Control of SCOTUS was on the ballot in 2016 and we are suffering the consequences of people ignoring this issue

[LetMyPeopleVote]

I will never forgive people like Sarandon who either voted for a third party or stayed home when it was clear that the control of the SCOTUS was on the ballot. We lost Roe v. Wade and may lose our Democratic form of government due to the SCOTUS justices TFG was able to appoint.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[JohnSJ]

1. Yes we are, and unfortunately it will be the gift that keeps on giving for sometime. Those

thinking all that needs be done is expand the court, the votes simply aren’t there.

[Lovie777]

2. HRC warned us..................................

and the horrific reality is coming true. Our democracy is at stake.

[triron]

3. Happy with the 'revolution ' Trump brought, Susan?

[FBaggins]

4. The court is absolutely on the ballot again

Not "control" in an immediate sense - but if Thomas/Alito are given an opportunity to retire under a second Trump term (particularly with control of the Senate very likely to switch)... it could be decades before the ship can be righted - even with years of successful elections.

[In It to Win It]

37. Absolutely! The court is on the ballot for every election in the foreseeable future until Alito and Thomas die or retire

[yardwork]

55. People upset about Roe v Wade being overturned won't like contraception being banned.

Not to mention gay folk losing the right to marry or even have sex in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Or no-fault divorce.

A lot of people don't seem to remember or know what things were like before a handful of key Supreme Court decisions. This court had no hesitation in overturning Roe, even after 50 years. Imagine what an even stronger right wing majority might overturn. Brown?

[Aepps22]

5. Freedom isn't Free

Candidly we have too many people that refuse to engage in tbe political process and vote. Sadly it takes losing things to wake those folks up that the stakes are real and not made up.

[Kennah]

6. Or that engage and ignore the fact that politics is the art of the possible, not the perfect

[JustAnotherGen]

80. I love this

I may use that in Council Comments on Tuesday.


politics is the art of the possible, not the perfect

[Hermit-The-Prog]

28. Too many people smugly sneer at politics and consider themselves above it.

[Prairie_Seagull]

31. Hi Hermit, my parents were this way and me, just the opposite.

When asked my dad said "what can one guy do?". Clearly a fallacy. I have been pushing people of like mind to vote ever since. Good Portland Or Schools back then. Taught civics.

As they say, " Cheers mate"

[Hermit-The-Prog]

36. My (late) neighbor used a very broad brush to excuse his failure to vote...

I tried every argument I could think of, but he always finished with, "They're all rotten, anyway."

[CrispyQ]

62. Freedom isn't free. You have to pay attention.

I still have my DU tee-shirt with that slogan on it.

[MineralMan]

7. And plenty of people here on DU kept pointing that out, as well.

Those who did were roundly attacked again and again by DUers who are no longer able to post here. 2016 was not a good year on DU.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

10. I remember those posters well

I saw a great deal of these issues firsthand as a Clinton delegate to the 2016 convention.

[mcar]

11. Worst year here

and I’ve been here since 2002.

[yardwork]

51. It was horrible.

[thucythucy]

69. I agree.

A very ugly time with an even uglier outcome.

[mzmolly]

8. Not to mention 2000.

Susan might've learned then?

Trump will bring the revolution alright. But it's not the one reasonable people support.

[RandomNumbers]

72. "Not a dime's worth of difference" did it for me.

That was Nader comparing Bush and Gore. I was, before that, naively open to Nader's candidacy, although I supported Gore for his environmentalism and experience. As soon as Nader (and his useful idiot, one M. Moore) started the "not a dime's worth of difference" schtick, I was DONE.

Too many liberals lapped it up though. And here we are.

[mzmolly]

74. Agreed.

Those of us who warned them, will never forget. Here we are, indeed.

[mcar]

9. I will never forget our forgive

They are responsible for where we are now.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. 2000 gave us Roberts and Alito

I will never forgive Nader's role in this. Due to the 2000 election, we lost Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, saw Citizens United become the law of the land and eventually lost Roe v. Wade.

[mcar]

13. Oh yeah

[StevieM]

14. Back in 2016, Hillary gave a great speech about this in Wisconsin.

But don't tell anyone. It's a secret. We are all supposed to pretend that she ignored the state.

[Oopsie Daisy]

18. You are correct. I will never forgive those who thought it was worthwhile to "run-out-the-clock" *

* knowing full well that it would harm Hillary, and those who did precious little after the convention to help to soothe the disappointment of Sanders supporters and encourage them get on-board with Hillary and the Democratic Party. It was a deafening silence that effectively poured salt in their wounds and which left them feeling resentful and "justified" in trying to "punish" the party. The Sarandons and Turners of the world (and those who cheered them on) are responsible. But rather than admit or acknowledge the truth, we have history re-writers trying to spread the lie that Hillary "ignored Wisconsin". (I think you for bringing that up! It's an important point.) And now we have a new crop of folks who are at it again.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

20. The "lie"?

Check out the first sentence of this Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article:

Hillary Clinton didn't campaign in Wisconsin during last year's general election, but her book managed to land in the state Tuesday.

So the major newspaper in Milwaukee got it wrong?

[StevieM]

22. The media got a lot wrong.

Remember that they were originally claiming that she made no appearances in Michigan? Then that was quietly dropped.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

40. Don't try to gaslight me.

She wasn't in Wisconsin during the general election. That's a fact. Don't know what you gain but acting otherwise.

[StevieM]

44. I am simply pointing out what the media got wrong.

You asked, I answered, and included an example.

I am not pretending that she held rallies in Wisconsin during the GE. I am pointing out that she had an enormous operation there, that she visited back in April, and that the evidence appears to indicate that where you held your rallies was not a determining factor in whether or not you won a state.

She should have made an appearance in Wisconsin in the Fall. It was a mistake not to, but nowhere near as big as all the mistakes that Donald Trump made. No, she did not run a perfect campaign, but it was nowhere near the disaster that the media made it out to be.

2016 was all about exactly what it appeared to be about at the time. It was about the phony controversy over her emails.

[MotownPgh]

61. Russia

And Russia. HRC pointed out trump-russia. Should have been a 5 alarm fire over it

[Cuthbert Allgood]

19. What was the date of that speech?

Because I bet it wasn't after she was officially the nominee. Because she showed up here for a grand total of zero times after that.

[StevieM]

21. Yes, the speech was during the primaries, in April.

The point is that she was on the ground in Wisconsin.

More importantly, she spent more money in advertising in Wisconsin than Obama did in 2012. And she had a larger ground operation than Obama did in 2012.

I doubt most voters were aware of whether she even held rallies there. And I am sure that it would not have mattered if she did. She held more rallies in Pennsylvania than anywhere else. The data made it clear that where you held your rallies wasn't what determined the outcome of a given state.

The voters did not feel ignored by the candidates in 2016, they felt exhausted with them. And that election was all about exactly what it appeared to be about at the time: the ridiculous email investigation.

[spooky3]

26. IIRC, she spent a lot of time in Ohio, too, and Obama held

Rallies to help her. Didn’t matter (enough).

[betsuni]

33. Rallies were a 2016 obsession. The Our Revolution that was supposed to happen was

The People gathering in large rallies to demand government listen to them. Rally in Kentucky and Mitch McConnell will listen and be nice. I was surprised that was the revolution: "we need to rally the American people by the millions, that's what I mean by a political revolution."

I think that's where the absurd idea came from, that if only Hillary had given a few more rallies for white people in Wisconsin that autumn (NOT SPRING) everything would've been different.

[Hekate]

34. Nobody ever interviews me in a diner. I weep constantly over that. No candidate seeks out my town.

Last edited Fri Mar 1, 2024, 08:44 PM - Edit history (1)

I will never vote for anybody who disrespects me like that.

Best regards,
A Californian and lifelong Democrat*


* Almost 40 million people in California, a wee bit more than Wisconsin’s under- 6 million. I can’t for the life of me figure out why candidates don’t make it to a diner in every town in CA. And I can’t figure out why we are not all in a terminal snit about it.
Still

[Cuthbert Allgood]

39. You do know that Wisconsin was a swing state in 16, right?

And that she lost it by a very small margin. And didn't even visit the big cities.

But, hey, we're pretending she ran a perfect campaign, I guess.

[betsuni]

42. Not whining about being ignored, taken for granted, not listened to, voices not heard, betrayed,

disappointed, promises broken, abandoned, nobody came to my house and kissed my butt?

Doesn't apply to "coastal elites" I guess.

[Hekate]

43. As it happens, in my midlife I got to actually see a few presidential candidates & one President

I did this by being really, really active in local Democratic politics, and by living in a region known for having some major donors. They came to see the donors — the rest of us were kind of an afterthought, except Bill Clinton gave a speech at the community college (after his evening with Important People with deep pockets) so that was 3,000 of us, and when the crowd surged I got to shake his hand.

Howard Dean came thru, gave a speech to a paying crowd and I was there helping to tally the guests and helping collect the checks — hurray I got to shake his hand too.

As for Senator Barack Obama, a bunch of us local Dems carpooled about 125 miles to hear him speak to a crowd in a grassy baseball field in a mostly-black neighborhood in Los Angeles. We were impressed, but also parking was absolutely jammed for blocks around, so as soon as he concluded his speech my friends sprinted for the car.

But coffee shops and diners? Close questioning about my hopes and fears? A shared beer? Are you joking?

[betsuni]

47. Wow! I think the only politician I'd be interested in shaking hands with is Bill Clinton and I don't even

know why.

[yardwork]

53. I'd shake Joe Biden's hand in a heartbeat. Also Barack Obama's.

[Hekate]

75. Amen. In a heartbeat. ❤️

[Hekate]

76. It was an unusual experience on several levels. For one thing, the surge of the crowd lifted me off my feet...

This put me close to the temporary chainlink fence where he was shaking every hand he could reach, so I stuck my hand out. He worked his way down the fence and back so I did it again. Big warm hand — unmistakable jolt of charisma.

I’ve always been rational — never swooned for movie stars even in my teens — and seriously could not understand the women who crossed his path and just fell over on their backs.

I liked the guy. He was an intelligent Democrat with ideas for good programs. I was irked at his womanizing, but under the circs felt it was his & their business and none of ours. This was before the impeachment fiasco, put on by the GOP that we now know as our sworn enemy who will use any means necessary to destroy our candidates and our allies (remember how several Senators met during Obama’s first Inauguration and shook hands on a plan to make Obama a one-term President)

But that jolt of charisma at the handshake in a vast crowd was really something. The Big Dog.

[yardwork]

52. Salute to you in CA from those of us in beleaguered NC.

I sometimes wish we were ignored more.

[maxrandb]

59. Wait, what? She was in Wisconsin?

I heard from the media a million times that "she ignored Wisconsin".

Another problem is that the media treat Retrumplican Reich-wing talking points like a pack of German Shepherds with a pork-flavored chewtoy.

[Oopsie Daisy]

15. And even now, we have a whole NEW batch of disloyal folks who are attacking, undermining, and *

* actively working to sabotage Biden and suppress enthusiasm and the voter turnout. It's just as bad as Sarandon, Turner, Moore and "Breanna Joy-Gray" and the other assorted folks closely tied to the "Our Revolution" PAC, TYT, "Democracy Now" and the DSA, the "No Labels" party, the "People's Party" party, the Green Party (Putin's favorite) and various others whose faces I can see but I can't name them right now.

[betsuni]

23. Don't even need Russian help this time spreading the lies! DIY.

[Cha]

25. Those who Don't Give A Shit About Our Democracy.. Only

their Own Privileged Big Anit Democratic Mouths like BJG. Who are still out there Spreading Lies.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[edisdead]

16. Yep. We should have been in the streets

This wasn’t the beginning of the end, but it was a key piece.

[Hekate]

32. We were. Remember the Women's March?

[edisdead]

66. That was well after.

[Aristus]

17. It's still amazing that people, after forty years of clear evidence that both parties are not the same,

continued to spew that both parties are the same.

I would challenge any of these people to imagine that Hillary Clinton would have had a Presidency indistinguishable from that of TFG. Probably be long, uncomfortable silence before they even tried to answer.

[betsuni]

24. That both parties are the same now simply means both are capitalist. The ONLY way they

can pretend it makes any sense.

[spooky3]

27. Or that they simply don't pay attention. Nt

[betsuni]

46. They sure pay close attention to and repeat mis/disinformation about Democrats.

[spooky3]

56. I'm talking about the many people I run into who don't watch news, don't

Search online for it, etc. if you ask them what they think about the republicans’ blocking a border deal, they don’t know what you’re talking about. Ditto Navalny’s death, the Fani Willis or other trial developments, etc. they are interested in Taylor Swift, their series on hbo, their sports teams and family matters.

[RandomNumbers]

73. That the USA is capitalist is neither new, nor controversial, nor the biggest problem of real people.

(Yes your statement is correct)

It is extremely frustrating to me that purist socialist-utopian-fantasists do their best to kneecap the politicians who actually work for progress - as in improvements for real people - while hijacking the word "progressive" to name their radical movement.

To be clear, the extreme unregulated capitalism of the likes of Trump and Musk, really is a root problem of lots of evil in this country. But they pretend that Biden = Trump and all capitalism is equivalent. Which it is very clearly not.

[betsuni]

86. Problem started in 2015/16 when "democratic socialism" got a new definition along with "progressive."

New Deal/Great Society liberal Democratic policies were suddenly redefined as "democratic socialism" and therefore a democratic socialist the true successor to FDR and LBJ and the REAL Democrat, liberal Democrats the corrupt enemy of progress who despise those policies. Quite a con job that is still damaging progress.

[Hekate]

79. They just move the goalposts

[budkin]

29. When we entered the worst timeline

I wonder what it's like in the other universe where those stupid MFers didn't fuck us all over?

[thucythucy]

30. I remember so-called progressives telling me

how tired they were of "the progressive agenda" being "held hostage" by women's issues like abortion.

Still makes my blood boil over.

[yardwork]

54. What is a progressive agenda if not women's rights?'

Just shaking my head at the selfishness and short-sightedness.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

65. "The Revolution" (TM)

[betsuni]

70. Weaponizing "progressive"against Democrats ("establishment") and giving it a new definition:

"When [he] denied the badge of honor to Clinton he wasn't distinguishing his agenda from hers (their positions on most issues were, in reality, pretty similar), he was excluding her from the company of the good and the pure -- and in the process, limiting what counted as 'progressive' causes, too. His list didn't include the struggle for reproductive rights or affordable child care. Nor, at the beginning of his campaign, was there much emphasis on racial justice.

"He was the champion of the 'working class' (conveniently ignoring that black and white women were members, and that their issues were also 'working class' issues), but her longstanding commitments to universal health care, child care, paid sick leave, racial justice, the repeal of the Hyde amendment, and narrowing the wage gap between men and women apparently evaporated because she'd accepted well-paid invitations to speak at Goldman Sachs."

Susan Bordo

[Hekate]

81. Damn. Ain't that something.

True, too.

[betsuni]

82. The damage has been lasting.

"Since then, despite all the talk of needing to 'unify' and 'heal divisions,' the branding of Democrats into 'progressive' and 'establishment' (or sometimes, 'centrist') has come to dominate how candidates are identified -- and often self-identify. I think it's time to seriously ask ourselves: just what good is this relic of a disastrous election doing? Not only doesn't it represent the diversity among Democrats, but it clearly fosters fragmentation and resentment -- and feeds a media that is always hungry to report strife among us. ... But surely, we can give up the old magic incantations, the old revolutionary/sell out discourse."

Susan Bordo again

[Hekate]

85. Yes

[shrike3]

67. Local progressives are "blame the Democrats first" people.

They blame the Roe v Wade situation on the Dems because they didn't codify abortion rights "when they had the chance."

And Bernie would have won "easily," so it's also the Dems' fault for not putting him on the ballot in the first place.

These are real world things I hear.

Lately, I've had progressives tell me no matter what happens progressives "will stick together." I said, "You realize you won't have the chance to do much of anything if Trump wins."

"Oh yes, we will," I was told.

[betsuni]

71. Stunning overconfidence, an almost religious belief they are right, black or white thinking,

poor reading/listening skills. Nothing is ever their fault.

[walkingman]

35. I blame this loss on two things...

First the James Comey testimony prior to the election and
Second the low turnout by Bernie voters because their candidate didn't win the primary.

I certainly hope we do not have a similar thing happen this year based on -
Disgruntled Arab community, third party candidates, and lack of enthusiasm by younger voters.

I know no one wants to hear this but I think it is a real threat and possibility - sure hope not.

[betsuni]

38. But she got paid for speeches at Goldman Sachs Wall St. Wall St. Wall St., that was more important.

Insisting it was all about policy when it had nothing to do with policy, only demonizing Hillary as the worst corrupt dangerous criminal of both the 20th and 21st centuries because something about an imaginary revolution and status quo blah blah blah.

[honest.abe]

41. It still makes me sick to think of what happened back then.

Those anti-Hillary "Dem" voters may have destroyed America.

[ismnotwasm]

45. Yup.

Absolutely

[tritsofme]

48. And yet today we have DEMOCRATIC members of Congress refusing to endorse Biden and implicitly supporting Trump.

What in the actual fuck is wrong with these people?

[betsuni]

49. Ones who think the Democratic Party is immoral, corrupt, must be taken over by

the righteously pure who are always right and must not be questioned.

[shrike3]

68. I know some folks just like that. n/t

[LetMyPeopleVote]

50. Liberals who were too pure to vote for Hillary Clinton are the reason why the SCOTUS is full of partisan hacks

Link to tweet

[TheRickles]

57. Are people as angry at RBG for not stepping down and allowing a Dem President to choose her replacement?

[MotownPgh]

63. Yes

The answe is yes! She had FIVE bouts of cancer and heart disease and would NOT retire. Unbelievable

[magicarpet]

58. We let our guard down for one nano-second,...

.... and the Fascists promptly filled in the gap to hijack our judicial system exclusively for themselves.

Do not give Nazis the upper hand to rule over your existence or you will be made to suffer.

[Initech]

78. I still contend the 2016 election was the end result of Fox News meddling.

They tried to do it again in 2020 but thankfully they failed. We have to stop them from attempting it again this year.

[TexasDem69]

83. Not sure I agree

Fox viewers typically aren’t going to vote Democrat. It was a combination of a poor campaign, an unpopular candidate, the far left not turning out, and some folks just wanted change after 8 (wonderful) years under President Obama.

[MichMan]

84. In my lifetime, only once has the same party won three presidential elections in a row

1988

[Lunabell]

60. sarandon is a pig in a glamorous evening gown.

So full of her rich white privilege that she couldn't see the consequences of her words and actions. Women and other minorities are suffering because of her and others like her. I would spit on her if I saw her on the street.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

64. Thank Susan Sarandon and all the other liberals who were too pure/lazy to vote for Hillary in the general election

[Initech]

77. Yup that was the grand prize in the 2016 election.

I hope the MAGAs are enjoying their completely undeserved and totally ill gotten gains.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

87. For everyone who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton, everything the SCOTUS does is your fault

[redqueen]

88. The whole situation is enraging

Anyone who voted for anyone other than HRC in that election is primarily to blame.

But could senators not push Garland through? Were they playing by the rules and now we're all paying the price?

[Rob H.]

89. Has it been two months since the last OP exactly like this one already?

Time flies.