General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDemocrats have nothing to gain be telling Bernie and his supporters to go to hell
We need support wherever we can get it.
We need people willing to do the hard work of electing Democrats. Young activist types are the people most likely to do that work, if we simply make them feel welcome and make it clear that this is a place that is hospitable to what they stand for .
And we need to be the party of those left out in the cold by the status quo. Even with the intemperance they sometimes display in expressing their opinions, the people drawn to the Sanders message have a better handle on how to do that and how to connect with the voters we need to win over(without abandoning our current base)than anyone defending the status quo approach against them.
It's simple...if we say we won't stand up to corporate power, if we put the rich man's priority of low inflation and deficit reduction over the people's priorities of full employment, climate justice and an end to poverty(which is what treating Bernie and his supporters must mean), we are choosing to repeat the 2016 result...over and over and over again.
We'll be choosing not to even try to win anymore-because making those choices means making it impossible to increase our vote totals anywhere.
We'll be stuck forever where we were in November-never winning more than 49% in any presidential election (and thus never winning in the Electoral College again)never retaking Congress, never recovering ground in any state legislature). What would we gain be choosing never to be popular as a party again. never to stand for anything again, no longer having any reason to exist?
Why stay with what we know can never work?
That's what fomenting an anti-Bernie backlash means folks...it means choosing permanent defeat.
Bernie will never be our nominee...but we stand for nothing if we make him a prophet without honor and if we drive his supporters away, if we make it clear that his campaign's values will not be part of this party, if we vow(as doing all of that means we must vow)that nothing will change from here on in.
And yes, there are other progressives in the party-but we all know that, if Bernie and his supporters are driven away, those other progressives can never win the argument within the party. The "all that matters is the big donors" faction will always guarantee that the party doesn't take progressive positions on any issues other than those that don't threaten the rich and those that can't liberate anyone.
Do we WANT to be stuck in November, 2016, for the rest of eternity?
Do any of us believe we can win as a party with no passion, a party that can never feel the fierce urgency of now? A party that would NEVER say "We Can't Wait!"?
Of course not. We know better than that.
So why even chance it?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)at this point, we are either pro-trump or pro-america.....
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)sanders is not the issue any more, its trump and must remain trump.......unless ALL anti-trump forces work together, we have only ourselves to blame for what happens
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We can't be pro-America and make any anti-Trump people unwelcome or powerless in this party.
49% can never be enough.
FarPoint
(14,744 posts)They want us to have infighting!.... Embrace your neighbor..
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)Woman of color have been a very consistent voting bloc for the Democratic Party and they're actual registered Democrats.
There's nothing inherently wrong with inviting Berner's to the table and having a discussion with them but they trying to take over the party. So far this year, every candidate Bernie has supported has lost. What does that tell you about his and their cross-over appeal? It means they don't have the juice--Bernie doesn't have the juice.
Also, it'd be more palatable to listen to the younger generation if they actually consistently turned out to vote. They want free college, they want Wall St shackled but when it comes time to actually vote, they're largely MIA if they aren't in love with a candidate.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It isn't WOC VS Sanders supporters. We're past the primaries now. If Bernie had been nominated, his platform would have been just as pro WOC as Hillary's.
And there are no significant differences on the issues between WOC now and Sanders supporters(some of whom ARE WOC, for the record).
Keith Ellison is an African-American Sanders supporter. Had he been elected DNC chair, wouldn't you trust HIM to stand up for the needs and input of men women, trans men and trans women of color?
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)my point is, Bernie REFUSES to join the Democratic Party but wants the biggest say in how it's shaped. I have huge issues with that. I also have huge issues with his constant barrage of divisive speech towards the party and people in it.
He's doing more damage than good because in some ways, he's no different than 45--it's his way or the highway.
LenaBaby61
(6,991 posts)I have friends who are big Bernie supporters, but even they tell me that they're getting turned off by him continuing to throw daggers at the Democratic party when he isn't even a Dem, and the fact that he doesn't stay on a consistent message of calling out tRump, the GOP or their policies more than he does.
I'm a Hillary fan, but still respect Bernie and his ideals, but he does have a tendency to keep going after the Dem party, when he really does need to keep his laser focused on the treasonous, rotten-ass, GOP and that treasonous, wretched, mentally-deteriorating clown car that's destroying everything, tRumputin.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)He isn't trying to fix the issues or gap any divides, he's trying to take over, IMO. This very much reminds me of a hostile takeover in the corporate world -- something he supposedly has no love for.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I wish Bernie was saying some different things on that.
It's just that we're dead in the water if we anathemize the guy and go back to the Nineties, like some people seem to want.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)Because they did well financially. There are lessons that can be taken from that period of time just as there are other lessons from history that can be useful but standing on a stage and denigrating a party that he wants to lead isn't getting us anywhere.
nocalflea
(1,387 posts)As the saying goes," he has no skin in the game". He wants it both ways. I no longer care what he thinks.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)Sure, it's easy enough to create a pro or anti Sanders flamebait thread. The same can be said about Clinton or Obama or Biden or Pelosi - it's all in the writing and whether or not hot battens are being pushed compulsively and/or maliciously.
But it also has to do with the agenda of those who reply to them. Any thread can be ignored - none require that kerosene be thrown on them - but kerosene is ALWAYS in great supply here if Bernie is mentioned.
Bernie Sanders has a voting record over several decades in Congress that over 90% of DU members would praise if viewed with the name of the politician "masked". He won the votes of 45% of those participating in the 2016 Democratic primaries. He resoundingly won the support of younger voters who represent the future of the Democratic Party.
Sure he can be substantive criticized on a number of counts. So can Hillary Clinton for that matter (not always on the same counts). But it says something disturbing that the mere act of mentioning Bernie Sanders in an OP title guaranties that a flamebait thread will follow. No one has to like him, but that is simply wrong. He's not fucking Trump or Ryan. He is a nationally popular politician who is part of the resistance to Trump and Ryan.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 14, 2017, 04:58 PM - Edit history (1)
For 25 years, he also grabbed every opportunity to tell them face-to-face and anyone else who'd listen that his Democratic colleagues were corrupt.
He's what he is and that's hardly anything new. Left-wing anti-Democrats were trying to take over what they saw as a tragically "corrupt" party from FDR too, and in every era since. (Their own attempts at forming their own party they can believe in have always failed.)
But this is today, and love Bernie or otherwise, today's left-wing anti-Democrat takeover efforts are very small potatoes compared to the enormously well organized and funded threat to take over our nation that we are currently battling on our right.
?w=300&h=216
The Wielding Truth
(11,433 posts)think that standing up for the 99% is important. Hillary or Bernie may never run again, so there should be no competition. We need everyone who cares about a democratic social society to work against the Plutocrats who are trying to break our democracy.
Let's get along.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)wrong. I don't understand why he does it.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)
delisen
(7,348 posts)
Buns_of_Fire
(19,138 posts)
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)When Bernie and some of his supporters tell Democrats they should "go to hell" ( not literally) then we can talk.
My latest irritation with him is his non-support of Ossoff. I'm beginning to think he wants Ossoff to lose just to prove a point.
Oh and the naive argument that we wouldn't include big donors is just idiotic. We live in the real world of politics.
Unfortunately, we need money to fight Republicans.
I'll tell you what, from my readings around minority votes absolutely despise Sanders. He will never win them over.
Your wing will never win if you alienate the true base of the Democratic party.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I don't think voters of color disagree with him on the issues. They are usually well to the left of other Democrats.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)they can't stand him. Read around where black women post or tweet.
Also, I never said he was running, but he IS trying to mold the Democratic party... and he isn't even a member.
JI7
(93,550 posts)
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)They say Harry Reid talked him out of it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We do need a clean break with the kind of choices we made in the fall campaign, where we repeated the tactics that we used in the losing campaigns in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004-keep our policy offer vague, focus on attacking the other ticket, make no effort to inspire passion and enthusiasm.
We easily could have elected HRC if she had run a partnership campaign...a campaign that emphasized both her personal qualifications and the issues she prioritized AND also pointed out on a frequent basis that the Sanders movement had had a major, positive impact on the platform.
We had nothing to lose by running that kind of campaign...yet our "pros" wouldn't even consider it.
For the future, we need to build that partnership-whatever anybody thinks of any particular individuals.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He doesn't want to run the whole thing himself.
And the primaries are over, so it's time to admit that it never had to be a choice of "social justice" OR "economic justice". We need to be for justice, period.
And it's only possible to do that if you stand with the people against the rich.
Liberation can't be made in a corporate boardroom, for God's sakes.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)haven't earned...let's see some grassroots victories and then we will talk.
Control-Z
(15,686 posts)with you!
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Why the hell doesn't he JOIN the party? An outsider, which Bernie is by his own statements, will never reshape the party. That's true of the Democratic Party and any organization.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But it doesn't really matter.
And it's not as though people within the party haven't said deeply critical things about the party, from wildly differing perspectives.
When Bill Clinton and Al Gore emerged as national figures in the late Eighties, they were deeply critical of what we stood for. At times, they were UNFAIRLY critical-they claimed Mondale and Dukakis were ultraliberals, when in fact Dukakis was a centrist and a homophobe, probably the last anti-gay nominee we will ever select, and Mondale ran to the right of Carter on some issues while choosing a vice presidential nominee who, as chair of the Platform Committee, tried to remove our traditional endorsement of the Equal Rights Amendment from the platform, and did so at a time when that change would not have gained us ANY significant number of votes) and their message was that the party had to move sharply to the right or die out.
They "remade the party in THEIR image". And did so in a way that left everyone in the party who was even marginally to their left largely out in the cold. In the nineties, the progressive wing was treated as the enemy, there was nothing signinficantly progressive in our policy offer(we were only socially progressive on choice, our message on social services was barely distinguishable from Newt Gingrich's-basically, we were promising to be nicer about it-we were to the right of Nixon on crime policy, and we did whatever Wall Street wanted on economics).
Nobody on the left of the party, nobody calling for change, is calling for anything close to equivalency with that in terms of how other Dems would be treated. We aren't saying anyone should be silenced. We aren't insisting on iron-clad control of the platform. We aren't saying conventions are places where nobody should be able to express even mild disagreement with us. We seek unity and we want to work WITH those who prioritize social justice(a justice struggle we support with equal passion)to assuage their concerns.
We want these things because last fall proved that saying no to these things means we lose.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)why it's legitimate for someone WITHIN the party to criticize, as opposed to someone OUTSIDE the party who pretends to support its core principles while never losing an opportunity to trash it.
I often disagreed with Bill Clinton and Al Gore, to use your example. But they had a RIGHT to criticize, since they were obviously deeply involved and committed to the party's structure and principles. Bernie has made a CAREER of trumpeting his independence. Fine, if that's what he wants. But he DOES NOT get to try to restructure a party of which he's not a member and has no interest in being a member. His only interest in the Democratic Party seems to be to criticize and change it to reflect his ideas.
So, yes, it really does matter.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's millions of people all over the country who share the ideals his campaign represented and that Our Revolution as an organization still represents.
And it's also about the millions of people who voted for HRC but stated that they agreed with the economic justice agenda that campaign and that continuing movement represent-an agenda that doesn't exclude or marginalize anyone in the Democratic base.
It's issues, not a personality cult.
And it's not as though no significant number of people who be fighting for those ideals if only Bernie hadn't run or had self-identified as a Dem.
And those who supported the candidate and now support the movement are not responsible themselves for the worst things the individual says.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)after Democrats...and may cause additional losses...I say additional because that crew (and others like them) cost us 16. And can I just say, I don't give one fuck what they want.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... but for the rest of us who value loyalty and commitment, it's important. It matters. It really does. Realistically speaking i mean
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)Have you gone to an Indivisible meeting yet? Please get out into the real world
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Indivisible is a great group, but it's not the only valid way to be involved.
I was never once personally abusive or denigrating towards you...so why do you feel entitled to be that way towards me?
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)It is a nice place and there is good to be done in the real world
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 14, 2017, 03:53 PM - Edit history (1)
n/t.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)I am helping one of the local groups is setting up its own PAC and will be taking a very active role in upcoming elections. There are a number of Bernie types at the local Indivisible group and even that group is making a difference in the real world.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Being in the real world doesn't have to mean never being to YOUR left.
Why do you keep acting like the only way to be in the real world is to be in Indivislble?
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)I personally like the PeoplePower group with the ACLU but our local group has some anti-sanders types. One of the other groups that I am working with is a spin off of the Pants Suit Republic and they are not fans of Sanders or sanders supporters.
If nothing else, go find an Our Revolution group. The local OR group are a bunch of idiots but there may be a viable group in your area.
I like living in the real world. It is a nice place. In my area of interest (voter protection) there is a ton going on. The Texas redistricting case goes to trial on July 10 and I am helping a local state representative who wants to open some districts. You will have a better understanding of how politics works in the real world if you go out into the real world.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I'm active in a variety of progressive groups in my community(including Our Revolution, although my time has been limited by my recent studies.
You sound as though you are obsessed with getting me to stop posting here. Given that nothing I post on this board does any harm, why are you so fixated on trying to discredit me?
You are not superior to me and you are not entitled to lecture me about reality. Stop.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And done so in states where the Democratic Party actually wins.
If you disagree with me, fine-disagree with me on the issues, on the merits of what I say.
You have no reason to try to discredit me or anyone else here on a personal level.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)I live in the real world and work in the real world to fix things. Please get out into the real world and see how things work. I clearly disagree with you on your desire to abandon the base of the party and to attempt to remake the party into the image of Sanders. In the real world, this plan will not work
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If we stayed with what some people thought would "work", no social or economic change would ever have happened.
What I support is about liberating the base, not abandoning it. The base is never better off when the party limits itself to minor change.
If you disagree with me, fine. But you have no right to accuse me of not living in the real world.
Your viewpoint is not the only possible "realistic" one. It is simply your view.
And since I have never sought to personally discredit you, you have no call to personally malign me.
BTW, I just got back from doing "campus watch" at the student housing at Evergreen, helping prevent racist or homophobic/transphobic attacks on my fellow students(there have been death threats and the posting of Neo-Nazi literature on campus, and the "Patriot Prayer"
crowd will be holding a hate rally on Red Square(the center of the campus). So don't ever lecture me about reality again.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)I strongly disagree with your recommendations and I really wish that you would get out into the real world to see how things work. Remaking the party into the image of Sanders has no chance of working in the real world unless you are willing to write off key elements of the Democratic base. Did you see the results of the Virginia primary? The Sanders endorsed candidate was voted down in large part due to the vote of the base of the party including African Americans. Turnout was supposed to help the Sanders endorsed candidate and the turnout was 170% of the 2009 turnout.
I like living in the real world. There is a ton of work to be done in the real world that can only be accomplished by hard work. There is a great deal of anger against Trump and fear about health care out there. My congressman is not doing town halls but various groups are still trying to generate press coverage by making demands. I am working with several groups and have helped one group set up their own state PAC. We are registering voters, recruiting candidates and getting ready for 2018. Right now there are 8 or so candidates running for the Democratic nomination for CD 9 (a district that Clinton carried). There is a trial in July on Texas redistricting and this trial could result in the Democrats picking up 3 to 7 Congressional seats and 10 or more state house seats. It is an exciting time to be on the ground working to change things.
Again, your posts speak for themselves. I am entitled to draw my opinions from these posts and my opinions are based on working on issues in the real world.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Personal insults are never appropriate here.
People in the base don't disagree with Bernie's economic ideas. Women, people of color and LGBTQ people are to the left of the party on those issues And the man is isn't going to run again, so it's not about him as a person at all. Please stop acting as if there's idolatry going on here. There isn't.
I just want to combine the best of the Sanders ideas and the HRC ideas, as the platform HRC barely mentioned in the fall campaign did.
What is so terrible about fighting for social justice AND economic justice? We already know we can't have social justice while leaving corporate control of politics and life unchallenged.
And I'm just as active in the real world as you are.
There is nothing I support(and I'm not alone in supporting anything I support)that would possibly do the sort of damage to the party that could possibly justify the personal abuse you hurl at me.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)The fact that a college student thinks that he knows the real world and understands how the political process works is amusing. Your claims are not backed up the facts. Look at Virginia and other contests. Your positions are not accepted by significant portions of the base and many key groups in the base do not want to see the party remade into the image of sanders or to adopt policies that mainly appeal to while male voters.
Do you really want to compare work in the real world? I am a precinct chair and have been a major donor to numerous campaigns which helped me win a slot at the Philadelphia national convention. I have run voter protection operations both in my county, neighboring counties and the statewide hot line. This cycle I had to deal with the attorneys at the Texas Sec. of State including dealing with reports of armed guards being stationed in front of a Hispanic voting site in Bexar county due to fears of Al Qaeda (the e-mail from the Texas Sec. of State using the al Qada excuse has been circulated among a decent percentage of the election law bar). I trained 200+ poll watchers and helped turn a major county blue by fighting voter suppression efforts and efforts to undermine the court ruling in the Texas voter id case. Heck, I got a Trump supporter arrested for trying to vote twice (the local election judge had me read the relevant statute to the deputy at the polling location where that idiot was trying to vote a second time). The real world is a fun place and there is a great deal of work to be done in the real world
My youngest daughter is also in college and I know that she understands how the political world works. She has been an election judge a dozen or so times and has been to the state convention a couple of times and to the national convention as my guest. She had the fun time of being called some nasty names by Sanders delegates for not convincing me to change my vote. My other daughter was the chaperon for a group of students to the 2008 convention and was in Mile High Stadium for Obama's acceptance speech. As a high school student my son was elected governor of the state of Texas for a national political organization.
My older two children will be in Seattle next weekend to see friends and to attend some Astro games. They also live in the real world and have been very active in politics and so I doubt that you will have anything in common. Several years ago. my son attended a summer school program on politics with Jon Ossoff and is a major contributor to that campaign.
Your posts speak for themselves and it is my opinion that your lack of real world experience causes me to be very skeptical about your proposals. Even if I actually believed your claims about real world experience, I strongly disagree with your positions as did the voters in Virginia. You are entitled to advocate your views and I am entitled to evaluate and reject your positions.
Again, be active in politics. You can make proposals but do not expect people to accept these proposals simply because you make some posts on an internet site. I think that your proposals are not viable and will not work in the real world. Go out out into the real world and prove me wrong. Again, the real world is a fun place.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... I hope it's heeded.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Perhaps you're overly sensitive?
_BravoMan_
(27 posts)I heard over 64% of AA supported Bernie in the primaries.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)but I am not a follower. It makes no sense to me that anyone would follow a non-candidate.
Maven
(10,533 posts)mcar
(45,961 posts)To figuratively stop telling Democrats to go to hell. Working together works both ways.
Less condescension would be a big plus as well as less deification of the messenger. This OP being an excellent example of both.
Tired of self-righteous lefty-bros telling how much I suck, then getting offended when I call them on it.
Wanna be my friend? Fucking act like one.
alarimer
(17,146 posts)It's just a fact.
dansolo
(5,387 posts)Except Bernie is not supporting the Democratic Party. He is trashing the party constantly. His message seems to be that however bad the Republicans are, the Democrats aren't any better. Bernie does not want the Democratic Party to come over to him, because then he is no longer special. He also seems to expect the same sort of loyalty that Donald Trump requires. He will support anyone who endorses him, regardless of their positions, and yet he will ignore anyone who aligns with his views if they haven't shown any specific support for him.
He is also extremely naive if he believes that Trump voters who are concerned about economic insecurity will come over to the Democratic side if they only changed their message. The problem, which Sanders seems to ignore, is that a lot of these people are only concerned about their own economic insecurity, not economic insecurity in general. They don't want policies in place to help everyone. They want policies in place to help THEM. I realize that there are probably some voters who voted for Trump who were taken in by his lies and the constant right wing radio/propaganda, and some of them could be persuaded that they would be better off supporting the Democratic Party. But that will never happen if Bernie insists on reinforcing the right wing talking points.
Maven
(10,533 posts)He is so virtuous and pure. And also he bears no responsibility for the outcome of the 2016 election, which he would have won if only he hadn't lost, so his moral authority cannot be questioned. Our duty is to accept that we are a nightmare of a party and surrender to the higher power of Bernie. So what if there are Democrats like Maxine and Chuck and Kristen and John C. doing what appears to be all the heavy lifting to help working people and rid us of the orange menace. They are not anointed by Bernie, hence they are not good. They are probably just Third Way (TM), neoliberal (TM)(R), CorpoDems (TM)(SM)(R) who secretly give foot massages to Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon and are up to no good. Etc.
(In case it wasn't clear, I'm being facetious and agree 100% with your spot-on post)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... 
Maven
(10,533 posts)
Well said, Maven. 
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)I wish there were a way of rec'ing a post.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,948 posts)Just sayin'. Bernie and his supporters need to stop attacking the Democratic Party as being an "absolute failure" and stop demanding that only their goals, desires, etc. be considered.
nycbos
(6,711 posts)..., notice I am using the would SOME seem to feel if they to not get 100% of what they want it is either being rigged against them or a sellout out and they want to take their ball and go home.
This loud vocal minority of people are young white men who aren't in danger of losing their rights under this current administration.
I am well aware that this doesn't fit the bill of most Bernie supporters. I would wager a good deal of them are progressive pragmatist who realize that getting 80% of what you want is actually a HUGE victory.
WhiteTara
(31,255 posts)Bernie and the 'Crats stopped with the "how terrible Democrats are" meme. We keep moving along and then Bernie lobs another "hate" bomb at the Party.
Fix The Stupid
(999 posts)you lost to DONALD FUCKING TRUMP.
Say it again. To yourself.
Now turn on CNN - see that idiot dominating the news?
You lost to DONALD FUCKING TRUMP!
Come on...
It's time for reflection. Time for the Democratic Party to EMBRACE the criticism, not turn a blind eye to it and try to quash it. LISTEN to the PEOPLE.
Do you want another 4 years of this turd? Then keep doing what you're doing, it's worked out so well hasn't it?
WhiteTara
(31,255 posts)I didn't lose to anyone. Our candidate lost. And if you are extolling the virtues of BS, then remember he lost his election too.
And all this supposes that Russia and Trump did not hack our election and that our candidate did NOT lose, but had the election STOLEN.
Response to WhiteTara (Reply #40)
Post removed
WhiteTara
(31,255 posts)you will have your answer.
Maven
(10,533 posts)You're actually pulling out the Putinbot/Trumper line ("where's the evidence?!"
to deny that Trump/Russia is a thing? Did you get that from the Putin-loving douchebags at the Intercept?
George II
(67,782 posts)Totally ignoring the fact that the investigation(s) are ongoing. Once they're over and there still is no evidence, THEN everyone can say that. The purpose of an investigation is to FIND evidence.
Maven
(10,533 posts)Funny how they seem to have a lot of the same talking points.
George II
(67,782 posts)Cha
(318,758 posts)try rolling that around in your head for a bit. It's the Reality.
We had several forces working against us.. Voter Suppression.. and not the least were the Liars in the green party who are such geniuses they helped get a Climate Change Denier in the wh with their filthy LIES.
The Democratic Party is working on getting stronger and better.. we have brilliant leaders within our ranks.. who are on the front lines fighting the Fascistrumps.
Doing the heavy lifting. We don't need any dividers.
lapucelle
(21,048 posts)instead of "we"?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... and odd.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)One side railing against the other on DU is fine. It's what Internet discussion boards are for.
The business of the Democratic Party lies in finding common ground, in making the biggest possible tent. "Possible," however, is always going to involve compromise on some important issues. I-can't-vote-for-anyone-who-x is an understandable position, and one most of us share. It doesn't build many bridges, though.
The sad truth is that the nation isn't really as progressive as we might hope, and at this point a working majority will never get behind equal rights for all and a complete dismissal of private money from politics. I wouldn't counsel anyone to give up on these points--dont, ever--but understand that our pretty protests don't yet equate to Democratic majorities. We must lead where possible, but we must also join with fellow Dems to gain control of local, state and the federal governments. Why? Because modern Republicans will not share power. Not at all. To enact a Democratic agenda, we must elect Democratic government.
If we fumble this again, there may not be many more chances.
Fix The Stupid
(999 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)...but we don't have the privilege of being as fractious as the Republicans can be.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)those who attack our party.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)them and if you are referring to Greens...then fuck them...they are nothing but spoilers.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Even if you think the Greens are a total lost cause--I don't--there were forty million people who didn't vote at all who might still count as people. There are Trump voters right now who are feeling buyer's remorse, and some of those would be willing to listen to a Dem with a good record of some of the same promises Trump is abandoning.
Writing off a tens of millions is a privileged position.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)tent who remain Greens and don't join the Democratic Party...giving them some say so over the Democratic party...then no...you want a say join the Democratic Party. The big tent has always included liberal Democrats and moderate Democrats...the key word being Democrats.
BainsBane
(57,750 posts)I welcome their vote. That doesn't mean I want them to run the party, but their votes are as good as anyone else's.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)who leads it...I also believe in closed primaries due to GOP influence in open primaries.
A Green can vote for anyone they choose...and I would hope they would vote for the Democrats, but their existence in a two party system...only allows for the spoiling of elections for progressives when they run candidates. Also, it is our choice how the party operates and who leads it...those who can't bother to join... send a message (particularly Greens as they run candidates against Democrats) the Democratic party isn't good enough. In fact, by their actions they support the Republican party and not us in many cases...including the 2016 election.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...and by those who build the right bridges, and enough of them.
Everyone who joins gets a say.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)And joining doesn't usually mean in a leadership position. Those who have been Democrats longest are likely to have the most say...if their message stands up to challenges.
We don't need to be concerned about Greens in trench coats and fake mustaches banging gavels at Democratic meetings.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)be welcomed.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)BainsBane
(57,750 posts)and yours is the kind of attitude that facilitates building bridges, which there is plenty of opportunity to do if we focus on issues and specific policies.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)When Dems do that to Sanders and his supporters, then we can talk. All this talk of unity means nothing when approaching one side is like banging your head against a cactus.
Cha
(318,758 posts)Bullshit.
maxrandb
(17,412 posts)gains us nothing but Trump and a Retrumplican Party with unchecked power over all three branches of government.
Wait, there is one person who "gains" in all this shit...Donnie Short Fingers and the Retrumplicans
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)look so weak and pathetic. They aren't. Just stop it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)
elleng
(141,926 posts)'That's what fomenting an anti-Bernie backlash means folks...it means choosing permanent defeat.'
Cha
(318,758 posts)the Democratic Party.. he is going to be called out on it.
elleng
(141,926 posts)but we do.
Cha
(318,758 posts)elleng
(141,926 posts)It's damaging for all of us that so many can't handle the facts, and see one who presents facts as 'insulting.'
A lot is happening in the world, and we must all be aware and hitch our wagons to the right 'cart.'
Uncertainty, More Than Populism, Is New Normal in Western Politics.
'Theresa May, Britain’s prime minister, has joined a long line of politicians who have gambled that they understood the populist wave overtaking Western politics and lost.
Thursday’s election capped a year in which the latest theory of politics in the populist era perpetually seemed to prove incorrect, as did many predictions of election outcomes. What explains this seeming inexplicability?
Populism’s individual effects, after all, have become well known. Voters oppose party establishments, scramble demographic coalitions and are more motivated by what they oppose than by what they support.
The problem is that, even among leading scholars, how these factors interact in any given election is still poorly understood.
The changes are simply too complex and too new.
Everyone knows that populism has fundamentally altered the rules of Western politics. But no one has deduced what the new rules are.
The result is that politicians and observers enter each election, whether they know it or not, merely guessing. Miscalculations and surprises have become the new normal.'>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/world/europe/theresa-may-election-politics-populism-interpreter.html?
Cha
(318,758 posts)most refreshing.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Does it now? Really? Are you sure about that?
Too much doom and gloom and negativity and pessimism in the world today.
More people need to cheer up.
They need to be positive.
I hope they're able to look in the bright side and find ways to be supportive and optimistic.
elleng
(141,926 posts)'Theresa May, Britain’s prime minister, has joined a long line of politicians who have gambled that they understood the populist wave overtaking Western politics and lost.
Thursday’s election capped a year in which the latest theory of politics in the populist era perpetually seemed to prove incorrect, as did many predictions of election outcomes. What explains this seeming inexplicability?
Populism’s individual effects, after all, have become well known. Voters oppose party establishments, scramble demographic coalitions and are more motivated by what they oppose than by what they support.
The problem is that, even among leading scholars, how these factors interact in any given election is still poorly understood.
The changes are simply too complex and too new.
Everyone knows that populism has fundamentally altered the rules of Western politics. But no one has deduced what the new rules are.
The result is that politicians and observers enter each election, whether they know it or not, merely guessing. Miscalculations and surprises have become the new normal.'>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/world/europe/theresa-may-election-politics-populism-interpreter.html?
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
lapucelle
(21,048 posts)Maybe the voters are sending a message.
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/virginia-primary-elections
Cha
(318,758 posts)
Mahalo, lapucelle!Cha
(318,758 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)The votes and patterns DO say a lot. But are people actually listening? Time will tell.
Cha
(318,758 posts)That says a lot for me 
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Northam won because he persuaded people he was more pro-choice.
Cha
(318,758 posts)when he thought it was "a good idea to primary President Obama" in 2012, though.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I agree that that suggestion was not a good choice, but how many people who didn't say it will that grudge be held against?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He can't get any votes in the fall that Perriello wouldn't have taken.
lapucelle
(21,048 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Does that fact that I'm not "pro-Bernie" make me "anti-Bernie"? If someone criticizes something he says or does, does that make them "anti-Bernie"? (How much leeway are you willing to allow? What's fair?)
//
// We need support wherever we can get it.
//
Well, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but your idea of "support" and my idea of "support" are two entirely different things. I'm not convinced that attacking and denigrating the Democratic party is what I'd call "support". Does the fact that I disapprove of the things he says make me "anti-Bernie"?
//
// Why stay with what we know can never work?
//
LOL! Why make statements that are merely opinions and treat them as fact?
//
// Of course not. We know better than that.
// So why even chance it?
//
That's sounds like what fundamentalist Christians say to me when they find out I'm not a believer. They'll try to convince me with similar (but unconvincing) "why take a chance" arguments. (I reject your "facts" until they've been proven.)
//
// Do we WANT to be stuck in November, 2016, for the rest of eternity?
//
The only people who appear to want to be "stuck in November" are the ones who keep trotting out old arguments and attacks and smears and insults of Democrats and the Democratic Party every six weeks... those are the only people who fit in that category. Why don't you ask THEM instead? The answer might amaze you.
Their tactics don't seem to be working. In fact, it seems to continue to cause division, which weakens the party. People who do such things "SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN THAT" (as you say) and it makes ME wonder what they hope to gain, or "WHY EVEN CHANCE IT" (as you say) when the division and weakness are readily apparent each and every time.
There's no mystery about it... there's definitely a cause-and-effect. People may flatter themselves by thinking they're "helping" but they're really not.
It's not realistic to think that anyone appreciates (or welcomes) a house guest who crashes on their couch, eats their food for free... then gets all up in their face telling them how AWFUL their decorations are and how they need to redecorate the entire house.
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.
mcar
(45,961 posts)BainsBane
(57,750 posts)The very idea that a party needs to orient itself around one man is abhorrent to me. It is premised on a hierarchical approach to politics and society that runs against the values of equality that I told most dear. As long as people insist the future of the party requires deference to one man--any man or woman--I cannot and will not be on board. I believe in democracy, not monarchy or caudillismo. The relentless focus on a member of the political elite over citizens violates everything I believe.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Following one person (man or woman) with such devotion isn't something that appeals to me. Critical thinking is important to me.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts) George II
(67,782 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... but forgot to ask. It's not a very realistic statement, is it?
murielm99
(32,969 posts)Nobody told Bernie supporters or Bernie to go to hell.
Why argue about something that did not happen? Why create controversy about a nonexistent event? Why this thread?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... but I think it's wisest that I not provide an elaborate or direct explanation with regard to my opinions and observations. Such things are often "misunderstood" (if you know what I mean). However, it's my belief that for intelligent, reasonable and rational people, the fact that the question is asked at all is a clue to the answer.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Helly Truman
kentuck
(115,391 posts)Neither can survive without the other, in my humble opinion.
murielm99
(32,969 posts)were told to go to hell.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The days of Bernie V. Hillary are over. We're all on the same side here.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)//
// That's what I'm saying.
//
Sorry, Ken... that's NOT not what you're actually saying, my friend.
The message in the OP clearly indicates a belief that that Democrats are (and I quote)--telling Bernie and his supporters to go to hell--unquote.
The OP isn't neutral. It's NOT saying "I don't think either side should tell the other to go to hell." (You may have WISHED you'd said something like that, but sadly you didn't.)
Instead, what it DID say is that Democrats are... quote--telling Bernie and his supporters to go to hell--unquote. The OP is blaming Democrats for something and it doesn't even provide EVIDENCE that such a thing is actually happening.
See the difference? You clearly said one thing in your OP, now you're agreeing with someone else's statement... pretending like their words perfectly summarize your meaning. And that's just not right.
Justice
(7,256 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... just because. It's in my best interest to not elaborate further but i think you know where I'm coming from.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And it is. I didn't say ALL Democrats have treated Bernie and his supporters that way-remember that a lot of Democrats agree with what Bernie's campaign was about.
I emphasized how Sanders and his supporters are being treated because they are the only group that anyone seems to want to drive away. Bernie and his supporters don't want to drive women, people of color, or LGBTQ people-each of which were demographics that contained and still contain significant blocs of support for Bernie's ideas on economics-out of the party. Other than maybe ceo's(a group we have no need for)they don't want to drive anybody away at all.
And nothing I said was a collective attack on the party. Critique and disagreement are not the same thing as attack-especially since, as is often if not always the case, what I or those who agree with me post is posted out of a desire to make this party stronger and better.
We need former Clinton people AND former Sanders people, and that we can only get all of those people if we don't make anyone unwelcome in the party based on presidential primary allegiance.
We can never win another election on former Clinton supporters alone. That group will always be stuck at 49% or lower-it can never be larger than it was in November of '16. By the same toke, Bernie's supporters, by themselves, will always be stuck at lower than majority support(I'd guess at a figure that's also around 49%)
What is so terrible about admitting that we don't have to choose, and NEVER had to choose, between social justice economic justice-that we need to be passionately committed to BOTH?
It's not only possible to be equally committed to both...it's essential if we are to survive.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)//
// I didn't say ALL Democrats have treated Bernie and his supporters that way...
//
That was a very broad brush you used. Your words (in fact) DID mean ALL Democrats. You neglected to qualify your words by saying something like "many Democrats" or "some Democrats". Instead, you just flat-out said "Democrats" which includes ALL of us. That's your fault, your mistake. Not ours. (Care to go back and correct your original post?)
//
// We can never win another election ...
//
Oh brother! 
(With regard to everything else you wrote... that's just "refighting". I'm not even going to try to go there.)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not refighting to admit the fall campaign made mistakes.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... why deflect?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You are accusing me of that you know it's a banning offense-even though you know I've proved my loyalty to this party time and again.
My OP was neither refighting nor an attack on the party.
Nor did it do any harm.
It was simply a call on those who want to drive Sanders people and everyone on the left out of the party to stop calling for that and to work to build a unified coalition with minority support instead.
If we become a party with nothing but bland centrist candidates and bland centrist policies, as you seem to want, we can never rise above our November showing. We'd be stuck at 49% in presidential elections and minority status in Congress and most state legislatures for the rest of eternity.
Why even risk it?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)prognosis...None of the candidate endorsed by Sen. Sanders have won a special election. And Northam went down yesterday in the governors primary. Supposedly, the young Sen. Sanders voters would put Perriello over the top...they didn't. It looks like Northam won in Virginia without the help of Sen. Sander's supporters.
..."Perriello channeled the energy — and endorsement — of progressive leader Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) as he tried to shake up the Democratic Party, but fell short in his bid to bring in enough new voters from among the young and working class to overcome Northam’s command of the Democratic machine, including the endorsement of nearly every Democratic elected leader in state or federal office.
Celebrating at a restaurant in Arlington, Northam led a giddy crowd in a call-and-response chant, ending with a call to take back the Democratic majority in the GOP-controlled House of Delegates. He said he had spoken with Perriello and “we agreed that we’re going to bring all Democrats under the tent starting tonight. This is too important an election. This is the bellwether of the country....”
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And the candidates Bernie nominated sharply reduced GOP margins of victory in seats no Dem had won in decades. Centrist Dems would have made the exact same showing or worse in each of those races.
Perriello mainly lost because he was once anti-choice-NOT because he was aligned with Bernie.
We can't be a progressive party if we only nominate anti-Bernie candidates. And we can't get above 49% in a presidential race, either.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)In Montana, a moderate Democrat was elected governor in 16. Had we run a moderate candidate this year, we might have another house seat...the guy that ran was a Sanders style Democrat ...too liberal for the state. There were better choices for the state.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not as though there were intrinsically superior centrists who were forced out of the race.
And the guy we did run massively reduced the GOP margin of victory, so it's not as though he was a disaster. Remember, we lost that seat by 20 points in the fall.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)when Gov. Ultrasound was in office...Perriello ran as a Sanders Democrat...that was his shtick and he also changed his view on abortion.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The guy who ran as a Dem was the only person who stepped up to the plate to try.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)A key element of the base of the party did not vote for the Sanders endorsed candidate. I reject the concept that we need to abandon the base of the party in order to remake the party into the image of Sanders
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And we can't be a progressive party if we do so, either.
African-Americans aren't going to vote against candidates just because they have a connection to Bernie Sanders. There were clearly other factors at work in Virginia...mainly, the false perception that Northam was more electable(I hope he wins, but he can't get any votes in the fall that wouldn't have gone to the other candidate).
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)Sanders wants to appeal to white working class males and ignore the interests of other key elements of the base. That is why Sanders did not win the primary and why the Sanders endorsed candidate lost badly in Virginia.
African American voters will not vote for someone like Sanders. Democrats can not win national races unless we have strong African American turnout and trying to remake the party into the image of Sanders will kill such turnout.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie never, at any point, called for the party to put the interests of whites of any income level over people of color.
Economic justice is just as much in the interest of people of color as it is of whites...in fact, more so, because people of color always have it worse under market economics.
And please stop claiming I'm calling for the party to be remade in anyone's interests. I'm about political change, not idolatry.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)The real world is rejecting your theories. Virginia is a great example. You can hold your breath and turn blue but that will not change the facts.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)If that's not a dog whistle, I don't know what is. I disliked him ever since that stupid statement. He also slammed the Democratic Party for not paying enough attention to White men, like him. That tells me all I need to know about how he feels about AAs, women, any minority.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)❤️
KTM
(1,823 posts)Ive only read about half the thread KB, and this seems about as good as any post for a reply. I like this one - it makes cogent points, it argues passionately, and *some* of us can clearly hear what you are putting out. I get your frustration and can feel your drive to find a way to get along and move forward, together. You've got a lot of passion, and I'm sure you look around at the world with as much political and emotional despair as any.
Just wanted to say, a LOT of us feel the same way, and hear you loud and clear. Agree fully.
Many of the peeps you're dancing with in this thread though... you are wasting energy. They do not want to hear you. They do not want your ideas, dont care about your passion, and feed on your frustration. They would sooner hammer you into the ground and walk over you than give you the time of day, much less accept your foolish notion that you're a part of the party as well.
Thats what you are debating with - hammers, intent on nothing else than crushing your spirit and shutting down your mind. They don't want you to do more. They don't want you to "get out into the real world." They dont want your energy or your thoughts, your passion or your allegiance. They want to twist your words, ignore what they *know* you are saying and create distracting, ensnaring webs of semantics and intentional misinterpretation. They want to wear you out and make you go away. They want you hammered down.
Ignore them buddy. Go forth and do you and fight for your beliefs. The bag of hammers wasting your time here are just a trap, just a diversion, just a pitfall to slow you down. They are a tiny handful of people who will never hear you, who raise their voices as loud as they can here because it makes them feel like a majority.
They aren't.
Anway, I like this post, and many of the others you've made in this thread. Time is on your side, and the world (and the party) will change if people like yourself just stay involved, fight hard, and dont get don't be discouraged by those whose only intent is just that.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)Telling the rest of the party that we have to make the party into the image of Sanders and to adopt Sanders' platform is not constructive
Me.
(35,454 posts)Winnable
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You keep making it sound as if some sort if idolatrous personality cult is going on, and there's nothing like that.
It's about issues and nothing BUT issues.
We need the best of the Sanders wing AND the best of the Clinton wing.
We'll never get above 49% presidentially if we don't adopt that blend...social justice AND economic justice.
And we will never start recovering at the state and local levels...centrist candidates on bland centrist platforms can't win us control of state legislatures. You can't win if you generate no enthusiasm, and centrists can't generate enthusiasm.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)Trying to remake the party into the image of sanders is not a smart move. I was pleased to see that the party selected the stronger candidate in the Virginia priimary
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It's constructive criticism for the good of the party when we tell their supporters to go to hell; however it's little more than a destructive and "go to hell" sentiment when their supporters criticize us.
The consistency of such biases are magnificent in their steady and dogmatic persistence.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)
BainsBane
(57,750 posts)translation: thinking we have the right to vote as we please rather than understanding our sole purpose on earth is to serve our bettors.
If you want support for something, earn it. If the idea of politics is to whine about how everyone owes you something, people are obviously going to get pissed off.
And really, is there no point at which you are going to care about anything but political patronage networks formed through a primary resolved over a year ago? How long can you define your entire political consciousness around the career of one man?
The bumper sticker slogans are so tiresome, particularly because they are never accompanied by any kind of policy or reform agenda.
Corporate power. I have never seen even any attention to doing even the slightest thing about corporate power. I've never seen a proposal for a law, a reform. It exists entirely in the realm of rhetoric. All we hear are slogans.
I have yet to been able to convince one person who talks endlessly about Wall Street this and that to as much as utter a word of disapproval for the banking deregulation bill passed by the House. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029195380 The GOP is actively dismantling all regulation of finance, and they can't bring themselves to focus on anything but lambasting the Democratic Party.
You have all the opportunity in the world to stand up to corporate power by organizing against the GOP's banking deregulation efforts. So why aren't you? Why did the People's Summit ignore that in lieu of rhetoric about the Democratic Party and Wall Street? If you want to change the relationship between finance capital and the state, do something about it. Work to affect legislation. Talk is meaningless, yet it's all we see.
Here's the deal. No one owes you power. You have to work to bring about change, like everyone else in human history. You want to influence the direction of the country, get out there and do it. Don't sit back and complain about how others aren't doing it for you. You don't need anyone's permission to act in pursuit of what you believe. Whether random people on the internet like or don't like it doesn't stop you from acting on what you claim to care about. Yet we see absolutely none of that. Instead, we see one post after another with people complaining about how Democrats aren't nice to them. When did anyone who ever worked to change society worry about such a thing? Never.
The rich men. We have heard about how the Democratic Party needs to remake itself to serve the interests of the $100k plus a year white upper middle class that votes GOP--whose affluence has suddenly been recast as "working class", while the Democratic base whose whose incomes don't' reach half that are maligned as the "establishment." From my point of view, I see an effort to focus attention away from the lower income Americans who currently constitute the Democratic base to the more affluent white bourgeoisie that Sanders and his supporters have decided matter more.
I remember a very short time ago when the issue of the increased poverty for women and children, who are in fact the majority of the population, that results from lack of access to abortion rights just wasn't important enough to remain a focus of a party that needed to promote the economic prosperity of men. Abortion rights and with them the survival of women and children was just too "divisive" to remain a focus of the party. If we even dared to suggest that our equal rights and economic survival mattered, we were lectured about how we had to get with the agenda if we didn't want Trump and the GOP to remain in office. And now you talk about "rich men." Spare me. You wrote us out of your revolution. You don't get to then turn around and demand we work to promote your financial ascendancy. The privilege of a few doesn't enter into my political priorities, particularly when they've explicitly told me that my rights and my economic survival just aren't a priority.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)to take the side of white men earning $100,000 a year or more against poor women and poor children, and especially never against poor women and children of color. Nobody in those groups are ever helped by fiscally conservative policies or incentives to corporations.
And nothing I've ever advocated would ever leave poor women and poor children out in the cold, or would ever treat them worse than white men. The only thing that can help women and children is large increases in social spending.
It's not possible to do anything progressive while cutting social spending, making it more expensive to attend college(it can't make any difference to improve elementary and secondary schools if college remains unaffordable for almost everyone). If young people continue to be forced to leave college with massive student loan debts, it is impossible for those young people to do anything progressive with their lives, because they have to try to get corporate jobs to pay off those debts and once someone takes a corporate job, any possibility of that person ever doing anything progressive or humane with their life is over. They are obligated to be selfish and if you have to be selfish you have to be right-wing.
It isn't Bernie vs. Hillary anymore. That's over. And former Sanders people aren't on the opposite sides of any issues from you now, if they ever actually were.
We never had to choose between social justice OR economic justice. Everyone in the 99% Including women and children in poverty, needs both. Nobody ONLY needs social justice, nobody is less committed to social justice than you are, and it's not possible to achieve social justice without achieving economic justice as well. The Sixties proved that for the rest of eternity.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
YFIO!Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And the candidates Bernie backed in Virginia and Omaha were pro-choice by that point.
We can't just anathemize anybody who was ever anti-choice in the past.
It's not progressive to be pro-choice but be centrist on everything else. In fact, as the Nineties proved, that position is meaningless.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)BainsBane
(57,750 posts)Not a single candidate Sanders has campaigned for or endorsed has won an election. Not one. The local press in Omaha and Montana cast him as a liability. There is no indication that the parts of the country he has prioritized are at all receptive to him. It's one thing to do well in a party caucus where very few votes are able to participate and quite another to win a general election. There is absolutely no indication that his approach is successful at all. It hasn't been so far.
If you want to convince people that your approach is a winning one, you're going to have to win an election somewhere. Insisting that people should do as you say because you feel persecuted by their exercising their votes independent of your control is unlikely to be successful.
MiltonBrown
(322 posts)fallout87
(819 posts)Agreed.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)Their favored candidate did not do well. I am happy with the results in Virginia. We need to win Virginia in November and the better candidate won the primary
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)near Charlottesville in Albermarle County. My cousin worried that if Perriello won, we would lose the state. We have a good shot now as Gillespie is damaged goods after that primary.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)there should be no 'supporters' these days as Sen. Sanders is not running for anything...they vote for us or not...their choice. And with all due respect, if Sen. Sanders cannot refrain from attacking the Democratic party he should not be in a leadership role. The supporters can vote Democratic or they can vote for the Republicans ...their choice.
Foamfollower
(1,097 posts)He has done nothing but bash the Democratic Party for DECADES.
I will NEVER have anything approaching respect for him.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)
betsuni
(29,039 posts)If we simply make them feel welcome
And make it clear that this is a place that is hospitable
We need to be the party of those left out in the cold by the status quo
Even with the intemperance they sometimes display
The people drawn to the Sanders message have a better handle
It's simple
If we say we won't stand up to corporate power
If we put the rich man's priority
Which is what treating Bernie and his supporters must mean
Over and over and over again
Corporate power, status quo
What would we gain by choosing never to be popular
Never to stand for anything again?
No longer having any reason to exist?
Fomenting, folks
Corporate power, status quo
A prophet without honor, if we drive his supporters away
As doing all of that means we must vow
The 'All that matters are big doners faction'
Those that don't threaten the rich and can't liberate anyone
Do we WANT to be stuck in November 2016 for the rest of eternity?
The passion, the fierce urgency -- we can't wait!
So why even chance it?
Corporate power, status quo
The passion, the fierce urgency
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)losing over and over...none of the our revolution type candidates have won anything...latest one to go down is Perriello...which is a relief because we need that seat.
betsuni
(29,039 posts)I like to put things that don't make sense in prose poetry form just for fun. It looks nicer.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)His only flaw was that he was anti-choice years ago.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Gillespie would win...the fact he lost a primary means he loses and election. He tried to turn out the voters you are always talking about and as always they turn out for rallies but not for voting...one wonders how many are GOP or right leaning.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)In the real world, voters are important and African American voters rejected the Sanders endorsed candidate
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why do you think that discredits the point?
I don't want us to be a party that is anti-Left. A party that makes a show of being "centrist" and "pro-business" can't do anything progressive even if it does win elections...and 2016 proves that such a party can't ever win again.
What is so terrible about wanting us to be a party that supports social AND economic justice and combines the best f the Clinton ideas and the best of the Sanders ideas? We can't be a progressive party if we don't do that.
betsuni
(29,039 posts)My problem is I don't understand what your point is. "Corporate power, status quo, big donors faction"; "A party that makes a show of being 'centrist' and 'pro-business' can't do anything progressive" -- Why should I believe these accusations without one shred of evidence? It'd be nice if you used your own words and gave concrete examples. Why should I think Democrats are worse than Republicans?
If you're saying that Democrats won't destroy capitalism, you're right. Capitalism is extremely American, nobody's going to stop capitalism. I'm a socialist; in a bad mood a commie. So what? I don't expect the United States to do what I want. I don't expect anyone to do what I want. I guess that's the point.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It was actually weirdly flattering to see my words become a found poem...structurally, it worked.
I just didn't get whatever point you thought you were making by doing that.
I understand that the country won't instantly do what I(and it's not just me, it's a huge number of other people)want. But what's the point of giving up on larger change?
There's not a hell of a lot we can do to end racism within the existing economic model-we can hold it back slightly from time to time, but a fully capitalist economy of the sort we have at the moment can't allow racism to be ended, on a grassroots OR institutional level. The status quo NEEDS racism to stay dominant.
We won't have socialism any time soon. We may NEVER have it. But if we give up on even creating an egalitarian mixed economy(as our party has done since the late Seventies, when President Carter, good man though he is, made the disastrous choice to put the rich man's desire of low inflation above the people's need for full employment and freedom from want) we are giving up on making much of anything better.
The transition from Obama to Trump, in which the gains of eight years have been all but wiped out, bear me out on this.
It's a losing strategy to settle for making the existing order less nasty. All that approach ever allows us to do is to make small temporary advances, all of which end up being revoked as soon as someone from the other side gets in.
I say that as a person who is active in antiracist work in my own community.
ananda
(35,067 posts)This infighting is harmful and detrimental both to us
and to the party.
CousinIT
(12,512 posts)These two groups MUST. STOP. THE. DIVISIVENESS. Or, Dems AND Sanders progressives WILL CONTINUE to LOSE.
Me.
(35,454 posts)When did he become a prophet? Maybe for his followers, but no one else.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)The Virginia primary proved this to be true https://politicalwire.com/2017/06/14/black-voters-will-democratic-kingmakers-2020/
Josh Kraushaar: “For all the talk about the power of progressives in the Democratic Party, one significant part of the Democratic coalition has been overlooked in the run-up to the next presidential election: African-Americans. Black voters made up at least 20 percent of the Democratic vote in at least 15 states during the 2016 presidential primaries (and comprise that share in three other states without exit polling: Louisiana, New Jersey, and Delaware). Without African-Americans, who gave 76 percent of their vote in the primaries to Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders easily could have been the Democratic nominee. Sanders won 49.1 percent of the Democratic white vote to Clinton’s 48.9 percent.”
“Black voters have historically rallied behind one Democratic candidate… Since 1976, the candidate backed by black voters became the Democratic nominee in seven of the nine contested nomination battles.”
I trust them
LuvLoogie
(8,800 posts)should also insist on Bernie registering as a Democrat.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)I agree that Sanders should register as a Democrat if he wants to dictate how the party will be remade
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)I agree with this analysis and I firmly believe that remaking the Democratic Party into the image of Sanders is not a way to win elections http://theweek.com/articles/705666/why-bernie-sanders-not-answer-every-election
First of all, there's this obvious point: If that program were the key to success, then Bernie Sanders would be president right now. But he isn't. He did very well in the 2016 Democratic primaries, but Hillary Clinton received 3.7 million more votes than he did. That wasn't because the system was rigged against him, it was because more Democrats wanted her to be their nominee.
And candidates whom Sanders has endorsed haven't shown particular power at the ballot box either, especially in places where the electorate contains ample numbers of Republicans. Sanders campaigned for Montana congressional candidate Rob Quist; he lost by 6 points. In Virginia, Sanders endorsed Tom Perriello's campaign for governor; Perriello got trounced in Tuesday's primary by Ralph Northam, an establishment politician who won precisely because of his deep roots in state politics. Perriello also suffered from his inability to win over enough black voters — the party's true base — which might sound familiar to Sanders. The Democrats' best chance to pick up a House seat this year comes in Georgia, where Jon Ossoff — a moderate candidate Sanders supported only with the greatest reluctance — is in a strong position to win in the upcoming runoff.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)what his campaign stood for. Doing so leaves us stuck at 49% with no chance of increasing our support.
And it's not about idolizing the guy, so please stop acting like there's something unhealthy about defending what his campaign stood for.
Bernie didn't get nominated(in part because his early shortcomings on addressing race(he thought his lifetime antiracist commitment would be enough, apparently)were exaggerated and lied about(he NEVER said the party should fight ONLY for economic justice and say nothing against racism while doing so).
But he essentially won the argument on economic justice issues in the party, and the platform the two campaigns joined forces to create in Philly reflected that. That amazing platform was largely why we left Philly with a 12 point lead in the polls. Had the campaign emphasized that platform and reminded young Sanders volunteers that they had won major victories in the platform language, our ticket's lead would likely have been larger and turnout would likely have been larger. Instead(as major figures in the Clinton-Kaine campaign and the party leadership have admitted, the campaign spent far too much time and money on the useless tactic of attacking Trump's personal sleaziness. The campaign did so even when it knew, less than a month into the campaign, that the voters didn't CARE that Trump was a sleaze-they wanted to know what WE had to offer. Rather than running ads emphasizing the platform, rather than treating Sanders people as partners in the campaign, the focus was almost entirely on attack ads, and the only issue that was mentioned with any real frequency was choice-an important issue, but not the only issue that matters and NOT the only issue where our position was more popular than the conservative position.
And, I'm talking about casting the party in the image of the American people-the overwhelming majority of whom want us to be just as tough on corporate power as the GOP is subservient to it. Economic justice as a set of issues isn't unpopular(many Clinton supporters, when polled in the primaries, supported the Sanders economic positions-they just believed that HRC was "more electable" .
If we go totally anti-Sanders on economic issues(as you appear to want)we are not a progressive party. WE are simply a party of the more socially enlightened wing of the 1%. We can't do anything to help the working and kept-from-working poor.
It's about issues, it's about the people...it's NOT treating Bernie like a golden calf or something weird and creepy like that.
In the real world, the voters don't want TWO parties that put the rich about everyone else on economic issue.
Why do you?
In the real Texas world, most of the Dems who've lost every nearly every statewide race since 1994 had economic positions iike Lloyd Bentsen, not Jim Hightower(a man who won statewide races for years there, losing only in 1994 when EVERY Dem lost badly statewide, including the Lloyd Bentsen-John Connally types).
Pro-corporate economics can't elect Democrats in this country. And even if it could, people elected on pro-corporate programs can't do anything progressive on any issues other than LGBTQ rights and choice-important issues, issues all of us are united in supporting, but not the only issues that matter in this country.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)Sanders did not win all of the arguments and his appeal mainly works for a narrow class of voters that does not include key elements of the Democratic base. Look at the Virginia results. The sanders endorsed candidate was rejected by African American voters for a reason. Pretending that these results do not matter is not helping your attempt to remake the Democratic Party into the image of Sanders.
Your analysis of Texas politics is amusing but wrong. I hate to break it to you but Texas politics are driven a great deal by race. The Texas GOP has gerrymandered the state like crazy and the Texas GOP is great at using the politics of racial division to win races. Economic messages are not the answer in the real world. The Texas GOP is relying on voter suppression tools to keep non-whites and poor people from voting. No economic message is going to counter these efforts. I trained 200+ poll watchers last cycle to try to combat the GOP voter suppression efforts. The report of the Texas Civil Rights Project is based on the reports generated by the hot line I worked on http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Confusion-over-voter-ID-laws-hindered-voters-new-11223116.php?platform=hootsuite We had "greeters" at polling locations telling voters to go away if they did not have a correct id. My poll watchers documented this and we got the county to change these greetings by fighting.
Again, please get out into the real world. Campus politics are not a substitute for real world experience. I live in the real world. The TCRP report cited above is what we are dealing with in Texas. No silly economic message is going to change things.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)You obviously know what you're talking about re Texas politics. The OP should listen, instead of theorizing.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)A simplistic economic message will not work in the real world. Sanders simplistic economic message has not work in the real world. Look at a number of races. I see that Canova is abandoning the sanders message to go with the Seth Rich stupidity when he runs against DWS next time. Virginia and Montana are both good examples of the sanders economic message not working.
In Texas, the GOP is relying on voter suppression and gerrymandered districts. A simplistic economic message will not work in the face of these real world barriers.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There's nothing in the real world that discredits my views.
Especially not in Texas, where Dems have been running and losing as economic conservatives for decades now. Yes, race is involved, but people of color aren't AGAINST economic justice-they are usually to the left of white Dems on those issues, it's just that they justly want the fight against racism centered-and news flash, nobody is AGAINST centering it, nor does centering it.
And there's no contradiction between supporting economic justice and fighting at the same time to make sure people of color and the poor get to vote. We can do BOTH. Do you really think economic justice activists are unable to go to polling stations and make sure people want to vote?
A lot of Sanders people are working as poll watchers and doing just as much as economic justice opponents like yourself to make sure everyone can vote. Voting rights has never been an issue that only HRC supporters cared about.
Why do you turn everything into either/or? Why do you insist on framing it as Sanders OR Clinton? Voting rights OR economic justice? Economic justice OR social justice?
A message that offers no change on economic issues has nothing to offer poor people, of ANY race.
The true real world need is to fight for justice for the people-whether social OR economic. You can't have one without the other.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)Ken-you claimed to be a college student earlier when you discussed attending an event at Red Square with your fellow students (at the Univ. of Washington). https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9210070 (I have saved this post in case you delete it) Notwithstanding that admission, your posts provide me with all of the evidence that I need to evaluate your "real world" experience. Ken you can make any claims you want but no one has to believe these claims. I have read enough of your posts and exchanges some really funny PMs with you and these posts and PMs provide me with all of the evidence that I need to evaluate your real world experience.
My opinion on your platform is based on my experience in the real world and it is my opinion that your platform or proposals will not work in the real world. It is clear that you are a college student who has on idea as to how politics works. Sanders economic message failed in Texas and failed badly. Sanders economic message failed in New York with Teachout, Florida with Canova, Montana against a candidate who committed assault and battery and most recently in Virginia. Where has Sander's economic message worked outside of Vermont.
Your claim to understand Texas politics cause me to laugh very very hard. Texas Democrats are losing due to GOP runs races based on racial division and the Texas GOP uses voter suppression. Most Texas races are decided on race which is why the GOP has been so successful in their gerrymandering efforts. The fact that most Texas races are decided on race is also what allowed the three judge panel to find that the Texas GOP engaged in intentional racial discrimination in the Texas redistricting case. Sanders message has no chance in Texas and your claims that this message would work was so funny that you nearly cost me a keyboard. In the real world, the courts are finding that the Texas GOP engaged in intentional discrimination.
Have fun in college. My son was the president of his University's young democrat organization when he was in college. My youngest is very active with the LGBTQ group on campus. Both daughters have attended national conventions. College is a good place to start to get a concept as to how the real world works. Being a college student does not disqualify you from understanding politics. All three of my children were or are very active and knowledgeable about politics while they were in college. One of my friends in the local Democratic lawyers association ran for US Senate while my son was president of his young democrats club and got to introduce her at a rally. My son and my friend had fun talking about this experience at a fundraiser last year. My youngest daughter participated in some protests of the Texas bathroom bill.
While you finish your college degree, I will continue to work in the real world. I am attempting to convince a lawyer friend to run against a supporter of the Texas bathroom bill. I am really excited about this race. This lawyer is a really strong and capable person. I am working with a state representative and the NAACP to see if the three judge panel will look at the gerrymandered districts in my county. I attended a fund raiser for the lady who is going to run against the Harris County election administrator in 2018. The current Harris County election administrator is a tea party nut case who did his best to undermine the ruling in the Texas voter id case. There is a great deal of work to be done in the real world.
Your concepts and platform have not worked in the real world. Even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt as to your so-called real world experience, I would still reject your platform or proposals. The fact that you really think that your platform will work in Texas is truly funny. So for that platform has failed and failed badly every place it has been tried. The voters in Virginia strongly rejected the Sanders endorsed candidate who was running on your amusing platform. Remaking the party into the image of sanders will not work with key elements of the base including the African American voters who voted down the Sanders endorsed candidate in Virginia. The facts show that your platform does not work in the real world.
Please get out into the real world. It is a good way to learn as to how things work. In the meantime, enjoy your college days.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I retired from the state of Alaska in 2016, after spending years as a steward on the Alaska Marine Highway System.
I'm 56, a widower and a grandfather. Older people go back to college all the time.
And I worked in the Democratic Party in Alaska for decades, after working in Democratic campaigns in Oregon going back to the Seventies.
You have no justification for personally maligning me. I have never treated you with any personal disrespect. Therefore, I am owed personal respect by you, as is everyone else who posts here.
Race plays a major role in Texas politics, as I've always said. So does class. Centrist Democratic campaigns can't do anything to overcome that. And I never dismissed the importance of defending voting access. You don't have to be against economic justice to be effective at making sure people can vote.
You foolish little college punk you! One day when you get older you'll be able to understand how it really is, once you've completed your education, loved and lost, and had some life experiences to color your worldview...
There has been an awful lot of vitriol thrown at you in this thread, and a kind of palpable condescension that should have no place here. You've handled it really, really well (I'd have been hidden by now for sure!) but this post made me spit out a little beer and laugh. Thanks!
Cary
(11,746 posts)You seem to go out of your way to make it all about you, like when you interpret my "Vote Democratic" to be about you. It isn't about you. You aren't important. If you read my posts I clearly state that we need to stop the nonsense and not allow our enemies to take our center.
Take one's center is a martial arts term. Literally you take away your opponent's center of gravity and you have a moment we call kiyo in Shotokan. At that moment you can attack your opponent.
We need to keep our center, Ken. You are not our center and I keep seeing you getting all bent out of shape because you always think things are about you.
Keep it simple. Focus on our goals. Be positive. Vote Democratic. Everything else is just blah blah blah and it does no one any good.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)...though someone seems to have objected to your soupçon of irritation in presentation. I found it very detailed, and chockful of info.
I live in California on the Central Coast, and get the Los Angeles Times. In recent weeks I've glanced over a few headlines for articles about the Calif Dem Party that disheartened me so much I couldn't bear to read them. Apparently my party, which has achieved electing a Dem governor, 2 US Senators, and a Dem majority in the State Houses, is being overrun by enthusiastic and determined Sanders supporters. There were rumbles of a civil war in the party.
Seriously, I felt ill at the prospect. Your post enumerates the reasons why I am more than wary.
Let me add only this to your list of places that are Not Vermont: California is also Not Vermont. We are as big or bigger than some countries, and incredibly diverse in every respect. Not Vermont.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)California used to be a purple state until the GOP did its prop 182 attack on Hispanic voters. I keep hoping that the Texas GOP will eventually go too far and wake up the Hispanic vote in Texas. Right now the Texas GOP has passed a horrible sanctuary city bill that is nastier than the old Arizona SB 1070 "show me your papers please" law.
I am working on the ground to fight and turn Texas blue. Texas is not going to turn blue with a silly economic message that failed.
We are making progress in Texas. Under the old Texas Democratic Party leadership we tried to win back white working class voters and wasted a ton of resources on east Texas. Now under Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa, we focusing on minority vote and we are making some progress. BTW, there are some sanders types who want to challenge Chairman Hinojosa because he is not focusing on white voters (i.e., the sanders economic message). I am friends with the Chairman and will be fighting these efforts.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)...it's conservative territory. That has to be reckoned with. The diversity is amazing -- we are just on the cusp of being a majority-minority state. Latinos, Asians, African Americans, immigrants from everywhere in the world -- plus us Anglos.
It's just not little Vermont, and never will be. Democrats who don't know how to compromise when necessary will soon find themselves out of power. We've been making great strides in opposing the Trump agenda thanks to Governor Jerry Brown, but he's being termed out. California has had a long string of Republican Governors ... including Schwartzenegger, who participated in the recall vote of a good Dem and with the help of truckloads of outside money made regime change happen. If that happens again, Trump's agenda won't get opposition here from where it counts.
George II
(67,782 posts)....if Democrats who are to the left of their opponents "keep losing", how can we win more by choosing candidates even further to the left?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It doesn't look like you're asking the question you meant to ask.
What we need in order to win is candidates who generate mass public enthusiasm. Obama managed that, and did so because the vast majority of people who voted for him thought he would be much further to the left in his approach to the presidency than he was.
That doesn't mean people didn't realize compromises might have to be made, but they thought he would finally be a president who mostly stood up to the right-wing attack machine, rather than letting them control the post-election narrative(and leaving it largely unchallenged when they spread the claim that his victory was not a vote for progressive transformation on the part of the public).
If our nominee's strategists had centered her fall campaign on the platform we created, a strongly popular platform that had us in a ten to twelve point lead going out of Philly, rather than centering it on going negative on Trump-when we already had years of proof that negative campaigning only works for Republicans-we would not have been in a situation where it looked-it wasn't true, but it LOOKED-as though our party itself thought our candidate and our ideas could not win on the merits.
We could have elected HRC in a landslide and withstood the Comey/Russian thing if we had been running a fall campaign based on what was good about our party and our candidate and our policies. We couldn't win, and we can never win again in any future election, by basing our strategy on saying "their candidate is a monster".
And we could have elected our nominee, the person we DID nominate, if her campaign had made sure to send her to the upper Midwest over and over again with a message that said "yes, we admit that you've been left behind economically, by presidents of BOTH parties, since at least 1981-THIS is what we're going to do to change that". Doing that would not have required us to say anything less about defending choice, OR about racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, or any of the other things we are all equally committed to fighting.
There are some answers for you.
I'm not saying we should have nominated Bernie. That discussion is over. What I'm saying is that a strategy of partnership, passion and engagement can get us votes we aren't getting now, and win those votes without abandoning anybody who votes for us now.
George II
(67,782 posts)We won't win more often if we choose candidates who are further to the left of those we're already losing to.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We can't choose candidates who aren't to the left of Republicans.
There would be no reason to nominate candidates who aren't different than the Right.
The reason this party exists is to be the progressive alternative to the GOP.
We have no reason to be here if we renounce that identity.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)has some novel idea about governance or income inequality...he d from the political scene...Sanders 'issues' are Democratic issues.
Response to Ken Burch (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)...is that the posters talk about Sanders Democrats like we are a tiny minority of the Democratic Party. In California they are actually a slight majority in the rank and file delegates (not Super-delegates though). By treating a sizable chunk of the Democratic base as a tiny minority to be ignored is self-defeating.
In the op what I view as conventional Democratic Party leadership is characterized as:
"The "all that matters is the big donors" faction will always guarantee that the party doesn't take progressive positions on any issues other than those that don't threaten the rich and those that can't liberate anyone. "'
While that strategy worked for a while in the 80's and part of the 90's, it's seen diminishing returns since Bill Clinton won his second term. Part of it is seeing what policies result from listening primarily to the big donors at the expense of everyone else. "Ending Welfare as we know it" has been a disaster - but not to the "big donors". NAFTA was a disaster for American manufacturing jobs* - but for the donor class it realized an old capitalist dream of cheap labor and "mobile" factories. For the jobs that remained, working primarily for the big donors made sure that the huge productivity boom in the US went into their pockets - not their workers, former workers and pension plans.
Another part, perhaps the larger part, is smart phone video. It makes having a public policy and a (very?) different private policy increasingly difficult if not impossible. When you exclude Democratic voters from your speeches, and acknowledge the duo policy positions, it DOES NOT inspire trust. I'm not saying Democratic figures shouldn't give speeches to private organizations for speaking fees - just that those speeches shouldn't be kept secret. Even just releasing a transcript would help with transparency.
If cash is still king in elections ( yes I realize you need money to run a campaign) then the last election would have been Hillary Clinton vs. John Ellis Bush-Bush and the person with the best funded campaign would have won. "Jebbie" didn't even make it through the initial culling of the GOP primary. Money is not the only factor in winning an election. It has been for so long that it angers the inside the beltway crowd (and fellow travelers) that exists by and for conventional inside-the-beltway wisdom. It means new strategies and tactics need to be developed, and worst of all that what was reliable ("all that matters is the big donors" doesn't work in the way it used to.
*If the the majority of job loss was due to automation why are there manufacturing jobs in China? Why were those workers trained by Americans who used to do those jobs?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)with the sizable majority among rank and file?
Expecting Rain
(811 posts)53% HRC vs 46% BS.
Must have been "rigged." 
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The result demonstrated widespread support for what his campaign fought for.
HRC probably won because the nomination was widely seen as already decided.
JI7
(93,550 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)This thread isn't Sanders V. Clinton as people or candidates.
We need the supporters of candidates in this party, and anyone else who wants progressive change as well, and we need the best ideas of each of those campaigns in this party: We need the emphasis Clinton's campaign made on social justice(a set of issues the Sanders campaign was actually always in full agreement with the Clinton campaign on, but did a poor job of communicating) and the economic agenda and grassroots spirit of the Sanders campaign.
And there are no inherent conflicts between both.
If we do what some here want and are ONLY a party of Clinton supporters and 2016 Clinton ideas, that leaves us stuck at 49% forever.
I'm posting as a person who wants the party to recover.
I don't care who we nominate in 2020.
I just want us to run on a program of social AND economic justice, because that combined emphasis(along with a less militaristic foreign policy, because at this point we're pretty much out of situations where the use of force can solve anything)is probably the only way to win.
I wish Secretary Clinton well and hope that, if we win in 2020, whoever we elect will nominate her to the Supreme Court.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)KTM
(1,823 posts)Yes, Bernie lost. But, as Ken keeps trying to point out, his vision and ideas won just shy of half of our (actively engaged) registered voters. IMHO, all the OP points out is that an opposing voice, a set of ideas and ideals, clearly won a sizeable portion of our base, and deserves our respect and inclusion. We ignore their votes and voices at our own peril.
You seem to think that losing by 400,000 votes means "you lost, go home."
We think "we won 43% of the vote" should mean less "GTFO" and more "hmmm, maybe we need to listen more closely to almost half the party."
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And the best ideas of Hillary's, we would only gain from that?
It's not about the person...it's about the ideas...and the ideas themselves were and are unassailable.
Let's find unity in equality.
We can't win any future elections if our attitude as a party is "we don't need anyone or anything else">
Economic justice and social justice do NOT conflict.
Economic issues effect everyone, not just white men.
We need both if we are to have either.
What happened in this country after 1965 proved that we can't have social justice WITHOUT economic justice.
Learn from history, and fight for justice for all who face injustice.
That doesn't mean one-size-fits-all.
It doesn't mean pretending institutional bigotry doesn't matter.
It means building a majority coalition for real change-change that excludes no one.
Now is the time for dialog...now is the time to work to together to shape such a program so that no one is left out(which is easy to do, because most of those who prioritize social justice are also in favor of economic justice, and virtually everyone who prioritizes economic justice has learned from the contradictions of the far-gone past and recognizes that economic justice cannot be built without an equal commitment to social justice
In "the real world", most people who march against police brutality and other forms of institutional racism also march against plant closings, in solidarity with Standing Rocks and in support of unions. And many if not most people who fought against things like the TPP and in solidarity with the struggles of working and kept-from-working people of ALL races are also strong supporters of Black Lives Matter and all other movements against grassroots and institutional racism.
It's time to admit that the notion of a rivalry between "social justice" and "economic justice" movements is a fiction. All there is are two sets of activists(with heavy convergence at all times between the two groups)who agree much more than disagree and are essentially on the same side of history with each other.
The justice struggles are distinct, but congruent..and we can heal any remaining divisions through dialog. Why not move to that, rather than fight to perpetuate a notion of division that serves no good purpose for anyone on our side of the spectrum?
This is about us as people, not about anybody seeking any particular office.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)Contrary to your claims, these platform planks would not work in the real world. Please get out into the real world and see how things work
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)In Alaska, "those planks" flipped a state House seat in Juneau that had been GOP for years, and flipped enough other seats to the Dems to allow the party to form a coalition that ended twenty-two straight years of partisan GOP control.
They elected Dems in a lot of other places.
And even though he ended up supporting Hillary, Bill DiBlasio was elected mayor of New York in a landslide on a Bernie-like platform in 2013.
In the REAL real world, the national party ran exactly the kind of fall campaign you want the party to run everywhere-no MENTION of the planks the Sanders campaign added, even though all of the ideas in those planks are popular in the polls-no effort to connect with young Sanders people other than to keep effectively shouting "You lost. You totally failed. All that you did was worth nothing. Now you HAVE to support us, and expect nothing in return". Almost no mention of even the small number of progressive ideas HRC supported(other than choice-which was treated as the ONLY issue that mattered). And an endless, pointless string of attack ads, even though we knew the whole time that those ads weren't swinging any voters our way and were only solidifying Trump's support by allowing him to pretend to be a victim.
We lost to Trump doing it your way...IN THE REAL WORLD!
And we might win tomorrow, but all that proves is that that's how you might win a seat like that. There are virtually no other seats anywhere close to being like the Georgia 6th in which we would even be remotely competitive.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)Your platform screams that you do not understand the real world. Even if I did believe that you had actually participated in politics in the real world.
We lost the national race due to Comey's attack on democracy 11 days prior to the race and massive Russian interference. Even then, Clinton had 3 million more popular votes than Trump.
As for the Georgia 6, the DNC and Ossoff kept sanders far away from that race. Ossoff is not running on the Sanders platform and has kept far away from Sanders.
Please get out into the real world. The Our Revolution people in my area are idiots but your group may be less stupid. Again try going to an Indivisible meeting and tell them your platform.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Being in "the real world" doesn't HAVE to mean believing that the Dems can only win if we're centrist.
We had a great platform. If HRC had made that platform the centerpiece of her campaign, her support wouldn't have dropped. Instead her strategists focused on attacking Trump. Most of the party leadership has admitted that doubling down on "going negative" didn't work.
And it isn't Sanders ideas versus Democratic ideas. You are not the voice of the Democratic Party. You're just one guy with one opinion-an opinion formed in a state where Dems haven't won a statewide race in twenty years, and every statewide race(statewide races can't be affected by gerrymandering)was run on YOUR "I ain't a liberal" template.
If we run only on Clinton ideas, we can't ever win majority support, because the young can never be brought out in large numbers in support of a centrist, left-hating presidential candidate.
BTW, if you're saying we lost because of Comey, you've just admitted that the Sanders delegates you've held a grudge against about Philly were blameless for the fall result-which means you admitted Bernie is blameless for the fall result.
What the fall proves is that we can't win by running a centrist rather than progressive in the fall while simultaneously screaming "you have to, you have to, you HAVE TO!" at people to the left of your comfort zone whose votes we need to win.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)Ken, you may believe that you have experience in the real world but your posts do not support that claim. Your proposed platform is not workable in the real world and your analysis relies on key demographics in the Democratic base changing their votes to support your platform. The sanders platform has not done well in any race and was rejected just recently in Virginia by African American voters.
If your claim about running a progressive candidate is the key, what happened to Feingold, Teachout and the other bernie supported candidates last fall. Sanders had a number of candidates who he supported and they did worse than Clinton in 2016. Sanders supported candidates under-performed compared to Clinton in 2016 https://extranewsfeed.com/bernie-sanders-was-on-the-2016-ballot-and-he-underperformed-hillary-clinton-3b561e8cb779
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It means that, while HRC-largely on the argument that she was supposedly "more electable"-did prevail, it indicates that Bernie's views on economics were and are popular in that state.
I recognize that HRC won, and that she was nominated legitimately, and I campaigned hard for her in the fall. So did a lot of other Sanders people.
Why is it so important to you to characterize the Sanders campaign as a total failure and to insist that nothing that campaign supports is popular or worth adopting?
You didn't want him nominated for president, but other than being dissatisfied with his views on race(his actual positions were just as antiracist as HRC's-he just didn't talk about the issue enough) what else about the positions he took offends you?
It's not as though people of color ever benefit from corporate control of the political discussion, OR from economic policies that put the 1% before the 99%.
And it's not as though people of color, from what I can see, would be harmed by a merger of ideas-which is actually what I personally support-that included the positions HRC publicly took on social justice AND the positions Bernie took on economic justice. That kind of a merger wouldn't leave anyone out in the cold-contrary to the inexplicable slur, it would NEVER put the interest of "white men earning $100,000 a year" over the interests of people of color)and it would never mean putting social justice on the back burner.
Why can't you be open to partnership and working together? What is so terrible about admitting, at long last, that the "Sanders v. Clinton" era is over? That it's about US, not any former presidential candidates?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)not because they liked her more but because she was more electable, because you say so.
LOL
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That doesn't mean they are intrinsically hostile to every idea the Sanders movement(a multiracial, multigender movement which grows more diverse each day) supports.
Why is it so important to you to hold to this view that the Sanders campaign was a total failure and that nothing it stood for should be part of this party?
It's not as though we gain anything if the party makes the choice you want and nothing of what the Sanders movement advocates becomes a permanent part of what we stand for.
Why can't you let the war be over?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)but just voted for her pragmatically?
why can't you admit a 7 point margin is not nothing
why can't you stop pretending that no one is persecuting you or any faction of the party.
you are not letting it go by creating thread after thread replaying bernie voters as oppressed by HRC voters. then when you get pushback you pretend that I/other hrc supporters started it.
it's super passive aggressive and you are not fooling me for a minute.
it is extremely sexist to deny women their victories, which is what happens when people pretend that HRC did not win by huge margins in CA and the overall primary.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why bring gender into this, when you know my feelings regarding HRC's candidacy have never had anything to do with her gender? She won. Her victory wasn't a total rejection of everything the Sanders campaign was about.
She won...but it was close to an even split on the issues and both her supporters and the Sanders supporters won a legitimate right to have a real say in where we go from now on.
It's enough to say a 7 point margin is a win. It wasn't a landslide and it didn't prove Bernie's ideas have no support.
What is the harm now of making the party into an equal partnership? Who does that harm? How does anything but good come from that?
What's the harm of being a party of economic as well as social justice? Only the rich are against us being for both, really.
What I'm fighting here is this push to drive all the Sanders people away and to ONLY be a party of HRC people and HRC ideas.
That kind of party has to stay stuck at 49% in presidential races and permanent minority status in every congressional and legislative race.
It can't be a party that is ever popular again.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)I do think your issues with hrc and your continuing demeaning of her voters are both gender based. You make it clear every time you interact with me.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What do I have to do? Pretend it was a landslide? Accept the idea that it was a total rejection of ideas to HRC's left?
It wasn't. If it had been, there wouldn't have been people all over the country saying "my heart's with Bernie-my head's with Hillary".
I opposed HRC in the primaries for one reason and one reason only...she was the less-progressive candidate.
I supported her all-out once she was nominated.
And I'm not attacking her here. I wasn't even MENTIONING here in this thread until you brought up the California primary.
Why are you so fixated on that primary? What difference does it make now?
You totally have me wrong on gender.
If a man had run on her exact same set of policy issues, I'd have had the exact same feeling about that man as I did about her.
I NEVER, under any circumstances, support the less-progressive candidate in ANY primary-I've never been anywhere where the greater progressive good was ever served by doing so. It really was about the issues.
And I supported her in the fall. I campaigned for her in the fall.
What more did I have to do?
This isn't about her.
You brought up the primaries.
I'm about the future.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)And I'm obsessed with the primaries ?
Some people might get fooled by this passive aggressive shit, but I'm not one of them.
It's you who won't let this primary go by constantly making some people the victims of the establishment etc.
This whole thread is about being obsessed with the primary.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)Gothmog
(179,305 posts)The real world is telling you that the Sanders platform is not the answer to all problems. Please listen to the voters.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And I've proved I live in the real world, where a bland centrist fall campaign based on almost nothing but attack ads led to us losing what should have been an unlosable election.
Bland, timid complacent centrism can't be the path to victory. If it was we'd never have ended up with Trump.
Centrism can't beat racism either. It never has in Texas.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)Sanders went all in on that race against a weak GOP candidate
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Montana had mail-in ballots and most people had voted by then.
The result would have been exactly the same with an "I ain't one of them liberals" candidate.
Gothmog
(179,305 posts)The Sanders platform did not work in a mainly white state. The party needs to rely on its base of African American, Jewish and Latino voters and these voters are not buying the sanders platform.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They aren't against economic justice(African-Americans are generally to the left of white voters on that issue), and they aren't even against standing up to Netanyahu in his stupidly hardline policies towards the Palestinians. They voted for Obama when he stood up to Netanyahu.
On this issue, it sounds as though it's about you personally seeing any criticism of the Israeli government as anti-Semitism.
In Montana, we cut a 20 point margin in 2016 to six points-the same margin your guy Ossoff(to whom I donated)seems to have lost tonight after running a "screw the left" campaign.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)
Beartracks
(14,560 posts)... AND viable candidate on the ballot; and 2) never think that a Democratic candidate is the same as a Republican.
=========
romanic
(2,841 posts)Because there will be Democrats who will always ATTACK and GNASH their teeth against Bernie because somehow, he and his supporters allowed Trump to win over Hillary or some bullcrap they keep pulling out of their asses. That and they'll continue to apply purity tests against Bernie in regards to race issues and say he's racist or some other bullcrap. They'll never learn. smh
KTM
(1,823 posts)that this thread dropped like a stone the moment a huge foot went into someones mouth. You sat here and condescended to this fellow forum member repeatedly, insultingly... all on your falsely assumed notion that Ken Burch was just a college kid that you could talk down upon - as if that was somehow acceptable even if it were true.
You talked to him like a child, repeatedly, you insulted him non-stop throughout the thread... and you even posted AFTER you found out your assumption was wrong... but there is no apology; the horde just vanished into thin air the moment it became clear that the basis for all your insults was a false assumption.
Were he to have taken the tone you did, had he even approached the insulting tone you took, you would have swarmed him with alerts and given him a hide. He took the high road. He listened to our nominee, and lived the mantra - when they go low, we go high.
Several of you owe Ken an apology, and should not be taken seriously until you own your mistake publically and issue a much deserved mea culpa.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)