't want the same things. It's like the lie that Clinton wasn't in favor of improving system or was against the idea of single payer which couldn't be further from the truth given her health care reform bona fides. Or the idea that single payer is the only kind of universal healthcare coverage in the world when "industrialized countries" like France and Germany have hybrid systems, in fact in some respects France's system is like the ACA. I will push back when people try to insinuate that Democratic leaders haven't tried to improve conditions, and I will push back against unfair attacks on the party.

truth should not be triggering, but embraced.

EDIT: We now know Conservatives and Kremlin operatives ( from the russia investigation indictments) wanted to ferment division between supporters of Sanders and supporters of Clinton. The meme you're pushing is one they crafted. You should ponder on that.



Fact checkers did an excellent job debunking the memes that floated around at the time, Snopes has an entire page dedicated to this:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/uncounted-california-ballots/

WHAT'S TRUE
On 8 June 2016, counties in California published updates about outstanding ballots versus counted ballots, and a significant portion remained yet-to-be tallied.

WHAT'S FALSE
The announcements were public and lagging results didn't constitute a coverup; most of the delay involved rounding up and certifying mail-in and provisional ballots.

It is possible (though not certain) that the gap between Sanders and Clinton might narrow further as more votes were certified, but California’s lengthy post-election process is neither fraudulent nor secretive. Mainstream news outlets and county officials frequently and regularly interact with concerned citizens, and invite them to observe the certification process.

What you choose to believe is up to you.

[TheFarseer]

84. Wow. We are having separate conversations

All media announced the Democratic national presidential primary over the day before the CA primary. That’s a fact.

[JHan]

85. Well I'm able to follow conversations well.

You have difficulty accepting Sanders lost. While this is not my problem, I will push back against the meme which flourished from discontent over his loss that the system was "Rigged". I strongly recommend you read the Snopes link I provided.

[TheFarseer]

86. That link

Is not even close to what I was talking about. That margin btw is the same as Bernie’s margin In WY and they split the delegates 50/50. I’m sure that is what happened in CA too.

[Gothmog]

89. It is called math

sanders was so far behind in pledged delegates after losing NY badly that sanders needed 65% to 75% of the vote in California to win. The fact that sanders was so far behind in pledged delegates is something called math in the real world.

Facts and math do rely on magic. No one in the real world believed that sanders could take 65% to 75% of the vote in California. Again math does not rely on magic

[JHan]

91. forever a classic.

[Gothmog]

92. Clinton had a huge lead in pledged delegates going into California

Sanders needed to win 70%+ of the vote in California to catch up. There is nothing rigged about reporting the facts about the math involved. Math is math and math is not rigged. It is not rigged to report that sanders was not going to be over come the Clinton lead in delegates without 70%+ percent victory which was not likely.

I voted in the Super Tuesday primaries and after these primaries Clinton had a significant lead in pledged delegates that sanders could not over come. Math is math sanders last real chance was to win New York by a large margin and then win California. sanders lost both states by significant margins according to the voters.

[betsuni]

117. When the words "rigged" and "primary" are anywhere near each other in a conversation:

[betsuni]

116. So funny!

[Gothmog]

105. The selection process was effectively over after Super Tuesday

Clinton had a lead in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday that was never challenged or significantly reduced. When one candidate has far more delegates than the other candidate, then they are winning. sanders needed to win big in both NY and California to have a chance to close this gap. sanders lost big in NY (yeah my fellow Jewish voters) and so by the time California came up, sanders needed 75%+ of the vote in California. No one in the real world believed that sanders could get that percentage of the vote in California.

Again, are you objecting to the math or to the fact that the press was reporting the math?

I like living in the real world where math is important

[TheFarseer]

108. California is a very small part of the argument

There's no use discussing this further when you intentionally miss my point and call me stupid.

[Gothmog]

110. Try using facts and your words to explain your point

If you have proof or facts backing up your claims, present them. I am doing my best to try to understand your points but vague claims like people were mean to sanders and the system was rigged are not facts. I live in the real world and I understand a concept called math. Sanders was effectively eliminated mathematically on Super Tuesday in that Clinton built up a delegate lead that sanders never cut into. If my math is wrong, please explain.

I would love to understand how sanders magical voter revolution was supposed to work. sanders admitted that he needed this magical voter revolution in order to get his proposals adopted but never defined the parameters of this magical event. Did sanders magical voter revolution require millions or billions or trillions of new voters to show up? I note that this magic has not worked to date in that sanders has no real significant legislative accomplishments.

I am active in party politics in the real world. I was a delegate for Clinton to the national convention and I volunteer a great deal of time on voter protection efforts. I am working with my county's coordinated campaign to elect democrats to local office and I am working on Beto's and a couple of congressional candidates campaign. In 2014, the GOP was able to use voter id to drive voter participation down form 39% to 33%. See

Instead of whining about rigged systems, we sued and got the voter id law effectively gutted. In 2016, I helped train 200+ poll watchers who watched and helped us stop the GOP from cheating on the court's ruling on the voter id law. We elected a Democratic DA in Harris County and as a result we are seeing bail reform and the unofficial decrim of pot. Change can work but it takes hard work in the real world and not vague complaints about people being mean to sanders or the system being rigged.

Use facts and your words to make your argument if you have an argument.

[Gothmog]

87. Texas had the Texas two step in 2008

Texas used to have the Texas Two Step where two-thirds of the delegates were awarded due to primary and one-third due caucuses. I was on the Obama voter protection team and I attend the training as to how to game the system. Clinton won the primary (2/3rds of the delegates) but lost the caucus phase and lost the state. Caucuses kept sanders in the contest because caucuses are not democratic and can be gamed. Texas abolished the Texas two step for 2016. The same math that works in the shareholder control contests works in caucuses which are easy to game.

Sanders was rejected by many mainstream or real democrats because they did not believe in magic. After New York, sanders was so far behind in pledged delegates that he would have to win over 65% of the vote in California to be competitive with respect to pledged delegates. Are you upset because no one in the real world believed that sanders could get over 65% of the vote in California? Sanders was so far behind in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday (yeah Texas) that he never had a chance to catch up in pledged delegates.

The system was not rigged unless you mean that the fact that most mainstream democrats do believe in magical voter revolutions where millions or billions or trillions of new voters would rise up to make the GOP reasonable. If sanders had actually achieved any major legislative victories, then maybe more mainstream democrats could have supported him.

sanders controls Vermont. If single payer is really so viable, then why has Vermont not adopted single payer?? Did sanders not try in his home state? Sanders has no major legislative accomplishments in the real world because magic does not work in the real world. If sanders is so right on single payer, then sanders needs to prove this to the rest of the US by getting single payer adopted in Vermont

[JHan]

88. +++This

The constant conspiracy theorizing is tiring.

"After New York, sanders was so far behind in pledged delegates that he would have to win over 65% of the vote in California to be competitive with respect to pledged delegates. Are you upset because no one in the real world believed that sanders could get over 65% of the vote in California? Sanders was so far behind in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday (yeah Texas) that he never had a chance to catch up in pledged delegates. "

And we don't ever get an answer to this ever, and if we do, they try to suggest that NY was "rigged too" despite trends, despite Clinton being a former Senator of New York and still popular in New York. We're supposed to continually deny reality.

and delusions still persist 2 years later.

EDIT: re California, I still remember the silly rumor that polling workers thought Sanders was gonna win by a 2:1 margin, since when polling workers get to look at ballots?

(Good thing I didn't mention what went on in Nevada. And yet we get the lecturing about "rigged" )

[Gothmog]

90. The system was not rigged

Clinton had far more delegates going into California and Sanders needs 70% or so of the vote to catch up. That did not happen and was never going to happen.

Math does not rely on magic. The candidate with the most pledged delegates wins because super delegates follow pledged delegates. sanders was so far behind in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday that he never had a realistic chance of making up the difference in the real world.

Math is math. The system is not rigged simply because the candidate with the most delegates won.

[TheFarseer]

109. I'm going to declare victory

since you have not refuted any of my points. All you do is pretend I argued something else and knock down that strawman. There's no point talking to you any further.

[JHan]

111. If that helps you sleep during the night?

I know what you're arguing ( well the gist of it, and the gist of it isn't tethered to reality)
I answered your "points". You didn't have a rebuttal to mine, just conspiracy mongering.

I think you're just dealing with residual issues since your favorite lost. And that is not my problem.

[betsuni]

114. "I'm going to declare victory. ... There is no point talking to you any further."

I don't know why I find this so funny, but I do.

[JHan]

115. lol...

I smiled.

lol.

[Gothmog]

112. Have you made any "points"?

If so what are these "points" and where are the facts that back up these "points." I live in the real world. In my world we have something called the rules of evidence that guide how one makes arguments and back these arguments up with facts. Unsupported opinions of lay persons or non-experts are not entitled to any weight in the real world. So far all I have seen are claims that people were mean to sanders and that the system was rigged but no facts backing up these claims.

If you have facts, present them. If you made any "points", please point these "points" out to us. I could not find any real arguments that are supported by facts.

The real world is a nice place. I like living in the real world where facts matter.

[Gothmog]

70. You are attacking the Democratic establishment for not believing in magic.

Sanders did not get the support of the establishment because none of his proposals could be adopted in the real world without the aide of a magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters would rise up and force the GOP be reasonable. Many Democrats do not believe in magic and so never took sanders seriously. Sanders campaigned solely on the concept that his proposals would be magically adopted due to a magical voter revolution. Without that magical voter revolution, even Sanders admitted that his platform could not be adopted https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution

Thus more broadly, his attempt to delegitimize a swath of voters lays bare a fundamental inconsistency of the Sanders campaign: One of his basic answers about how he's going to accomplish his aims – whether winning the Democratic nod, winning the general election or enacting his agenda – is the forthcoming revolution. His super-ambitious agenda will prove to be achievable substance rather than unicorns-and-rainbows fantasy, he said Thursday night, "when millions of people stand up, fight back and create a government that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent. That is what the political revolution is about. That is what this campaign is about."

Magical thinking does not work in the real world. Sanders has failed to adopt any meaningful legislation in the real world including in his own state but sanders is willing to heckle the Democratic Party and claim that his magical proposals are realistic.

I am not the only one to note that Sanders would not be able to get his proposals adopted in the real world. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1483791/-Imagine-Bernie-Sanders-wins-the-White-House-Then-what Without a magical voter revolution, the premise of the OP is correct.

You are welcome to believe in magic and magical voter revolutions. I live in the real world and we are working hard to do things like turn Texas blue. Magic does not exist in the real world but hard work does work. Attacking the party establishment for not believing in magic is amusing. I will not be busy working in the real world and not relying on magic.

[betsuni]

72. +1

[TheFarseer]

76. Have fun in the real world

Whatever nothing meaningful can ever be accomplished.

[Gothmog]

77. Change works in the real world but it takes hard work

Look if magic was real, then sanders would have some actual legislative accomplishments. To date, sanders reliance on magic has resulted in no real major legislative accomplishments in the real world.

It takes hard work to achieve change. I would love to see magic work and for sanders' magical revolution to generate millions or billions or trillions of new voters but that is not how the real world works.

Meaningful change is occurring in the real world. We have far more voter participation on the grass roots level than I have seen in along time. Texas will turn blue eventually but trump may accelerate the process. Beto has a chance of defeating Carnival Cruz and there are several normally safe GOP seats where the Democrats have a chance of flipping. I just heard some amusing attack ads against Lizzie Fletcher by the GOP NRCC because the GOP is worried about TX CD7. The fact that GOP is having to divert resources to the Texas Senate race and TX CD 7 helps our candidates in our key races.

Again, your attacks on the Democratic Establishment for not believing in magic are amusing but misguided. I rejected sanders as a serious candidate because I knew that magic does not work and that none of sanders proposals made sense in the real world. Right now, we are fighting to have a check on trump to stop trump from destroying our country and our freedom. That is a worthy goal in my book.

[JHan]

82. ++++

[Power 2 the People]

104. +1000

[Gothmog]

99. If you disagree, then use facts to back up your claims

We really do not care about your feelings but if you have actual facts that support your claims, present them.

The Democratic Party has issues but it is not rigged other than having members who do not believe in magic and who vote based on proposals that can be adopted and passed in the real world

[TheFarseer]

118. You obviously care deeply about my feelings

You have about 50 replies to 8 posts I've made, most of them not directed at you. As for the rest of it - not taking the bait.

[Gothmog]

127. LOL. Thank you for admitting that you have no facts backing up your claims

I am glad that you are admitting that you have no facts to back up your points and that you lost this debate. No one care about your feelings. If you cannot back up your silly claims with facts then your feelings are meaningless

Again if you have any real “points” and facts to back up these “points”, then your feelings are meaningless

[betsuni]

128. Oh, this is sad.

[Gothmog]

135. But amusing

[mcar]

30. K&f'ing R!

[Me.]

36. kr

[treestar]

44. "Where are the Dems?" as if the media does not

carry water for the Rs at every chance. Why aren't they spouting off?

Just refusal to admit that the elections are the only way for the Ds to have power; if they did not vote then the criticisms are worthless.

[JHan]

47. Also division brings in profits.

I once saw a graph some where highlighting how often Dems are invited vis a vis Republicans on programming, and I can't find it now.

Anyway, this reminds me of something I've often heard .. that "people aren't seeing the difference between dems and republicans and dems need to do better messaging about how different they are" when Dems do that anyway. How come you and I aren't confused?

The problem is thinking that a politician must do everything for a voter, where the voter isn't expected to at least meet them halfway. Going on about civics shouldn't be seen as insulting voters but reminding them of their power. And it's not difficult to find out where someone stands on an issue. Reading the newspaper, following headlines, going to websites all take less than an hour, maybe an hour max. The disturbing thing about critiques over Kavanaugh is that whether all the Dems fall in line or not ( factoring in the two senators in red states) Republicans still have the 50 votes they need. But who knows, Murkowski and Collins might just surprise me.

[Cracklin Charlie]

51. Things wrong with Democrats:

None!

March On, Democrats!

[Gothmog]

64. I find these attacks on the Democratic Party amusing as does the OP

The Democratic Party is actually trying to make change

[peggysue2]

74. Trying to make change . . .

for the better. For the future. For our children and grand babies.

For Americans and for all people regardless of stripes, color and persuasion.

Democrats are the party leaning forward with zest, with hope and with grand expectation.

We can do this this!! We must do this.

And we will.

[Gothmog]

78. Change takes hard work in the real world

Last edited Fri Sep 21, 2018, 02:10 PM - Edit history (1)

I live in the real world. Texas is going to turn blue but it will NOT be due to magic but due to hard work. Pushing proposals that can only be adopted if a magical voter revolution occurs where millions or billions or trillions of new voters show up to force the GOP to be reasonable is not a realistic game plan for those of us who do not believe in magic.

Change is occurring but it takes hard work. Right now, due to sanders supporters staying home or voting for Stein, we have trump as POTUS. We need to retake control of the House to have a check on trump. That is a worthy goal in my book and I am working hard in the real world to elect more Democrats

[Thekaspervote]

126. Thank you! A much better encapsulation than the original post.

IMHO some... many will look at this post and at least be confused if not feel it’s a total put down. Not what we need right now

[Jamaal510]

75. K&R

[Proud Liberal Dem]

93. Amen

Unfortunately, when you point any of this out, you're often called an apologist or a "Centrist" or an "Establishment" Democrat. This is what drives me up the wall about people like Michael Moore, whose books are basically an encapsulation and repetition of all these perceived flaws of the Democratic Party. It's just not that simple.

[JHan]

101. Yep, Centrist has become a very blunt cudgel and could mean anything at anytime.

it's now evolved into "Anyone who doesn't like candidate x"

[Proud Liberal Dem]

103. Yup.

It's a convenient smear, like how Republicans toss around the word, "Socialist", mostly used against anybody who doesn't support a more progressive candidate or policy

[Hekate]

95. Recommended reading, JHan. Thanks.

[Separation]

98. Honesty can be hurtful

Especially when we direct it inwards.

[Gothmog]

100. Agreed

I truly believe in the party and have worked hard inside the party to make things better.

[Eliot Rosewater]

113. Like the FACT that HIllary is or was one of the most liberal Senators of all time

I dont know why this doesnt matter to some

[NurseJackie]

145. This is my favorite thread of 2018. Nicely done!