You Need To Stop

[berni_mccoy]

The infighting is going to tank this party and any chance the Democratic party has of growing its numbers in 2018 or winning the executive back in 2020. It is that plain and simple.

I was a Sanders supporter and, like 90% of Sanders supporters, not only did I vote for Clinton in the GE but I supported her. She won the primary and no one can say she didn't earn her place in the GE. Certainly, she has been the most demonized candidate in the history of politics and I, like many other Sanders supporters, would agree she has not been treated fairly.

The small percentage of Sanders supporters who did not vote for Hillary were never really Democrats anyway. They were people who were independents who believed in Sanders and were enticed away.

Rehashing the fact that < 10% of Sanders supporters voted for some other candidate isn't going to change where we are.

And turning Sanders into the enemy is certainly not going to help.

And turning on Sanders supporters is going to hurt worse than you think.

Please let go of this. We are where we are and it is what it is. We must fight the bigger fight and focus on the real issue.

I cannot believe we are still having these fights here.

[NurseJackie]

1. So the other 10% get a free pass?

And turning on Sanders supporters is going to hurt worse than you think.

Nobody is doing that. Why are people so sympathetic to the Stein voters and non voters? Why defend them? Why coddle them?

[berni_mccoy]

2. As I said, they were likely never Democrats

And most were independents. Bernie had a strong independent pull and some of the independents he pulled were conservatives.

[NurseJackie]

6. So why all the concern for them?

What's this affinity? Why the sympathy? Why the defense? Why does the "90%" feel so protective of the "10%" who (as you suggest) probably weren't Democrats to begin with?

Why should non-Democrats decide party business and party direction and party policies? Why should non-voters and protest-voters and Stein voters have their egos flattered?

This "go-along to get-along" defense is just marching our party off the edge of the cliff. Fickle non-voters and non-Democrats are aimless and follow butterflies on the wind. Fuck that shit!

Non-voters and Stein-voters deserve NOTHING from me. They can go fuck themselves.

[berni_mccoy]

8. I think you need to re-read my OP. There is no defense or sympathy for them.

As I said, they were never likely Democrats anyway and it's not worth destroying our party over that 10%.

[NurseJackie]

10. Nobody is doing that.

it's not worth destroying our party over that 10%.

Nobody is doing that.

But it's very revealing to see who is coming to the defense and aid of these non-and-Stein voters. And I have to ask myself "why". Why defend Stein voters? What's the motivation? Why they sympathy for non-and-Stein voters?

Who are these people who are so sympathetic to non-and-Stein voters... and what's their motivation?

Think about it. Be honest. The answers may surprise you. It certainly opened my eyes.

[melman]

23. What's the motivation for people that flood the board with negativity

day after day after day?

[Chakaconcarne]

42. Me thinks they are now trolling...

6 months ago....No. But now, Trolling.

[G_j]

51. sadly

Last edited Wed Sep 6, 2017, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

it feels that way

[leftstreet]

24. The OP did not 'defend' or 'aid' or 'sympathize' with Stein voters

Nice try

[NurseJackie]

30. Then why should anyone stop calling-out the non-and-Stein voters?

The OP did not 'defend' or 'aid' or 'sympathize' with Stein voters

Then why should anyone stop calling the non-and-Stein voters out? To discourage anyone from expressing their contempt and disgust with non-and-Stein voters is the same as "protecting" and "defending" them. It's an expression of sympathy.

Nice try

Nice try, yourself. I'm smarter than I look.

[leftstreet]

33. Is Hillary running again?

Is that what this is all about?

[NurseJackie]

37. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Please clarify.

[progressoid]

45. Because it's a waste of time and energy.

Who is the bigger enemy, Stein or Trump? Stein or Pence? Stein or Ryan? Stein or Grassley? Stein or McTurtle? Stein or Fox Newz?

Why obsess with this Stein housefly while the GOP locusts are descending upon us.

[SunSeeker]

83. The "Stein housefly" helped get Trump elected.

But for Stein voters, Trump would not be in the White House.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

91. But for just about every demographic that didn't vote for Hillary

Trump would not be in the White House. Useless information.

[SunSeeker]

98. No, those other "demographiics" never claimed to be progressive.

Stein claimed she was fighting for the progressive cause and conned a lot of people into voting for her, even though by doing so they were giving their votes to Trump. We can't just forget about it and let that con happen again.

[progressoid]

101. Then we should be bashing Union Members too. 42% of them voted for trump.

And registered Democrats. 8% voted for him
What about the LGBT voters? 14% voted for trump.
Let's not forget the Latino voters: 28% for trump.
Asian voters: 27% for trump.
Or hell, what about the millions of registered Democrats that didn't even bother to fucking vote!

But, yeah, I guess it's more important to whine about the 1% that Stein got.




p.s. Here's a little secret. There will be third party candidates in 2020 too. Just like there have been in every fucking election.

[SunSeeker]

105. None of those thought they were voting for a progressive. nt

[progressoid]

117. So they get a pass?

Or, more precisely, the Democratic Party gets a pass for losing them?

There is something seriously wrong when millions of union members, POC, LGBT, etc., jump ship. Those people were a huge part of our base and should have voted DEM. But they went for the racist, misogynist, ill-educated, inexperienced, corrupt, ex-reality show star instead.

[SunSeeker]

121. Bashing Dems and the DNC isn't going to bring them into the fold. nt

[progressoid]

127. I'm not actually advocating "bashing" them.

I mention them because our energies should be spent bringing them back into the fold. Rather than wasting it on all of this fury toward third party candidates.

[JustAnotherGen]

108. Retreat NJ

Retreat!

[Heartstrings]

119. Because maybe, just maybe

They're having buyers remorse, or chooser remorse, call what you will....these are voters we need to swing our way and let go of whatever swung them Stein's way....

We have a much better chance of swaying the Stein voters than we do the trumpsters, so let's focus on 2018 and do just that. If we have Stein voters reading some of these comments our chances of them seeing the light isn't going to happen....

Focus, Midterms, Focus!

[NurseJackie]

125. Stein-voters are a waste of time. Fuck 'em! Better use of time would be...

... to get more people registered with the Democratic Party and to remove barriers and obstacles that prevent people from voting. Stein-voters are dead-enders. They're the "burn-it-down" faction. Why would I want to welcome those kooks and loons into the party workings? Trying to sway a "destroy-to-rebuild" Stein voter would be like talking to a rubber doorstop wedge. Total waste of time and effort.

[Heartstrings]

131. I disagree

They have a much better chance of swinging....although I do understand your anger.

Now the term "fuck them all" can and should be used for all the trump voters however....

Much better use of energy to focus on 2018 than to chastise the Stein voters, we can kill them with kindness to bring them into our camp....just my opinion.

[NurseJackie]

134. It's short-sighted to invest so heavily in kooky and unreliable Stein voters.

They have a much better chance of swinging....although I do understand your anger.

Nope. Stein-voters are worthless. The effort spent on "converting" one Stein-voter could gain and enable dozens others.

we can kill them with kindness to bring them into our camp

No! They are toxic. Unreliable. Treacherous. Traitors. Fuck the Stein-voters.

I have no tolerance for Stein-voters or their Stein-sympathizers or Stein-collaborators or Stein-defenders or Stein-protectors or Stein-apologists.

[Gore1FL]

153. You can't constantly tell people to fuck-off and then act shocked when they do. nt

[NurseJackie]

154. Nobody is doing that. But what I *can* do...

... is to be indignant and resolute in my opposition that those voters (as well as the Stein-sympathizers, -defenders, -protectors, -allies, -collaborators, etc) should be welcomed with open arms. Fuck 'em!

[Gore1FL]

155. Do you blame Stein voters for Clinton's loss?

If so, please explain how driving them away is a good idea.

[NurseJackie]

158. Effort better spent elsewhere.

If so, please explain how driving them away is a good idea.

Repetitive questions. Asked and answered elsewhere in this thread. Go look for yourself. You already know the answer anyway.

[Autumn]

132. How many registered Democrats chose to sit out the election in 2016 Jackie?

[NurseJackie]

136. See above.

[BrooklynTech]

202. Give it a rest

[NurseJackie]

208. Or what?

[LiberalLovinLug]

209. Why do it on DU is the point

Go to JPR or some RW site to vent your hatred.

Screaming insults at Bernie voters on OPs in here means one of two things.

1. You actually have convinced yourself that there is any kind of relevant percent of ex-Bernie supporters that voted against Hillary left here. (When in fact you do this as a way to invent an enemy that is close enough to shout at in order to vent at others expense in order to feel "good" )

2. You message is directed towards any DU Democrat that dared to consider an alternative to Hillary in the primary. (Yet balk at being accused of wanting a coronation from the start)

[NurseJackie]

211. Well...

209. Why do it on DU is the point
Go to JPR or some RW site to vent your hatred.

Why should I be the one to be bullied away? Wouldn't it make more sense for the Stein-voters and Stein-lovers (and assorted defenders, sympathizers, apologists, collaborates, etc) be the ones to "go to JPR or some RW site"?

Screaming insults at Bernie voters on OPs in here means one of two things.

Nobody is doing that. And if they are, then shame on them! I'm not doing that, in any case.

1. You actually have convinced yourself that there is any kind of relevant percent of ex-Bernie supporters that voted against Hillary left here.

I've done no such thing.

2. You message is directed towards any DU Democrat that dared to consider an alternative to Hillary in the primary.

I've done no such thing.

(Yet balk at being accused of wanting a coronation from the start)

LOL. I'd totally forgotten about that. Yes, that was offensive.

[PatrickforO]

224. I hear you, but it's kind of a waste of life force. Speaking for myself, I'm active as I can be

in the resist movement, calling, writing, emailing, petitions, donations and certainly writing and speaking to young Dems in my own state.

I'm telling them we need to talk about kitchen table issues to win elections. Most people worry about getting laid off and losing their healthcare. About making ends meet, and why they can't seem to get ahead. Why life feels empty. Why their children have to borrow so much to go to college. If they are in their fifties, like me, they are worried about their earned benefits (Social Security and Medicare) being in place when they can't work any more.

That's what we need to be talking about in stump speeches, particularly those designed to draw in independent voters, who outnumber both Dems and Republicans.

Any politician who is ever elected into office needs to remember they now represent ALL the people in their district or state, even those who did not vote for them. And they need to work hard to educate the people in their area about issues. Most of the newsletters I get from Representatives and Senators in my state are so much bunk. Trump and these radical libertarian sociopathic motherfuckers don't get that, fine, so we need to focus on winning some elections.

This also, of course includes efforts to end gerrymandering, get 'national popular vote' legislation passed, and fight tooth and nail against bullshit voter suppression measures.

Can we win? Sure.

But not unless we let go of the temptation to lay blame.

At least that's what I'm doing. Everyone else is free to do as they will, as well. Let's just hope we can all get in step in time to save the republic because it is that bad right now. We're a centimeter away from living in a fucking dictatorship or becoming wage slaves in the living hell of unrestrained capitalism, which is what Koch and the other billionaire freaks want.

Besides, if Stein colluded with the Russians as well, then she also is a traitor. Just like Trump and his criminal cartel.

[alarimer]

242. I endorse this.

A platform other than "We're not as bad a Trump" is what is needed.

People don't really care about the Russian issue (though the should) but they DO care about jobs, about health care, and about education.

[Break time]

40. Hmmm

Not a thing in the OP mentions non-voters or stien voters.... what's your point???

[Sucha NastyWoman]

92. She doesn't need a point

She just likes to pick fights

Its what she does

[Madam45for2923]

150. This is a touch attack-y!

Sucha NastyWoman
92. She doesn't need a point

She just likes to pick fights

Its what she does

[Break time]

223. I guess

Best thing to do with her then is the ignore option....

[RandomAccess]

116. Your questions are very revealing

I would encourage you to reflect on them at some length.

There is no "defense" of anyone going on (depending, I suppose, on what your definition of "defense" is -- more on that later), but there IS -- clearly revealed in your questions -- a strong desire to blame, punish and ostracize, which is anything but unifying. Actually, it's the opposite of unifying.

To state the truth, that some non-Hillary Bernie supporters were never Democrats anyway, is NOT a defense. It's an objective fact. Maybe you could show us the path through your logic on that. Some were Republicans, some were Libertarians, quite a few were Greens, and some were Independents. Yet, you want to hold them accountable for not voting for Hillary?

And while you're at it, how about another path through your logic on wanting to continue to demonize ANYONE who leans left? Like those Stein voters. I can't stand Stein myself, and as a rule don't have much respect for Greens in the U.S. since I've never seen them capable of organizing themselves into a viable political party. But it sure seems to me far more productive to try to lure them IN as potential Dem voters instead of continuing to just hate on them.

So, yeah, every single person who didn't vote for Hillary, or didn't vote at all, is responsible for her defeat. They all ruined your life, each and every one of them. It's true.

Now, MOVE THE F ON. Get over it. You're not going to help anything, most especially yourself, by absolutely, positively REFUSING to let it go. The people you're hating on aren't hurt by it at all, but you are. And far more importantly, your (our) cause is (that is, assuming you cause includes wanting more Democrats elected).

EDITED TO ADD:
More confirmation:

Then why should anyone stop calling the non-and-Stein voters out? To discourage anyone from expressing their contempt and disgust with non-and-Stein voters is the same as "protecting" and "defending" them. It's an expression of sympathy.

Please explain what you think doing so accomplishes. Seriously. What good does it to to "call out" these people? I'd really like to know, because I can't figure out any positive benefit to ANYONE beyond venting your spleen. Please enlighten me.

And just for giggles, let me point out that Stein voters didn't "owe" it to you or Hillary a vote for her. (In fact, no one did, but I'll leave it at Stein voters for simplicity.) Why do you think they did??

[ancianita]

189. Yes, they are doing that. By hitting individuals here w/ vengeful trolling-for-uniformity attack.

Stop defending it.

Stop trying to "reveal" and "bust out" those you imagine disloyal. Stop asking snark questions.

I was here every hour of every day in this election. No one here was sympathetic to non- and Stein voters. Stop making stuff up.

I read these X vs. Y threads here everyday. Stop with the snarky implications of dishonesty by ANY 10% for ANY dogmatic reason.

Stop your divisiveness.

Stop defending those attacking fellow Democrats.

Report each and every alleged "suspect" you can name to MIRT and then stop.

[NurseJackie]

192. The accusation is false.

189. Yes, they are doing that. By hitting individuals here w/ vengeful trolling-for-uniformity attack.

Nobody is doing that.

Stop defending it.

It's a false accusation.

Stop trying to "reveal" and "bust out" those you imagine disloyal. Stop asking snark questions.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What exactly are you objecting to?

I was here every hour of every day in this election. No one here was sympathetic to non- and Stein voters. Stop making stuff up.

I recommend that you pay closer attention to the things that are happening around you. It's right here. Closer than you think. Just look. Scroll.

There are some who appear to believe (or who are making strong suggestions) that Stein-voters and Trump-voters are merely "lost sheep" and need to be welcomed back into the fold with open arms.

I read these X vs. Y threads here everyday. Stop with the snarky implications of dishonesty by ANY 10% for ANY dogmatic reason.

How would you prefer the Stein-voters and Trump-voters be handled?

Stop your divisiveness.

I'm not being divisive.

Stop defending those attacking fellow Democrats.

I'm doing no such thing, and you know it.

Report each and every alleged "suspect" you can name to MIRT and then stop.

Unfortunately, not all who are "suspect" can be acted upon by MIRT. The MIRT team has a very limited window of opportunity during which they can act. (I think you know that already, however.)

[alarimer]

240. Because any Democrat needs some independents to win.

It's just the math right now. Until they can get non-voters to turn out (and Clinton clearly couldn't), this will be necessary.

[Autumn]

11. There are always third party candidates in our elections. In every one of our 58 presidentil

elections since 1788, third party or independent candidates have won at the very least 5.0% of the vote and garnered electoral votes 12 times (21%).

Jill Stein ran in 2012. Obama still won, with many of the same voters who voted for Trump in 2016. Want to know what happend there? Obama worked on getting those votes.

There were 22 Presidential candiates on my ballot this last election and will be close to the same amount in 2020. Third party candidates are nothing new.

It's not a defense, it's a fact of life. You don't like it, work on getting rid of those third party candidates or work on getting the third party vote, like those Stein voters. Your choice.

In 2020 there will be third party candidates running again.

[mountain grammy]

12. There you go.. being all reasonable and sane.

[Autumn]

15. I guess I'm too old, I remeber when the Independent voters were desired by the Democratic party.

29% of American voters are Democrats, 26% are Republicans and 42% identify as Independents. It's a fool who wants such a pure party that they don't want any Independents in their party or their votes.

. http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx

[riderinthestorm]

19. Yup. Time to get out and get those votes nt

[Ligyron]

104. and somehow motivate those who couldn't be bothered.

Hopefully, this Trump disaster will teach them a lesson.

[mountain grammy]

103. I know, right?

I used to be unmoveable on this subject, believing that choosing "Independent" meant not standing for something, you know the saying, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. Bernie Sanders helped change my thinking on this. I used to listen to his "lunch with Bernie" hour on Thomm Hartmann and think, this guy's got it! He answered questions from callers, even those who were obviously conservative. Bernie always gave honest, reasonable, intelligent answers.

[Arazi]

13. The lumping together of Indy Bernie supporters with Stein supporters is irritating tho

It's pervasive and deliberate here and only here afaik. Weird

[Autumn]

17. Stein got roughly 1% of the people who voted. She was irelevent.

[riderinthestorm]

21. I'm sick of the angry energy wasted on her. Wish these folks would get to work on the future

Local elections, 2018...anything. The Democratic party is shrinking. We have work to do.

[Autumn]

39. Trump is already campaigning for 2020 but Jill Stein and Bernie still breathe so....

[riderinthestorm]

96. For real! FFS... nt

[NurseJackie]

32. LOL!

[Autumn]

54. LOL!

There are always third party candidates in our elections. In every one of our 58 presidential

elections since 1788, third party or independent candidates have won at the very least 5.0% of the vote and garnered electoral votes 12 times (21%).

Jill Stein ran in 2012. Obama still won, with many of the same voters who voted for Trump in 2016. Want to know what happend there? Obama worked on getting those votes.

There were 22 Presidential candiates on my ballot this last election and will be close to the same amount in 2020. Third party candidates are nothing new.

It's not a defense, it's a fact of life. You don't like it, work on getting rid of those third party candidates or work on getting the third party vote, like those Stein voters. Your choice.

In 2020 there will be third party candidates running again.

That all I have to say to you. Have a wonderful day.

[NurseJackie]

57. I can do that too! Cutting and pasting is fun! Quick and easy! LOL!

A person getting 1% of the vote is irelevent, YMMV.

Indeed mileage does "vary". That's why it's disingenuous to focus on the "1%" and ignore the electoral margins in key states. She was very relevant and as a result, we have Trump in the White House.

We also have a lot of giddy "burn-it-down" types ... and those types have an uncomfortable number of defenders, protectors, and apologists.

That all I have to say to you.

We'll see.

Have a wonderful day.

You too!

[Autumn]

63. Maybe we should focus on the Democrats who stayed home this last election?

[NurseJackie]

67. We should focus on outside interference and voter suppression.

"That all I have to say to you."

When does that part start?

[Autumn]

69. Do you know how many registered Democratic voters chose not to vote in 2016 Jackie?

I do.

"That all I have to say to you."

On that part I changed my mind, as long as you are talking to me I'll talk back. I'm retitrd and I have all day.

[NurseJackie]

71. LOL!

I'm retitrd and I have all day.

I figured as much.

On that part I changed my mind,

Good to know. Lesson learned. From now on, I'll take everything you say with a grain-of-salt.

[Autumn]

74. Do you know how many registered Democratic voters stayed home in 2016?

[brush]

80. I agreed. Dems always work hard to get out the vote but until we recognize that repugs work just...

as hard to suppress our votes, it's all a wash.

We have to combat their cheating.

They cheat because it's the only way they can win.

[NJCher]

76. It is a fact

in the field of persuasion, that one always starts with the people who are already biased toward your cause, but who for whatever reason, are not motivated. I think, therefore, that you are correct.

We need to discover why those non-voters aren't motivated enough to go out and vote. Maybe after four years of tiny hands, if he makes it a full four years, they will be. They will need someone who has something to offer them, though.


Cher

[RandomAccess]

128. I only wish --

Indeed mileage does "vary". That's why it's disingenuous to focus on the "1%" and ignore the electoral margins in key states. She was very relevant and as a result, we have Trump in the White House.

I only wish you --- and all of us who end up spending time on all these utterly fruitless discussions because of people who just won't let it go -- would focus on correcting something that happened that was even MORE definitive and problematic:

Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922

Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824

Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393

http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/

[mcar]

106. Umm, not quite

Yes, she got 1%. No, it was not irrelevant

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308353-trump-won-by-smaller-margin-than-stein-votes-in-all-three

In two key states that President-elect Donald Trump won, his margin of victory was smaller than the total number of votes for Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

In Michigan, Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton by 10,704 votes, while Stein got 51,463 votes, according to current totals on the state’s official website.

And in Wisconsin, Trump’s margin over Clinton was 22,177, while Stein garnered 31,006 votes.

In Pennsylvania, meanwhile, Stein’s total of 49,485 votes was just slightly smaller than Trump’s victory margin of 67,416 votes, according to the state’s latest numbers.

[NurseJackie]

129. But focusing exclusively on the "1%" helps to minimize how toxic Stein was/is... right?

When people ignore the facts and sweep-aside REALITY, they're doing something that benefits the Putin-loving Jill Stein AND all of the Stein-voters and Stein-supporters. That type of behavior needs to be called out. People need to stop defending and protecting Stein. People need to stop making excuses for Stein. People need to stop pretending as if Stein voters has no bearing on the outcome of the election.

And... fuck that Stein-loving "burn-it-down" Susan "Hillary-is-worse-than-Trump" Sarandon! (Just in case anyone had forgotten how I feel about her.)

[mcar]

163. Yep

[Autumn]

148. I will ask you. How many registered Democrats sat out the election in 2016?

That should be the focus. That asshole Trump is already campaigning while we whine about some loser.
We have got to get Democrats to get out and vote. 29% of American voters are Democrats, 26% are Republicans and 42% identify as Independents.

How many registered Democrats sat out the election in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan? In Michigan alone 87,810 who voted did not cast a vote for president.

The Non-Voters Who Decided The Election: Trump Won Because Of Lower Democratic Turnout

https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-non-voters-who-decided-the-election-trump-won-because-of-lower-democratic-turnout/#37041bda53ab
Take Michigan for example. A state that Obama won in 2012 by 350,000 votes, Clinton lost by roughly 10,000. Why? She received 300,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. Detroit and Wayne County should kick themselves because of the 595,253 votes they gave Obama in 2012, only 518,000 voted for Clinton in 2016. Mote than 75,000 Motown Obama voters did not bother to vote for Clinton! They did not become Trump voters – Trump received only 10,000 votes more than Romney did in this county. They simply stayed at home. If even a fraction of these lethargic Democrats had turned out to vote, Michigan would have stayed blue.

Wisconsin tells the same numbers story, even more dramatically. Trump got no new votes. He received exactly the same number of votes in America’s Dairyland as Romney did in 2012. Both received 1,409,000 votes. But Clinton again could not spark many Obama voters to turn out for her: she tallied 230,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. This is how a 200,000-vote victory margin for Obama in the Badger State became a 30,000-vote defeat for Clinton.

This pattern is national. Clinton’s black voter turnout dropped more than 11 percent compared to 2012. The support for Clinton among active black voters was still exceedingly high (87 percent, versus 93 percent for Obama), but the big difference was the turnout. Almost two million black votes cast for Obama in 2012 did not turn out for Clinton. According to one plausible calculation, if in North Carolina blacks had turned out for Clinton as they had for Obama, she would have won the state. I saw a similar downtrend in my own eyes: I voted in a predominantly African American precinct in the south side of Chicago, and I can testify that the lines for early voting at the polling place were much shorter than they were in 2012.

[mcar]

166. I was responding to your claim that Stein's votes were irelevant

They were not. I fail to understand why some here on this board insist the Democratic party is doomed!!11 if we don't reach out to them.

We as Democrats should be reaching out to Democrats who didn't vote. Also realizing, of course, that some if not many, of those non voters were prohibited from voting because of voter suppression. The Forbes piece claiming they all simply stayed home ignores the reality of voter suppression.

[Autumn]

173. Steins campaign is as relevent as every other third party campaign has been in the past.

I'm not saying reach out to Stein voters and even I don't believe we are doomed!!11 if we don't reach out to them. I also don't believe they are the evil you and others portray them to be. They are voters exercising their right to vote, no matter how ill informed they may be.
I'm saying we need to reach out to those Independent voters and the Democratic voters who voted for Obama in 2012 and didn't vote for Hillary in 2016 for whatever reason.

[NurseJackie]

16. LOL!

Fuck non-and-Stein voters! They're the "burn-it-down" coalition. They're the "destroy-to-rebuild" faction.

Honestly, I don't understand why anyone feels compelled to protect and defend them. Why the affection? Why the affinity? What's the connection?

Non-and-Stein voters are fickle, finicky, disloyal and unreliable voters who deserve NOTHING except contempt. And that's exactly what they shall receive...

[Autumn]

18. Call it defense if you want. I call it the facts. Stein got 1% of the vote,

she's a fucking joke and was irelevent to the election and I won't waste any emotion or time on her. You may allow her to live in your head I'll pass.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029560803#post11

[NurseJackie]

25. Non-and-Stein voters can go fuck themselves. No seat at the table...

... no rewards for their temper tantrums. (An no patience for their defenders, apologists or for anyone who tries to rewrite history.)

she's a fucking joke and was irelevent to the election

True and false. Yes, she's a joke. No... she was not irrelevant. Repeating incorrect information and falsehoods about Stein and her actual impact doesn't make it true. Please stop.

I won't waste any emotion or time on her. You may allow her to live in your head I'll pass.

Sorry, I can't afford the luxuries of being able to "ignore" (ahem, cough-cough) those whose supporters believe that "destroy-to-rebuild" and "burn-it-down" are valid strategies. It must be nice to have so few cares in the world.

[Autumn]

31. Irelevent. Stein got 1% of the vote and Hillary won the election by over three million votes.

I don't do hate, it eats at a person.

[NurseJackie]

36. LOL! She wasn't irrelevant. You're ignoring facts.

Nice try, though.

I don't do hate, it eats at a person.

How do you feel about holding grudges? Does that "eat at a person" too?

[Autumn]

43. I don't do grudges either Jackie. A person getting 1% of the vote is irelevent, YMMV.

There are always third party candidates in our elections. In every one of our 58 presidential

elections since 1788, third party or independent candidates have won at the very least 5.0% of the vote and garnered electoral votes 12 times (21%).

Jill Stein ran in 2012. Obama still won, with many of the same voters who voted for Trump in 2016. Want to know what happend there? Obama worked on getting those votes.

There were 22 Presidential candiates on my ballot this last election and will be close to the same amount in 2020. Third party candidates are nothing new.

It's not a defense, it's a fact of life. You don't like it, work on getting rid of those third party candidates or work on getting the third party vote, like those Stein voters. Your choice.

In 2020 there will be third party candidates running again.

That all I have to say to you. Have a wonderful day.

[NurseJackie]

56. Okay. Sure. Whatever.

43. I don't do grudges either Jackie.

Okay. I'm not convinced, but okay.

A person getting 1% of the vote is irelevent, YMMV.

Indeed mileage does "vary". That's why it's disingenuous to focus on the "1%" and ignore the electoral margins in key states. She was very relevant and as a result, we have Trump in the White House.

We also have a lot of giddy "burn-it-down" types ... and those types have an uncomfortable number of defenders, protectors, and apologists.

That all I have to say to you.

We'll see.

Have a wonderful day.

You too!

[Autumn]

61. Good luck with your future endevors and make sure EVERY SINGLE Democratic voter get out and votes

You can't afford to have 3% stay home.

Democratic, Republican Identification Near Historical Lows

Democratic, Republican Identification Near Historical Lows
by Jeffrey M. Jones
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

42% identify as independents, 29% as Democrats, 26% as Republicans

Independent identification at least 40% for fifth consecutive year
Democrats maintain edge over GOP in party identification and leaning

PRINCETON, N.J. -- In 2015, for the fifth consecutive year, at least four in 10 U.S. adults identified as political independents. The 42% identifying as independents in 2015 was down slightly from the record 43% in 2014. This elevated percentage of political independents leaves Democratic (29%) and Republican (26%) identification at or near recent low points, with the modest Democratic advantage roughly where it has been over the past five years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx

[NurseJackie]

64. I knew you couldn't resist replying to me!

I'm irresistible!

[Autumn]

70. I'm retired. I have all day and as I explained to you, I changed my mind on tallking to you

[NurseJackie]

73. LOL!

I'm retitrd and I have all day.

I figured as much.

On that part I changed my mind,

Good to know. Lesson learned. From now on, I'll take everything you say with a grain-of-salt.

[Autumn]

79. Yeah I get it, that's the same cut and paste response from post# 71

Do you know how many registered Democratic voters stayed home in 2016? With those voters there would be no "outside interference" and voter suppression.

[NurseJackie]

81. See above.

[George II]

141. I forget when it was done, I think it was shortly after the convention, but three of us....

Last edited Wed Sep 6, 2017, 02:56 PM - Edit history (1)

...spent a couple of hours each removing EVERYONE from the Hillary Clinton blocked list - every single one. Our list was shorter than those in some other groups in the first place.

We now have only two people blocked - a one-post wonder and one who posted something absolutely foul which was subsequently removed.

We didn't discriminantly unblock people, we unblocked EVERYONE. It's known as letting bygones be bygones and being progressive.

[Autumn]

157. Sheshe and I deleted our conversation. OT but how is Jon Svitavsky's campaign going?

[George II]

162. I don't know and I don't care. Funny, someone else asked me about him...

...in another discussion just a few minutes ago.

I wonder what prompted the sudden interest in him today?

[Autumn]

169. You responed to me but she I deleted our conversation and I had read that you were planning on

working on his campaign so thought I would ask about him. Just making conversation.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1080487#post10

George II (23,372 posts)
10. I live a little more than an hour's drive from Vermont. Weather permitting, I'll be up there...

...to campaign for the Democrat.

[George II]

171. From two months ago and a thread in which you weren't even participating?

[Autumn]

172. Yes, that thread, I don't have to post in it to remember it. DU has a serch engine.

[George II]

176. Hmm, scary that you remember what I said 2 months ago and searched for it.

[Autumn]

180. Well George, you responded to me so I responded back with a safe topic because I see no reason to

respond to a post that is against the rules and could result in a hidden post. It's that simple.

[CloudsInMyCoffee]

246. Since his campaign to become Senator of Vermont imploded..

I heard he was running to become Senator of Verrit.

[Autumn]

247. It's imploded? Damn. Not enough boots on the ground?

[CloudsInMyCoffee]

249. More like "boots IN the ground"

after he was outed as a homophobe and an antisemitic weirdo.

[Autumn]

251. Homophobe and antisemitic weirdos are everywhere aren't they? And not just in the White House.

[CloudsInMyCoffee]

252. That's very true & also very sad

[AtheistCrusader]

28. I can't help but recall the fondness for Stein in this forum

when she was raising money and 'preparing' to mount a legal attack on the outcome of the election.
Fair weather friends I guess.

Good OP, totally agree. As a Bernie supporter in the Primary, I recall being told to 'get over it and move on' then, so surely this advice is sound and workable now.

[Autumn]

34. That cracked me up, that and the fondness for Comey after what he did.

[George II]

222. Trump won Michigan by 10,000 votes, Stein got 50,000 votes. Irrelevant? And that's only Michigan.

[Autumn]

250. It's really sad that so many Dems sat out the election Gerorge, that was another

contributing factor. Let us hope they don't do that again in 16 or 20.

[George II]

257. Those who sat out were one thing, 50K voting for Stein was another.

[Autumn]

258. Well George, what do you think should be done about 3rd party candidates?

Those Independents and other 3rd party supporters aren't going away, they have been running in our elections in the 58 presidential elections since 1788. On my ballot there were 20 third party candidate running for President plus the Dem and the Republican candidates. Hillary won my state easily. I think we Dems should go after their voters but the main problem that I see is the EC vote.

Hillary won the election by over 3 million votes. Those 50K voting for Stein shouldn't mean a damn thing and like I said IMO the EC is the second biggest problem we face.in our elections, rhe first being voter supression. And we Dems have got to get people out to vote in every election, not just when they fall in love with a candiadte, not just the Presidential elections. President Obama said the other day "Elections matter and every vote matters" That is a whole lot of truth right there. And if our Dem leadership won't reach out for those votes they won't get them. That's all there is to it. We can win, even with third party spoilers running, we have before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections

In the 58 presidential elections since 1788, third party or independent candidates have won at least 5.0% of the vote or garnered electoral votes 12 times (21%); this does not count George Washington, who was elected as an independent in 1788–1789 and 1792, but who largerly supported Federalist policies and was supported by Federalists. The last third party candidate to win a state was George Wallace of the American Independent Party in 1968, while the last third party candidate to win more than 5.0% of the vote was Ross Perot, who ran as an independent and as the standard-bearer of the Reform Party in 1992 and 1996, respectively. The most recent third party candidates to receive an electoral vote were Libertarian Ron Paul and Yankton Sioux Nation independent Faith Spotted Eagle who received a vote each from faithless electors in 2016.

[George II]

259. I was using Michigan as an example - those 50K votes weren't nationally, they were...

....in Michigan alone. So Stein got 50K votes in Michigan and Clinton lost Michigan by only 10K. So if she got 30K of those votes she would have won Michigan's 16 electoral votes. Similar situations in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc.

[Autumn]

260. Why do you think she lost those 50K votes in Michigan? Voter supression? It still goes back to

the problem of the EC. Hillary still won by 3 million votes.

[melman]

27. Rocky Horror

You know who's in that movie? The most hated of all hated people!

[leftstreet]

35. +1

[progressoid]

48. THIS

[lapucelle]

111. Those of us who had worked on the ground in 2000

Warned that 2016 felt a lot like that year's race. Even Krugman expressed fear that what happened to the Democratic in 2000 was going to happen again in 2016.

[WoonTars]

88. Who gives a shit? We need to focus on the future, not the past.

This incessant need to blame/shame/belittle people does NOTHING to help the party take back the House next year.

We need to focus on what we CAN do, rather than focusing on the things we CAN'T change from the past....


ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

[NurseJackie]

90. Ignore the past and you repeat it.

[WoonTars]

97. I'm not suggesting we ignore it, but we need to move forward.

2018 together needs to be the goal.

[Beartracks]

227. Many will be happy to move forward, just as soon as...

...their candidate WINS THE FANTASY RE-MATCH!!!








===========

[AllyCat]

89. Quit devoting your energy to them! We cannot entice those nuts away

And if we do, it will be by default. Lets focus on what we are going to do to protect people. Democrats who stand for democratic values. That is what we do. We support women, minorities, workers, the poor, immigrants.

Forget about the whackos that moved over to JPR and wherever. They are lost to everyone that cares about the above groups.

[NurseJackie]

114. You are correct. Sadly, there are too many here who welcome "those nuts" ...

Sadly, there are too many who welcome "those nuts" (a wonderful way to describe them, BTW) and who believe that those nuts should be able to influence the Democratic Party in the same haphazard way that they try to with online forums.

They are lost to everyone that cares about the above groups.

Yes they are. But it's a mistake to simply "forget about" them when others with questionable motives and judgement are intent on giving them the keys to the castle (so to speak.)

All I'm saying is that ignoring them won't make them (or their threats) simply disappear. Vigilance is a must. Learning from our mistakes and not denying the past is essential. Pretending that the elephant isn't in this room right this very moment (and it is) doesn't help our cause or guarantee our future success.

Lets focus on what we are going to do to protect people.

Agreed. I can multitask.

[HughBeaumont]

107. Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggghhhhh

What does this have to do with ANYthing?

[Ken Burch]

179. It's not about being "sympathetic", it's about what works and what doesn't work.

Last edited Wed Sep 6, 2017, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)

It NEVER works to call people out for not voting for us and then demand they vote for us next time.

It never works to shout "you HAVE to vote for us!" at people.

And it's suspect that this approach is only used on people who vote against us to our left.

You never saw the party shaming Democrats who voted for Nixon or Reagan or either Bush. The party did nothing but APPEASE those voters, usually while throwing everyone who did stay with us rather than vote for a Republican under the bus-or worse, treating people who stayed with us in those years like THEY were the problem.

Treat both groups of lost voters the same way...as people to be won back.

[NurseJackie]

185. I want nothing to do with Stein-voters. Fuck-em!

It NEVER works to call people out for not voting for us and then demand they vote for us next time.

What makes you believe that I want anything to do with Stein-voters or Trump-voters? They're worthless dead-enders. They're bigots, racists, homophobes and misogynists.

And it's suspect that this approach is only used on people who vote against us to our left.

Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about... or what you're "hinting" at. Would you mind being a little more direct, please?

You never saw the party shaming Democrats who voted for Nixon or Reagan or either Bush.

LOL! Yes yes... I suppose the internet was a much nicer place back then.

Treat both groups of lost voters the same way

Okay. Gladly! Ready? Here goes: Stein-voters can go fuck themselves. Trump-voters can go fuck themselves! (There! Happy now?)

as people to be won back.

WTF? "Won back"??? What nonsense. These people were never Democrats... these aren't lost-sheep that need to be returned "back" into the fold.

All I'm saying, and I'll be as direct and polite as I can possibly be: You'll never convince me that Stein-voters or Trump-voters are worthy of anything other than my contempt. Never. Don't even try. It's never going to happen. It's a waste of time for you to try and convince me otherwise. Save yourself the trouble. (It would be more productive for you to spend your time trimming your fingernails and toenails, and buffing the callouses off of your heels.)

As a party our efforts are better spent focusing on getting new voters and focusing on voting machine integrity and preventing outside interference and removing obstacles that prevent citizens from voting.

[Ken Burch]

190. If that's the case, there's no reason to MENTION the Stein voters then.

It's a waste of time starting threads here trashing them. Stein voters don't read threads on DU. And no slam on them here is going to make any significant number of them say "oo

I agree with getting new voters(almost all of whom are going to be on the left politically).

But we can't get new voters by focusing on bashing Sanders voters and obsessing about 2016-I didn't say Stein voters, I said Sanders voters-and by reducing our appeal to "you HAVE to vote for us". You get new voters by saying "here's what we have to offer and here's why we respect and value you and want you in our tent".

And I said Democrats didn't treat Nixon and Reagan Dem voters like you treat people who didn't support us because they wanted us to be more progressive. It doesn't matter if the Internet existed then or not(although it did exist in the era when both Bushes were in the White House or had recently been there).

In the Nineties, a lot of Nader voters were former Dems who'd seen the party abandon what seemed to them nearly everything recognizably different from conservatism. THOSE were the people I talked about in the phrase "won back". Dennis Kucinich actually brought most of them back to the party in 2004b by running a primary campaign that addressed what they cared about Many more than not stayed with us in the fall(they wouldn't have switched if no one in the 2004 primary had run to the left of Gore.

ALL of us on this board agree that it sucks that Trump is president. Why not focus on bringing people together for the future on a positive program in order to change that? What matters is 2018 and 2020, not 2016. The only way to do better in those years is to listen and to change.

[NurseJackie]

196. Flawed logic. (LOL)

190. If that's the case, there's no reason to MENTION the Stein voters then.

LOL! Yeah, right. Let's just pretend that they don't exist. Let's give them free reign. Maybe you could post something in the ATA forum to change this to SarandonUnderground dot com.

It's a waste of time starting threads here trashing them.

I have done NO SUCH THING and you know it. It serves no good purpose to accuse me of these things. Please stop.

And no slam on them here is going to make any significant number of them say "oo

I fail to understand the reasons why you object to harassing and ridiculing Stein-voters. Can you explain?

But we can't get new voters by focusing on bashing Sanders voters and obsessing about 2016

Nobody is doing that. Nobody bashes Sanders here and you know it. It serves no good purpose to make statements like that.

And I said Democrats didn't treat Nixon and Reagan Dem voters like you treat people who didn't support us because they wanted us to be more progressive.

I have no recollection of that. Can you document this fact?

In the Nineties, a lot of Nader voters were former Dems

So now you're going to defend and make excuses for Nader voters too? Sheesh!

Why not focus on bringing people together for the future on a positive program in order to change that?

Why ignore how we got here in the first place? Ignore the past: relive it!

The only way to do better in those years is to listen and to change.

As long as we don't talk about the elephant in the room, huh?

Maybe we should just WAIT EIGHT OR TWELVE YEARS before talking about it, eh?

[Ken Burch]

210. You just said we can't ever get their votes...by that logic, why care about them?

I object to endless threads bashing Stein voters because they are a pointless activity. They can't gain us votes and they can't make those people change. They don't in any way at all help us.

What this board should be about is coming up with ways to win in '18 and '20. The only way to win those races is on a positive program of change.

As to elephants in the room...Bernie didn't cause people to vote Stein. He wanted Hillary to win in the fall as much as any of us-and proved that once and for all be refusing Stein's offer to run on the Green ballot line.

And the documentation is all the years the party spent obsessing about what needed to be done to appease Reagan Democrats. There were never articles in mainstream Democratic publications demonizing those people for that. Instead, the party was remade to be party for them first, everyone else second. We never needed to knock anyone down to second in this party.

I'm not making excuses for Nader voters...it's simply settled historical fact that most were former Dems. We all know it.

It would be better if people voted for our presidential ticket in the fall-I spent a lot of the time last fall begging them to do that on antifascist grounds...but we can't just expect or demand that of everybody on the progressive side of the spectrum. Acting as if we can just makes us look arrogant-it never wins us votes.

[NurseJackie]

218. Well...

I object to endless threads bashing Stein voters because they are a pointless activity. They can't gain us votes and they can't make those people change. They don't in any way at all help us.

They're dead-enders. They're a lost cause. Fuck-em. I'm not trying to make them "change". I just want them to go the fuck away (and their assorted RM Renfields). I want to be able to discuss Hillary's book without the discussion being sabotaged by people trying to shut it down.

As to elephants in the room...Bernie didn't cause people to vote Stein.

I didn't say he did, did I? Did I? No more red-herrings please. I've had enough. You know perfectly well what I'm talking about. You know what the elephant in the room is, and it's not that.

Hillary wants an honest discussion of "What Happened" but it's not allowed. Why? What are people afraid of? Let her speak. Let us discuss. What's the harm in that?

He wanted Hillary to win in the fall as much as any of us-

Yeah, right. Whatever. Never really thought about it.

it's simply settled historical fact that most were former Dems. We all know it.

No it's not. No we don't. This sidebar discussion about Nader is a distraction and a waste of time. It has nothing to do with anything. It's irrelevant... just as the comparison to Reagan Democrats is. It was a different time. It was pre-911, pre-Clinton, pre-AIDS ... a different world entirely.

And the documentation is all the years the party spent obsessing about what needed to be done to appease Reagan Democrats. There were never articles in mainstream Democratic publications demonizing those people for that. Instead, the party was remade to be party for them first, everyone else second. We never needed to knock anyone down to second in this party.

No it wasn't. How do you know that there were NEVER any articles. Which "mainstream Democratic publications" are you referring to? Did you read them all? (And what difference does it make?)

It would be better if people voted for our presidential ticket in the fall-I spent a lot of the time last fall begging them to do that on antifascist grounds...but we can't just expect or demand that of everybody on the progressive side of the spectrum. Acting as if we can just makes us look arrogant-it never wins us votes.

How much appeasing is too much appeasing? We don't need Stein-voters and we don't need Trump-voters. Fuck-em!

All I'm saying is that I have no sympathy for them at all. I have no affection or affinity for them at all. I don't need them. I have no use for them. They offend me.

Clearly we differ on that. I wish you could just accept that without trying to shut me down and silence me... that's all I'm saying. It serves no good purpose for you to be so disrespectful of me. What have I ever done to you to deserve being treated like this?

[Ken Burch]

226. I have never disrespected you at all. Not once.

I've mainly asked that you discuss things on the merits of the issues rather than endlessly belittling people and acting as if they are too far beneath you for you to treat them with any civilty.

If Sanders people were posting viciously anti-Hillary threads her now I'd be telling THEM to cool it. But that isn't happening, at least not from what I can see. What I'm seeing on DU now is a one-war war-Clinton supporters relentlessly attacking not only Bernie(even falsely accusing him of not being pro-choice) but essentially all his supporters as well. And their ideas are being attacked here when those ideas have never been the problem.

It's as some people won't stop until anything even remotely connected with what the Sanders campaign was about, even the vast majority of it that was inspiring and positive, is anathemized in this party, until it's agreed that every campaign for the rest of eternity will be run exactly like that one was.

If that happens, if that choice is actually made, what hope do we have? Where ELSE will we add votes to our total, other than from people who want us to be more progressive? What new voters can be brought in that won't want us to be a party to be open to new ideas in addition to the best of the current ones?

[summer_in_TX]

233. Good point!

That only makes people more stubborn and more determined to go their own way.

I strongly suspect that all the exclaiming I heard many Dems do offline among my friends and family, on the air, and online here and elsewhere, defining those who were voting for Trump as racists and deplorables, was also a factor in the election results. It's part of what those who aren't Dems hold against us. They consider us elitist and judgmental. That perception leads independents as well as Rs to dislike us – and our candidates too, all too often.

I've had a nagging sense about that ever since the election that it was a major problem for us - and I've heard comments in my community from some I know are Rs that have reinforced my suspicion.

Labeling, judging, naming and shaming…NO one likes being on the receiving end. I think we have a real problem in this department. It comes across as Dems feel like they are superior to everyone with a different opinion. In reaction, it seems to me that attitudes harden and they become less persuadable.

[summer_in_TX]

234. The other piece of this is we are doing it here too.

Labeling, name-calling, trying to shame. There's a lot of that in this thread – and on a number of other ones I've read. Some of it may be trolls, but I dunno. It feels like a vicious cycle.

The arguments we get into are distinctly more adamant than before the election, less friendly discussion, and they have a distinctly edgy and pissy tone too often.

Why, oh why, are the really long, passionate threads here these days the ones that revisit the theme of "I'll never forgive this group for voting that way," even when we try to shift the discussion the most important topic – how we are going to elect more Democrats in the fast approaching 2018 elections. (Frankly, it would get us further if we could let bygones be bygones, because that just is creating anger and making our goals harder to achieve, not easier.)

Figuring out how to encourage more candidates to file, helping them find the resources to be more successful, taking on the states where Rs control all the statewide offices like they do in Texas – those are the things we need to shift gears and focus on.

These storms and fires are likely playing havoc with the voter registration lists. Those who've lost homes are likely to have lost identifying documents too. Houston votes blue, so it's a big problem for Texas. Won't be that long until the legislature takes up redistricting again and we need a much better balance of control to prevent gerrymandering or Rs or going to continue to elect more than their numbers to all levels of our government.

[Maraya1969]

215. Just give it up! Seriously you are really fucking with our party by doing this!

[NurseJackie]

220. How so?

[alarimer]

239. Lots of Democrats vote for Republicans in every damn election.

Including this one. Why are they not given the ration of shit Bernie supporters are?

[NurseJackie]

243. I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is ...

... giving "rations of shit" to Bernie supporters, that I'm aware of. That is, of course, aside from the ones who refused to vote for our party's nominee, or who chose to vote for Jill Stein or who voted for Trump.

Are those the ones you're defending? Can you elaborate further? I really don't understand why anyone would be upset at the ridicule and harassment of (and other "shit serving" to) Trump-non-and-Stein voters.

So, please tell us... are you actually DEFENDING the Bernie supporters who voted for Trump? (It's difficult for me to believe that you'd do that, but I have to tell you, that's definitely what it sounds like. Now's your chance to clarify.)

[get the red out]

3. Thank you

I agree completely. I don't even look at threads where the primary is being fought all over. I am worried about Trump and the Republicans destroying this country!

Edit to add that a relative of mine who hated President Obama and Hillary Clinton, loved Sanders. He's a racist, sexist independant.

[Expecting Rain]

4. That 10% was more than enough to swing an election.

[berni_mccoy]

5. That 10% was likely never going to vote for any other Democratic candidate.

And besides, I thought Russia interference was the latest explanation?

[bettyellen]

44. "Latest explaination" not helping your case here, LOL. Not one bit.

[Autumn]

47. A good part of that 10% were not even Democrats.

[emulatorloo]

72. Ah yes Russian Interference "secret plot" by "deep state" and "sore loser Democrats"

Trump's talking points conspiracy theory wrapped in Reddit bern-out subs pseudo-progressive trappings really does nothing for your credibility or the credibility of this OP

[Maven]

203. The "latest explanation"?

Wow. Just gave yourself away there, I think.

[LostOne4Ever]

7. K&R nt

[HughBeaumont]

9. K & R.

We should be concentrating on 2018 and 2020.

Get a simple but hybrid message than stresses human rights and economic fairness. Americans think in factoids; therefore, we have to message in factoids.

[sprinkleeninow]

156. What'r they called? Blips or blurbs or bites or somesuch?

Short and sweet factoids.

[longship]

14. Some children here want to continue their tantrums.

Kicking and screaming because they didn't get their cookie.

Well, nobody got a cookie. And that's the issue now. However, some people insist on pitching a tantrum because they didn't get the particular flavor cookie they most desired. And then they post here with threads which basically state that if I don't get my exact flavor of cookie I am going to kick and scream until
I do.

Of course, there is no such cookie. It does not exist, nor has it ever existed.

[snort]

20. I can't believe that we are still gullible enough

to be distracted by trolling so easily. As a Bernie supporter and eventual Hillary voter, I'm more than happy to tell the rabid must love Hillary as much as I do crowd, kindly fuck off. Thank you.

[HughBeaumont]

109. +1000.

NO one gets a blank check.

[Madam45for2923]

142. "NO one gets a blank check" What blank check? Who?

HughBeaumont
109. +1000.

NO one gets a blank check.

[Madam45for2923]

146. Oops! Dear OP berni_m! your services are required here too! Feel something divisive in this post!

What does it mean no one gets a blank check? WTH is that about?

HughBeaumont
109. +1000.

NO one gets a blank check.

[HughBeaumont]

159. What it means is that we don't have coronations in this country.

"Turning Sanders into the enemy is certainly not going to help.

And turning on Sanders supporters is going to hurt worse than you think."

EXACTLY WHAT THE OP SAID.

You want automatic voter fealty, the United States is not the country FOR that. We have primaries. That is our electoral process.

A majority of us, INCLUDING ME, voted for Hillary. We DID the right thing.

I am NOT at fault for putting a Fascist in the White House.

[Madam45for2923]

165. What coronation are you speaking about? Who are u turning into d enemy? You big uniter you!

Am so glad you really don't want divisiveness~ Much/many kudos sincere DEM you!



HughBeaumont
159. What it means is that we don't have coronations in this country.

"Turning Sanders into the enemy is certainly not going to help.

And turning on Sanders supporters is going to hurt worse than you think."

EXACTLY WHAT THE OP SAID.

You want automatic voter fealty, the United States is not the country FOR that. We have primaries. That is our electoral process.

A majority of us, INCLUDING ME, voted for Hillary. We DID the right thing.

I am NOT at fault for putting a Fascist in the White House.

[HughBeaumont]

170. Whatevs.

I'm not the one saying "Sanders voters put Trump in the White House".

That narrative not only slags Hillary, Bernie AND progressive voters in one convenient shot, it undermines the REAL causes for her loss (Russian Interference, Comey's October Surprise, an undercurrent of toxic masculinity and racism, a complicit media, sexism, voter suppression, etc).

You want to further division, be my guest. I want to know why a fascist Cheeto walked into the White House and what we can do to correct our messaging . . . to get more Democrats elected.

That, after all, is more important to me than this incessant need for us to "bend the knee".

[Madam45for2923]

174. You are the one who brought up coronations and blank checks! WT heck was that about?

Other than that I agree with much (not all!) you just said here:

HughBeaumont
170. Whatevs.

I'm not the one saying "Sanders voters put Trump in the White House".

That narrative not only slags Hillary, Bernie AND progressive voters in one convenient shot, it undermines the REAL causes for her loss (Russian Interference, Comey's October Surprise, an undercurrent of toxic masculinity and racism, a complicit media, sexism, voter suppression, etc).

You want to further division, be my guest. I want to know why a fascist Cheeto walked into the White House and what we can do to correct our messaging . . . to get more Democrats elected.

That, after all, is more important to me than this incessant need for us to "bend the knee".

[Madam45for2923]

140. "the rabid must love Hillary as much as I do crowd" Woah!

snort
20. I can't believe that we are still gullible enough

to be distracted by trolling so easily. As a Bernie supporter and eventual Hillary voter, I'm more than happy to tell the rabid must love Hillary as much as I do crowd, kindly fuck off. Thank you.

[Madam45for2923]

145. Dear OP Berni-McCoy hurry! Here! Divisive stuff going on here in your own thread!!

Please say something!

snort
20. I can't believe that we are still gullible enough
View profile
to be distracted by trolling so easily. As a Bernie supporter and eventual Hillary voter, I'm more than happy to tell the rabid must love Hillary as much as I do crowd, kindly fuck off. Thank you.

[disillusioned73]

236. Right there with ya..

this vocal minority wants to take the party down with it..

[leftstreet]

22. DURec

[Cryptoad]

26. Stirring the Ole Shit Pot....

beat it,,, beat good!

[Joe941]

29. thank you

[slumcamper]

38. Indeed, this is SO tiresome! Please stop this petty bullshit, people!

This is tantamount to DERANGEMENT. The outside forces manipulating this issue are winning. Is that what you want? Is it worth it?

We've heard both sides, ad nauseam. You've now ridden a tired horse to death! We TOTALLY get that you're pissed, but you don't have to beat a dead horse!

What we share in common is that not a single one of us is 100% happy, and most probably not even close to 50%! The majority wants to move forward. Please join us.

All aboard!

[procon]

41. Its not a question of "turning Sanders into the enemy",

but rather identifying the problems he created as an Independent politician running as a Democratic candidate. That's a relative issue, and Sanders could run again. Now that we've seen the results, will the Democratic Party ever again allow third party politicians to dilute their brand and split away voters from real Democratic candidates?

If Sanders had not been allowed to attach his campaign to the Democrat's banner, and instead had to front his own run as an Independent, would he have fared so well?

[leftstreet]

55. If a $15 wage 'dilutes' the party brand, the party is fucked

Likewise single-payer healthcare, tuition free education, withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. If those issues 'dilute' the party brand...

[procon]

65. Don't cherry pick, it weakens your argument.

If you only look at positive traits then you might even say that Trump has some redeeming features, yeah? You also cannot say that those issues were exclusive to Sanders alone, or that he was the only one who ever thought of them.

Nore importantly, let's look at the aftereffects of an Independent politician running as a Democratic candidate. If Sanders had not been allowed to attach his campaign to the Democrat's banner, and instead had to front his own run as an Independent, would he have fared so well? The relative issue is about why the Democratic Party would ever allow another Independent, third party politician such as Sanders, to dilute their brand and split away voters from real Democratic candidates?

[leftstreet]

66. What if he had won?

Would there be any talk about 'diluting' the Democratic party brand?

[procon]

84. Its a moot point since he couldn't even win the primary, yeah?

Clinton had the popular vote with 16,914,722, and Sanders was already trailing by over 3 million votes at 13,206,428. Latching onto the coattails of the Democratic Party was a smart move on Sanders part, but as the numbers show, he diluted the voting base by splitting the Party between a real Democratic candidate and an Independent candidate.

If Sanders had been had been running as a third party candidate, like Stein who got a scant 1,207,141 votes, which is barely 1 percent of the popular vote, his numbers would have very likely ended up in that same ballpark without the able assist from the Democratic Party's formidable election machine.

[sprinkleeninow]

161. Diluted. Seems reasonable. But it's all over now.

What will our future hold?

[moonseller66]

46. Last time I checked, voting was a right

However, it's not a REQUIREMENT. It's a choice. And when one group tries to tell another HOW to vote or for whom, they are as bad as the Republicans who try to limit the vote. Then when THEIR guy loses, it's always someone else's fault. See! You should have voted for my candidate then we wouldn't be in this mess. Still, it IS THIER choice, whether you like it or not.

I"ve been voting since age 21. My choice. If some don't want to vote, that's one of the things I fought for. Not happy about it but tough. It's their choice. I respect it and have to live with it right or wrong.

And I'm sorry if it offends or affects you because of a non vote or a vote for the "other person."

By the way, the 1972 landslide for Tricky Dicky whom we "ALL" knew was a crook, had more than a "few" (million) Democrats voting against McGovern. Wonder why? Imagine that!

[stevenleser]

198. Then you checked the wrong place. There is no right to vote in the US.

The issues with your argument start there.

[Madam45for2923]

49. Hope you got some words when people bash DEMS & DEM figures & our DEM party b/c all that is divisive

Here in DU!

And while we got a racist-sadist-fascist senior-child "Prez" -I hope you post something when people come here asking for DEMS to be primaried for some freaking reason. That is... wait for it... divisive in DU.

Disrespecting our party, our figures, our base, ... divisive~

Good place to start might be this OP and others like it:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9553712

nbsmom (495 posts)

FFS CAN WE PLEASE GET SOME NEW DEM CANDIDATES? [View all]

Case in point: Dianne Feinstein is apparently still thinking about running again in 2018.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Feinstein-surprises-SF-crowd-by-expressing-hope-12160141.php

WE DESERVE BETTER.

berni_mccoy
0. You Need To Stop

The infighting is going to tank this party and any chance the Democratic party has of growing its numbers in 2018 or winning the executive back in 2020. It is that plain and simple.

I was a Sanders supporter and, like 90% of Sanders supporters, not only did I vote for Clinton in the GE but I supported her. She won the primary and no one can say she didn't earn her place in the GE. Certainly, she has been the most demonized candidate in the history of politics and I, like many other Sanders supporters, would agree she has not been treated fairly.

The small percentage of Sanders supporters who did not vote for Hillary were never really Democrats anyway. They were people who were independents who believed in Sanders and were enticed away.

Rehashing the fact that < 10% of Sanders supporters voted for some other candidate isn't going to change where we are.

And turning Sanders into the enemy is certainly not going to help.

And turning on Sanders supporters is going to hurt worse than you think.

Please let go of this. We are where we are and it is what it is. We must fight the bigger fight and focus on the real issue.

I cannot believe we are still having these fights here.

[Madam45for2923]

52. DIVISIVE!

[JCanete]

160. but suggesting a primary is actually a discussion about policy and direction. How it is presented

could certainly be a smear, or abusive in ways that should be avoided or if posted, removed here. Suggesting we should put somebody else up and giving reasons, seems legitimate to me. Obviously the dem would be primaried by a dem, so its still pro democrat.

Impugning motives is where we get into problems. And this happens on both sides. There are ways that we can voice our concerns about voting record and advocacy that too conveniently aligns to campaign connections, without assuming that that correlation is any indication that our sitting democrat is corrupt. On the other hand, that can suggest that his or her beliefs are too closely aligned to the interests of certain industries for my liking. It says something about how somebody thinks he or she is likely to vote, even if we should NOT make the unnecessary leap that this means our democratic leader is in somebody's pocket.

Criticism of our politicians previous actions, and laying out what we want to see from them is effective at letting them know how to represent us. We will never know if Corey Booker would have come out in favor of legalizing marijuana or if Kamala Harris would have come out co-sponsoring a single-payer bill with Sanders if there hadn't been a small but vocal contingent of liberals making their concerns about both politicians known, but what is certain is that they know that there are people who have an audience who are watching for them to give them a sign that they are going to be the kind of progressive these voters want. You'll have to spell out for me why that's a bad thing.

[barbtries]

50. ditto

thank you. i won't even click on all the other threads but i did yours and was rewarded. i voted for bernie in the primary, hillary in Nov, and I'm #StillWithHer

[C Moon]

53. It's like some people wake up and think ...I'm going to start a Hillary vs Bernie thread today.

[Saviolo]

58. K+R

Looks like we're on the same wavelength

[Weekend Warrior]

59. You have placed forward a one way thought process.

"And turning Sanders into the enemy is certainly not going to help. "

The theme of your words stays consistent throughout. Sanders and some of those who supported him in the primary(I think it's pathetic for one to simply define themselves as a "Sanders supporter&quot have made Democrats and the Democratic Party the enemy. Those are the ones to watch out for. This whole we need to get along thing is a bunch of bunk. I don't need to get along with a group still supporting Trump to this day.

Don't take parts of the conversation to close to heart. While you make much of it about yourself, the comments you are addressing are clearly not meant for you.

[zentrum]

60. Well said.

I'm one of the 90%. Voted for her, worked to get her elected in the general and supported Bernie in the primary---which BTW--is supposed to be a debate so Democrats can distinguish between candidates.

Bernie and O'Malley lost. Just the way a Primary is supposed to work. Why can't HRC supporters move on?

[Madam45for2923]

87. Move on from what exactly?

zentrum
60. Well said.

I'm one of the 90%. Voted for her, worked to get her elected in the general and supported Bernie in the primary---which BTW--is supposed to be a debate so Democrats can distinguish between candidates.

Bernie and O'Malley lost. Just the way a Primary is supposed to work. Why can't HRC supporters move on?

[zentrum]

120. Move on

...from talking about Hillary, as I'm sure you understand

Working instead and right now on defending DACA, Medicare for all, ending gerrymandering, pushing back on DeVos. You know---national crises far more important than the last election and its Primary---which BTW, operated like a Primary is supposed to: with critique, debate and differences.

Bernie has all my support now because of how he's continuing to fight for Medicare for all. This will save lives.

Moving on from sour grapes to making new wine, so to speak.

[Madam45for2923]

135. Move on...from talking about Hillary? Why? I can speak about HRC, Trump/Russia & DACA, etc

I happen to like her ideas and her life, and her ways, so she has all my support.

Thanks for stating so clearly what we need to move on from.


zentrum
120. Move on

...from talking about Hillary, as I'm sure you understand

Working instead and right now on defending DACA, Medicare for all, ending gerrymandering, pushing back on DeVos. You know---national crises far more important than the last election and its Primary---which BTW, operated like a Primary is supposed to: with critique, debate and differences.

Bernie has all my support now because of how he's continuing to fight for Medicare for all. This will save lives.

Moving on from sour grapes to making new wine, so to speak.

[zentrum]

183. Go for it.

The Trump-Russia matter, however, goes way beyond Hillary and will reveal terrible economic corruption. That's the much bigger, more important story.

The hacking is also a threat to our Democracy itself. Not because it happened to Hillary. But because it happened to our Democracy. So please don't blur what I'm moving on from.

[sprinkleeninow]

164. Our house supported Hillary in the primary

and the general. Because she was our Democratic candidate.

We kinda dint think Sanders could have stood up to the revolting gopp candidate in the debates. But, that was just us. MB we were wrong?

We need to get our act together.

Our democratic party is the one that pretty much holds our nation together on the 'right' tracks.

Too simplistic thinking?

Older and pooped out. We like simpler more better.

[zentrum]

186. You did what...

....was right for you.

In our house, (mostly women), we voted for Bernie in the Primary and HRC in the General. We definitely felt that Bernie made her a better candidate, a better debater and more able to hear the issues of us ordinaries.

Wish we heard more form Martin O'Malley these days.

[sprinkleeninow]

232. Thank you for your understanding.

An adorable young fellow knocked on our door where we resided prior to currently.

It was a third floor apt. Said we, "Who might that be seeing it's evening?"

I answered and a darling young one smiled at me and stated he was door knocking for Bernie. As I listened to him, I could see how he was so into what he and his group were doing. We had already decided on Hillary, but if Sanders had snagged the slot, naturally we would have gone for him.

I put a blessing on this fellow. He was so appreciative and I guess, a tad surprised that he hugged me! It was an endearing moment for me.

[MelissaB]

62. Oh, come on!

Russia loves it when we are divided, and it's exactly what Putin wants. Why else would have supported exactly this?

The infighting here is insane. Some posters seem to be stirring the pot to see that it continues.

[emulatorloo]

68. You need to stop being so defensive over Bernie or Busters.

Because you aren't one.

Like you and pretty much 99.999999999999% of Sanders primary supporters here at DU, I supported Bernie in the Primary and HRC in general.

Somehow I don't get all crazed over statistics about Bobs. Bobs exist.

However You aren't a bob, I'm not a bob, our DU friends are not Bobs.

"and turning on Sanders supporters is going to hurt worse than you think"

Discussing statistics about Bernie-or-Busters is not "turning on Sanders supporters"

Sanders supporters are not BOBs. You are not a bob. No one is turning on Sanders supporters.

"And turning Sanders into the enemy is certainly not going to help"

Sanders is very popular at DU. Some tepid criticism of gaffes he makes (he's human after all) is hardly turning the sanders into the enemy.

[lpbk2713]

75. I have blocked out all of the pertinent subject line names and words.

Life is better now.

As I recall, it was like a junior high school popularity contest.

[TalenaGor]

77. I agree 100%

there are a lot of uneducated voters out there and people who really dont know what party they are at all...any sanders supporters who went trump - are in this category...

Liberals did NOT vote trump....

[Fix The Stupid]

78. It's almost like it's by design??? hmmmmm???? n/t

[backscatter712]

82. Thank you.

I'm so over Hillary vs Bernie.

The real enemy is Trump and his nazi POS buddies.

[liquid diamond]

85. How is turning on sanders supporters

going to hurt?

[emulatorloo]

95. Well it is a strawman argument. Nobody is turning on Sanders supporters by discussing what

Bernie-or-Bust voters did in swing states in 2016. Those folks represent a small minority.

OP seems to confuse discussion about that minority as being about the majority of us Sanders who voted for the Dem nominee .

It isn't at all about the majority Sanders primary supporters, but OP has some other mistaken notions as well so it is what it is.

[berni_mccoy]

99. It's about the fingerprinting that's going on around here

For every post examining the damage of Bernie-or-Busters, there are 10 blaming Bernie or his supporters in general. And what does it matter when the damage is already done. Most BoB's were not real Democrats anyway so if the party couldn't garner the vote then the problem was elsewhere.

The thing I see going on around here is unnecessary and fruitless divisiveness.

Time to stop whining and move on.

[emulatorloo]

115. You mistake a handful of loud posters for a majority of DU'ers

and even then you may be ignoring some subtlety that a subset of those may have.

I think you also forgot the toxicity of DU primary 2016, when so many self described progressives just could not post enough smears against Democrats from sources like Fox, Washington Times, and even worse rightwing.

The breathless praise of GOP hack Joe DiGenova, slobbering over every lie he and every other Fox News 'expert' told as long as it was about a Democrat one didn't like. The endless kicks and Recs and high-fives people here gave those threads.

That being said, I totally agree it is time to stop the whining and move on.

However Straw-man arguments about how Sanders Primary supporters like you and me are victims of evil DU isn't the way forward, nor is gaslighting the way forward either.

[berni_mccoy]

122. No one is making a straw man argument

It's a fact Sanders and his supporters in general are defamed here every day. I'm not a victim of it, just tired of it. It's time to move on.

[emulatorloo]

126. Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you are not Susan Sarandon.

Nor are you a Bernie or Buster.

If you see a thread about Susan Sarandon or another high profile buster, it is not about you, me, or any Sanders DU primary supporter

As to Bernie, he is a grown-up 75 year old man who clearly has the capacity to handle a little criticism, or he wouldn't have lasted in politics for so long.

And he's liked by the majority of DU.

[berni_mccoy]

130. Well there goes respect out the door. Thanks for that.

[Madam45for2923]

139. Geez whiz!

[Skittles]

207. yup

you have to see it to believe it

[emulatorloo]

143. ?

I said Bernie Sanders is a strong man and DU Sanders supporters aren't Bernie-or-Busters.

I don't think I want to continue this. Have a nice day.

[Madam45for2923]

138. Bookmarking!

emulatorloo
115. You mistake a handful of loud posters for a majority of DU'ers

and even then you may be ignoring some subtlety that a subset of those may have.

I think you also forgot the toxicity of DU primary 2016, when so many self described progressives just could not post enough smears against Democrats from sources like Fox, Washington Times, and even worse rightwing.

The breathless praise of GOP hack Joe DiGenova, slobbering over every lie he and every other Fox News 'expert' told as long as it was about a Democrat one didn't like. The endless kicks and Recs and high-fives people here gave those threads.

That being said, I totally agree it is time to stop the whining and move on.

However Straw-man arguments about how Sanders Primary supporters like you and me are victims of evil DU isn't the way forward, nor is gaslighting the way forward either.

[liquid diamond]

149. Great breakdown.

I asked that question in my previous post because I detected a subtle threat from the OP. And I am sick of threats from bernie supporters. They've been doing this shit since the primaries and continue to do so now.

IDGAF what someone says about me or other Hillary supporters on a message board. I will vote democrat no matter what. I wish others had the same attitude.

[IronLionZion]

94. People vote

We won't always like how they vote.

We won't always know how individuals have voted. There could be some DUers who quietly tripped and fell onto the Trump button in the privacy of the voting booth. Some may have been too busy to vote that day. We'll never know.

We should move on the next election and get more people to vote for our party's candidates

Forward!

[stonecutter357]

102. you seem very concerned ..

fuck putin.

[Rene]

110. I'll never forget/forgive that he never was and still is not a DEMOCRAT! The Nerve he had ecchh

[SalviaBlue]

118. Get over it. Bernie is on our side.

or did you mean to add this:

[Heartstrings]

123. Oh geesh...let it go...

He was and always will be for "us"....and he's right where we presently need him the most!

Let it go....please!

[people]

112. Agreed - stop fighting before it's too late --Was at the U.S. Holocaust Museum

Was at the U.S. Holocaust museum last week and saw a film on the rise of Hitler beginning in the 1920's. Here's what I learned: the reason Hitler was ultimately able to do what he did - to grab complete and total control over Germany was because the many factions on the left and the liberal side could not stop fighting and could not unite. STOP.

When I walked into the museum, near the beginning of the exhibits there was a film running in color and I had to do a double and triple-take. It was of all these white men marching at night with Nazi flags carrying lit torches. I honestly thought it was Charlottesville until I read the caption that it was Nazi Germany in the 1930's. It was very freaky. Of all the many films I've seen of that horrible period of history somehow I had never seen this one. THERE ARE TERRIBLE AND SERIOUS DANGERS TO CONFRONT -- HILLARY VS. BERNIE OR BERNIE VS. HILLARY is not one of those issues.

[SalviaBlue]

113. I totally agree, bernie mccoy. Thank you for posting this!

rec.

[Mountain Mule]

124. K & R! Sometimes there seems to be more venom directed at Bernie than Trump

Bernie lost the primary. Hillary lost the election. This is yesterday's news. I shouldn't have to keep typing these words. Eyes on the PRICE, not on defeat, already.

If this sort of stupidity keeps popping up here, I'll give quitting DU serious thought.

No more alienation of dem voters - PLEASE!!!!!

[Honeycombe8]

133. STOP!...in the name of love. Think it o-over.

[emulatorloo]

144. ...

[Hun Joro]

137. I wish I could rec this a thousand times.

[Blue_Tires]

147. Tell the Sanders folks to quit fucking with me, then

and finally I'll be able to leave it alone...

[nilesobek]

151. They were known as "commissars" back

in the old Soviet Union. Tactics used are bullying, intimidation and violence.

Russia and Jill Stein are not "enemies. " They bandy that enemy word about like it doesn't have consequences.

[CanonRay]

152. This makes us dumber than Trump

Really, we're fucking idiots if we keep re-hashing this same old shit.

[sprinkleeninow]

167. Is this done here?

Thank you and a good afternoon to all.

[Lotusflower70]

168. Agreed

Unless all the regurgitatation helps the party learn something. We have to unify and move forward. All the anger keeps the party stuck and divided.

[Ken Burch]

175. You're right...it's either stop this or give up on any chance of winning any future elections.

We can't just scream at people for not voting for us last time, then DEMAND they vote for us NEXT time. Any time we do that to people, we simply drive them into a stubborn refusal to listen to what we have to say.

It doesn't ever work to demand anyone's vote.

Why can't everyone here look at all the years when that's been tried and failed and at least consider trying something else?

What is the harm in admitting that this approach hasn't ever worked and simply never can?

I don't like it that anyone voted third-party or didn't vote...but let's find some way of changing that that actually has some chance of success.

[Expecting Rain]

178. LOL. When people post divisive comments about the Democratic Party on a regular basis...

are we to treat their calls for unity (only when made to blunt criticism of Sen. Sanders) seriously?

It just doesn't work that way.

[Ken Burch]

182. It's about the votes we need.

What chance do we have of getting enough votes to win in 2018 and 2020 if we don't treat pro-Sanders and pro-Clinton supporters and voters with equal respect?

I've spoken out more on anti-Sanders things here because there's BEEN more of them here. It's been relentless. There's been no recognition of the fact that the only path forward our party has is full inclusion of the Sanders movement-NOT a "Sanders takeover", just a recognition that the economic justice message(most of the party, including most Clinton supporters, agrees with Bernie on economic issues)to go with our social justice message. No appreciation of the fact that we need Sanders voters to win and that the only way to get them to the polls is to treat them with the same respect we treat anybody else whose votes we seek.

If there were threads about Hillary and her supporters now that had even one-tenth of the venom of the threads about Bernie but more importantly about Sanders voters-btw, can everybody just admit that it was a bum rap to equate support for Bernie to racism and sexism and admit that Sanders voters never collectively deserved that"-I'd be calling out the originators of those threads. But threads like that don't happen here now, and I'm not responsible for every site on the Internet where somebody, somewhere says rude things about HRC. Nobody has the time to police all of that.

For whatever it's worth, in the primaries I actually alerted on a lot of anti-Hillary threads.

[stevenleser]

177. I would do that under two circumstances

1. If what happened in 2016 was the first time this had happened. Its not, meaning those who contributed to this did not learn the Nader lesson.

2. If I got the sense that those who enabled Trump regretted their actions.

Absent either of those, this is not a closed issue.

[Ken Burch]

184. Do you WANT us to win in '18 and '20?

We can't win any elections in the future by bashing people over the past.

Also, did you ever do this to Dems who actually voted for Reagan, or either Bush?

Do you care if THEY regret their actions?

Why ONLY go after people who didn't back the ticket because they disagreed with us to the left?

Do you really think we are entitled to simply demand the votes of everybody on any part of the leftward side of the spectrum for our presidential ticket, no matter what?

And am I right in assuming that you simply cannot even consider the idea that the party might need to make some changes in order to win?

Why focus on demanding repentance to the exclusion of any OTHER possible paths to a Democratic comeback?

We are a good party, we generally stand for good things. Why not try just standing for a few MORE good things(such as no more military intervention in the Arab/Muslim world and no more right-wing trade deals)and persuading people to vote for us on the merits?

It's not as though it's impossible for us to win by trying to win the argument.

[stevenleser]

197. Yes, and getting after those who make terrible mistakes is one of the ways to do that.

I know you don't agree. That is fine. You aren't going to convince me.

[Ken Burch]

206. It's been proved time and time again not to work

Why not try to make OUR party better?

People want something to vote FOR, not just against.

And no significant number of people change their votes due to being shamed.

[stevenleser]

253. No such proof has happened. nt

[Ken Burch]

255. 1980 was proof. 1984 was proof. 1988 was proof. 2000 and 2004 were proof. 2016 was proof.

Each time, it was done the way YOU insist on doing it-not trying to win the argument, not making a positive case for change or actually defending liberal or progressive ideas, not trying to inspire or enthuse people.

Obama won solidly in '08 because he ran a positive campaign based on asking people to vote FOR, not just AGAINST.

Can you point to a single instance in which shaming people for not just automatically supporting whoever we nominate for president has actually helped us next time?

Why do you have such a negative, purely defensive conception of politics?

[stevenleser]

261. That's not remotely in the same realm as proof. It's not even an attempt at a proof.

You listed multiple unrelated events and loosely asserted that because you listed them all they are related.

That is not proof. Perhaps you need to read up on the concept of proof.

[Ken Burch]

262. The events are related by a common strategy:

In every case, the strategy was to let the right set the terms of debate, to avoid making a clear case for progressive policies, to present the ticket as "centrist" and hope the voters will elect the ticket by default because the other ticket is seen as "too extreme"-while, at the same time, telling progressive voters that they HAD to vote for our ticket because the other ticket was dangerous.

The other option, running a positive campaign that gives the voters the chance of voting FOR us, rather than against the other ticket-a strategy we could have used with THIS ticket and this platform, a great platform that was essentially never mentioned in the fall campaign, or at least not in the televised ads. It's the strategy that elected Barack Obama twice with majority support in the popular vote.

I'm as angry as you are about this result and about 2000. It's just that I support a different strategy for regaining the White House and Congress and the state legislatures than you do.

I believe we can win by actually winning the argument-because our policies are good and will genuinely help people if implemented.

[stevenleser]

263. You provide no proof of that, nor do you make any attempt at proving causation.

As many DUers are fond of noting, correlation does not imply causation.

[berni_mccoy]

201. If we pursue shaming those who voted for Trump instead of working on what needs to be done

We will never progress.

That is a fact.

You can shame some people all you want but some people are shameless.

If that's the quest you want to go on, I have a friend who'd like to speak to you:

[stevenleser]

254. That is your opinion. My opinion is, unless we take people to task for committing an act that hurts

the country, they will perform that act again.

The difference between our opinions is, mine makes sense.

[Madam45for2923]

256. Your last sentence here is funny but I concur with your opinion!

BTW did you notice that this OP got 240 rec's!!

stevenleser
254. That is your opinion. My opinion is, unless we take people to task for committing an act that hurts

the country, they will perform that act again.

The difference between our opinions is, mine makes sense.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

181. K&R nt

[Thor_MN]

187. Could be that YOU need to stop identifying with that other "10%"...

If people in the "10%" have got their feelings hurt over what people are saying about them, fuck them...

If others identify with them - well, that's their own problem.

[NurseJackie]

188. This. Perfect. (Thank you.)

[melman]

199. Where in the OP does it say anything about identifying with the "10%"?

Nowhere? Right. That's what I thought.

[Thor_MN]

225. Then why be concerned what people are saying about the "10%"

Like I said, fuck them. They likely won't ever vote to improve things.

Got an answer to that? Right. That's what I thought.

[RiverStone]

191. Yep! K & R

You said:

Please let go of this. We are where we are and it is what it is. We must fight the bigger fight and focus on the real issue.

I agree X 100

Like you, I was a Bernie supporter in the primaries who (((voted))) and fought for Hillary in the general.

[BainsBane]

193. Y'all needed to stop months ago

but you haven't. As recently as this weekend we were hearing complaints about the primary.

[denvine]

194. I am so sick and tired of this

Some of us were Bernie supporters and some Hillary supporters. Hillary won the primary but lost the GE. It is over! Let me say this again, it is over! Blame is helping no one. It is time to look at the real issues we are facing now and that is me have a lunatic as a president. PLEASE, let this end and let's work together to win in 2018. Are trolls or the Russians trying to divide us are are we doing ourselves in. Get over it or else we are going to continue to lose. Everyone has an opinion as to what happened but it doesn't matter unless we let it consume us and divide us. Please enough of this.

[Ken Burch]

204. What matters is the future, not the past.

n/t.

[ananda]

195. Like

Thanks for posting.

[zipplewrath]

200. Roughly the same complaint as they had about Sanders

It is interesting, this long after the election, we're still getting all the same complaints we got immediately after the election. Nothing has changed. Yet, after Hillary won the nomination, we got, from the very same crowd, the whole "let it go, it's over, time to unite" language.

For all the same reasons as then, if not more, the same logic would seem to apply. It's over. You're not going to change anyone's mind. All that's being done is alienating people. It won't change anything.

Heck, I'm one of the one that thought the post mortem forum was closed too soon. I think I'm being proven right. People apparently need a place to continue to discuss this. So all they have left now is GD.

[JHan]

205. lol@ "turning on Sanders supporters"

where was all this concern when the Democratic Party got dragged through the mud all last year with the nonsensical "establishment" "neoliberal" "corporatist" smears, that are repeated to THIS DAY, the meme will not fucking die.... it even dragged the legacy of a two term Democratic president through the mud with it..

Where was the concern when Democrats were told if they didn't put Keith as DNC chair they'd pay...

Give me a break.

Some of you need to engage in some honest introspection.

[Madam45for2923]

214. Dear Jhan! Argh those words make my teeth hurt.

JHan
205. lol@ "turning on Sanders supporters"

where was all this concern when the Democratic Party got dragged through the mud all last year with the nonsensical "establishment" "neoliberal" "corporatist" smears, that are repeated to THIS DAY, the meme will not fucking die.... it even dragged the legacy of a two term Democratic president through the mud with it..

Where was the concern when Democrats were told if they didn't put Keith as DNC chair they'd pay...

Give me a break.

Some of you need to engage in some honest introspection.

[haveahart]

212. We need to stop calling our different points of view "infighting." That gives the media and GOP

really hurtful talking points that they are using ad nauseam.

[Demsrule86]

213. Bernie Sander's group our revolution is primarying sitting Democrats and their spokeperson

Ms. Turner has said she will back Republicans. This is not about the past election but the damage being caused now to 18 and 20

[Marthe48]

216. IMO the primary race showcased the Democratic platform

If Bernie Sanders had not challenged Hillary Clinton, the MSM would have ignored her positive campaign more than they did. I felt like the only time the HRC campaign got coverage was a) emails and b) she and Bernie facing off.

Just like it has become, it would have been all trump all the time.

[Madam45for2923]

217. MSM dropped the ball.

[Marthe48]

219. yes, they did

n/t

[Demsrule86]

241. If there had been no primary perhaps there would be no Trump presidency...ever consider

that? I do not believe primaries strengthen sitting Democrats or anyone for that matter. Certainly in Ohio and West Virginia, these shenanigans endanger Democratic seats...and if we lose one seat in the Senate...kiss any resistance goodbye.

[Marthe48]

244. We always have to keep in mind

that Hillary won the popular vote, and IMO, the election was tampered with, and up to 5 states have results that don't pass my smell test. Hillary won the popular vote in spite of the vitriol flung at her for years and decades. It was like she was the bullseye for every single cause liberals and progressives want and conservatives and feudal lords hate. And she rose above it all. Then she hit the gd MSM and they did their damnedest to ignore her experience, her message, her intelligence and on and on. It is pretty bad when outright lies prevail and cause politically naive people to vote for a candidate that can't possibly win or worse, stay home, or worse, spread the misinformation that made this election artificially close.

And as I mentioned, if Hillary and Bernie hadn't sparred, hadn't had interactions which the media hoped would draw blood, Hillary's campaign would have been assiduously ignored. As it was, her message was marginalized, although people who voted for trump probably couldn't hear anything over the voices in their heads.

[Alwaysna]

221. Republican divide and conquer strategy is only effective

If we allow it to be.

[Eko]

228. I think you should have said this.

"You need to Stop."
"Stop bashing the Democratic Party Senator Sanders and surrogates. "
When they do that, then we can talk.
June 9th.
During his speech, he repeatedly criticized the Democratic Party, calling it an "absolute failure," and blaming it for the election of President Trump. "I’m often asked by the media and others: How did it come about that Donald Trump, the most unpopular presidential candidate in the modern history of our country, won the election?" Sanders said. "And my answer is that Trump didn’t win the election; the Democratic Party lost the election. Let us be very, very clear: The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/bernie-sanders-lambasts-absolute-failure-of-democratic-partys-strategy

“Some Democrats have lost their souls,” Turner said. “I’m not gonna name any names, [but] the establishment wing ... [has] to decide if we’re the party of corporations or the party of the people.”
Aug 24th.
https://mic.com/articles/184038/our-revolutions-head-says-democrats-have-lost-their-souls-she-will-make-them-find-religion#.r6kXovnsw

We are not having this fight here, the fight is out there and it is real and its not Democrats who are attacking. Its just seeping into here little by little. It should not be seeping into here, it should be a raging waterfall, here if anyplace at all.

[Catch2.2]

229. As a Bernie Supporter...

I couldn't agree more. I voted for Hilary but that is all in the past. It's unbelievable we are still fighting about this. The election is over slamming Senator Sanders is not going to do any good. Let's move on and take back congress!

[Nevernose]

230. Clinton and Sanders BOTH lost

We've learned what we're going to learn already. We need to move on.

There are a fairly small percentage of partisans who are NEVER going to let 2016 go. The Sanders people have some valid points. The Clinton people have some valid points. It doesn't matter, because they both lost where and when it mattered.

2018 is the only thing that matters now.

I'm honestly half convinced that most (not all, but most) of the people still fighting this battle are either Russian agents, GOP trolls, or are being goaded into it.

[GrapesOfWrath]

231. Thank you for this

I agree 100%

[Binkie The Clown]

235. Everybody needs a villain to blame. Hitler had the Jews, Trump, the immigrants,

DU, either Bernie or Hillary depending on your faction.

We all seem to need a "bad guy" to blame for all our troubles.

I don't remember who first said it, but intelligence truly is a lethal mutation. The human race is its own worst enemy. It follows that Democrats are, likewise, their own worst enemy. Hell, even Trump is his own worst enemy. We can't help it. We can't help shooting ourselves in the foot every chance we get for the sake of petty tribalism. It's who we are as humans. Tribal in the beginning, and a million years later, still tribal. And "the bad guy" is always somebody from some other tribe.

[chwaliszewski]

237. For some people here at DU...

they are acting just like some friends I know who are Seattle Seahawks fans. Their team lost their first Super Bowl appearance to the Pittsburgh Steelers and were complaining about how the referees caused them to lose the game because of a bad call. This went on for years afterwards, sadly enough.

The cure? They finally made it back and beat the Denver Broncos. After that, no more complaining about the prior loss.

We need to focus on the upcoming season and let the past one go. All of the complaining and hatred towards a certain block of voters will never change the outcome.

Bring on 2018!

[DownriverDem]

238. Not turning on anyone

As I've said many times, we have a two party system no matter how folks want to think otherwise. You go with the party that leans mostly your way. For left leaners that is the Dem Party. Get a Dem win and then work to change the party. How? Join the Dem Party in your congressional district. For me that is the 12th here in Michigan. Become active. Then you can start at the local level to make changes. You move up by your participation to the state level. Then from the state level to the national level. That's how it works. We need to wake up to this. Stop the infighting. And one more thing, tell Bernie if he is going to run again in the Dem Party, to join the party sooner rather than later. We Dem Party members would totally appreciate it.

[nolabels]

245. You can look above and know why they thought the world was flat for so long

Mostly if you haven't noticed, the system did mostly everybody in and the people who own the system got what they wanted.

Wake up, a REAL fascism is knocking at the door

[Madam45for2923]

248. Wow! This OP's recs ballooned overnight. From 121 yesterday to 240+ this morning.

About 100 peeps during the night hours. LOL!