General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary May Have Just LOST This Campaign
from DailyKos:
Hillary the Inevitable looks like a Goliath right now, but the most crucial moment of the 2016 Democratic primary may have happened already. Kos and others who support her cite her obvious assets--name recognition, her husband, her organization, and her vast financial resources--and conclude that she is the most powerful candidate to advance to the general election. They admit that she is a machine, for the most part--a concocted political presence who has endured, has a loyal core constituency, and dominates a comfortable pocket of the political spectrum that has been a proven winner in recent presidential elections--the moderate liberal who is progressive on social issues, not so much in military and economic matters. If you count Gore's stolen victory, it's won five of the last six contests--and none of those candidates had the cumulative strength of Hillary Clinton's current campaign. But most every one of her supporters will acknowledge that Hillary's political juggernaut is compromised by a single weakness: the sincerity of her progressive credentials, and just where her loyalties lie. That is a question that has dogged her and her husband for many years, and a question that has expanded in its significance now that economic injustice has emerged as the single greatest issue of our day. It is the single question that has compromised her popularity here on Daily Kos, and dominates arguments between her supporters and detractors. Hillary's advocates counter this argument by citing her inevitability, citing Bernie's age and other allegedly disqualifying factors, and making ridiculous claims that he's going to ignore issues like immigration reform, police violence, etc. just because he hasn't made them his focus. I've got news for you, guys--economic injustice is the biggest issue today for every American citizen, whether they realize it or not. Bernie is staying on this message because that's what disciplined politicians do, and because it's the biggest issue that differentiates him from Hillary. Hillary supporters are maintaining that she will win because she is the Greatest Machine Ever, even though she is weaker than Bernie on the biggest issue of our day: America's economic future and the survival of the middle class. And you hardly ever hear one of her supporters say that her economic policies are superior to Bernie's--they counter by maintaining instead that his policies are unrealistic, unattainable, or relatively unimportant.
Hillary knows this issue is a problem for her, or she wouldn't have made it a punch line/centerpiece of her campaign video announcement. After watching the video even I felt hopeful that maybe Hillary the Machine had decided that she needed to go left on economic issues after all, corporate donors be damned. And of course she followed that with bold policy statements regarding immigration, police violence, and immigration, which were certainly encouraging since I have at times felt that her election seemed inevitable. But I and many other Sanders supporters were skeptical about exactly to what lengths she would go to save the middle class. Her message on economic insecurity conveyed acknowledgment of the problem, but almost nothing in the way of specific policy proposals--in stark opposition to Bernie's laundry list of economic interventions. It smacks of lip service in the absence of conviction, the kind that's familiar to political junkies of all stripes--the empty campaign promises that can be nominally fulfilled after election victory by half-hearted, limited measures with minimal political consequence. She was trying to deprive Bernie of sole possession of this issue, but certainly not trying to own it. However, hopeful Hillaryites could still comfort themselves with the idea that she will pursue the issue with more detail and conviction when she's in office--understanding that Hillary can't afford to alienate her contributors now, but holding the belief that underneath it all Hillary has their best interests at heart. Even I tried to maintain this "run to the middle, govern to the left" fantasy back when Hillary seemed even more inevitable than she does now (i.e., before Bernie stole my heart and vote.) But now that TPP's come to vote before Congress, that idea is all shot to hell-- and Bernie now has possession of a political weapon for which Hillary has no credible defense.
As we all know now, TPP is a very large trade agreement that is coming along at a very vulnerable time for our nation. We have a government that is divided, discredited, and weak--and yet it is the only counterbalance we as a people have to the will of an entrenched, self-interested economic elite that seemingly has no limits to its lust for wealth and power. A huge proportion of Americans are facing diminishing options for economic success, and an increasingly insecure future. Hope is in very short supply. So along comes this bill that is so onerous and counterproductive that another bill (TAA) has to be passed for alleged compensation to American workers--as if American workers WANTED compensation instead of jobs!!!! Not only that, it includes bizarre regulatory mechanisms that, in the minds of myself and many others, appear to be a sort of corporate world government aimed at undermining the ability of sovereign nations to regulate their own economies. AND the text of the bill was secret!!! AND The Powers That Be wanted to "FAST-TRACK" it!!!!!!!! Those of us who want the economic priorities of this nation changed probably share my desire for a top-to-bottom overhaul of the tax code, trade regulation, management of economic resources, etc.--i.e., a comprehensive plan to change things for the better. Such an undertaking would entail extensive study of the problems that exist, and a thoughtful review of proposals that might solve those problems that takes into account all the potential negatives of each proposal--not just a bunch of willy-nilly actions without aforethought. The first step in such a mission is to avoid doing something stupid and counterproductive--such as passing a huge, highly questionable trade bill with unpredictable consequences, obvious negatives, unknown content--and especially doing so in a hurry because the bad guys say so!!!!
Hillary Clinton had every opportunity to express such concerns about TPP, and did nothing besides awkwardly sitting on the fence. If she was even a "moderate liberal" on this issue, couldn't she express concerns about "fast-tracking" the process, calling for delay of this legislation until more extensive study of the legislation could occur with open public scrutiny? The majority of Democrats in both the Senate and House opposed this legislation. By sitting on her hands, she positioned herself firmly in the right wing of her party on trade issues, on the same side of the corporate oligarchy we are trying to usurp. Sure, the vote went down, and the TPP is now on hold. But we didn't know for sure that was going to happen, and besides the issue still lives to see another day. Maybe Hillary will reexamine the political calculus and adjust her stance, and join the majority of her party in opposition to the treaty. But when push came to shove this past week, Hillary made it crystal clear--she cannot be relied upon to place the interests of the common American above those of her corporate sponsors. We here at Daily Kos can still debate who is most capable of defeating the Republicans in November 2016--but when it comes to the pivotal issue of economic injustice, Hillary has now revealed herself to be all talk, no walk. In the weeks to come, you can bet that Bernie's going to address the other issues of the day that concern all of us here, such as immigration reform, voting reform, #BlackLivesMatter--and on every one of them he will be comfortably progressive, because, let's face it, NOBODY is more progressive than Bernie Sanders is. But Hillary will never be able to walk back this past week, and IMO unable to establish any credibility on the biggest issue of today--which happens to be Bernie's home turf!!! And just because Bernie has been playing nice with Hillary so far, don't expect him to refrain from calling her out on this point. It will be replayed again and again, and Hillary will be damned if she does, damned if she don't--forced to rationalize her indecision, attempting to explain why she didn't have enough fear of the consequences TPP to slow down the process, to argue for transparency, or do anything else. Her passivity was acceptance. And neither passivity, nor acceptance, appear to me to be defensible in this primary campaign.
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/13/1392968/-Hillary-may-have-just-lost-this-campaign
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)bitterness of some.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Considering a whole movement was created by bitter Hillary supporters last time around
Historic NY
(40,004 posts)
BlueMTexpat
(15,688 posts)"bandwagon Dems" who hoped for personal gain from Clinton's bootstraps. And some, of course, were trying to do everything they could in 2008 to split the Dem vote, whatever lip service they gave to Hillary's candidacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_United_Means_Action
There certainly was some residual bad feeling after the primaries in 2008, in part because some believed - with reason - that Hillary's coverage in the press had generally been less favorable than Barack's. Hillary's coverage then was decidedly - and intentionally - sexist, just as it will continue to be. The US MSM trotted most bad press coverage for Barack out in the general election.
There was also the fact that at some state levels (I have secondhand knowledge of what happened in MT), Obama "supporters" were personally and gratuitously nasty towards Hillary supporters - and that was very discouraging for lifelong Dems like my sisters to see.
I am sure that Obama himself would have been appalled by this whenever and wherever it happened.
I hate to say that I have seen some of that nastiness here at DU - not directly towards me personally, thank heavens.
But every Hillary supporter that I know from 2008 - and I was one of them - voted for Barack Obama in 2008 - unreservedly and with all our hearts. I also contributed substantially to his general election campaign. As we all did again in 2012.
ronnykmarshall
(35,357 posts)Fuck. This place hasn't change one bit. Same shit different election.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Not quite as dead as you imagine.
This part is especially nice...
7962
(11,841 posts)Jumpin Jack Flash
(242 posts)Hillary Rodham Clinton’s decision to run for president has stirred up old feelings for some loyal supporters who refused to accept her defeat in the 2008 Democratic primary. When other Democrats put away their swords and rallied behind Barack Obama, the resisters responded: “Party unity, my ass!” — hence the nickname PUMAs.
7962
(11,841 posts)
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Funny how I hear most Bernie supporters saying they will support Hillary if she wins the primary. I don't hear that same support being offered to Bernie if he wins.
okasha
(11,573 posts)
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)and it's glasses, not ear plugs. 
okasha
(11,573 posts)Your mama doesn't work here.
paleotn
(22,181 posts)
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)paleotn
(22,181 posts)...what the hell choice do we have other then the winner of the clown car derby. My point is many in the HRC cheer leading camp will pout and probably stay home. That's what blind followers without substance usually do.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Remarkably, the same percentage in the other link I've provided.
Nada from you or your compatriot supporting your bizarre contentions about Clinton supporters.
Just give up, ferchrissakes.
paleotn
(22,181 posts)....after he dumped the public option and continued the bank bailouts while giving zero support to those in underwater mortgages. What choice did we have? It's a matter of policy and substance. Using the ole nogging, ya know. Verses those who support a candidate who's policies must first be vetted by Lloyd Blankfein. Or is it Jamie Dimon? I forget who she's sold out to....maybe both. I wonder what their price for the White House will be. Something more onerous than TPP I'd imagine.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)most dangerous country in the World to practice a Foundation from. Foundationing, is a new Marshall Plan while warring continues.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Now where is the link to the Hillary supporters who say they will support Bernie if he wins the primaries?
I never said it was all or nothing...I've just not see the Hillary side laying it on the line.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)There's never been a need for one. Not one Clinton supporter, to my knowledge, has ever stated that he or she would not support Sanders in the GE. None. Nada. Zilch.
You have proof otherwise?
Post it.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Since the Hillary supporters are already starting to accuse us getting a GOP candidate elected in 2016 because we are "attacking" Hillary, I thought we could let them know if we will still vote for Hillary.
I know I will. I would never vote for a Republican.
58 votes, 10 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Yes, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I WILL vote for her in the General Election
48 (83%)
No, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I WILL NOT vote for her in the General Election
10 (17%)
10 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
So, we differ by 1%. Feel better now?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)crickets
The shame is, if we can't fix this in our own parties, we lose those votes and they go to republicans. Kind of a shame, isn't it?
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)You're answering my request for a cite indicating that Clinton supporters will not vote for Sanders by providing me with my link to a poll proving that many Sanders supporters will not vote for Clinton?
That's just twisted.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Must have given you the wrong link.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)supporters (exactly 10 persons in this poll). sheesh.
okasha
(11,573 posts)It's now on this page. Have a look. You will see the vast majority of respondents stating that they will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. You with also see a number of Sanders supporters declining to vote for anyone but him.
Hey, you can even vote if you want to.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Is it in this thread or in GD? Can you post a link?
okasha
(11,573 posts)It's a thread in GD. look for the poll with 65 response posts. Just kicked it again to make it easier to find.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)And a 100% Hillary supporter.
That said, if Bernie wins the primary, I will not only be voting for him, I'll be knocking doors for him.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
okasha
(11,573 posts)including a poll I posted myself.
That should help you out a little.
paleotn
(22,181 posts)....I'd bet dollars to donuts the blind PUMAs will return in force. It's all about cheer leading you know. No substance. Can't have that.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Want more?
How much embarrassment can you take?
BlueMTexpat
(15,688 posts)
ybbor
(1,746 posts)They all think he is a joke. I hope to be laughing when he wins, versus crying when she loses the general.
I like the guy. So do a lot of us.
He's just not electable. I don't expect him to make it through primary season.
juajen
(8,515 posts)However, that doesn't make me want him over Hill. I've waited a while for her to get here, and I am certainly not switchig horses in the middle of the stream. Go Hillary!
ronnykmarshall
(35,357 posts)Loves me some Bernie. But I am Hillary all the way!
juajen
(8,515 posts)I can't think of any dem I know that doesn't love him. that doesn't mean we have to want him for President. This is our right, right.
BlueMTexpat
(15,688 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Seriously. Do you?
I'm concerned.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)We are in general discussion.
Now, your point?
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)My point?
Let's start again. I'll be more broad. Do you know what website you're on?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I've read enough threads here from Hillary supporters, and enough Bernie support threads where Hillary supporters have attacked me and others for supporting Bernie in the primaries. They keep stating (as if they knew me) that supporting Bernie in the primaries means I'm against Hillary. I am against Hillary in the primaries, but not if she wins the general, because to me standing with the party is important.
They assume we will not vote for Hillary if she wins the primaries. A few have stated that, but only a few. But I have yet to see a Hillary supporter say she will vote for Bernie if he wins the primaries. Of course I don't read many of the Hillary support forum threads because there are too many who are so happy to punch down the Bernie supporters. Not Bernie or his policies...just any of us who don't agree with them.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Just click on my fucking links. They're the blue bits.
Like this.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)and all it did was confirm my statement that most bernie supportes said they will support Hillary if she wins the primary. I was looking for links that show Hillary supporters will support Bernie if he wins the primaries.
Are you feeling OK?
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)You made a declarative statement. You offered nothing to substantiate it.
I'm doing all the legwork here.
This is my favorite, BTW: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025075831
Star Member cali (102,783 posts)
Fine. I'll say it. I won't vote for HIllary if she's the nominee.
and yeah, I'll gladly leave DU for the duration.
I think she's a despicable opportunist, dishonest, a big supporter of the military industrial complex and much more. Almost all of it counter to the democratic ideals I believe in. I couldn't vote for her and remain true to my beliefs. And yes, I do think the Supreme Court is important, but I cannot support Hillary.
End of story.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Show me where I said that. I said most of them would. If you compare those who said tehy wouldn't (18%) with those who said they would (46'%), then I am correct. Most who will vote, will vote for Hillary.
These were my exact words:
So again...your point?
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Your assertion was plain: That "you hear" Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton, and not the reverse.
Forget the first part. Who cares? They don't matter. They're not "most". They don't count. You can't hear them. La la la.
Where's your evidence of the second?
Huh?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)But you are doing a bang up job of supporting my side of the argument and leaving yours hanging.
If that's the way you want it, fine.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Your assertion was the "positive". You could prove that. If you can't, then you were wrong.
Bye.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Since the Hillary supporters are already starting to accuse us getting a GOP candidate elected in 2016 because we are "attacking" Hillary, I thought we could let them know if we will still vote for Hillary.
I know I will. I would never vote for a Republican.
58 votes, 10 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Yes, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I WILL vote for her in the General Election
48 (83%)
No, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I WILL NOT vote for her in the General Election
10 (17%)
10 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is a
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)That poster tried to pull your trick:
Apparently, a goodly percentage of his respondents didn't share what we might presume to have been his confidence.
Now then. Where's the "I'm a Hillary Supporter and I'll Never Vote for Bernie" poll, post, utterance, sig line, or whathaveyou?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The ONLY folks saying they will not vote for the Democratic nominee (especially if it is HRC) are Bernie supporters ...
And just about every HRC-supporter posts the caveat that they will vote (and most say, work) for the Democratic nominee, whomever that might be.
Do you want representative links?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Hmmm
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)there is a DUer who posts "I Will No Longer Settle For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils - Go Bernie Go" in every post that he/she posts ... and if you search the that/those posts, you will see a bunch of "Yup" posts immediately follow it.
I challenge you to post a link to a single HRC supporter that has posted anything close to that.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)After all my searching though, I did not find a poll where hillary supported said if they would vote for sanders if he wins the primary, so I am not sure we can compare apples to apples. I do not find any individual posts where hillary supporters say they will not vote for Sanders. I hope that is true. It would make sense, as centrists are more likely to vote party line than the fringes who tend to be more idealists.
So I guess you guys win.
Can you explain to me then, why you bash Bernie supporters in your threads, instead of just discussing the policy differences between the two? You make it feel very much like you despise anyone who would vote for Bernie, so you must also despise Bernie...so why would you vote for him?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)There are several long time posters who have said (written) out loud...they will not vote for HRC in the generals should she be the Dem nominee. SEVERAL. Not one HRC has said the same.. NOT ONE
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Supporting Hillary for President. I will support her in any way that I am capable through the primary season.
If she loses the primary to Bernie, or any other candidate, I will absolutely, 100%, wholeheartedly support that other Democrat candidate in the General.
I do love Bernie as well, I'd have no heartburn at all in supporting him should HRC lose the primary. However, there is an exception.. if HRC wins the primary, and he runs against her as an independent, and causes any Republican to win the General, I will despise him for the rest of my days. That goes for any independent, and not just him, but he's the only one I feel there might be some danger from.
Beartracks
(14,568 posts)... fewer Dems at the polls (due to taking their marbles and going home)?
IMHO, every Dem who doesn't vote because "their" candidate didn't get the nomination, whether in Pres or Mid-Term elections, translates to another Republican vote. Period.
===================
SleeplessinSoCal
(10,411 posts)So far they are made up of Sanders supporters who rag on Hillary. I don't see Hillary supporters here ragging on Bernie.
I'm not ragging on candidates. Just the fight over them.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Used for a year or two after the election and caused a lot of hurt feelings. I personally put anyone who uses the term on ignore.
ronnykmarshall
(35,357 posts)After the 2008 election I jump ship in here. I was treated like fucking shit for supporting Hillary. Was told "get out of the way" told "I can't wait until you're gone" .... but I knew if Hillary didn't get the nom I was doing to jump and support Barrack. And I love the man and proud to have him a president.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Just Wow. scraping jaw from the ground here. sheesh.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)I should consider finding a more accurate word to express feelings of exasperation due to stupidity of others.
I thank you for the reminder. 
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)It's sad that some can't differentiate between the two.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)she will be better than a republican, if that is all we can get.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)but I think she is a corporatist, just like the Repukian candidates...
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)You can vote for a corporatist who is progressive on social issues (even if that is the only thing they are progressive on), or you can vote for a republican corporatist who is not progressive on anything. IF you don't vote, you vote for the republican.
That's life.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)You're right...
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)paleotn
(22,181 posts)Any rebuttal to the above? Or just ignore it and maybe it will go away.
tooeyeten
(1,074 posts)Need to find common ground in the party and push her to get straight on the economy & middle class. Bernie & supporters wil be her motivation imo.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)and she's teetering on the brink of losing that one, no matter how viable she remains in the primaries. The left wing's bitterness is real, and Mrs. Clinton needs ways to appease the people who feel abandoned.
It may or may not be her fault that they feel abandoned, but it's still her duty to change the feeling.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)But it's important when all they have of any substance (with which to bash HRC) is TPP and a lack of knowing exactly where she stands, although her speech clearly addressed trade agreements; war hawk and her vote to give authority; Benghazi, which is all about making more noise rather than actual problem......oh yeah, they do not like the manner of her speech delivery.
OhZone
(3,216 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)But the title is AWARD-WINNING!
calimary
(89,940 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)calimary
(89,940 posts)And I had to remind myself of what PUMA stands for, too. Got that one on my own, though.
shenmue
(38,597 posts)
calimary
(89,940 posts)shenmue
(38,597 posts)
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,381 posts)Everyone knows that more!!!!! exclamation!!!! points!!!! are the most!!!!
BumRushDaShow
(169,366 posts) Starry Messenger
(32,381 posts)Perfect find.
Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #27)
Snotcicles This message was self-deleted by its author.
Number23
(24,544 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)for the next year and a half. 
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts) 
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Oh jeez. I have to bookmark this thread. This is fucking hilarious.
Sid
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts) L0oniX
(31,493 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)
Number23
(24,544 posts)((Just thought I'd counter the 2nd grade hostility you received in the posts above))
Welcome back!
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
Cha
(318,846 posts)
SunSeeker
(58,250 posts)Missed you.
(Really)
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)
paleotn
(22,181 posts)....or are you just a blind follower? Just asking.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)tl;dr
Metric System
(6,048 posts)
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)When every single response is content-free snark, you know it means THEY GOT NOTHING meaningful to say
Segami
(14,923 posts) carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)was not a winning formula for either Clinton or McCain against Obama in 2008; nor for Romney in 2012; and arguably not for Dubya in 2000 and 2004 since there were electoral irregularities behind his "victories." The only thing that formula wins is the "kings and queens of mean" contest, and inclusion on many DUers' ignore lists.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I can't believe the amount of snark here. Whatever happened to intelligent and serious debate on issues, instead of seeing who can hit more punches?
Response to Segami (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)You can't buy it, borrow it, or manufacture it - you either have it or you don't. Hillary is the least genuine politician, at least on the Democratic side, I've seen in a very long time. Today's stiffly read speech that Hillary delivered, without the least bit of real passion, was further evidence that we need a real progressive leader like Bernie to show us the way. Go Bernie Go!!
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)a somewhat Nixonlike figure. Boundless, one might think rather dangerous, ambition and ruthlessness and a willingness to say whatever will advance those ambitions. I increasingly wonder whether she has any core convictions other than the pursuit of power for its own sake.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)path of political expediency. All the signs of it are there. She lost her previous bid for the Presidency over the Iraq war vote. Her
calculation was wrong then. But, she stood by the big money people.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)Hillary, unfortunately, does no such thing.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)that if Britain won the Revolutionary War all would be executed forthwith.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)The Presidency is not for sale.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)
apnu
(8,790 posts)Which is not that big of a voting block.
Honest question here, not loaded at all: How does Bernie's message play out with undecideds, swing voters, and moderates?
Do we have any data on that? Except for a pool in NH, Bernie trails Hillary by 10 points or more everywhere. How does Bernie stack up against any or all members of the Republican clown car?
I love Bernie's politics and his positions on the issues. But does the rest of America? I honestly don't know. He can come on like FDR, but it will be easy to tar and feather Bernie as a commie and that won't play well in PA or OH.
I'll vote for and support whomever is the Democratic candidate with a clear conscious.
Any Dem will be 1000% better than any Republican troglodyte.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He drew a crowd of 10,000+ in Madison, Wisc. today.
It's way too early to predict the outcome of this race.
None of the Republicans are electable. Trump and Christie are mean-spirited. They will get on people's nerves. We are basically, a generous, kind people. Jeb is affable but not charismatic and probably not sufficiently born-again for the Religious Right. And he has his brother's failures to answer for. Huckabee????? Not a serious candidate. Jindal? Again, just not charismatic. Comes across as insecure. Scott Walker has the least negatives but is no match for either Hillary or Bernie. He seems to much like a good boy with no original ideas and will not do well on foreign policy. Plus his anti-union stances will hurt him in some states -- major states. It's not that he will lose the union vote. It is that union members will double-down on campaign and get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat Walker. (Have you ever been in a campaign in the get-out-the-vote stage when the union members start walking? Whew! It is a sight to behold. All these great big guys show up to hang reminders on voters' doors. Lindsay Graham should have known better than to put his name up. No way are Republicans going to put him in the White House. They will find all kinds of excuses, and we will know the real reason. He won't get started with Republicans. If he had been a liberal, he would have a chance.
Bernie has the most charisma and if he wins the primary will go on to win the general. The Republican field is too weak to win.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Are you kidding me?
And stopped reading, here:
Perhaps the good Pyschiatrist should revisit the chapter in his text book that talks about projection.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)You stopped reading because it did not confirm your bias.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Conformation Bias would be an appropriate chapter ... for the author, not me.
How does an commentator hope to claim/convince anyone that HRC "lost the campaign", when he clearly is full of crap ... HRC's supporters do not question her "progressive credentials" or "where her loyalties lie" ... Bernie supporters do.
And, I stopped reading because economic injustice is only "the biggest issue today" for those that don't have to concern themselves with the denial of civil rights. And that is the DU Bernie supporters' mantra. I know it by heart ... including the "you're/they're just too F'ing stupid to know" your/their interests part.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And all the facts you present confirm it.
But sure, make sure we all have civil rights and cut their pay...they will be happy because they can always live on love...no one that matters cares about economic justice.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
nolabels
(13,133 posts)It's a strange world when those who would hold others captive often become boxed and unsnarled inside their own narrow ideas.
Economic enslavement is still a prison, it just has invisible bars.
Thanks for helping me contemplate the error in my ways
Lilith Rising
(184 posts)and has nothing to do with all the crap that comes along with being a woman and/or POC no matter our current economic circumstances.
"whether they realize it or not" - kiss my ass, Kos dude.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 13, 2015, 11:02 PM - Edit history (1)
Why?
Because several of y'all are not really getting it.
Social justice is very important but it is a special interest group type of liberalism. And for many in the Neo-Liberal wing of the Dem party it is a wedge issue. If nothing is done about blacks, then it is all about us. If nothing is done about LGBT, it is all about us. If nothing is done about women, it is all about us.
Those things are ALL important, AND we are reminded time and time again that the President is the leader of all Americans - black, white, hispanic, asian, LGBT, straight, women, men, trans, etc. What is the one thing today that is affecting all of us (unless of course you are part of the top 10% in this country financially)? Money.
Yes, it is about the money. Jobs are gone. More are leaving. Real income is sliding for the lower 90%. Most over 50 don't even have any savings. Medical care is still insurance and profit driven. The MIC keeps us in a perpetual state of war in order to fuel its profits. Education has become onerously expensive.
We need both social justice and economic justice. We can get the veneer of social justice with Clinton and a continuation of the economic injustice that the neo-liberal and conservative corporate agendas bring. We can have both social AND economic justice with Sanders. There is no comparison.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)If only people could take off the blinders and see this.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But I suspect if they did, they wouldn't like that Blacks and LGBT and Women are telling them "thanks, but no thanks."
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Can't remember the spread but it was something like 4 to 6 points.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)I am one of them. And our numbers will grow.
Will it be enough come primaries? I don't know, but I have to remain hopeful.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I am also one of them
Totally agree.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Really? Do you even read what the hell you are writing ... nothing IS being "done about Blacks" or LGBT or women ... so want you are talking about IS all about you. And pointing that out isn't the wedge ... Your ignoring/minimizing it to us is what causes the wedge.
And, what is the one thing that affects every non-straight, white, Christian, male ... regardless of economic status, with each degree of separation meaning more disparate treatment?
TM99
(8,352 posts)I knew I could count on you.
Now read everything again but this time slowly so you actually push past your biases and see what was really written.
Yes, actually things are and have been done for US! I know I am not a part of the 'in group' of blacks here at DU but I am also a POC. Changing racism, sexism, and bigotry are predominantly a cultural and psychological issue. You can NOT legislate empathy, understanding, or acceptance. The landmark changes FINALLY in this country on LGBT marriage rights demonstrate this again and again. As the culture has changed, civil action becomes legal action.
But with that said, I have not minimized a damned thing. I said BOTH are important. But Clinton and other neo-liberals like yourself focus on one to the exclusion of the other.
I know you care about 'white privilege'. I know you care about issues impacting POC. I know you care about LGBT rights and women's equality. But I do not know that you care about economic progressivism. You have yours. You have said as much.
But...do you care about another NAFTA like free trade agreement? Do you care that we got health insurance reform instead of healthcare reform? Do you care that unemployment is still WAY too high and that what jobs are available pay less in annual income than in decades past accounting for inflation? Do you care about bank bailouts, run away Wall Street greed, and the revolving door of money in politics? Do you care that we have the highest military budget of any other damned nation in the world? Do you care that we rank near last in developed nations on child poverty? Do you care that most of that poverty affects POC?
Sanders supports both. I and many others here support both. I have yet to read that you do. So yes, you fit perfectly with what I said.
Lilith Rising
(184 posts)Bernie address women's reproductive rights or police 'overstepping' (both of which have little to do with income/wealth) for a couple of examples. If I've missed those statements then I guess I'm not looking in the right place or something.
TM99
(8,352 posts)and as the primary continues he is doing so in the race via speeches, interviews, and legislation.
Here are two recent examples -
He is addressing both social, community, and economic issues that are a part of the police brutality issue.
Now, here is his actual history on women's reproductive rights -
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Bernie_Sanders_Abortion.htm
http://www.bustle.com/articles/80644-bernie-sanders-stance-on-abortion-is-exactly-what-youd-expect-from-the-progressive-candidate
http://mic.com/articles/119074/5-times-bernie-sanders-spoke-the-feminist-truth
To pretend that Sanders has not spoken of the issues to date is a willfully specious argument. He has done so in spades. Has he done so fully in the current primary process? No, not as much. Why? I think this article gives a very good assessment of why, and it is more about our primary process than it is about him as a candidate.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/07/1389692/-Want-Bernie-Sanders-to-talk-police-violence-and-immigration-Change-the-primary-process
Sanders is speaking to both economic AND social justice. The attempt to divide that here is only being done by those who have fallen for their separation. The only Dem's promoting that idea are the Neo-liberals.
Lilith Rising
(184 posts)Appreciate that.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Sanders has a very strong history on all justice issues from his civil rights work in the 1960's to his lone voice in the woods in the 1990's warning us about NAFTA.
He will be directly discussing immigration reform in Vegas coming up I believe this week. He will be covering all of these issues and more.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Wall of text FTW
Hekate
(100,133 posts) 
Owl
(3,767 posts)ronnykmarshall
(35,357 posts)and read it on terit. Then flushed.
underpants
(196,390 posts)As can Bernie. The Repiblicans are literally burning their bridge in order to get their nomination.
THe main opponent against the Dem nominee is the "eh, let the other side have a chance"
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Yawn. Another Hillary is doomed post.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)
glinda
(14,807 posts)the stomach to listen to her because have been disheartened at some of her compromises she feels she has to make in order to win and it has left me with little to no trust of who she really is although when I listen I am not happy about it.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)glinda
(14,807 posts)like what....specifically.
MADem
(135,425 posts)for specifics?
Really--if you want to know, there are ways to find out. If you can't bear to watch, google for a transcript.
You Can Do It!
Cha
(318,846 posts)proverbial bootstraps!
glinda
(14,807 posts)very busy day with a sick husband and chores so was asking just a mention of some specifics. When I get time I will read the text.
I like to also have respect for others by hearing what they think.
BumRushDaShow
(169,366 posts)There was one specific that is interesting -
Developing renewable power – wind, solar, advanced biofuels…
Building cleaner power plants, smarter electric grids, greener buildings…
Using additional fees and royalties from fossil fuel extraction to protect the environment…
One of the things our new Dem governor here in PA has been pushing for is to tax the Marcellus Shale industry (which is essentially tax free thanks to our previous, thankfully 1-term former governor Corbett) and funnel that money into education. Clinton apparently wants to do similar for environmental protection.
I'd like to see those oil subsidies go however. That's a big chunk of money that can be funneled back into all sorts of domestic projects.
glinda
(14,807 posts)
quickesst
(6,309 posts)Can you repost it, only this time use bold lettering, all caps, music, ...and applause, ..... oh, maybe some canned laughter. Canned laughter!! That's it. That is what the OP is missing. Hate laughing by myself.
Response to quickesst (Reply #30)
Post removed
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Alkene
(752 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Are you paying homage?
calimary
(89,940 posts)That putz did us all a favor that day.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Breaks my heart, it does.
appalachiablue
(43,998 posts) 
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
GoneOffShore
(18,018 posts)Not the ideals of plutocracy and oligarchy.
Nor someone who espouses progressive ideals and then, once in office, embraces the 1%.
Bill (cough, cough), Barack (cough, cough)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... Hillary has "lost" this campaign, and the election, at least two dozen times in the last week alone.
obnoxiousdrunk
(3,114 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)is HRC herself, nobody else can touch her imo. Probably gonna get yelled at for saying that, but fuck it. That is what I've believed from the very beginning and still do. And yes I know what I said, presidency...not primary.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)That's just wishful thinking.
Nobody knows till the fat lady sings.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... the impact of the lousy logo, and Hill's crappy speechifyin', and the PANTSUITS!!!
I'm amazed she's still in the race.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)Mistaking one of the many, many "Hillary has already lost" OPs in GD for one in the Bernie Group?
Tell ya what - why don't you go back to your group and suggest that I be blocked? And then you can pretend that I care.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Something gracious in response, but all I can think of now is, "Stay classy."
Ah well, it is late.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... "Now, you see an example of appropriate placement" was just that - snark.
So let's not discuss what's classy and what isn't, shall we?
I like Bernie Sanders - a lot. He is warm, positive, compassionate, and has many fine attributes. That's why I continue to be amazed that he has attracted so many unpleasant people as supporters.
ronnykmarshall
(35,357 posts)Hey Nance! I dropped in to see how the 2008 primary is going. I mean 2016. Same shit, different year.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)Yeah, same old/same old!
DFW
(60,149 posts)Fine with me, but it hasn't happened yet, and there's no concrete reason to think anything is inevitable so far.
Someone once said "I don't mind Jesus. It's his fan club I can't stand."
Fans of ALL our candidates might try to avoid having that pertain to any of us. We'd be a better board for it.
Save your anger for either the Republicans or the guy who blocked your driveway with his car and then went on vacation.
PUMAs may be passé, but it looks like it's the season of the CMAs and the UMAs.
("Corporatist my ass" and "Unelectable my ass"
zappaman
(20,627 posts)
Metric System
(6,048 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)Gore: "the moderate liberal who is progressive on social issues, not so much in military and economic matters."
Bush: "the 'compassionate conservative' who is moderate on social issues, not so much in military and economic matters."
So your "5 of 6" comment is valid, even if you don't count Gore
demwing
(16,916 posts)nobody talked about compassionate conservatives. I recognize that
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)And more issues along those lines. Anyone wanna bet she will?
they say TPP will cost us 100,000 jobs. Does anyone have a number of jobs lost to Nafta? Isn't it more like one milliion jobs lost and many jobs replaced with low pay service jobs that cannoit support the elderly who have lost a good paying job to Nafta. I think TPP will be just as bad, if not worse.
Want fries with that?
okasha
(11,573 posts)If you missed it in the.video, read the transcript.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I want to hear her say it and mean it. What she says during a campaign, that she has not previously stood for, is just campaign rhetoric.
noel711
(2,185 posts)Those old ladies sitting on the stools at the counter
say she's got it in the bag. Everyone else should pack it in.
And this is one of those diners that has FOX on 24/7...
that blasts any democratic politician.
But Hil's got it in the bag. Those ladies crack me up...
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,676 posts)but it's a long way to the convention.
MineralMan
(151,198 posts)Desperation time is upon us, it seems.
Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
MineralMan
(151,198 posts)It's rare to see jury results when a post is left.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Sheesh.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nulla blandit lectus nec erat maximus, ac suscipit libero tincidunt. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Fusce finibus consectetur dui a suscipit. In mattis eros ac tempor elementum. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos!!!! himenaeos. Fusce tempus vestibulum pulvinar. Donec tempor metus in purus pretium, sit amet aliquam velit rhoncus.
Nulla et leo in erat varius interdum at ac justo. Nunc blandit posuere venenatis. Phasellus a dui ornare, facilisis ante id, facilisis augue. Aenean ut congue neque. Fusce ornare ante urna, at tristique risus commodo quis. Nam diam nunc, viverra non velit non, commodo viverra orci. Nulla euismod tellus in ex tincidunt, quis consectetur lectus accumsan. In rutrum in ex non dictum. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Vivamus efficitur feugiat porta. Donec accumsan in metus et dapibus. Vestibulum vulputate nisi in ultrices semper. Mauris ac euismod nisl!!!
Curabitur ullamcorper ante nec nisi vehicula, sodales tincidunt ante facilisis. Nunc quis pellentesque elit. Vestibulum tempus velit sed elit blandit cursus. Aenean nec quam ultricies, feugiat mauris ut, dignissim tellus. Nunc felis sapien, venenatis nec mi ut, ornare eleifend est. Cras ante velit, facilisis eu eros vitae, luctus venenatis turpis. Phasellus lobortis mauris nisi, quis vehicula lacus eleifend in. Vivamus ut blandit justo, id eleifend purus.
Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Nunc eu rhoncus nulla, nec laoreet nibh. Aliquam elementum sit amet ligula vitae sollicitudin. Praesent at accumsan urna. Nullam iaculis sapien elit, quis gravida ante eleifend ut. Ut viverra nisl vehicula, cursus nisl id, interdum arcu. Phasellus et vestibulum sapien!!!!!!!!!
Nunc commodo ornare augue. Quisque imperdiet, nibh sed bibendum dictum, orci mauris dictum nulla, vel ultricies erat sapien in sapien. Vestibulum vehicula pretium urna sit amet porttitor. Curabitur bibendum iaculis pretium. Vivamus iaculis felis sit amet risus placerat accumsan. Duis finibus pulvinar bibendum. Fusce vitae ipsum non nisi gravida cursus id sed eros.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)That's hilarious.
MineralMan
(151,198 posts)LOL!
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Spazito
(55,435 posts)You win the thread!
Buns_of_Fire
(19,148 posts)Actually, I couldn't have said it at ALL.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Funny!!
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 13, 2015, 10:33 PM - Edit history (1)
the 1% and republicans, she's scared and ill advised, and only has sheeple behind her now, and that's what she thinks of the rest of us .
MrScorpio
(73,772 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
PatrickforO
(15,420 posts)When it comes to the actual issues that matter, he leaves EVERYONE else in the dust.
okasha
(11,573 posts)people of color.....
Sorry, we're tired of being told to be patient and wait again, and again, and again....
TM99
(8,352 posts)Read my post above.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6831902
There are many more.
Sanders has worked tirelessly for decades for social and economic justice. When Clinton was still supporting DOMA and DADT, Sanders was fighting against it.
Really the big difference between them is that Clinton gives lip service to economic issues while still supporting neo-liberal economic policies like TPP (the gold standard of trade agreements she wrote) and she is far more hawkish than Sanders. She fell for the lies on Iraq. He and others did not.
These are just the facts. I know you support Clinton strongly but please don't pretend that Sanders doesn't address social issues or hasn't.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)Bernie was pro gay LOOOOOONG before Hillary was. I will ((((NEVER)))))) vote for Hillary Clinton. 
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)so now all she has to do is not screw up. Here's what I'm getting at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026831074
chillfactor
(7,694 posts)not one thing you said is going to change anything and certainly not a loss....a useless rant...accomplishing nothing...
okasha
(11,573 posts)just leaving a few blanks to fill in.
GoneOffShore
(18,018 posts)Along with Frank Bruni's column last week.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)ucrdem
(15,720 posts)And I think that's why PBO was so anxious to pass it. A Clinton economy is about the best rabbit he could pull out of his hat for 2016, and that's what TPP is all about.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Thanks I guess . . .
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)zappaman
(20,627 posts)Campaign over.
I think she will pull out by Monday.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It would be great if we could start measuring the curtains for Bernie's inauguration, but this is not reality based thinking.
Progressives do not pick the nominee.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Corporations and the rich do.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)had a bad practice in November and that's why they will lose the NBA Finals.
It's irrelevant. Long way to go. I'm looking forward to hearing more from Hillary and from all the democratic candidates.
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)Or that they even know what it is?
Looks to me like a case of people living in an echo chamber so long they mistake their own voices for the majority.
eridani
(51,907 posts)And those are the people who do the doorbelling and phonebanking.
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)a very wide array of people do door knocking and phone banking.
eridani
(51,907 posts)BainsBane
(57,751 posts)That you claim to know the minds of every person in America who canvases in elections.
This place has become surreal. No wonder none of you bother listening to what concerns others. You already believe you can read their minds. You don't even know who is out there. You don't know the make up of my community, and I seriously doubt you and your pals here would get your shoes dirty door knocking in my community. How is your Somali and Hmong, BTW? How many conversations have you had with those folks to even know what issues they care about? I think it's quite clear from your comments that you simply do not care. If they don't think exactly like you, they don't exist.
I canvass every election, and I happen to oppose TPP, but not nearly as much as I oppose bourgeois self-entitlement.
eridani
(51,907 posts)I live in a highly Democratic district, which may not be typical. WA-09 Adam Smith has usually gone along with "trade" deals in the past, but voted against this one because only two people wrote or phoned in support, and 10,000 or so were against.
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 16, 2015, 04:10 AM - Edit history (1)
Firstly, it's not a question of just not supporting it. This OP insists her failure to mention it in this one speech lost her the election. Your claim is that now no one will door knock because like you they see failure to mention TPP as more serious than a campaign kick off even staged with white faces only.
I have no doubt you know your district, which is not close to representing all of America. And no, I don't believe the Somali women active in my area put the interests of the white bourgeoisie above their own. I don't believe the African Americans who canvass in North Minneapolis to get mandatory sick leave passed by the state legislature care more about the white bourgeoisie's latest fixation than the gun violence and school quality in their neighborhood. I don't believe the tribal peoples here put you all first either. So we may lose a few of the folks from around the lakes or the suburbs who decide to slum it with us at election time, but we'll manage without them. But really, I doubt they are so fickle and lacking in principle that they would completely abandon a commitment to the DFL because Clinton didn't mention TPP in her kick off speech.
The outrage about Clinton failing to mention TPP juxtaposes with the fury that arose on this site when some members noted that Sanders kick off event was populated by all white faces. Even now on his website there isn't a mention about people of color or women. But people here dealt with that concern by dishonestly claiming people had called Sanders a racist, so that made it easy to ignore anyone but yourselves. I believe you'll find such exclusionary tactics far more limiting, and in fact you have already lost Sanders supporters here as a result.
eridani
(51,907 posts)The people who will be hurt the most by the various TPP fuckovers are women and minorities. Unions and environmental groups are not all white, you realize?
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)I haven't seen any polling data but I would imagine concern one is, as always, themselves.
Followed closely by how others perceive them, income & taxes, the Jenner family, Benghazi and the war on Christmas.
I'd imagine the TPP is way down the list, right after climate change.
But like it says in the article, some are "on the same side of the corporate oligarchy we are trying to usurp."
Some protest, some invest.
For every individual truly trying to improve things, there are literally hundreds investing & putting in unpaid OT to assure the health, wealth and power of the same corporate forces that condemn addressing issues like climate change, war as an economic engine, education, health care, hunger, homelessness and the least among us.
It is only through the hard work of them that the true issues we face will never be addressed, and that corporate propaganda will flow like wine from flickering screens across the continents until our pitiful and justified extinction.
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)That you see the true enemy not as the 1 percent and Wall Street but ordinary Americans. People do indeed care about themselves, just like you do. Your post demonstrates just that. You completely discount the fact that how people get by, if they can put food on the table, educate their kids, and if they are shot and killed by police or assaulted at work could possibly matter compared to your enlightened concerns about a trade bill. The politics of entitlement knows no bounds. Clearly you think yourselves superior to the rest of humanity, and you have entirely no justification for that assumption. Your post is a stunning example of why your brand of politics can only fail. When you treat ordinary voters, the poor, the oppressed, with contempt because they lack your privilege to dwell on issues you see as so much more important than their lives, you purposefully alienate them by treating them like shit.
Whatever cause du jour you take up is far less important that your declaration of superiority, which is in fact the core of your political ethos.
BTW, Benghazi is touted on this very site by people who seek to use it against Clinton. Looks to me like you have some work to do among your own ranks. Come to think of it, there are an awful lot of Jenner posts.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Standing against the elite is elitist! 2+2=5!
What the hell does your world salad even mean?
Correct me if I am mistaken but aren't you like the designated corporate whipping boy around here?
It is the influence of corporations, the 1%, heck, the top 20% honestly. That works to deny education, safety nets, environmental protections and futures to the least among us.
That controls our media and propagandizes our democracy with the story du jour while ignoring the elephant in the room.
When they rise against it they are beaten back by corporate militarized thugs who I imagine, correct me if I am wrong, you carry water for, everyday.
I think you have work to do. Making things worse for us all. Get back to it.
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)as clearly as I can make it. The country is full of people whose lives differ from yours, who MUST focus on issues of concerning their immediate survival and well-being. You have just insisted if they don't agree with you, despite having less privilege and fewer advantages, that they are the enemy, on the site of corporations. When you look down on ordinary Americans, you show you do not care about their lives and voices. and that turns them off. You seem to relish that position and insist anyone who doesn't abandon everything they care about to serve you is part of the problem. I submit the problem are those who deny the rights of the many to articulate and pursue their interests and insist their duty is to serve then. Whether they are in the upper 1 percent or upper 20 percent doesn't much matter. The commonality is that they insist their view is the only acceptable one and dismiss the voices and concerns of the majority.
I am not dedicated to making things work for you. You do not speak for me, and you do not represent US. You represent yourself and those who think exactly like you. You proclaim you know what is good for the little people, and if they don't go along with your bumper sticker slogans, they are aligned with corporations. You see them as less, as the problem, not as people with lives and interests that are valid. Your discourse is unencumbered by any reference to policy and reveals none of the insight of leftist theory. It is simply slogans, nothing more. (I don't know, nor do I care, what your half-baked reference to me as self-appointed corporate whipping boy means. I refer to CAPITAL. Capital, as Marx observed, is the problem. Corporation simply refers to a collective entity, which could be a non-profit, churches, or even tribal land holdings.)
I will not be joining the self-entitled white upper-middle and middle class in their anger that their bankers did them dirty and their more fundamental loathing for the majority of Americans, whom people like you undeservedly believe only you can determine what is best for. The problem is not that they don't know their own interests. It is that they won't abandon them for yours, and that is why you target them.
(As for the top 20 percent, that includes many on this site, including Sanders supporters. Did you not see the poll where people declared their incomes? The top 20 percent is households with incomes of $100k or more. Many here who go around insulting others as allied with corporations have that much or more, while they people they regularly insult have far less. Go figure. That is what I call elitist. I also consider elitist the conviction you articulation in your initial response to me that the majority of Americans are inferior to you. If that isn't elitist, what is?
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)We all want what is best for all and I sometimes lose sight of that.
I never realized just how entitled and condescending some of my posts may sound, especially when nobody has any idea of the individuals background behind them.
Suffice it so say I am on a very low rung of the monetary ladder.
It certainly could be higher if I wished to join hands with Lockheed or BP, I have freely chose not too. I ask nothing of anyone I haven't already concluded for myself. That if one wishes to make things better, not helping the people making it worse is a great start. It almost seems like common sense to me.
I don't see capital as the problem, I see denial of honest and open democracy as the problem. It is the fact that we no longer live in a capitalist democracy but a corptocracy. If you don't think it is so, I rightfully understand.
I guess it all boils down to some think more people vested in multinational corporations is the answer, some think less is.
I believe we stand on the crux of perhaps the second most pivotal moment of our entire evolution, the end of it.
If not for us, for so much beauty, so much wildlife, so much nature. That is, in the end, what I care about more than all the wealth in the world. I only wish others could find the same fortune in it as I.
Peace and joy to you and yours.
Gman
(24,780 posts)Really??
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Sanders is, indeed, the most progressive candidate in the race, but that sure as shit doesn't mean he's guaranteed to win.
DonCoquixote
(13,956 posts)Turns into yet more bickering by people who want to play Nyah Nyah. Granted, I am a Bernie person, and I have not forgotten the antics of 2008, not really forgiven as some Hillary types seem to want to rip open the scar tissue and Tattoo "You shoulda voted fer her in 2008" on many as a political billboard. However, fellow Bernie supporters, you know that when you try to do your own version of that, you wind up damaging the cause for worse than if you kept to the high road.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I cannot disagree with this article.
ericthered1975
(13 posts)This is a great news.
stonecutter357
(13,045 posts) 
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,842 posts)eom
colsohlibgal
(5,276 posts)As a woman I want a woman president ASAP just not this one. Why would she not weigh in yes or no on the TPP? I think most of us know but how can Hillary supporters give her a pass on being absent that huge issue? Doesn't that seem coldly calculating?
It's triangulation city all over again and some of us are sick of it. Yes, she has moved a little left in some of her speeches but it's all non specific. She's learned from Obama's mistakes. He got too specific and got caught.
It just seems like some people defend Obama or Hillary to the end but pay no real attention to any detail on the issues that matter to everyday citizens.
ReallyIAmAnOptimist
(357 posts)but I won't place a vote just on plumbing, so she'll also have to be the best candidate.
If we are tired and endlessly disappointed in Obama why on earth would anyone think that Hillary would be an improvement? I can't fathom it. There isn't a single issue I care about that she is strong in.
And as far as who will be the better candidate against whomever the GOP nominates... they got nothing, and frankly I think Bernie will clear the table by a higher margin than Obama did in '08 (because he's appealing to lots of Independents and Republicans who are sick of politics as usual).
olegramps
(8,200 posts)It is difficult for me to comprehend the extent of actual hatred that has been demonstrated on this board. No I don't think the Hilary Clinton is not without flaws, but to totally disregard her service to the country as a senator and Secretary of State is little too much for me. I didn't hear any derogatory comments about her service before she appeared as a likely candidate for the nomination.
She was widely acclaimed as an excellent Secretary of State not only by Democrats but also, gasp, Republicans. The Republicans lost no time in attacking her with ridiculous charges. Now I see some of the same excesses from supposed loyal Democrats that declare they will sit out the election if she is nominated. I guess that some are willing to throw out the baby with the bath water.
I assure them that defeating Clinton if she is the nominee and securing a Republican victory would be Pyrrhic victory that they won't long savor. I can only hope that the heat of the battle doesn't obscure the fact that the Republicans and their menu for the working class are the real enemy to be feared. I welcome the support Sanders, but I don't welcome the overblown rhetoric.
subject
(123 posts)I ended up with 8 years of Bush and an illegal war. Never again.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)I have had people tell me 'how else will we get the democrats more progressive if we don't teach them a less'.
You want to play that game with a race like very moderate Mark Pryor of Arkansas ok, that's fine we got stuck with Tom Cotton as a Senator now. But he is only 1 of 100 and it's looking that the democrats will take back control in 2016.
But Bill Clinton had this country going in a good direction until the brakes were slam stop with Bush hijacking the election. Sure in the end it was 5 Supreme Court Justices that made the decision but Bush kept the race tight enough so that he could steal it. Nadar did hurt.
I cannot allow myself to cast any vote that could in anyways give control of the White House to any of those idiots running on the GOP ticket. There isn't one of them that is remotely tolerable. I think the only Republican that could run for office that I like is my former representative Mike Castle - he was old school GOP and also pro-environment and pro-choice. Of course he lost a senate primary to a tea bag idiot. Thank goodness Delaware is a strong blue state.
And in the end - I actually like all of the candidates, so I have no problem voting Democrat if any of them get nominate. So that makes it easy too1
Beacool
(30,514 posts)Hyperbole much?
sofa king
(10,857 posts)Thank God, because it feels like the election is still 17 months away.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Remember?
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Ask again in six months whether this sticks.