General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (bigtree) on Thu Jun 12, 2014, 12:11 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)They love to bitch and moan about how bad they've got it no matter who's in office.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)And yes, it is rampant here with many posters. Their worst nightmare is happiness and prosperity.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)to a National Security State, which mainstream Democratic politicians seem all to eager to usher in.
Some of us would rather vote for candidates that are opposed to right-wing policies, rather than just indifferent.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Fred Friendlier
(81 posts)and in his closet, too.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)And how much security does this country need? If any?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I'm sure Hillary is on board as well.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)And what is your definition of a Nat.Sec.State?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Criminalization of adversarial journalism.
Suppression of legitimate protest.
Militarization of local police.
The politicians I named supported all of this.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Are you saying we are like North Korea?
Ring any bells?
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)I know exactly what you mean, though I never had a good term for it. It was easy to drink too much and smoke too much and complain too much, and plan very little for the future because it was looking pretty bleak - everything going in the wrong direction. Eight years of that was rough, and then there was a very conscious thoughtful moment when it looked like Obama could really win - what would I do different if things really turned around, if there were a real future to work toward?
For myself, I quit smoking and drinking, and started bicycling to work, and finished a bunch of professional certifications toward a better job. I'd say I became a better person, and I largely stopped complaining. If society can rehabilitate in a good direction, then I want to be a part of making that stronger, rather than continuing to gnaw away at the foundations.
FSogol
(47,519 posts)
Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)The party will have gone in a direction I can no longer support
Don't worry those who do stay will make DU a nice safe echo chamber for all the corporate Dems
riqster
(13,986 posts)
I crack me up.
MineralMan
(150,557 posts)it's very likely that she will be the candidate.
Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)Like I posted before some of us have standards some don't
Been voting for the lessor of 2 evils since Bill Clinton and 12 was is the last time I will do it
If the majority wants a corporate party vice the peoples party so be it I will have nothing to do with it any more
MineralMan
(150,557 posts)You will do as you please. As will I.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Republicans or teapartiers or so called independents and if I chose NOT to vote AGAINST a Rand Paul or Rick Perry or whatever, if I acted in such a way that allowed one of them to get power, I would hate myself, and I would feel as if I didnt deserve to live here anymore.
So yes, I am no fan of Hillary at all or any mainstream politician which they mostly all are, and yet the alternative is
BEYOND MADNESS
so
Not only are you to vote AGAINST insanity but make sure everyone else can too
https://twitter.com/DidTheyLetUVote
lumpy
(13,704 posts)anyway.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Back when Gore was running against Bush and people were pissed off about Tipper's crusade for warnings on CDs about lyrics (which only made it easier for kids to find the ones that would offend their parents...) and Clinton's era with NAFTA, etc.
I volunteered to vote swap with someone in Florida - I said I would vote for Nader if that person would vote for Gore, because my vote wasn't going to matter, but his did - that way Nader could've gotten enough votes to be viable, but Gore would've beaten Bush by as wide a margin as possible - which was the choice between candidates who were actually going to hold office.
If anyone didn't learn the lesson of strategic voting from that moment - well, maybe it's time for a history lesson... another one, in fact.
Think about all the SHIT African Americans have had to put up with from both parties, depending upon who was courting the white racist vote at one time or another. Decades. Election cycle after election cycle. But those who have voted strategically have won the battles, over the years, not those who stayed home because this nation's power structure is what it is.
As I've said here before - I'm not a big fan of Hillary - but I will vote for her if she's the nominee and will want her to win because the options presented are what they are.
If for no other reasons, if you have women in your life that you care about, it's important to vote for the candidate of the party that has upheld a woman's right to choice in consultation with her doctor, not the state and religion telling women what's best for them.
It's not just about you and your issues. It's about a host of issues and who will be the president.
Well said.
JustAnotherGen
(37,487 posts)RainDog - thank you for this! 
RainDog
(28,784 posts)and say something in anger that I don't mean once I really think about the consequences of a vote.
I've tried to stop doing that... 
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)I'd be interested in doing that for anyone who lives in VA.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)afaik, it's legal.
I participated in an online community not related to politics. One of the guys there was in florida and really ticked off, so that's where we talked about it.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)I get ticked off too, and almost didn't vote, but my conscience didn't allow me not to.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)and it's been ruled legal here too. There were specific 'matching' sites for it too, to pair up voters. Interesting concept.
sheshe2
(95,631 posts)It's not just about you and your issues. It's about a host of issues and who will be the president.
JI7
(93,121 posts)
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
IronLionZion
(50,752 posts)where the good lord split ya! 
liberal N proud
(61,164 posts)And over the last 70 years, what came from the right was not good for America and moreover, the middle class.
So you do as you please, and understand that if the republicans win, we will see conditions deteriorate again.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 11, 2014, 10:02 PM - Edit history (1)
If only I could remember who started that one. Was it John Cleese?
Please excuse me, no insult intended. Cat pic is mandatory...
baldguy
(36,649 posts)
zappaman
(20,627 posts) Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Even Democrats.
MineralMan
(150,557 posts)anything. First, they have to win. Even Democrats.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, they, and their supporters shouldn't whine about the people who they didn't convince.
MineralMan
(150,557 posts)And that's what I'll be doing for the Democratic candidate in 2016. How about you?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I find it more enlightening and far more entertaining.
MineralMan
(150,557 posts)As will I.
OLDMADAM
(82 posts)I'll knock on doors, attend fundraisers, man phones, pass out fliers, harass my friends and neighbors, and their friends and neighbors, sell cookies, cakes, pies, and whatever I can afford to raise money to donate to our candidate.. How about the rest of you???
If we don't, WHO? If we wouldn't it's our fault, no one else...
MineralMan
(150,557 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)say do not vopte democrat for prez unless they agree to make things happen that we know cannot happen because the congress is bought out so bad they rejtected Eric Cantor!" then the blame for what the GOP does is still on you. The people the GOP will strave to death will not really care that you stood up for principle, but that you were willing to sacrifice them as pawns. I guess they are "collatewral damage?"
reddread
(6,896 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Seriously?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Regardless of party. Don't you?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Because that's what you seem to be saying.
"Should be" and "are" are two entirely different things.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)What is it that you don't get? Do you give a pass to Democrats?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Everyone "should be" getting unicorns & rainbows with ice cream for breakfast every morning. But that's not what happens in the real world. Why don't you get that?
All public servants should be accountable to the people. But what happens in the real world is that the RW creates propaganda (which is never used against Republicans by the RW media) to instill in the people that "all politicians are the same". That any attempt to work toward a free & equal society is "socialism". That the very leaders ACTUALLY trying to BE accountable to the people (Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi, etc, etc) are "corporate shills".
And you see that propaganda and believe that it's an accurate reflection of reality.
This propaganda disillusions the liberal majority (as it is intended to), so they don't participate in the electoral process (which is the objective). Which in turn causes the best candidates to lose and the worst candidates - who may be conservative Republicans, but often are just corrupt or ineffectual - to win. Which further reinforces the disillusionment in the majority of the people, and gives us candidates like Martha Coakley - because everyone thought Kennedy's seat was "safe" - and elected officials like Arnold Schwarzenegger - who was literally in the pocket of the corporations who created the crisis which brought down his predecessor.
I'm not giving a pass to Democrats. I'm giving them a chance. Why can't you?
MineralMan
(150,557 posts)
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)and then vote for him or her! it's like wtf. i have seen obama defenders say "well didnt you vote for him?" or "why did you vote for him then?' as an attack for criticism. i am in CT and if i don't vote (i always have so far) the DEM will win here anyway.
moriah
(8,312 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)She's gonna win! Right?
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Now we can take the time we would have spent voting and go have a 
instead.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)whomever wins the primary....on ignore. I will no longer consider them a fellow Democrat...probably just another "Independent" only on DU to try to suppress the Democratic vote....
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)What'll ya have?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And when it is clear that she is the nominee those who can not support her refrain from posting about her here until the election is over.
ancianita
(42,768 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)Even if we work hard to win first, we're not allowed to bitch because.......well, I'm still not sure why not. Something about giving Obama the sads or racism or whatever other idiotic reason people give on this site and elsewhere for not daring to speak ill of anything the Democratic president does. Every bit of complaining no matter how justified, is dismissed as coming from "libertarians" or people preferring President Palin or whatever else.
So no, I'm not falling for that line of bullshit again. We're not allowed to complain when we work, vote, donate, and then win, and we're not allowed to complain when we DON'T work, vote, donate, and then we lose.
ancianita
(42,768 posts)I plan to GOTV! 
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)to be honest.
I prefer to let the PROCESS play out. Perhaps we should dispense with primaries though.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)We had the exact same talk in 2006, exactly the same talk.
She was going to get it and be the next POTUS. I am positive that happened in an alternate reality. but not on ours. And at this point this talk is irresponsible.
The field will not start to take form until 2015, January, at the earliest. Many of us old timers are really tired of this crap.
Truth be told, on a partisan site, this talk is ridiculous. I am willing to wager anywhere from 98-99% of posters here will vote for the nominee on November of 2016. Some of us might have to hold our noses, as in seriously hold them, but I am willing to bet on those percentages. I am also willing to bet on a much higher voting rate from people who post here. So GOTV posts here are also the height of ridiculous. I will be impressed when those people go to the wrong side of the track though.
In my case, depending on how bad the race is, might have to do it by absentee, but... I think you get the point.
Some folks here would like to pretend there are no primaries and I will call on them. The little democracy we like to pretend we have, because we are all pretending, but trying to short cut even that is ridiculous.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)of winning the Primary. Its HOW we do things....you don't HAVE to like it.
leftstreet
(38,739 posts)when/if people won't vote for Hedge Fund Democrats
1000words
(7,051 posts)No time like the present!
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . I've got ignore.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)and I reserve the right to caucus for whomever presents themselves for consideration as the nominee of the Democratic party.
MineralMan
(150,557 posts)I won't decide who to support in the primaries until people declare their candidacy. So far, nobody has. In November, though, I"ll be voting for the Democratic Candidate, regardless of who I support in the primaries.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'll certainly vote, but I also won't pretend to know who deserves or does not deserve to complain-- I'll leave the pretense and absolutism to the prophets wearing sandwich-boards yelling "the end is nigh!!!"
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)period
riqster
(13,986 posts)Anyone who deserts can't bitch about how the subsequent battles went down.
BootinUp
(50,830 posts)MineralMan
(150,557 posts)start getting their shots in, even before anyone has declared his or her candidacy. Silly, huh?
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I think anybody unwilling to declare today should be compelled out of the race in 2016. You don't have to start running yet, but you do have to make up your goddamned mind if you're going to.
No. You cannot have more time, if you don't know already, having had years to think on it, if you want to run...then you're clearly mentally-feeble and unfit for the job. If you need more time, you're a moron who shouldn't be in the conversation.
Declare or get the f**k out.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)same stuff mainstream media is presenting.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5074702
Gothmog
(174,482 posts)We need to keep control of the White House unless we want to kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye
riqster
(13,986 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)That means they're not liberal or progressive as they are not bothered by the actions of the GOP against alternative energy, Social Security, the ACA, Medicare, Medicaid, food and housing, voting rights, worker rights, gay and lesbian rights, education, unions and infrastructure.
By not voting they support the unjust status quo of the party of pollution, privatization, RTW laws, theocracy and wars. They have dismissed the work of generations to protect us from the reactionaries.
Why not just come out and say they don't give a hoot about us, not act like they are so pure? No one affected can afford to sit elections out! Really, what is there for them to complain about now or later since they don't care?
While our freedoms are being taken by the GOP state after state, some have found a comfortable a perch to look down on the rest of us. That means they are not our allies in these causes now, and most likely never were.
They are dismissed.
standingtall
(3,144 posts)The democratic nominee is. I will not refuse to vote for Hilary if she is indeed the nominee. She may hold positions I oppose, but refusing to vote for her in protest during the general election is to concede the presidency to the repugs. When you take the all or nothing approach you usually end up with nothing.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Don't mean YOU the OP, I mean anyone that likes to complain about politics yet NEVER votes...they don't have a leg to stand on.
sheshe2
(95,631 posts)
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)I will vote for the Party's nominee, and anyone who will not can pound sand....
"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."
spooky3
(38,230 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I am willing to wager a bet. With all the disappointments, and valid gripes. They are politicians after all, 99% of people who post here will vote for the democratic nominee.
But... don't you think we should let the process play out before the inevitable meme takes over? I mean, same talk back in 2006. I am sure Hillary Rotham Clinton did become POTUS in 2008 in some alternate reality, but not on this one. But in 2006 she was going to be the candidate and we were well on our way to a coronation.
Now, off to do some work... I love always, processing photos and writing stories of progressive policies. I actually prefer those to the ever so popular fire story, even if I enjoy covering breaking news.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . of course, my friend, you're always free to listen to them.
I don't want to put too fine a point on it - we don't say, 'I think', or 'I believe' enough, although that's generally understood with this type of discussion - but we've been there, done that, with Bush. Oh, my word, did we go there! Do you know, I never had the urge to even own a computer, much less speak on a web site, until Bush threatened us with war and the evisceration of our constitutional rights . . .
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Continuing apace under the present administration, but you are free to ignore that.
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #65)
bigtree This message was self-deleted by its author.
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . but you are free to ignore that.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)Don't you know there is no differences between the Republicans and Democrats???
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Not alternate realities. In the here and now we lost ten spots in freedom of the press last year alone.
Sorry if not all of us fall for cute narratives...
And on edit one promise was to stop that shit. I actually understand why corporate candidates don't stop it, but I have my eyes open
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)My state WILL go Republican no matter what I do or which way I vote,
so I have the opportunity to to cast a vote for a Liberal who best represents my position on the issues without costing the Democratic Party anything.
Presidential elections are Winner Take All.
In reality, very few states are "In Play".
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)with 12 of those years as the state's First Lady, so who knows? She could make a contest of it there if she gets the nomination.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)AND I can blame you if we lose!
Thanks for the heads up!
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #165)
Post removed
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)we're not allowed to complain when we do vote for one, either.
So apparently the left is supposed to just shut up and stop talking about politics at all no matter what happens.
Cha
(316,481 posts)"pos fucking used car salesman" that have no place on this board. Better suited to rw propaganda sites.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)sore losers the lot of them!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that'll leave a mark!
Cha
(316,481 posts)greenwald said so. 
Yeah, I'm fucking loyal to Democratic Principles.. fuck the libertarian assholes.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)One often forgotten fact is that people across the world suffer the consequences if someone like Bush (or worse!) gets the keys to the White House. Voters in this country, whether they like it or not, have a huge responsibility, not only to themselves, but to millions of other human beings. Hillary might perhaps never rise above "lesser of two evils" status, but a lesser evil is usually preferable to a huge evil. Basic math!
As my (left wing!) evangelical Christian mother would say, if you have to choose between the False Prophet and the Antichrist, you go for the False Prophet and hope to live to fight another day!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Suffice it to say, we are not essential, more like laughing stock at this point.
Americans need to stop believing the propaganda and get out there more often
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)I have lived in the United States for most of my adult life, but I grew up in South Africa and still go there a lot. When I say that American elections are important elsewhere in the world, it is not due to buying into propaganda. It is true that this country's influence is likely less than what many Americans believe, but it is one of the world's largest economies, and both its wars and its economic downturns influence the rest of the world. That is just a fact.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)we are truly more like a laughing stock.
And while one of the worlds biggest economies, I think China already overtook us as we continue to decline from World Power.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)Parts of the rest of the world may laugh at the US, but given this country's humongous military, when a warmonger is elected here, it can have dire consequences for others. We all know Gore would have been less likely to invent fake wars, and while Hillary is no dove, I shudder to think what another GOP president might come up with.
And although China is now a powerful economic rival, it would be ridiculous to ignore the fact that compared to most countries, the US is a huge and influential economic power.
I have not even mentioned reproductive rights, here and abroad, which are hugely impacted by who is in the White House.
Your vote is not about you. It's about society. Obviously everyone is totally entitled to vote however they want, but to pretend that elections don't matter to others, is an avoidance of responsibility.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but if you pay attention to international relations, there are many ways to skin a cat, and we are seeing a fine game of that already.
I am aware of the effects to reproductive rights (UNESCO chiefly), but reality is that many policy experts already pivoting away from the US as a world power. Alliances are starting to shift. We truly are living the Chinese curse, and that is not necessarily a good thing.
But when I vote, I am really not thinking of isolated villages in the bush. Though I am thinking climate change, and given what we have done in that department, we are not leading either.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)that they will go against their best interests. They need the drama to continue their lifelong screed. Some are simply trolls. Some just like the attention.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Isn't Bo cute?
TOTALLY makes up for the mass surveillance, trashing of due process, trashing of our schools, and assaults on our free press and dissent.
Totally.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Cute dog!
But we continue to slide in freedom of press as you wrote. But Bo is indeed adorable!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I will repeat my prediction here that we will sometime soon in the future be presented with competing corporate candidates for President, one of whom will be a dog person and one of whom will be a cat person.
It will provide an exciting election season, with endless opportunities for advertising using adorable youtube videos, even though:
Mass spying on Americans? Both parties support it.
Handing the internet to corporations? Both parties support it.
Austerity for the masses? Both parties support it.
Cutting social safety nets? Both parties support it.
Corporatists in the cabinet? Both parties support it.
Tolling our interstate highways? Both parties support it.
Corporate education policy? Both parties support it.
Bank bailouts? Both parties support it.
Ignoring the trillions stashed overseas? Both parties support it.
Trans-Pacific Job/Wage Killing Secret Agreement? Both parties support it.
Drilling and fracking? Both parties support it.
Wars on medical marijuana instead of corrupt banks?
Deregulation of the food industry? Both parties support it.
GMO's? Both parties support it.
Militarized police and assaults on protesters? Both parties support it.
Indefinite detention? Both parties support it.
Drone wars and kill lists? Both parties support it.
Targeting of journalists and whistleblowers? Both parties support it.
Private prisons replacing public prisons? Both parties support it.
Unions? Both parties view them with contempt.
Perhaps the corporate-purchased parties themselves have something to do with this conclusion by the American people:
Poll: Half of Americans dont care which party controls Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024988821
Yeah, I think we're headed for the dog-cat battle. And it will be about as substantive as most of the Third Way and Republican propaganda we get today.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)All except for the dog versus cat.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)forget the technicalities, but I will offer the Parrot owner. And Connie will love the attention... she loves cameras.
JEB
(4,748 posts)These issues deserve honest debate. Seems our politicians need corporate funding so bad they can only, ignore, obfuscate, or lie about many of these important issues. Some may even dismiss your bringing up these important issues as being boring. How dare you actually have the interests of our nation and its people at heart?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)According to this OP, the Official 2014 Democratic Party Survey of Voters - yes, the survey that is supposed to gauge the voters' opinions on the most important issues of the day - shows a glaring lack of questions about the following issues:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025083415
Gun violence
Wall Street corruption
Fast Tracking of the Trans Pacific Partnership.
The XL Pipeline.
The environmental damage of wide spread fracking.
Investigations of the overreaches of the NSA/CIA organization.
Repealing the Patriot Act.
Investing in infrastructure and not military buildups.
Yes, those are the major issues. And there is a lack of questions about them.
What is being done in this country to our political system is beyond creepy. We've been watching for some time the deliberate perversion of our elections into pageantry and team sport, but it's really disturbing to see it reflected in the official party materials. Americans are being untaught our basic civics and expectations about the meaning of representative government, and something very sick....propaganda to cheer viscerally for our RED and BLUE TEAM regardless of policies or principles, is being put into its place.
They are not even pretending to represent us anymore. We have known that for some time. But it's disturbing as hell to see it reflected so clearly in the official survey.
JEB
(4,748 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And I cannot say if this is going on nationally, or just limited to my corner, though would like to compare notes.
It used to be that people had a certain level of respect for both state and federal government. These days my local officials, dem and rep, repeat the mantra that they are doing something (and they are) while they expect no action from eitherSacramento or DC.
That used to be just one of my local Supervisors, but she has always had a certain level of disdain for higher levels of government. Now you hear it everywhere.
And this is not necessarily making it to the front page if you know what I mean.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . with ONE substantive reply, but you'll come on here and pretend like your snappy, snarky posts about the president and all of the insulting and boring swipes at Democrats here make you some sort of progressive hero. Another fact-free, bogus, and divisive post from you. How inspiring is that?
You're fucking boring.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)before she even declares for the Presidency.
(I expect her to declare, but quite honestly she is not the only one who will)
treestar
(82,383 posts)that Democrats should be punished for not being liberal enough. The Democrats in question don't suffer. Only the people do.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(132,466 posts)That's what Tea baggers do, only at the other end of the political spectrum.
JazzFanInTX
(16 posts)And here I thought the whole "ideological purity" thing was limited to the far right.
Am I a big fan of Hillary? Nope. Would I like Elizabeth Warren more? You bet. Do I think Elizabeth Warren would be more likely than Hillary to defeat whatever Republican candidate were chosen? Definitely not.
I am a pragmatist, and idealogues on both the right and left scare me. The ones on the right scare me a helluva lot more, but my brief experience here is giving me pause about the left.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Freepers were infiltrating!
JazzFanInTX
(16 posts)The only use of the word "freep" I had heard before was in an ancient comedy skit, a satire of sportscasters, about a supposed farting contest. The "sportscaster" had different technical terms for a variety of fart types used by the contestants, and "freep" was one of them. Seems somehow apt .
I do sometimes wonder about the sincerity of some of the more extreme views put forth. It's like that famous cartoon, "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog."
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)purity tests and all!
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)all it accomplishes for me is acceptance that the Party MUST move further to the right.
What the purists on the Left fail to realize is that they are not the base of the Democratic Party.
riqster
(13,986 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)If you wanna move right then the TeaPubliKlans are facing some demographic challenges and can use you right movers.
Don't want to be thrown under the bus then stop throwing folks under yourself. What the Hell the response from those with the tire tracks on their backs was going to be? How long do you expect to hold folks you are telling to sit and spin? Even now all you have to offer is bullying and guilt, how long do you guys think these tactics will hold? Why do you think the corporate wing doesn't have to compromise?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Barack Obama's policies have been the most left leaning of any president during my 51 years of life.
The MOST left leaning.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Is an American Enterprise Plan, that is not lefty
How many bankers are in jail after crashing the economy? Speaking of banks, I did miss the break up of Citi, didn't I? Just because you believe it, does not mean objectively it it.
And let's not even get into NSA issues. Or the issues with the implementation of Common Core, a Bush Admin idea... (And the theory is noble, other countries do it, who are way to our left flank, but the implementation has been a corporate wet dream)
Yes, the ACA has helped people, but to say it is a left wing policy is either propaganda or sheer ignorance. It is not. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say it is ignorance. Most Americans have no clue what the words they use every day mean. But to call his policies left is as laugh worthy, and incorrect, as when a far right nut job calls Obama a Marxist fascist Kenyan.
Obama is actually, scary I know, to the right of Ronald Wilson Reagan, and 25 years ago, by his own admission in a few speeches he has given where he praised Reagan, would have been a Moderate Republican. That my friend is not left.
mike_c
(36,890 posts)All ya'll in the "further-to-the-right base" have a good time on election day. I support the candidate with the most liberal and progressive positions on the issues that matter to me. I don't give a rat's buttocks about political party loyalty any more.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Ergo, they have no room to complain when she moves further to the right in order to win.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but perhaps I am wrong. So the recent elections were primaries? Who knew?
LET THE DAMN FUCKING PROCESS WORK, oh and HRC has not declared either.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and has Hillary declared? I would think that would be like huge news... oh wait, she has not
Here is the list of those considering a run, and the list is all but complete
Hillary Clinton. ...
Joe Biden. ...
Andrew Cuomo. ...
Beau Biden. ...
Martin O'Malley. ...
Deval Patrick. ...
Kirsten Gillibrand. ...
Cory Booker.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The saddest bit, I probably would be as much in favor of everything she demands, but I'm pragmatic enough to understand I ain't gonna see it in my lifetime and what I MUST do is keep moving away from the evil that is the GOP in every election, then try to move the party closer to the correct way of thinking.
This has been the burden of the true progressives in this nation since John Adams. Moving the nation to the left when the natural thoughts are to avoid change. We have the more difficult path. Teabaggers have it easy because it's easy to move to the right. It is far more difficult to move to the left. Patience is the key, but the purist left will have nothing to do with it, thus they must be jettisoned to wallow in their demands for purity.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Barack Obama has moved this nation further to the left than any president has during my lifetime. I'm 51.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But political scientists have been making this observation for years. Obama might have slowed the trend, but the slide continues to the Right and towards a form of fascism. Mind you, the American people are not a right of center nation, but the US government is.
You might want to expand your horizons and read a few papers on this in specialized journals. Or you might want to read Democracy Inc just for starters.
Tow the line YOU think we should tow regardless of our conscience ???? If not we don't " deserve" our RIGHT to free speech or the free exchange of ideas? Hmmmmm Censoring people into a lockstep to preserve the status quo has been used by other parties in history too bigtree how did that work out for ya. It is NEVER enough for a candidate to just call themselves a democrat they actually have to BE one. And the democratic party stands the free flow of ideas for all not just those you agree with Or the very Title "Democratic party" becomes an oxymoron. An irony I hope is not lost on you." Deserve" indeed! What comes next Purging?WTF!!!
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . after refusing to vote for our nominee?
I seriously doubt ANYONE will 'censor' you for that. I just don't have time to listen to the drivel if you can't be bothered to help put our party in control of the WH. It's especially despicable if your vote actually counts in your state, although I think the idea of voting for some fringe candidate in a overwhelmingly republican state because 'it won't make a difference in the overall vote' is a strange way to support the party and I'm not a fan.
Howler
(4,225 posts)You cant expect people to vote for Just Anyone the Democratic party nominates . It is the Democratic party's responsibility to nominate someone worth while. Has it is with all political parties if they don't they lose elections period! In my opinion it is time to steer away from Republicrat Corporatists and go for the Populists . The status quo offers nothing for the people of this country at this time. And "Free speech" doesn't come with a clause of "Deserve" bigtree Of that kinda of thinking I am not a fan! No one in History has ever made change happen by supporting the status quo EVER!
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . independent bid that blows everyone's socks off. I'm sorry, I just can't see that happening. It's going to be a choice between a McCain or an Obama; a Romney against our Democrat. That's the reality.
The ideal of our party structure is to organize around those issues we manage to agree on, and, hopefully work toward the resolution of the rest. That's the rationale for supporting advancing candidates under our Democratic banner who we may well disagree with on some issues. That's the rationale for voting for a Democratic presidency.
Our Democratic platform remains the most effective vehicle available for elevating our ideals and initiatives to the point where they can be considered, and hopefully, agreed on. I imagine that, if I was born in the days of Lincoln, I'd likely be a republican railing against the notion and practice of State's rights, be-damned any other issue which contradicted that.
We choose the best coalition because it's a challenge in our political system to advance one ideal or the other to fruition and perpetuity. We are challenged to unite -- even as we hold our separate interests, needs, and expectations.
That's why I'm a Democrat. That's why I support a Democratic presidency. It is the most effective vehicle available that has the potential for elevating my own particular concerns into action or law.
Howler
(4,225 posts)The socialist party has been a presence on the Ohio ballot the last two presidential elections But I digress.
I understand your opinion on you supporting Whatever nominee the Democratic party puts up regardless of their policy stances. That's your choice and you not only "Deserve" but have a RIGHT to express said opinions on a POLITICAL message board! And though I have a different opinion and way of looking at the political process its all cool. My issue with your O.P. Is the notion that people who are towing the status quo have more Rights Or" Deserve" To join in and express those OPINIONS/Complain then anyone who disagrees. That's utter Bullshit! I will vote my conscience and I have the right and am just has" deserving" Has you or ANYONE else on this board to expressing my political view . To try too tier who Deserves more freedom of speech then another is NOT democracy it is something else entirely. And quite frankly if the current democratic establishment is so fragile and precariously perched that it cannot stand open and free exchange of ideas and candidates it says everything about the party not the voter.
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . they don't comport with political realities.
And, no one is trying to actually limit your speech or your actions (I don't think that even a remote possibility here). . . but don't expect that folks have to listen or agree with you.
Howler
(4,225 posts)You do realize that The king of England Probley said much the same thing about America .....
"Alternatives, Like Spam is to ham' They don't comport political realities" Snort! Thank goodness The Pilgrims didn't listen!
Good thing the French didn't listen either instead they stormed the Bastille!
Good thing Women didn't listen to the politicians and Fought to get the Vote Anyways.
Good thing Unions didn't listen too business and formed anyways!
My point is NONE of these Things happened by Supporting The status Quo Not ONE !!!! CHANGE does not happen that way.
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . as recently as 2008 we debated around here that there was some huge difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Practically two sides of the same coin, those two - she was his SoS for shitsakes.
You've gone off topic and are actually arguing with yourself on those issues you've listed there. Stick to the subject: the presidential election. We're talking about the value of candidates who need to achieve the nomination and win the general. I think progressive challengers do have a way of pushing the debate to the left, and that's certainly a good thing, But, don't pretend that's the same thing as defeating the republican nominee. Winning against the republican is the end game in presidential elections; not who can hold the most progressive positions.
I haven't gone off subject at all!! You Have implied there are no alternatives but to vote for whoever and whatever the Democratic establishment presents. and the alternatives that are currently present are ridiculous With Your Ham and Spam comment. And that is just not true! There are ALWAYS viable alternatives Then the current status quo. And I gave historical examples which also blew holes in the" tow the line" bullshit. And you are right! Right now today The Occupy movement is offering alternative political and social alternatives to the business has usual. Soooooo Whatever bigtree.
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . where is this person?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)there is only one choice, dispense with primaries. She would be happy in the party before the 1968 convention... when smoke filled rooms did all the choosing.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You cannot make the party do what you want....so you hammer the party for it...I get it!
Howler
(4,225 posts)Evidently so would her followers here
BTW it is so good to see your posts again I always look forward to reading your posts!
The suggestion is right there in the Title of your O.P. Big tree.
"Folks who won't vote for our party's nominee won't deserve to come here and complain."
Pretty plain. I would also like to know how "Complaining is defined Vs Debating policy and ideas since you have advocated for stifled speech for some I thought you might want to elaborate further and give details .
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . I'm positive that NO ONE is going to try and 'stifle' your speech here. Positive, no matter how I feel about it, so . . . carry on. Just remember, no one has to listen to it.
It says right in your O.P. bigtree its right there on the page.
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . I'd think you would understand that what I think folks 'deserve' isn't going to amount to more than the dribble out of the side of my lip as I'm speaking it.
Well Has long has YOU know that that kind of drivel runs contrary to democracy big tree.
And even a hint of it is something else entirely .
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . much less have a chance to actually win the presidency.
That's fine and good, but don't act as if believing they have a chance in hell of winning the general, much less the nomination (or supporting them despite all of that), makes you a better progressive; not with the threat of a republican presidency in the balance.
You crack me up with that 'hint' bullshit (really, though, I think it's as ludicrous and diverting a tactic as the rest of your argument).
Howler
(4,225 posts)None of YOUR candidates have declared either and yet.... Your O.P. Telling folks who disagree to STFU and tow the party line. The only argument you offer is well .... Even though the democratic party sucks it's better then the other party. Go Team!!!! Snort! You say you are willing to comprise all your ideals and chance at meaningful social change to maintain a corporate owned party in blind hope that they will eventually push through some small satellite issues while letting the world burn!!!! Then you project that lazy worldview onto other posters, trying to convince them and yourself that there is no alternative or possibility for meaningful change. WELL there is not if you keep accommodating the Democrats who are bought and paid for by big business! I suppose if one wanted too they could look at that as proving their point but that's a bunch of bullshit too!!! You talk about ludicrous! I have answered you point by point and your only argument is that you want to win the election. You might want to consider what you are actually winning. I will feel good about my choices on election day. Will you or will you just settle for winning at the cost of EVERYTHING? And No, I don't use politics or parties, to define me! You do know they are all lawyers right? ROFL!!!!! I don't need to blindly support a team to define me!!! I like substance. Now please feel free to have a nice day. I have to go out and pick a tile for my back room. What I create defines me.
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . I'm sure there are other places more amenable to Democratic party bashing for you than DU (although, some days . . .).
You're still conflating what you believe about politics and political positions in general with what it takes to defeat republicans in the general election. From that you've concluded that you're some sort of progressive hero and I'm just some subversive tool of the right-wing for daring to point out that if you have no viable candidate, much less another party to advance all of those ideals you claim to believe in, you will watch all of those fine ideals of yours go right down the drain while almost an entire generation suffers under republican rule.
You're criticizing me for wanting to WIN the general election campaign against the republican challenger? It's not progressive integrity to stand by and allow a republican to gain office, it's just plain ignorance to just stand by and watch everything you claim to believe reversed by a republican rule while you hold onto your ideals.
I'm used to politics swallowing up my ideals and spitting them back at me. That's the nature of our national legislature where our ideals are predictably compromised by the myriad of interest and opinion from legislators elected from the many diverse regions of the country.
What I'm not prepared to do is just hand the presidential election over to the opposition party; hand everything that I fight for over to a republican president to manage. What happens to all of your fine principals then? (and don't try and sell the crap that the parties are the same. I'm not buying it)
Still nothing at all from you about taking responsibility for the advancement of a republican candidate in the absence of your support for a Democratic nominee. It's like you believe that just because you are intransigent in the general election that the nation would follow suit.
I know the throwback argument . . .the parties are both the same' . . . spare me.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
djean111
(14,255 posts)As if there won't be any primaries wherein folks at DU will declare for or against other possible candidates.....
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . considering there's not one rival who is anywhere near as organized and positioned to win a primary election. It's like folks think if they knock her down enough with over-the-top rhetoric here, some spotlessly progressive candidate will emerge to take her place.
Am I the only one wondering just who is this perfect candidate folks will ultimately rally around here to challenge Clinton . . . and how many ways can folks pull that person apart before they're facing off with the republican candidate?
I played this game the last time, with Obama as my fourth choice at the end of the primary. I took some beatings complaining about many of the things folks get so worked up about now; even those same folks who were telling me that Clinton was Nixon and Obama was anti-war. Eyes open this time (as they were last time).
djean111
(14,255 posts)do not like her policies, do not like her actions.
What the fuck is the point of voting or even being interested in politics if one is not supposed to pay attention to what each candidate stands for?
Looks like "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is only supposed to be applied to Hillary.
I think the anti-Hillary threads are a response to the threads that tells us forget any other candidates, just support Hillary Right Now.
If we worry about the GOP using our criticisms against any candidate, there is no point to the primaries. Or is that the meme that is being pushed.
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . less with political neophytes like our current president was (that's why they have such initial appeal).
I don't think folks see Hillary as 'inevitable' because folks say so - I think folks can read the political landscape and measure potential opponents by their level of interest and involvement. Plenty of Warren or Sanders votes here, but nothing at all from those folks to hang on for anyone taking a serious look at the political process ahead. I think that would change if there was a serious drive by a rival toward the nomination. In the absence of that, Hillary is in step to gain the majority of that support. She can't be blamed for the paucity of serious challengers at this point - and it's getting late.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And HRC is inevitable talk right? My calendar reads 2014. It's about the same time.
As to neophytes....I know I know you likely do not pay attention to local or state politics, but with very few exceptions a State Senator is not a neophyte.
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . Obama was relatively new to the political scene and raced to the presidency under the 'urgency of now'. I think there are numerous examples of political naivete from him; most notable his belief stated early and often in the campaign that fighting with republicans all the time (he used Hillary as an example) wasn't the way to get them to move on legislation. He said, over and over, that he would 'work with republicans'. How'd that bit of political wisdom work out? He must have had a different experience as State Senator.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)the field will not take shape at the shortest, another six months. It will really not start until January of 2015.
The people thinking about it are talking to donors right now, but not in the open, where you can see it. So sorry, she is NOT inevitable, and anyway, if she is, why bother with primaries?
And Obama was not a neophyte. He already had a few years of public service. to the point that he had a few crucial skills down pat, like see lens... smile.
I cover neophytes regularly, and Obama was not one of them.
There are days.... I really want to do this 
Ah, much better... need some aspirin though.
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . his race provided a surge of newly registered voters and gave him a lock on one demographic and helped him in other minority demographics.
I'll stick with my point that this was a political neophyte, at least to the battles D.C. was already engaged in and in his own stated expectations. I think the military is another area where he did not have enough institutional knowledge to formulate policy ahead of the republican holdovers he let stay and run his military and intelligence agencies.
He underestimated the political landscape involved in closing GITMO. He looks at trade deals as some compromise between republicans and Democrats, instead of having a political center that insists on his own pov prevailing. Too much of what he's done has been a learning process, and many times he's run headfirst into political obstacles that everyone, except him, apparently, knew well.
And the basic premise that he used to describe his governing philosophy was so naive you had to conclude that he was oblivious to the ground already covered and gained by the party before he came to power.
I don't know any other way to describe his military policy in Afghanistan except to say that due to his inexperience and lack of a base of military leaders and managers in his personal rolodex, that he committed a record number of troops to 'surge' there and ended up with more troop casualties and deaths there than Bush even managed. I'm going to call that a tragic rookie mistake. I really don't know any other way to describe it.
If you look at his experience in foreign affairs when he was in Congress it amounted to a speech against Iraq that he didn't have an original transcript for; a pt stint on a foreign relations committee with little to show for it than a handful of recorded questions from the junior senator and an arms deal with Lugar.
Conversely, Sen. Clinton had reams of questioning from countless hearings when she served on the Senate Arms Services Committee. You could actually measure her interest, concerns, and experience from those hearings, as well as in the legislation she proposed. It was a stark contrast with her less-ambitious Democratic rival.
All of that emotion from you . . . who is this dynamic candidate like Obama with a ready-host of new voters?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Unlike you, I am not Miss Cleo.
But there are a few potential candidates already and we have not heard Clinton declare. Perhaps you do have the inside track. So tell me, will the Clintons adopt another dog for the WH? What are WH photos without a cute dog? You have the inside track, and you have even seen so far as to who will win the Presidency. I don't, but since you do, I vote for a Pug for the WH. They are cute.
Aint't that a face all can love? Cute dog.
Or perhaps time to break tradition and adopt a cat.
Those two are cuttie pies even if I will need my allergy meds
And I think we have had no POTUS who is also a grand parent... now think of the photo possibilities!
Unlike you, I prefer to defer to the voters and wait for the process to play itself out, as badly polluted as the process is with big money
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . you must feel so smug right now. Didn't you have enough fun backslapping and yucking it up with the other smart-ass upthread?
It really seems like what you want, and some folks here with more of a negative agenda, is to dehumanize these legislators and pols so you can comfortably sneer at them and look down at them. It looks weak and doesn't compel other folks who thrive on humanity to find agreement with whatever you're advocating.
Take this effort by you on this thread to ridicule my politics and define my character as some sort of dilettante only interested in pretty pictures - It's so slimy and juvenile, it's so patently false that I was actually surprised to see you join in.
It demonstrates, betrays, a weakness in your ability to not just respect my differing opinion, but a desire by you to actually denigrate me personally. That's just sad, and, I think, more of a reflection of your character than anything you've written here; any view you might hold about the politicians we were discussing.
You really forfeit the debate when you engage in garbage like that. Appropriate, perhaps for a grade-school cafeteria, but not appropriate for a debate in which you want your own views to be judged on their merits and not subjected to childish taunting and ridicule.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I have not backed down from the fact that you cannot say that. Nor that saying that is undemocratic.
If you chose to say, I SUPPORT HRC, none of us would have issues with it. But the, YOU WILL VOTE FOR MY CANDIDATE or else, is anti democratic.... and silly, and authoritarian.
So if you already know who is going to win? Why do we bother with the process? There is a reason why the 1968 riots happened. You should read some history.
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . go play with your juvenile friends. I'm done
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That is the height of irony.
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . you can be the lone poster on my ignore list.
a little English lesson for you:
juvenile:
1. Of or relating to or characteristic of or appropriate for children or young people
2. Displaying or suggesting a lack of maturity
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and none is telling you to stop advocating for who you wish to be the candidate. I am advocating for the PROCESS, which has not happened. And you are getting pushback because I am not the only one tired of this crap..
Nor am I the only one pushing back.
For somebody who claims to be a political sophisticate, this authoritarian bent is worrisome, but at this point expected.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)bigtree
(93,319 posts)They act as if there's some sort of fix in for Hillary - then they want to argue that she's not 'inevitable'.
It's the empty candidate nest syndrome talking.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)see that is what you are really demanding!
BainsBane
(57,333 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)For not being liberal enough! She doesn't get to be President!!!!! Punished her!
Oh, yeah, forgot about the effect on all the people!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Some people don't live down at ground level, but some of us do...
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)on the world wide web. And we should have our burden of understanding what our own wing nuts are so that we don't become them. They are a good cautionary tale.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Or suggesting that those of us who do not like Hillary should leave DU?
Are we all to accept the coronation without a whimper?
I can assure you that there is nothing that people who do not like Hillary's policies can say that will approach the vitriol that will come from the GOP.
She is quite a polarizing person. They hate her for even existing - I hate only her policies.
So - if one does not like Hillary, one is a wing nut.
Noted.
The primaries should be really really interesting. If primaries are allowed, and if commenting on things like primary debates are supposed to consist of various forms of Yay Hillary! no matter what she says.
The support of the Third Way here is astounding.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..Free Trading, Anti-LABOR, War Mongering, Bank Bailing, Main Street Starving, Trickle Down NeoLiberal Economic Policies are the Right Wing Nuts.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)Hillary are most welcome to stay whine and cry like the losers they are so that we can daily see how unhinged they are so that we can have an example of what to avoid and how we would look if we became them.
Those that dislike Hillary's policies (and don't dislike her personally) demonstrate exactly how us Hillary supporters feel about the "Hillary policy haters", that they have never won us an election, that they are always whining about how Bernie Sanders can put together a governing coalition, how Elizabeth Warren is stupid for not running herself, how they are so pure as the driven fricken' snow.
These people are the Tea Partiers of the left. They cannot put together a coalition, or walk a precinct or work to get out the vote, but they want us to hear how the people who actually do those things are far from perfect.
Well, us Hillary supporters are far from perfect, as are our candidates. But running to imagined perfection, such as Ralph Nader, will get you George Bush every time. There are no perfect people and no perfect policies.
These losers are in my opinion most welcome to post here so that we can see exactly how depraved they are.
djean111
(14,255 posts)clear in your unpleasant way. And totally incorrect. And does not one fucking favor for Hillary.
Which, I think, may be the entire point.
I guess this is now Hillary underground.
Bye. To you, not to DU.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)I thank you for your understanding in both its width and its depth.
But whatever you do, please do not bother to try to register voters, walk a precinct or otherwise get out the vote for a less than purely perfect candidate.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)about anything.
When they soil their own nest, they live in the mess, and it ain't nobody's fault but their own.
Unfortunately, the rest of us have to put up with the shit until we can either clean up their mess, or build a new nest for ourselves.
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . building that nest.
The current Democratic party has certainly progressed over the decades. Much harder to start building a party from scratch. I'm still strongly in favor of building on and improving our Democratic coalition - more than I'm persuaded to abandon that coalition for another, weaker one - especially if that effort does little more than weaken or divide the one we have now (see: tea party).
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)but you're thinking only in terms of numbers, not policy.
We need to improve the quality of our candidates, not just in terms of electability but in regard to how they will govern.
We can't do that until there are consequences for governing from the Right. Currently there are none, because Democratic politicians know that the base will vote for them no matter how horrible their positions are or how many times they stab us in the back.
They have stopped caring what we think, because we have stopped caring what they do.
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . .quality of candidates.
You really don't have a lot of control in the prez election though. Once that national support isn't forthcoming, all the cheerleading in the country won't keep them in the race (unless you're Nader or Perot or something)
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)is counter-productive to that goal?
If we announce, two years ahead of the election, that the only criterion required to earn our vote is to be a Democrat, what incentive is there for candidates to take liberal, progressive or populist positions? We're lowering the bar as far as possible.
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . I can safely guess that there will be a republican challenger. That's going to be what we're up against.
Unless the sky cracks open or something dramatic happens and transforms politics as we know it, I don't believe there will be a viable independent candidate. I can see several scenarios where we might run with one and certainly there's a chance they could make it, but I'm not seeing the value in elevating some ideal over our nominee when there isn't even a name associated with all of that.
I don't take our Democratic coalition for granted. It's tough to elevate ideals into legislation and you need some reliable vehicle to get your initiatives to the level where they're even being considered. That takes time and effort which has to be self-evident for regular folks like me to have any faith in.
This is going to be a weird election. Everyone knows that the end game is beating the republican. All contenders on our side of the aisle, independent or whatever, will be measured against that need and expectation.
Am I the only one getting antsy waiting for a Dem rival to Hillary to step up and impress all of us with their ability to win that race?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)you are getting antsy AHEAD of the Primaries? REALLY?
antiGOPin294
(53 posts)Sadly, there are too many people in this country who are so disillusioned to the point that they feel not voting at all will somehow make things better. They don't seem to realize just how committed the right wingers are to take over this country.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Some 2004 things dont have to be reanacted. ...
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Or what? We can't come to your little party?
You do realize what you sound like right?
When did it become my responsibility as a citizen to vote for "the person who can win" instead of the person who will work for my interests?
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . I don't think it's too much to expect self-identified progressives to understand the risks and consequences of not working hard enough, or not making the right efforts, to deny the election to a republican candidate.
You don't vote for our Dem nominee and a republican slips in, you can certainly argue you're not to blame- but you'll certainly not be able to argue with any credibility that you did everything you could to prevent that.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)then you are the one who will have no credibility.
I will vote for the person I believe will be the best for this country. Being what used to be called a liberal but these days is called the "loony left" you can bet your ass I will vote for the most progressive candidate I can find.
I will follow my conscience, and my duty as a citizen to do what I think is best for the country. Not what is best for your "party".
When I joined DU I didn't realize the "Democratic" meant party specific. I learned my lesson and I don't promote other parties or candidates here. But I'm not going to sit here and cheer for someone I don't think is the best candidate for the job...
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . for not agreeing with some progressive celebrated opinion or the other.
If you think it's 'best' to allow a republican the chance to take the WH, you'll have to live with the consequences of all that. I suppose you can succor all of the outrage over a republican presidency telling yourself that a Dem wouldn't be any different. I'm telling you now, that's not going to be borne out by the reality.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)In what alternate reality do you live?
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)If it is going to be all hands on deck, all assholes and elbow grease then that effort should be for someone that isn't destructive to our needs being met and aspirations achieved.
The fuck you, we don't give a shit what you want or need, please give us money and shoe leather to sell what you don't want and then kindly shut the fuck up and sit in your assigned corner with a dunce cap on until we want something angle is not going to carry the day forever and for me it won't work another moment.
Speaking of culpability, when is going to be the FIRST fucking time the Turd Way Superfriends are going to take responsibility for their disastrous outcomes?
Don't worry, we know the answer is "NEVER!", close as it comes (and it isn't close enough to see with Hubble) is to whine about the TeaPubliKlans while assimilating their stupid and bankrupt policies and trying to find some way to play "bipartisan" footsie with the wicked, insanely greedy, the power mad, and the delusional stupid.
Coalition, my ass. Who will claim these policies the "coalition" actually pushes for? That shit is an orphan, the few loud mouths that defend the shit all claim they also don't prefer them so who is it that we must accommodate even to our own detriment because we must sacrifice for the coalition?
I call bullshit, there is no base demanding our policies. This happy horseshit is dictated by the servants and their well helped owners. "The base" is playing follow the leader and just going full throat on whatever they decide and it is stupid.
You want to be led around by a ring in your nose, doing the bidding of "the stakeholders" for the benefit of "the stakeholders" because you are so scared that some mouthbreathers will do it instead then you need to own that and the damage done by these greedy manipulators. We are supposed to have the power.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and when they are called on it... oh my...
My counter is that she is as inevitable today as she was in 2006 and lets give the process time to work. If she ends up being the nominee then she is the nominee, but we are a LOOONG way from that in political terms.
StevieM
(10,577 posts)First, I don't think anyone thought Hillary was inevitable in 2006 and early 2007. She was polling in the mid-30s. Obama entered the race at about 20 percent, and many people speculated that he could win. Hillary had planned to do the whole "waiting for the front runner" thing, where she didn't enter the race until several months in, like Bush/Gore/Dole did. When Obama entered the race she wound up entering in January.
The narrative of inevitability didn't come until late 2007, when Hillary opened up a wide lead, held it for months, and the election date was drawing near. And she didn't spin the media into that--they were simply reciting the polls and recognizing the fast-approaching start to the voting.
Second, Hillary never had a lead in 2006-2007 that even comes close to the one she has now. The reason she is being called inevitable is because she has a shockingly large lead in the polls that is unprecedented in presidential primary history.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)you want me to pull pundits out of youtube, for example? Or would you prefer posts from DU2?
And anyway, let the damn primary process work... and HRC has not declared either. In my evil days I wonder what will happen with the BOG if she says NYET? I ain't running? Will be fun.
StevieM
(10,577 posts)But my point is that I don't think that it is historically correct to describe Hillary as someone who was seen as a shoe-in from 2005 through mid-2007. I think she went out on the campaign trail and built up a big lead. She earned it. And then she lost it.
But I don't like when people diminish her by acting like she had everything handed to her. She won over a lot of voters who had previously felt that they would never vote for her, at least not in a primary.
Like I said, this time around she has an enormous lead, one that completely dwarfs anything she had last time. That doesn't mean she can't lose it. Just that it is not the same situation as last time.
I agree that she will have an opponent, and I don't see that as a problem, nor do I think she sees that as a problem. My guess is that either O'Malley or Schweitzer or both will run against her.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And to be exact the same place it started right now, my friends at Hardball.
And a few in NYT....and all the people here.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Outstanding post.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)The OP isn't telling anybody what to do.
As far as this remark is concerned:
That "little party" would be DU, and it's not the OP who is in a position to deny invitations, it's the site owners who make it abundantly clear what the ground rules are regarding the use of this bandwidth:
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office.
and....
"Vote for Democrats."
"when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees..."
Furthermore...
"Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side."
So, if you have an issue with the ground rules of this site...AKA, "little party," ... perhaps you should take it up with Admin, rather than accuse the OP of some kind of authoritarian/controlling nonsense.
aikoaiko
(34,213 posts)I like order and consistency to these type of threads.
PS. I agree with you.
dem in texas
(2,681 posts)I vote a straight Dem ticket every time. Some of the candidates, I don't like, but it is so important to have a Democratic majority in the State legislatures and in the US Senate and House. Everything is based on the number of votes and even though you like someone, you have think, how will his vote help the party. Having a Democratic President is 2016 is doubly important because of the Supreme court appointments. How would like to see another Scalia appointed to the court? That is what will happen if a republican is elected President and that will have effects that will last for many years. You have a chance in the primaries to weed out as many undesirables as you can. I did not vote for Hillary in the primary when she ran against Obama because she voted to go to war in Iraq. But if she had won, I would have voted for her.
pansypoo53219
(22,858 posts)GOP iWaq democracy. HUZAH!
lostincalifornia
(4,891 posts)not cut their nose off to spite their face
bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . the overwhelming majority of DUers will vote for the party nominee, as they have in the past.
lostincalifornia
(4,891 posts)stops more progressives from running in the nomination process. As in any process the whole question is organization, and convincing people why your views are the way to go. There is no easy path it takes time
and for those that believe that abstaining from voting will "show them", that is what got us bush
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Anything could happen in two and a half years. Could we maybe focus on what is more important at this point? Namely, the 2014 midterm elections?
Because it doesn't matter who the #&@! we nominate in the late summer/early fall of 2016 if the Republicans hold sway in even one house of Congress (and heaven forfend, two of them). As Elizabeth Warren proved today when her bill was blocked by Republicans, you can't get anything done anyway when those creeps are holding the cards.
So let's ease up on the intranecine fights here about 2016. We've got stuff to do that's more important right now.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)then when she attacks Iran and Syria and does favors for the rich we'll do some reminding of the lock step mentality.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,499 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)I may actually have little choice but to vote for Hillary Goldman Sachs Clinton, but I will also feel completely free to complain if she fails to uphold DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Looooong way to that stage.
But - noted.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)bigtree
(93,319 posts). . . good Dem nominated, good Dem elected.
Did you read the op? Nothing about HRC in there . . .
Well, it's been fun, but this is beat. I'm out of here. You folks try and not trash the place too much. Turn off the lights. Don't leave the water running . . .
question everything
(51,636 posts)bigtree
(93,319 posts)original op:
I'll say it. Folks who won't vote for our party's nominee won't deserve to come here and complain
. . . about the state of our nation and government if a republican is elected; especially since the majority of us would have worked our asses off by then getting people to vote for our Democratic nominee.
But, hey, those Bush years weren't so bad, huh?
