General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe just fucking cannibalize each other fucking ourselves over and over.
And I am sorry, most of this country is not fucking New York City.
I am so sick of this fucking shit I want to scream. Go ahead and fuck this country more by not understanding simple facts that this country will not elect a self identified democratic socialist for president. And I am sick of them tearing the Democratic Party down.
Fuck yeah I said it and I don’t give a shit whose feelings it hurts. This country is on the fucking line. And I am sick of every single person who is not on board to have a winning strategy.
Joe Biden was a great president. You want another trump, keep this fucking shit up.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scrivener7
(60,464 posts)high everywhere.
I agree. You're right. The country won't vote for a Democratic Socialist. But they'll sure vote for enhanced healthcare, taxing billionaires, support for worker rights, food and housing security, trust busting, publicly held utilities and transportation systems, protected social security and medicare and medicaid, free and high-quality education for everyone.
We pretty much all agree on those things.
If a candidate is smart, he or she will run on those things under the "Democratic" party affiliation.
Ocelot II
(131,947 posts)All politics is local. Mamdani was elected because he advocates for things people in NYC want, and they didn't care whether he called himself a Democrat or a Democratic Socialist. But the DSA label would be the kiss of death in many parts of the country, and James Talarico (for example) is doing quite well as an ordinary Democrat in Texas with a lot of the same ideas. Of course the GOP are trying to depict him as a socialist because in Texas socialism ranks with bestiality and devil worship, and he's smart to reject that label.
Magoo48
(6,751 posts)Really, all of us should be able to discern where a Democrat stands on the issues by listening to them speak.
Cheezoholic
(4,188 posts)Progressive, Social Democrat, whatever is fine. But you insert the word socialist and these fascists will/are pouncing on it. Its THE main reason you are hearing so many communist references in the media. I know where I live, and many liberals think we don't need the voters where I live (they are dead wrong), this socialist communist label is an absolute death blow as you said. As soon as the media started touting those wins in NYC I began to cringe. I completely disagree with the DSA platform as I believe many Democrats do. Many Democrats don't even know the DSA is a thing. We need to pivot with smart messaging quickly and loudly before the reich wing media set these words firmly into our platform. They are only words, they are not true Democratic Party ideals as a whole IMO.
Lategame
(9 posts)The word "socialist" is just too toxic in this country to even remotely identify with. The policies people will mostly all agree with. Just drop that word.
They should rename themselves 'Social Democrats" like some of the Scandinavian countries do, so the word socialist is not used.
boston bean
(36,990 posts)Yes you are correct.
But this country will not survive another Bernie bro movement. Or democrats who aren’t like me are as evil as the GOP bullshit. They were SO WRONG! I will NEVER FORGET it!
Lategame
(9 posts)Constantly creating divisions where we don't need them. Republicans kind of do it, but man, Democrats excell at it. We could be so much further ahead.
angrychair
(12,605 posts)Are, very literally, purity test.
They are meant solely to shut down Progressives and discussion of the progressive agenda.
It's been my experience when I hear people say something about purity tests, what they are really doing is shutting down any discussion that doesn't agree with their personal agenda.
boston bean
(36,990 posts)Most voting democrats have many of the same principles and ideas. Where we lose is when a democratic candidate gets criticized because they are not this or that enough. If happens every single election. We cannot win where we need to without democrats that aren’t exactly how we want them to be.
Damn it’s like no on e has lived the last 20 years.
KPN
(17,621 posts)have Trump and MAGA running our country and what do many Democrats do? Blame other Democrats. It's BS know-it-allism.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)Its the refusal to support Democrats, and in many cases even work to make them lose.
mcar
(46,646 posts)
Prairie_Seagull
(4,916 posts)Ring that bell loud and clear, so loud that everyone hears it, especially the youth.
Transactional yes, if one chooses to look at it that way.
This needs to be done and will likely bring eyes to other important issues.
IMO
question everything
(52,702 posts)Have to be able to bundle all this in a catchy phrase. Yes, like Contract with America or America Great Again.
Have never been in marketing but I hope that we have talents to do this.
And don’t trash capitalism. Most people don’t hate the rich; they want to be rich. Even the poor suckers that lost a lot while he made his millions “recognize” that this is the nature of investments.
Scrivener7
(60,464 posts)That's a different conversation. But one we also need to have.
Soul_of_Wit
(217 posts)The problem is capitalism without regulation, capitalism without anti-monopoly laws being enforced, capitalism with oligarchies benefiting from Extreme Court rulings. The problem is end-stage capitalism, even if folks don't know what that is.
Ars Longa
(700 posts)
BlueKota
(5,608 posts)by the way said that's what Adam Smith intended. Well regulated Capitalistism that encouraged competition not monopolies. This professor was an anti Reaganomics Republican. He was actually invited to join a think tank of like minded Republicans to help develop an alternative policy for the party. He took a sabbatical for it.
Unfortunately the following year in the college alumni bulletin we received notice he had died unexpectedly. He was only 35 years old. The cause of death was not given. It was sad because he was a very kind man and a great teacher!
I_UndergroundPanther
(13,424 posts)And I hate rich people because of the damage they do, to the planet to us the animals. Fuck capitalism and capitalists. Most wealthy people come from already wealthy people.
Capitalism is theft.
Soul_of_Wit
(217 posts)They definitely would be running as a Democrat. Big tent for the win.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)hamsterjill
(18,015 posts)As usual, your post is in line with my thinking. I think it's going to be ALL about the messaging, and even more so, how the Democrats counter the label that Trump, et al are working hard to assign.
Dems are going to need to, more than ever before, fight the name calling and present programs and changes and benefits that contrast what Republicans will be spouting.
We don't need to be labeled "socialists" in any way, shape, form or fashion. We need to be labeled as responsible progressives who above all else want individuals to have freedoms. Democrats need to SHOW voters what their tax dollars can do when those tax dollars are NOT used to coddle billionaires. It's going to need to get personal.
For example, as a senior, I benefitted from the extra $6k that Trump's "big ugly bill" provided for taxes. Dems need to offer specific ideas and programs that show that THEY can do those types of things better than Republicans. How can they help the individual, working class American.
Then, when and if we are ever in power again, Democrats need to be ruthless in fixing the system so that something like Trump can never, ever happen again.
mdbl
(9,043 posts)Dems are always behind the 8 ball in fundraising, especially on the local levels. That is where I see the most damage being done by repuglicans. The national campaigns are all well and good but they are getting totally railed on broadcast media and youtube where they are targeting people - mostly with lies and exaggerations.
hamsterjill
(18,015 posts)Dems would do well to address this. As I said, I think the messaging is going to need to be personal to ordinary Americans, and to do that, it's going to have to be placed where ordinary Americans hear it and see it.
I'm an old fart, and even *I* don't get my news from cable tv any more. Social media and independent podcasters are going to be very relevant as we go forward.
mdbl
(9,043 posts)After that, it's just destructive.
Scrivener7
(60,464 posts)
leftstreet
(41,406 posts)
-misanthroptimist
(2,012 posts)I remember hearing in 2008, "This country will never elect a black man."
In 2016, "This country will never elect [Redacted]." And he was running against the most qualified candidate you could ever hope to find.
So pronouncements about who this country will or will not elect are largely useless. The country will elect whomever it wants at the time they vote.
boston bean
(36,990 posts)I am fucking sick of it.
-misanthroptimist
(2,012 posts)That seems somehow unAmerican to me. People vote (or not) for their own reasons. I think that they are entitled to do that.
I also think that anyone who thinks differently about that entitlement has lost the plot.
boston bean
(36,990 posts)Fact.
-misanthroptimist
(2,012 posts)You don't think the ditching Biden played any part at all? Curious.
But even if you are correct, so what? It's their vote to bestow or withhold wherever they choose based on whatever criteria they deem important. They don't owe a vote simply because someone belongs to a particular political party.
Gore1FL
(23,004 posts)Maybe that's the problem.
Blaukraut
(6,013 posts)That probably had something to do with it. Too many Americans couldn’t bring themselves to vote for someone with a vagina. Sad but true.
question everything
(52,702 posts)Lost jobs, empty factories, deserted communities..
Soul_of_Wit
(217 posts)question everything
(52,702 posts)Soul_of_Wit
(217 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)sheshe2
(99,144 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)
AloeVera
(4,699 posts)Between 11-14% of Obama 2012 voters voted for Trump in 2016 (7-9 million).
Compare that to only 3-6% of Democratic Sanders voters who switched to Trump (400-800K).
The 2016 election loss seems to have reflected a mass movement of the racist, sexist, anti-immigrant segment - see study in link below. It appears there was a small faction of that in the Sanders movement as well. But far less prevalent than elsewhere.
There was a 'purity test" that led to the 2016 loss but it wasn't the one being blamed in this thread.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
question everything
(52,702 posts)A detailed analysis with a lot of statistical reports.
Here is what I picked
In 2016, Bernie Sanders narrowly lost a closely contested Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton. As often happens after a close nomination race, there was much speculation about whether Bernie Sanders supporters would either not turn out or would even choose to vote for Donald Trump in November. Here I use the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) to investigate what Sanders’ supporters actually did in the general election. The CCES is ideal for such an analysis because (1) it is a large survey that provides a sufficient sample size for such an analysis and (2) respondents are matched to voter file records so that we can identify who actually voted in the primaries and general elections.
I begin by opening the data and setting the appropriate weights in Stata. This dataset can be downloaded from the CCES dataverse at this url: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi%3A10.7910/DVN/GDF6Z0
Now let’s graph the percentage of Sanders’s voters voted for Trump, Clinton, some other candidate, or did not turn out in November 2016. I also tabulate the data to show the proportions clearly for each group. About 12% of Sanders voters cast a vote for Trump in the November general election.
Let’s turn to understanding a bit more about these Sanders supporters. First, how does this relate to partisanship. Here I show the partisan breakdown of Sanders’s supporters based on how they voted in the 2016 general election. Notably, Sanders voters who then voted for Trump were much more likely to identify as independents or Republicans compared to those who voted for Clinton. Thus, many of these individuals were already somewhat detached from the Democratic Party.
Response to question everything (Reply #37)
Post removed
mr715
(4,980 posts)Her "triangulating" was because the expectation was a freaking 400+ vote electoral victory.
Bernie Sanders has never won a national contest.
The more likely VP progressive would've been Elizabeth Warren.
SSJVegeta
(3,486 posts)But misspelling their first name and calling them by it is just... rude.
mr715
(4,980 posts)As well as Sen. Sanders.
Clinton does get a little complicated what with her husband being the President.
TVguyCards
(110 posts)Are you saying Bernie offered lost jobs, empty factories, deserted communities like Trump? Am I reading this correctly?
betsuni
(29,501 posts)"He said he was going to take on the establishment and he was going to provide health care to everybody. You know what, it's pretty much what I said."
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)I believe their gender and other excuses were smoke and mirrors to distract from the "results" that didn't make sense.
The excuses will always be found unless the candidate has a mandate. I speak of this often. We need to focus on an excuse free mandate for our candidate in 2028. Our personal ideologies may need to sit it out so it is not as easy to "rig" the results. Once a Democrat gets back in the oval we need to create make it harder to cheat and steal.
But meanwhile - we need to focus on the midterms. We need to have our eyes on the elections - there is a plan in place to control those results as well.
mcar
(46,646 posts)HRC won the nomination in 2016 by getting the most delegates. Why? Because she won most of the primaries. That is hardly a coronation.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)I believe he would have won the election.
I also believe that Hillary Clinton did win the election. I think it was easier to convince people that Hillary lost than it would have been in the case of Bernie. Bernie had a mandate. Hillary Clinton had some "baggage" in the eyes of some, that was easily used as an "excuse".
I don't believe either Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris lost. I believe that the same misdirection that I mentioned in my previous comment created smoke and mirrors to distract from the real reason the "results" didn't make any sense.
I believe the DNC should not "rig" elections any more than any other entity should.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)betsuni
(29,501 posts)is really dumb is that you have closed primaries. ... That's not rigged, I think it's just a dumb process which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign." -- Face the Nation interview, May 28, 2016
He knew the election was not rigged.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)The emails demonstrate that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC conspired against Bernie.
Here is a 2017 article about a case that went before the court.
https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
The title of the article: Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders
A line from the article reads: "Even former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid admitted in July 2016, 'I knew—everybody knew—that this was not a fair deal'.”
The judge dismissed the case based on a procedural technicality. He did indeed admit that the DNC acted with bias and took steps to sway the nomination for Hillary Clinton.
Here is another article from a fact check website.
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resignation-dnc-chair-2016-ba4029
Here is a line from the article: "...DNC staff discussed strategies that favored Clinton and sought to undermine Sanders during the primary."
betsuni
(29,501 posts)be, you know, less than flattering about the Clinton staff. That's what happens in campaigns."
There was no rigging. It was used as a conspiracy theory against Democrats.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)That includes the people in the class action suit. The judge said their premise was correct, but he had to dismiss the case based on standing.
Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders
https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
mcar
(46,646 posts)The nomination wasn't stolen from Sanders. He lost, plain and simple.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)
iemanja
(57,837 posts)Bernie chose to under invest in a ground operation in favor of advertising. That is why he couldn’t get his supporters to the polls. That the DNC preferred Hillary Clinton did not affect how people voted.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)The articles and discussion are related to those actions and outcome.
Yes - Hillary Clinton got the popular vote in the general election. This discussion has nothing to do with the general election.
iemanja
(57,837 posts)The vast majority of delegates were decided by popular vote. And it wasn’t close. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Bernie argued the democratic will of the people should be overturned in favor of corporate polling results.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)There are delegates and super-delegates. Bernie alerted that some of the system can be unfair, such as super-delegates and closed primaries. I could not find confirmation of your statement that he argued that the will of the people should be overturned.
After the primary process, I believe Bernie handled himself with grace. He has been poorly treated by the process, but he focuses on fighting for Democracy. He endorsed Hillary Clinton, he campaigned for her, and he encouraged his followers to vote for her.
The articles I posted specifically addressed the shenanigans at the DNC to try to prevent Bernie from getting the nomination. I suggest you read them.
However, Bernie has not demonstrated sour grapes...from my observations.
iemanja
(57,837 posts)And you didn’t look effectively for Sanders’ argument because I found it immediately. https://time.com/4305514/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-general-election-polls/
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-longshot-victory-superdelegates-220847
As the second link demonstrates, It was in fact Sanders who insisted the Superdelegates should have gone to him rather than Clinton who led in pledged delegates from the primaries.
I’m sorry you forsake facts in favor of the myth that was a factor in bringing Trump to power. I will not argue this further.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)The Politico article you shared affirmed that.
Sanders crushed Clinton in Maine at the beginning of the month, picking up 64 percent to her 35 percent. Jackson said with that result and Sanders big win in the New Hampshire primary, all the superdelegates from both states should be backing Sanders.
“Let’s say the superdelegates put Hillary over the top. In Maine and New Hampshire, what the hell do you think the people in these two states are going to think?” Jackson said.
As matter of fact - the Sanders campaign asserted that the Super Delegates were going against the will of the people. "Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver in February, who insisted that superdelegates should not go against the "will of the people" and should back whichever candidate gets the most pledged delegates." MoveOn.org and the super-PAC Progressive Kick were making the same argument. https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-campaign-tries-to-have-1404877438296118.html
I am a fact check junkie. Facts are practically my life's blood (in everything I do), so I consider it an insult when you accuse me of forsaking fakes.
betsuni
(29,501 posts)more pledged delegates, but there were only 933 available in the remaining contests. And political pros could tell by the delegate math that the race was over on April 19, since a victory would require him to win almost every single delegate after that, something no rational person could believe. Sanders voters proclaimed that superdelegates could flip their support and instead vote for the candidate with the fewest votes. In other words, they wanted the party to overthrow the will of the majority of voters.
"Sanders supporters also made a big deal deal out the fact that most of the superdelegates had expressed support for Clinton early in the campaign. They [superdelegates] did the same thing in 2008, then switched to Obama when he won the most pledged delegates. Same thing would have happened to Sanders if he had persuaded more people to vote for him. This is important because it shows Sanders supporters were tricked into believing a false narrative. Only one candidate can win the nomination, of course the DNC got to work on that person's behalf. Of course emails from that time would reflect support for the person who would clearly be the nominee. And given that their jobs are to elect Democrats, of course DNC officials were annoyed that Sanders would not tell his followers he could not possibly be the nominee. Battling for the sake of battling gave his supporters a false belief that he could win -- something that added to their increasingly embittered feelings.
"Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And that's what happened ... . Crews of Russian propagandists ... started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. ... In the real world, here'a what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his loses piled up."
Kurt Eichenwald
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
Quiet Em
(3,275 posts)Clinton had 359 more pledged delegates
She won 34 States, he won 23
She won the Democratic base. She won Black voters 80 percent to his 20 percent. She won Hispanic voters. She won registered Democratic voters 64% to his 35%.
There is no measure that she did not win.
It was not rigged. He lost, she won.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)The super delegates were not following the lead of the electorate in various states. They were voting in line w/ the party "establishment", as explained in this article. https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-campaign-tries-to-have-1404877438296118.html
And it has long been accepted that the party apparatus was working against Bernie. And a judge agreed.
Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders
https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
Yes - Hillary won the nomination. Bernie lost the nomination. But was it all fair and square? I (and others) say no.
Quiet Em
(3,275 posts)The superdelegates do not hold as much power as you believe they do. Take them out of the picture, as I did in my post, and there is no measure by which Bernie was even close.
That Observer link headline and story is ridiculous. That frivilous lawsuit was thrown out. It was never rigged against Bernie Sanders. Yeah, more Democrats liked Hillary Clinton more than they liked Bernie. No shit. Hillary Clinton has decades long relationships with Democrats, Bernie doesn't.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)Bernie, however. Did you read the full article?
Yes - the super delegates voted contrary to the will of the people in their states. The discussion at the time was to reform the super delegate structure. Some of us might prefer the people pick the nominee, not the party "machine".
Quiet Em
(3,275 posts)Voters picked our nominee.
betsuni
(29,501 posts)lostincalifornia
(5,680 posts)to everyone, and we need to unite in spite of differences, but on things we can agree with.
but some people's egos seem to get in the way, and that is what happened in 2016. "You either do it my way or I will take my marbles and go home."
The Supreme Court was at stake in 2016, where we lost every critical swing state by less than 1%.
In those critical swing states Hillary lost by less than 1%, while in those critical swing states Jill Stein received 1% of the vote. It didn't take much.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana in his 1905 work The Life of Reason
AloeVera
(4,699 posts)Between 7 and 9 million voters swung from Obama 2012 to Trump 2016.
Of this, only a fraction were Bernie-Trump voters. Further, only 6-12% of Bernie voters voted for Trump and half of those self-identified as Republicans or Independents.
The 7-9 million felt that their views on race and immigration were a better "fit" with Trump.
In other words, racists, bigots and xenophobes applied their own "purity tests" and decided the Democratic Party just wasn't "pure" enough for them.
They sure as hell weren't progressives.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)There is no evidence that Democrats are responsible for the election of the grifter.
I believe there has been a misdirection - creating an excuse for the "results" to distract for what may have really happened.
I believe propaganda and other evil deeds from outside bad actors (Pootin being one) created the "results". I DO NOT believe Hillary Clinton lost.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)nomination that they voted for the grifter, in the general election.
What it identifies is that there are some primary voters who voted for Bernie, who then later voted for the grifter in the general.
Bernie had a coalition. He appealed to people beyond the normal Democratic voter. He appealed to the Libertarian voter and other "fringe" thinkers. He had a populist message. People who felt Bernie spoke to them would not necessarily align w/ Hillary Clinton, as she represented the traditional "establishment".
Toward the end of the article they discuss some of this nuance. Here is one sentence that speaks to that analysis. "A more important caveat, perhaps, is that other statistics suggest that this level of "defection" isn't all that out of the ordinary. Believing that all those Sanders voters somehow should have been expected to not vote for Trump may be to misunderstand how primary voters behave."
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)This time if was lethal though.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)Hillary Clinton DID NOT lose in 2016. There were forces at work that cheated and rigged and manipulated. These forces were NOT bitter Democrats.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)I do not choose to engage in a back and forth argument regarding election results with you. I am very aware of your opinion on the matter.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)Scrivener7
(60,464 posts)I have said it before. We are a Democracy. That means voting is like picking which bus to get on. None of them will take you directly from your home to your destination. That will NEVER happen. So you pick the one that gets you closest.
I am sick of people not voting unless the bus makes a stop at their front door. And I'm sick of the people who encourage them to think the bus SHOULD stop right at their front door.
-misanthroptimist
(2,012 posts)That is never, ever going to change. Nor should it. That's the price we pay for freedom. Some people are going to disagree with us for reasons of their own -reasons we might think are woefully wrong. But it is their right to be woefully wrong.
How would youfix this thing you think is a problem?
Scrivener7
(60,464 posts)And it seems like my point is the same as yours. We ALL have to tolerate areas of disagreement. But we need to educate our electorate that disagreement doesn't mean don't vote.
-misanthroptimist
(2,012 posts)Minor policy disagreements probably aren't a big problem, though they may dampen enthusiasm. The real trouble is that priorities are -have been and should be- determined by the individual. And some of those priorities have no easy compromise.
Take MI in 2024. Many Dem voters stayed home due to Israeli actions in Gaza. They determined that those actions constituted genocide. Genocide is not something we can condone or compromise on. So, if we wanted those voters we were left with either abandoning Israel or convincing those people that that wasn't genocide. Neither of those look practical and there is no middle ground. We cannot tell those people that voting for Harris is more important than genocide. It won't work.
Nor can we say that those people are wrong. Their "pony" was ending the murder of innocent civilians. It is not an unreasonable request -particularly if one has ties to Gaza. Telling them that they'd get no better from [Redacted] didn't work -and never would. From that perspective, they saw no difference between the two candidates. Long term strategy wasn't a consideration. If nobody was going to try to stop the genocide, nobody would get their vote.
The job of the Party isn't to convince voters that the Party is right. The job is to let the voters know that the Party is working for them, or at the least seriously listening. Berating people about their own sensibilities is a losing proposition. It flies in the face of the very realism that the Party first people claim to have.
Scrivener7
(60,464 posts)In every Presidential election, there are two viable candidates. One of them will win. So that's the choice.
-misanthroptimist
(2,012 posts)Say somehow a right-wing Dem wins the nomination against the right-wing Republican candidate. Both candidates are in favor of exterminating group "X". The Republican, of course, wants to torture them first, but the Democrat just wants a quick execution.
Would you vote for either of them? Or would you withhold giving legitimacy to both?
Scrivener7
(60,464 posts)-misanthroptimist
(2,012 posts)You appear to be conceding the point that that hypothetical would lead to. I understand.
Scrivener7
(60,464 posts)-misanthroptimist
(2,012 posts)I'm merely having a discussion based on reason and logic. My ego is off yonder looking at something beautiful and wondering what the hell color it is.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)Joe Biden did all he could to get Netanyahu to back off in Gaza and Netanyahu refused to listen. Those who wanted more suggested cutting off aid to Israel but they have a very powerful lobby and the GOP would never have voted for it. Those who refused to vote let Fascism take hold over something that the Democrats had not control over.
-misanthroptimist
(2,012 posts)creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)
oasis
(54,455 posts)
meadowlander
(5,198 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)What is it, in 2026, that you're "sick" of? Or are you concerned about previous Democratic presidential primaries?
Scrivener7
(60,464 posts)There's always a "take my ball and go home" contingent, (i.e. non-voter, Green Party "dissent voter," etc) that has a significant impact on our numbers.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)The "cannibalizing" I see seems exemplified by the OP. You agreed with it - ie it's about the present, not a possible future.
There's a DU rule "Don't keep fighting the last Democratic presidential primary". Are you saying this OP is OK, because you're refighting 2016 and 2020? What about 2008, when the "my ball" contingent was Hillary-or-no-one supporters?
Scrivener7
(60,464 posts)Have a nice day.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)That is obviously refighting previous presidential elections.
How do you read the OP - specifically "this shit" that's it's about? We're 2 years after the last presidential election, and 2 years before the next. How can "this shit" be about presidential elections?
boston bean
(36,990 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)say they've done "this fucking shit" (which, I cannot emphasize enough, you still haven't deigned to explain), and accuse "them" of "tearing the Democratic Party down", you're refighting, not just "recalling" or "remembering".
That is fucking obvious.
boston bean
(36,990 posts)Re-read.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)Re-write.
I can, if you wish, attribute to you some things that you appear to feel, but which you don't dare say explicitly because they are incredibly divisive and bad for the Democratic party. "This shit" and "New York City" appear to mean that you object to registered New York City Democrats choosing the Congressional candidates they did recently, and you wish to pretend that's about a presidential election, although it's clearly not.
boston bean
(36,990 posts)mr715
(4,980 posts)
Scrivener7
(60,464 posts)
buzzycrumbhunger
(2,489 posts)Now, if only the Democratic party would take it to heart and quit trying to act like alternate viewpoints didn’t threaten the old guard more than a Repuke takeover…
mcar
(46,646 posts)
Abolishinist
(3,121 posts)As an aside, the Hollies briefly popped into my head. My first thought was that I saw them back in the day, but upon reflection it was the Dave Clark Five.
mcar
(46,646 posts)HRC and VP Harris. They were the most qualified, the most experienced and had the best policies that would have helped this country.
The "conscience" voters chose to support a Putin puppet (Stein), said trump was the peace candidate, and disparaged "Killer Kamala." They also insisted SCOTUS wasn't important and mocked us for saying so.
So yeah, I agree with BB.
-misanthroptimist
(2,012 posts)Just as I respect the views of those with whom I disagree.
What I won't do (and I'm NOT implying that you do) is berate people for having different views. I may try to convince them to come around to my POV, but I won't belittle them or their views.
Complaining about others' sensibilities and priorities will never build consensus and cooperation.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)But their "conscience" allows them to ignore 5 million people losing their health care while they demand Medicare for all. Allows them to ignore elections being fixed and stolen while they demand defunding the police. Most of us realize that the world is full of terrible things we can't fix but if we work our tails off we can gradually keep making the world a little better, or at least stop us from falling into Fascism. When I see them ignoring so much I wonder what their real motivation is.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)because their conscience tells them Medicare for all is better? How can they ignore the fact that Trump is working on stealing every election for the next hundred years?
I don't believe them when they say that it conscience. I don't know what their motivation is but I know that the world is full of terrible things that can't be stopped but if enough us work together we can make it a little better or at least fend off the worst.
And they are free to do anything they want. And I am free to give my opinion on their choices.
-misanthroptimist
(2,012 posts)However, their opinion is expressed in votes. Your opinion on those votes avails us nothing. All we can do is try to do better next time.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)But I keep hoping.
Renew Deal
(85,500 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 5, 2026, 08:58 PM - Edit history (1)
RandomNumbers
(19,382 posts)20 years of smears.
I don't recall an active anti-Obama movement on the left during the runup to Obama's election?
Yet many I knew personally, who called themselves "left" (and some still call themselves that, others I lost contact with so I don't know), attacked Clinton on social media for long after the primary, up to maybe less than a month from the election for those who grudgingly voted for her ... and others refused to vote for her entirely, or at least proclaimed that to anyone who would listen.
Trump NEVER should have been elected. He was elected in 2016 only because of the ankle weights Clinton had attached to her.
The only ankle weight Obama had was that he was black - that he soared above it anyway is credit to him, but not an equation we'll replicate easily with just any candidate. And the black motivation and turnout was incredible. Obviously the reich-wing has taken steps to reduce that in the future. And the left-wing arguably coddling up to abolish the police rhetoric? Won't go over well in places like Philly. Believe it or not, many city people actually like having police around to keep the drug dealers, robbers, and other miscreants somewhat tamped down (as long as it is done without abuse of law-abiding citizens, who btw are the ones who actually bother to vote).
edit to add: I supported Bernie in the primary. I generally prefer his policies over more centrist policies. But I didn't appreciate the failure to come together fully behind the nominee after the primary. (can you tell?)
-misanthroptimist
(2,012 posts)..."A black candidate can't win the 2008 Presidential Election" not many would have taken issue with that. Remember the "Bradley Effect?" Hell, I remember (I think it was) Chris Rock using "when a black man is President" as a joke sometime within a few years of 2006. It was unthinkable to most. (Yes, Obama is an extraordinary man, but we have to admit that the Great Recession gave him a big assist.)
Whatever caused HRC to lose, it must be remembered that she lost to the biggest ass-clown in American history. I laughed when he came down the escalator to announce his candidacy. And I wasn't alone. He was unelectable: "Grab 'em by the...". Yet, he won.
Electability is a matter of the times and whims of any given electorate. Under the right circumstances, you or I could be elected President. Yes, it would have to be pretty damned unusual circumstances (at least in my case), but no one can say it's impossible -just highly, highly unlikely.
angrychair
(12,605 posts)2007 That was the rise of the PUMAs (People United Means Action) which was a very large group of disaffected Clinton supporters that did not want Obama as the nominee because they didn't think he could get elected.
It was very dark times here on this website during that time.
Sort of like now if I'm being honest.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)I wasn't a member of DU in 2007. I am relatively new to DU (2024).
I also heard there was a bifurcation of the DU community in 2015/2016 regarding the Hillary v. Bernie allegiances.
I have a thought. Do you think some of the resentment and disagreement is orchestrated by outside influences to try and divide us?
Response to boston bean (Original post)
boston bean This message was self-deleted by its author.
orangecrush
(32,028 posts)boston bean
(36,990 posts)Melon
(1,973 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 5, 2026, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)
We absolutely forget here that our party has a range of beliefs. The last I ever looked, 40% ofdemocrats were moderate or conservative democrats. When we forget democrats in more rural or conservative areas and only consider a city viewpoint, we lose those voters. Beto in Texas was a great example as he made the decision to make gun control a key point in a state that didn’t accept that.
Mysterian
(6,776 posts)It seems the propaganda machine has brainwashed more than republicans.
Melon
(1,973 posts)Mysterian
(6,776 posts)You have bought into the right-wing scare tactics.
Melon
(1,973 posts)Where I fall within the party beliefs has moved around since the 80’s. I’m not scared nor have I been scared by anyone especially republican branding. There is a range of beliefs within in our party. You can label it however you want, but a belief system based on your experience is not an on and off switch. It’s why the vote swings at elections and isn’t as easy as A. Or B.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)which seems defeatist, to me. Is there no room for progressives in your vision of the party? Isn't looking for a better world a good thing?
Melon
(1,973 posts)I edited and added 40%.
I absolutely agree that progressive's have a place. All the power to them. Where all of their ideas result in a better world could probably be debated or more importantly, if all of those ideas are mainstream enough to get the votes to implement them. Bernie Sanders ideas that are never put into laws are just that, ideas.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)
Fiendish Thingy
(24,620 posts)While it is exciting to see the growing influence of democratic socialists in the congressional caucus and in local politics, I’ve seen nothing to suggest the 2028 presidential nominee will come from among their ranks.
Because of this, I am baffled by your unhinged rant.
boston bean
(36,990 posts)It isn’t that one will be but that one won’t be. And that because of that the internal strife within the party splits us apart when we must be united.
Fiendish Thingy
(24,620 posts)It sure looks like the progressives are gaining traction in the party, so it may be the centrists’ turn to do some compromising.
I guarantee you that, in 2028, whoever the nominee is, they won’t blindly support Israel’s genocide, nor will they use vague, meaningless language to address the atrocities.
AIPAC candidates are consistently losing primaries this cycle, and shrewd strategists are noticing.
Only 8% of those who identify as moderates actually want moderate policies- the vast majority prefer progressive policies.
Here’s a link to the data backing that up:
https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/2026-04-07-only-8-percent-moderates-actually-want-moderation
The challenge isn’t stopping progressives from dividing the party, it’s effectively communicating progressive policies that most Americans across all parties want in a way that Republicans and centrist Dems can’t sabotage (see Ossoff and Talarico’s campaigns for good examples)
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)can be put on a spectrum.
Soul_of_Wit
(217 posts)I vote for Democrats. Joe Biden was the best President in my 67 years, narrowly beating out warmonger LBJ. Obama is in third place. I almost never pick the eventual nominee in the primaries, but I always vote for Democrats. Sometimes I am pleasantly surprised, like Biden, Clinton and Carter.
I lean towards Buttigieg or Ossoff in 2028. They can debate their way out of a paper bag, which is a plus over many Democrats. Would I vote for a self-described Democratic Socialist? In a heartbeat. Why? Because they would be running as a Democrat. How do I know that? Because the DSA is not a political party.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)There doesn't seem to be anything in the news about it. But anyway, I'd suggest choosing someone else in the primaries. If you think democratic socialists are that bad, then treat this person like you treated Tulsi Gabbard.
boston bean
(36,990 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)"I am so sick of this fucking shit I want to scream. Go ahead and fuck this country more by not understanding simple facts that this country will not elect a self identified democratic socialist for president. And I am sick of them tearing the Democratic Party down."
So, "this fucking shit" consists of a "self identified democratic socialist" that is running for president, and you are concerned that this person is "tearing the Democratic Party down". Who is it?
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)but she does identify as a socialist and is included in the polls
muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)but they won't come out and say it out loud if it is. I don't think many would accept that supporting her is "cannibalizing" the party.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)If they get angry if she doesn't win then refuse to support the nominee would that count?
muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)
LeftInTX
(35,066 posts)Maybe after serving in the senate, she would be ready.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)mr715
(4,980 posts)
orthoclad
(5,318 posts)It wasn't a DS who ran in '24.
mr715
(4,980 posts)
gay texan
(3,299 posts)mr715
(4,980 posts)I am assuming here, but probably a bold red.
gay texan
(3,299 posts)AloeVera
(4,699 posts)Or, if you go by the book - Amarone.
H2O Man
(79,524 posts)I'd suggest we should concentrate on the mid-term elections. That would seem more important to focus on now, rather than freaking out about something that may or may not happen in two years.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)And the midterms can get us on that trajectory.
Auggie
(33,399 posts)Since 1952 we've been electing presidents on image anyway. With two exceptions, they're either tough guys or smart dudes you could hang with. Run either on a moderate platform and they'll win.
The exceptions, IMO: Nixon and Bush one.
Win with a moderate platform, administer with a left.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)It's something that has recently happened, to do with presidential elections and the left. What is it?
On edit: Also, on your characterizations of elected presidents: No, you're wrong. None of Reagan, Bush Jr. or Trump were either "tough guys" or "smart". The former two probably make the grade for "guys you can hang with".
meadowlander
(5,198 posts)resparking a debate about whether we should be running more progressive candidates.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clye652m41po
As usual, the answer is we should be running the candidate that can win the district but that's far too sensible when you can get on your high horse about how your brand of Democratic politics is the only correct one and everyone else in the coalition is the enemy dragging us down.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)But the OP is oh-so-concerned about something to do with the presidency. We have 54 recs and counting for this, but none of them, nor the OP, has explained what they are worrying about in a presidential election. The nearest I can find is reply #14, in which the thread starter worries about either 3rd party candidates, or Democrats not voting at all ("it isn’t that one will be but that one won’t be" ). But until "the one that won't be" appears, I can't see what there is to be concerned about.
meadowlander
(5,198 posts)and therefore nobody should stray from the centrist path.
But that ignores the obvious fact that "we get smeared with extreme shit" regardless of what we actually say so why not ignore the noise from the right and advance policies that actually appeal to and help the electorate.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)will have the guts to explain what "this shit" is, and why they're not the ones applying a purity test.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)is running around the country claiming Democrats don't fight, don't do anything, are in corporate pockets, etc etc, and are responsible for what Israel did in Gaza. And mostly its using anger at Israel to defeat Democratic incumbents and then claiming its support for socialism, thereby handing Trump a weapon to motivate his base.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)I'd disagree with you about a lot. But that's a reasonable stance to start discussions from. In particular, I'd say Democrats should not be worrying about "handing Trump a weapon to motivate his base" from a label; they are irrational bigots who will hate Democrats with any label, whether or not it's accurate.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)If you've followed the news Democrats won a long string of off year elections and many of them in red areas. Analysts determined the GOP was losing because their turnout was way down. And from that they determined that the GOP was unmotivated.
The MAGAs don't know the difference between communism and democratic socialism. But they will be far more likely to vote if its to prevent communism. Trump is running with it and on Facebook where I hang out the righties are pumping the message non-stop. They think they have a solution to their motivation problem now.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)And then there is AOC. And if a democratic socialist candidate loses the primaries will their followers vote Democratic in the general?
Auggie
(33,399 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)so surely you can explain what was said that you praised.
orangecrush
(32,028 posts)
duckworth969
(1,457 posts)DSA appeals to folk due to what it’s fighting for.
They’re meeting a need that corporate types can’t or won’t.
If DSA scares you so much, contact the centrist of your choice to ask them to adopt part of their platform.
Shipwack
(3,137 posts)THIS! One thousand times THIS!
Democratic Socialists are winning because they are advocating policies that are popular on Main St, not Wall St*.
Centrist Democrats don’t want the DS to keep getting attention, they need to accept that the people actually want things in America that are called derogatorily called “leftist”: affordable healthcare, housing, etc. The centrists need to start serving the base, or else we will keep losing, or they will be replaced.
*Your particular Main St will differ, of course. Some places care about food prices but not rent control, etc. Not all of Mamdami’s policies are a good fit everywhere, but the ideas behind them are.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)I would like to see less absolutism. I like a little nuance in my analysis.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)They are capitalizing on anger from the young folks about what Israel did in Gaza and convincing they young folks to punish Democrats for it. It has nothing to do with support for socialism.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/08/israel-divides-democrats-midterms-00716025
Shipwack
(3,137 posts)THIS! One thousand times THIS!
Democratic Socialists are winning because they are advocating policies that are popular on Main St, not Wall St*.
Centrist Democrats don’t want the DS to keep getting attention, they need to accept that the people actually want things in America that are called derogatorily called “leftist”: affordable healthcare, housing, etc. The centrists need to start serving the base, or else we will keep losing, or they will be replaced.
*Your particular Main St will differ, of course. Some places care about food prices but not rent control, etc. Not all of Mamdami’s policies are a good fit everywhere, but the ideas behind them are.
boston bean
(36,990 posts)angrychair
(12,605 posts)Genuinely starting to believe this is no longer the website for me. People are openly hostile to progressives here and with no repercussions.
People have become panicked into thinking only conservative Democrats can be successful in this country. That we have to bend the knee to Republican talking points and solutions.
I mean the very first public talking point released from the Democratic policy "project 2029" is they promise to create a to law to force people to uniquely identity themselves when using the Internet. Our first policy, the most important thing in our agenda, is to limit and control free speech?
W_HAMILTON
(10,502 posts)If someone feels that people here are """openly hostile""" to them, it's not because they are progressive -- it's most often due to the person not fully supporting Democrats.
"Fully supporting Democrats" doesn't mean you have to like every single Democrat nor does it mean you have to agree with Democrats on every single issue, but it does mean you realize that Democrats are most certainly not like Republicans, the two parties are vastly different, Democrats are not the enemy, and you will take actions to help oust Republicans from elected office rather than assist them in getting elected and/or undermining their opposition (i.e., Democrats).
If someone can't agree with the broad parameters of that, I can see why they would feel people on a website specifically devoted to supporting Democrats are """openly hostile""" to them.
I mean, duh? 
SSJVegeta
(3,486 posts)W_HAMILTON
(10,502 posts)We're still far away from the presidential primaries and if someone has a problem with the notion that we shouldn't be tearing down Democrats in general, that says a lot more about them than it does the OP.
SSJVegeta
(3,486 posts)The entire post seemed to itself be tearing down a core faction of our party with vague accusations and the intent to divide.
angrychair
(12,605 posts)Far too many here couch progressives as the enemy. Often talking about progressives using the same terms as if they were talking about MAGA types.
I take great exception to any candidate getting the majority of their campaign funding from special interests and organizations like AIPAC. If they cannot muster enough grassroots support to fund their campaign maybe they aren't the best candidate.
Plus, many are tired of being told "we can't do that" for things other countries are very literally already doing.
Especially if we win control of Congress and the WH, people expect results, not excuses. People expect things to improve their lives, not Internet restrictions that limit free speech.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)SSJVegeta
(3,486 posts)These posts get a lot of recs. But if down votes were possible they'd sink like a stone.
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)We need to keep the discussion real and multi-faceted.
meadowlander
(5,198 posts)will never be addressed by centrist corporatist politics.
We can't afford to keep bleeding our core demographics who are frustrated with us for not being for a vision of the future that gives them hope and excites them.
And if the lessons of the past 26 years have taught us nothing, it's that you don't bring those people back by brow-beating and threatening them. "Vote blue, no matter who" applies to thee and not just me.
The Democratic party is a big tent which is meant to be based on coalition building. So why not try actually listening to people and thinking about what appeals to them about a European-style social democratic society and consider if any of those policies should be advanced by our shared candidate.
Joe Biden won on policies he adopted from Bernie and Elizabeth including student loan forgiveness, expanding Medicare, and raising the minimum wage.
Why don't you follow the examples of the leaders you support?
gay texan
(3,299 posts)yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)A big tent and a range of ideas.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)popsdenver
(2,885 posts)the U.S. and World would have been like, if only Hillary had won.............No wonder the NRA, Republicans,and Russia went all in to corruptly prevent that from happening...
Without question, she was the MOST QUALIFIED person ever, in at least the last century to run for president.......
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)the results were manipulated by those who would benefit.
If the results were not corrupted - we would not have seen the level of devastation created by Covid; Ukraine may not have been attacked, or at the very least would have won the war earlier; we would (most likely) not have seen the annihilation of Gaza; No war w/ Iran, and the collateral damage; No big ugly bill - the rich get richer and the poor...; The White house would still be intact; Washington D.C. would not be getting destroyed in stages; and so on and so on. It is painful to reckon with.
lostincalifornia
(5,680 posts)because not enough people voted for the Democratic nominee, using inane rationalizations such as "there is no difference between republicans and Democrats, the supreme court doesn't matter", or the classic one, "I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils"
The arrogance and stupidity of the Ralph Naders, Jill Steins, Nina Turners, David Sirotas, Cornell Wests, etc. etc. etc.
Noam Chomsky made clear his views in 2026:
"Chomsky cited “enormous differences” between the two major political parties. “Every Republican candidate is either a climate change denier or a skeptic who says we can’t do it,” Chomsky said. “What they are saying is, ‘Let’s destroy the world.’ Is that worth voting against? Yeah.”
"Noam Chomsky tells those who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton to stop Donald Trump: You made a big mistake"
and in spite of everything that has happened, too many people forget that someone in the midwest or south may have different views than someone in NY or California.
That is why Howard Dean's 50-state strategy was so successful, because he recognized those differences. Bill Clinton recognized it also when he clearly observed that Democrats win when they are united, and bring people together, and republicans win by dividing people.
and when Democrats are divided among themselves, that is not a winning strategy.
LeftInTX
(35,066 posts)They really took advantage of the Gaza situation and infiltrated the Democratic Party. Their goal is to destroy the Democratic Party.
betsuni
(29,501 posts)angrychair
(12,605 posts)But as I understand it, the solution, as you seem to propose, is for progressives to shut up and fall in line and stop complaining about healthcare and insider trading and apparently Internet freedom?
I say that because the Democratic Party associated (not sponsored or formally endorsed by the DNC) "Project 2029" in which they told the world that their number one priority as the first released proposal, that we as Democrats want to do as soon as we are in power again, is very literally a Republican proposal that would limit Internet freedom, stifle free speech and hand over our personal data and Internet history to Republican controlled corporations like Palantir.
Reference: https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/democrats-first-project-2029-proposal-181716719.html
At the end of the day all progressives want is for government to work as well for regular people as it does for corporations and billionaires. Why is that so controversial?
betsuni
(29,501 posts)Progressives/democratic socialists (the anti-establishment) list "their" policies as what all Americans want, but the goals are the same as the Democratic Party's: universal health care, higher taxes on wealthy and corporations, higher wages and union support, affordable housing, campaign finance reform, environmental regulations, etc. Propaganda tries to turn strengths into weaknesses. Pretend Democratic polices don't exist or aren't enough or that they think everything's just fine and nothing should change. Viciously attack character, assume evil motivations and plots, accuse them of hating and fearing progressives.
We're told the system is broken and rigged and everyone's corrupt, the only possible way for change is revolution. Take over the Democratic Party and transform it, punish them.
I am so sick of this fucking shit I want to scream, too.
meadowlander
(5,198 posts)It's great that the party eventually adopted those positions, but it was because of coalition building with the more progressive wing of the party not because those were always the same positions as the whole party.
betsuni
(29,501 posts)1976 party platform: "We need a comprehensive national health insurance system with universal and mandatory coverage."
Clinton administration tried to pass universal health care plan that didn't allow insurance companies to not cover those with pre-existing conditions, tried to regulate drug companies. "The corporations retaliated with about $50 million worth of attack ads. But the failure of the Clintons' effort can be chalked up to their unwillingness to compromise or even accept a phase-in of universal coverage. Basically, the Clintons had failed because they were still too radical. Remember, they had worked hard for McGovern in 1992."
Obama administration passed ACA expecting to be able to improve it, but Republicans took over Congress. The eventual success of the ACA made government involvement with health care more popular with Americans.
John Conyers introduced the Medicare for All Act in 2003 and was voted on every year until he left office, and others have introduced similar bills after that.
"To say the Democratic establishment doesn't care about the progressive goal of universal health care and that they are a bunch of neoliberal shills for the insurance industry is pure slander." Steven Stoft
The Fight For $15 was a movement to raise the minimum way started in 2012 that became a national movement. Obama:
"Of course, nothing helps families make ends meet than higher wages -- and to anyone in this Congress who still refuses to raise the minimum wage, I say this: if you truly believe you could work full time and raise a family on less than $15,000 a year, go try it. If not, then vote to give the hardest working people in America a raise."
meadowlander
(5,198 posts)and the overwhelming message that progressives were given when they proposed universal health care in 2007 was that they were naive and unrealistic, that they wanted ponies and rainbow-farting unicorns and they didn't have serious policies that could win elections. Will someone think of all the insurance industry employees!
We were told the $15 minimum wage was a pipe dream that would tank the economy and hurt small businesses.
We were told the Green New Deal was a communist fairy tale, dangerous to any sober minded person, until Joe Biden wanted to run on rebuilding the rust belt with renewable technology when it became, of course, the position that the mainstream Democratic party had held all this time.
Student loan forgiveness was a poison pill - a handout, a dangerous precedent, elitist, etc until Joe Biden needed a few more young people to vote for him.
We were told sit down at the back of the bus because we had an election to win against an existential threat (George W Bush) and middle America just wasn't ready for marriage equality for gay people and maybe never would be.
Can you cherry pick examples of individual mainstream Dems that also held those positions? Sure. But you're never going to convince people who actually lived through those debates that those ideas have always been planks adopted by centrist Democrats regardless of the influence of progressives.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)Hillary care lost us 60 seats. Obamacare lost us another 60. Single payer was on the ballot in liberal Oregon in 2002 and it lost 78 to 21. If we make realistic goals we can make progress. Help with student loans is doable. Free college would be much harder.
boston bean
(36,990 posts)Gawd! People need to learn.
betsuni
(29,501 posts)I remember a democratic socialist Representative at a rally thanking a senator for CHP because her family depended on it when she was young.
Well, that was Hillary's plan. The "status quo Wall Street shill establishment corporatist" blah blah blah cartoon villain created because if there's only a small difference between policies and you want to convince people to be disgusted by Democrats, viciously go after character. If you don't support Medicare for All, you want everyone to die without health care because you're a corrupt monster beholden to Bid Pharma and Big Insurance and the donor class.
I wrote down this quote, don't know who said it "minuscule ideological litmus test turned into character assassination."
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)...under the big tent.
sheshe2
(99,144 posts)John Dingell Jr. is generally regarded as a progressive Democrat rather than a centrist, though his approach was pragmatic and often bipartisan in execution.
Throughout his 60-year career in the U.S. House of Representatives, Dingell championed a wide range of progressive causes — from civil rights legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to environmental protections such as the Clean Air Act of 1990, Clean Water Act of 1972, and Endangered Species Act of 1973 Wikipedia. He was also instrumental in passing the Medicare Act and the Water Quality Act of 1965, and later supported the Affordable Care Act Wikipedia. These legislative priorities align with the core progressive agenda of expanding social welfare, protecting the environment, and advancing civil liberties.
Dingell’s leadership on the House Energy and Commerce Committee — first from 1981–1995 and again from 2007–2009 — gave him influence over major policy areas, including health care, energy, and environmental regulation Wikipedia+1. His oversight role often involved holding powerful agencies accountable, which further reflected his commitment to transparency and public accountability — values often associated with progressive governance.
While he worked across party lines on some issues and supported certain bipartisan measures, his consistent record of supporting expansive federal programs, environmental protections, and civil rights legislation places him firmly in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. His longevity in Congress also meant he adapted to changing political landscapes, but his foundational legislative record remains aligned with progressive priorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dingell
The concept of "Medicare for All" was first publicly introduced in 1970, though its roots trace back to the creation of Medicare in 1965.
The Medicare program itself was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 30, 1965, providing federal health insurance for Americans aged 65 and older and later expanded to include people with disabilities and end-stage renal disease
Wikipedia
While the program initially focused on seniors, the designers of Medicare envisioned it as a potential foundation for universal health coverage, hoping it could eventually be expanded to cover all Americans
TIME
.
The first public use of the term "Medicare for All" occurred on April 15, 1970, when Republican Senator Jacob Javits proposed expanding Medicare to cover the entire U.S. population. The New York Times described his plan with the headline: “Medicare For All Is Asked By Javits”
TIME
snip//
.
Subsequent efforts to expand national health insurance included proposals by Senator Ted Kennedy in 1971 and other lawmakers, but these early plans largely failed. Over time, the phrase "Medicare for All" became a catchphrase for various proposals aimed at extending government-sponsored health insurance beyond seniors to all Americans
https://www.bing.com/search??q=when+was+medicare+for+all+first+introduced&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgcIBRBFGMIDMgcIABBFGLABMgcIARBFGMIDMgcIAhBFGMIDMgcIAxBFGMIDMgcIBBBFGMIDMgcIBRBFGMIDMgcIBhBFGMIDMgcIBxBFGMID0gENMzcxOTU4ODAwajBqNKgCCLACAQ&FORM=ANAB01&PC=LCTS
Nixie
(18,273 posts)That is different from Medicare for all, but trying to co-opt both names seems to be the new thing. Hillary was doing this when it was politically risky — back in the 90’s. Al Gore’s climate change was also hugely risky back n the 80’s and 90’s. So we remember very well what our party’s platform is about. Maybe they thought we would forget…
Oh, and Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy. How he did that should be studied more and implemented. Just declaring war on rich people hasn’t had results like that yet. They just get mad and want to get even.
betsuni
(29,501 posts)Never a mention about why the single payer Vermont plan (Green Mountain Care) failed (another state tried, too, I think) and how it can work on a national level like "Romneycare" became "Obamacare" -- seems to me that would help increase support. But then maybe not if people hear about higher taxes and no private insurance.
Absolutely no reason for the all-or-nothing approach except as a political weapon.
Clinton and Obama raised taxes on wealthy, one of the mysteriously disappearing policies that didn't exist until 2016 and Democrats accused of being shocked at how "radical" they were as if they'd never heard of their own policies before.
👍🏼👍🏼
Find me one "centrist" Democrat that doesn't hold those goals.
I'm so old I remember when new Rep. AOC did a sit-in in Speaker Pelosi's office to push for the Green New Deal - something that Pelosi supported.
I will always wonder why progressives don't protest Republicans. For god's sake, the "pro-Palestine" crowd is still protesting VP Harris. 
SSJVegeta
(3,486 posts)Dem socialists are saving this country. Get on board or get out of the way.
I dont care who's feelings hurt either.
BannonsLiver
(21,060 posts)“Vermont was the reddest state in the country until Bernie…” 
lol! This is how I know you live in a deep blue state. Congrats on that, but with all due respect, if you’re making the case Vermont was the reddest state in the country prior to Bernie’s election you are spectacularly uninformed.
SSJVegeta
(3,486 posts)Do you remember WHY they were blue in the first place? A certain democrat who ran on universal Healthcare, education, a right to a living wage and a right to a home.
When those values were abandoned in those states, so too we're the voters.
ColoringFool
(1,460 posts)Intelligence; Knowledge; Education; Persuasiveness; Attention Span; Perspicacity; Political Involvement; Economic Self-Interest; and Empathy.
Thus, to try to distinguish the term "Democratic Socialist" from "Communist" is, in terms of our elections, folly.
If this comes across as condescending, I draw your attention to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D C.
walkingman
(11,358 posts)This narrative is being pushed by the GOP in order to quietly tear the party apart. Ignore it and focus on what they do not what they say. ☮
yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)yellow dahlia
(6,988 posts)
TBF
(37,727 posts)Deliberately pitting people IN THE SAME PARTY against each other is not a positive approach to get us through November
SunSeeker
(58,452 posts)
David__77
(24,925 posts)Stacey Grove
(203 posts)
IronLionZion
(51,753 posts)People seem to like Mamdani's policies. It's great for blue cities and congressional districts.
Many thought America wouldn't elect a fascist dotard...and then re-elect a fascist dotard.
Republicans kept saying Joe Biden and Barack Obama were far left. They'll say that no matter who our party is running. They kept saying that vaccine mandates and inflation were proof of socialism.
lefthandedskyhook
(1,183 posts)usonian
(27,336 posts)Fight the disease, not the symptoms.
WE ALL AGREE ON THIS.
ONLY OLIGARCHS LOVE IT.
Only a brainwashed moran can defend it.
FIGHT OLIGARCHY AND WIN.
Period.
mopinko
(74,284 posts)they can pretend now they didnt say things, or mean things. but they’re not fooling anyone who cares.
this crap will divide us, which is the point. we cant let it.
i think in large part they’re ‘accidental’ candidates. no 1 else wd run, so they win by default, cuz they rode an anti incumbent wave. whether they last, or get to actually do any of the things they proclaim is unlikely, imho.
DemocracyForever
(381 posts)Calling anyone who objects to the Netanyahu Gaza genocide against Palestinian civilians half of whom are children antisemitic is just not acceptable. The tv pictures coming from Gaza don't lie. People are reacting to these pictures and they don't like what these pictures are documenting. They have every right to speak out about what they're seeing. Are Senators Schumer and Sanders antisemitic for speaking out against the Netanyahu Gaza genocide? FYI, both Senators are Jewish.
There's a reason that Netanyahu has banned foreign journalists from Gaza. It's to try to prevent the full truth from being known to the world. Let's not forget that it was Netanyahu who removed the guards from the Israeli border before the hideous and unacceptable October 7th attack. Let's remember that Netanyahu's priority at that time was knee caping the Israeli Supreme Court so that he could become a full fledged dictator.
Israel has every right to exist and every right to defend itself. Committing genocide against civilians, half of whom are children is not how to do so. In the immediate aftermath of the terrible October 7th attack, Israel had the sympathy of the world. Netanyahu has now squandered that with his Gaza genocide and that's put Israel's future in serious danger.
mopinko
(74,284 posts)i’m not gonna debunk that point for point. but u cd if u cared.
and have some smoke for hamas, eh? using civilians as human shields will def result in civilian casualties, which is y it’s a war crime.
i agree, it’s not antisemitic to criticize bibi. but a whoooole lot of the ppl doing it r.
making israel a litmus test in american politics will hurt us badly, exactly as it was designed to do. it already has.
and ftr, no, israel did not have “the sympathy of the world” after oct 7. the protests broke out b4 they had fired a shot. esp at unis that qatar had heavily funded. google oct 8 protests.
DemocracyForever
(381 posts)FYI, the thousands of children murdered by Netanyahu's Gaza genocide had nothing to do with Hamas. The people who are raising this issue are reacting to the tv pictures that have been able to get out to the world. Have you not seen them? Are you telling people to not believe their eyes? I think you're the one who's spreading propaganda. So do you disagree with Senators Schumer and Sanders on this. FYI, giving Israel a blank check to commit genocide will never bring peace to the Middle East. A 2 state solution where both Israel and the Palestinians both live in peace and prosperity is the only solution. Netanyahu opposes a 2 state solution as does the Israeli far right.
dave99
(766 posts)Left ---------‐------------ Center ‐-------------------- Right
-------------------P(DSA)------------Dem------------Rep----
DSAs are not really as "left" as one can see by what items they fight for.
Will be glad if one day we can be on Left so ALL people can have sane lives, but there WILL be those that complain thar everyone is equal.
mcar
(46,646 posts)You're saying Democrats are center right? I sure as hell am not. Where is your proof/source?
larwdem
(920 posts)mcar
(46,646 posts)Renew Deal
(85,500 posts)
Initech
(109,753 posts)That hideous organization needs to be fucking destroyed and all the people who made Project 2025 and all of Trump's illegal executive orders happen - including Kevin Roberts and Tom Homan - need to be put in prison for life. 
Buddyzbuddy
(3,092 posts)Rhetoric that pits one faction of the party against the others IS the problem. The Felon in the Whitehouse, twice, was and is the result of racists, misogyny, homophobia, greed and the discontent amongst Democrats and swing voters that didn't feel their opinions were heard or mattered. Sound familiar?
Most of us here on DU are really pissed about our current situation and you're entitled to blow off steam but your angry rhetoric only exacerbates the problem. Your opinion and passion does matter and is needed, can you say the same about the Democrats you're talking about?
cksmithy
(541 posts)I heard that on Stephanie Miller's radio program. I am pretty sure Jody Hamilton said it was a more acceptable label to people than calling oneself a socialist, which create negative reactions, even though the fire and police departments are very socialist, we pay for everybody to use their services, when needed with our taxes.
Jerry Brown, California's Governor for the 2nd time, 2011 to 2019, while on a visit to the Central California, to visit some sort of farmers groups, who proudly told him they were Democrats. He responded, I am paraphrasing here, "No, not really, you are really moderate republicans." Which was true, and nobody had a fit. It was the truth. Democrats in a very conservative area are not the same as Democrats in a very liberal progressive area.
I am in my 70's and can remember that being a communist or a socialist was not good and was very bad.
orangecrush
(32,028 posts)Does have a nice corporate ring to it.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,981 posts)back to a time before WW2. 30 to 40 years before the median voter was born, let alone when they understood politics or were able to vote. I really don't think it would help. Practically no one who voted for FDR is still alive.
Isn't "progress" a good thing?
cksmithy
(541 posts)contains the word socialist in it, which can scare people. Democrats are good whether they moderate, progressive, center, it depends where you live what they call themselves. I have never voted for a Republican or a third party, ever, and have never missed an election since I got the right to vote at age 21.
Raftergirl
(1,926 posts)fairly conservative country, relative to our peer nations.
It’ll be interesting to see how the most progressive candidates do in November outside the D bubbles like NYC, - in places like Colorado, for instance.
creeksneakers2
(8,126 posts)I have so much to say but its not safe to.
Skittles
(173,767 posts)but the sentiment is still certainly true regarding women......
Eko
(10,261 posts)Listening to them they are tired of the Democratic Party not doing anything to substantially change things for the better for them. Half a months pay goes to rent for them and few of them can even afford to pay into the employer health care plan and when they do have the health care plan they still get large doc bills that they can’t afford after the insurance pays for most of it. Global warming is here obviously, the electric bill is skyrocketing, everything is going up tons except for their pay and their pay is way too low. Most of them couldn’t afford the ACA premiums before dump made them go up. I would say the ACA is one of the best things we have done lately and it didn’t help most of them . A candidate without policies that will substantially change all that will not get their votes. Most of them are liberals that work hard and are doing their best to just keep afloat. I see it every day . The consensus on here skews pretty old, if you want the “kids” to vote for our party we have to give them a reason. To someone who’s world is already fucked up telling them that things are getting slightly better doesn’t do much and that is what they see from our party. It’s no wonder they are moving towards far left views. They are looking at the thing that will change things for them instead of just a status qou of the rich getting richer and everyone else getting poorer.
demmiblue
(40,104 posts)
DemocracyForever
(381 posts)The dem grass roots understands this and they're terrified that our democratic form of government is being destroyed in broad daylight right, under their noses by the Nazi GOP while our leadership goes along to get along. It's the dem grass roots that wants to fight back and wants the dem leadership to fight back too. Affordable healthcare, childcare, reproductive rights for women, living wages and rights for working people, treating all Americans as equals, these are universal issues but the current status quo leadership has not prioritized them. It's the dem grass roots who are fed up. I also think that the country in general is fed up, not just the dem grass roots. Current polling shows the dem party's poll numbers in the toilet because people don't see the dem party standing up to the Trump/GOP Nazis and fighting back. When it's so clear that the status quo strategy isn't working, it's more than time for a change.
Tim S
(373 posts)Political struggles are Oligarchs vs everyone else — it’s the end game of Capitalism. Democratic Socialists recognize it and want change to rebalance things. Continuing the Status Quo of see-sawing between Extreme Right & “Moderate” Left just perpetuate things. Each of those sides are co-opted by moneyed interests
Buddyzbuddy
(3,092 posts)That's the key statement. The common denominator. FDR Democrats, progressives, Democratic Socialists all want change.
After Nixon stained the Party, the Republicans went about changing the Party, not for the good but for the change. They were patient and methodical and they've had success. Like it or not, they took what they had and molded a different constituency culminating in today's Republican Party. But to gain power they have done significant damage to the brand.
As a result, many prominent Republicans have left or are leaving. The natural course is to join the opposing party rather than starting a new one. This crack in party unity might be part of that strain. Let's face it, we have a bigger tent and many different ideas of what our party should be. Our recent losses have left us very unhappy with the old guard. Naturally, we want fresh blood and new ideas. Change is not easy but must be accepted in order for us to move forward.
Changing some of the guard has captured new, young energy. Patience and understanding must be incorporated if we are to succeed as a Party. Otherwise, we lose to the racists, the fascists and the billionaire class. We need our media back in the hands of responsible ownership so we need power NOW, in the hands of veteran politicians that know how to work the system and new blood with fresh ideas and energy.
Otherwise we may see the end of our current system. The party will splinter and separately we will be too weak to overcome the Republican behemoth that will rise.
IMHO
EnergizedLib
(3,271 posts)What we have to do is convey that our desire for social programs does not equate to us being socialist or communist.
mr715
(4,980 posts)It is all sunshine and rainbows here in the Free State of Florida. I teach on Charlie Kirk Ave.
EnergizedLib
(3,271 posts)See: 2018, 2020, 2022
mr715
(4,980 posts)LeftInTX
(35,066 posts)If he wins the general in MI, then I will take DSA more seriously.
I support their ideas, but I support electing Democrats even more.
WestMichRad
(3,545 posts)Humanity is a failed experiment.
Skittles
(173,767 posts)who would have ever thought a fucking multi-felon con man rapist seditionist could be "president"?
Music Man
(1,679 posts)These are unique times. We have twice lost to Donald Goddamn Trump, which is the height of incompetence. There is a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. We are continually snookered by Mitch McConnell. Something isn't working.
The whole country may not be New York, but what of Melat Kiros in Colorado and Graham Platner in Maine? These people are catching fire for a reason. In fact, there is a strong tradition of rural progressivism going back to the early 20th century. It's not that strange.
We have been living in Ronald Reagan's world for nearly half a century. Deregulation, tax breaks for the wealthy, shrinking wages. Clinton, Obama, and Biden were all great presidents, but honestly none of them broke through the framework that has shaped our politics for so long. We need bold action to move the needle back to where the political spectrum used to be. I loved Mamdani's line that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are not "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help," but "I worked all day and can't feed my family." That's something every American can relate to--the coast or the plains, urban or rural, white or black, blue collar and white collar. I'm here for it.
moondust
(21,387 posts)won't be as toxic today as it was for years during the Red Scares after the World Wars and during the Cold War when Eastern Europe was occupied by the aggressive Soviets. I'm not sure Dumpy's Red Scare will have much effect.
Labels schmabels. An example of how misleading labels can be is the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia which is "...a Russian ultranationalist and right-wing populist political party." 
Quiet Em
(3,275 posts)She says she regrets it, and she was certainly not the only person saying shit. Ryan Grim strike a bell with anyone?
She's in NY 13. She's just one of 435 members.
It's a very blue district and she will likely win it.
Our goal is to flip the House and flip and retain as many Senate seats as possible.
Yes, there are a handful of members of the DSA who talk a lot of shit and seem to be at war with some Democrats. That handful are social media influencers and print journalists who are not actually candidates for the House. And there are a handful of moderate Democrats who seem to be at war with the DSA as well. But aside from these handfuls, everybody else is not in the mood for this war. Democrats have been flipping seats blue in special elections since the con retook office. Democratic turnout in primaries is high. All the energy is with the Democrats. You don't have to like every single Democrat who is running. The districts they are running in are the only people who need to like them. A couple DSA candidates have won, other progressive Democrats have won, moderate Democrats have won. Vote for the best people you can on your ballot.