2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf Sanders Loses, Bernie Believers Will Take the DNC Down - Observer
If Sanders Loses, Bernie Believers Will Take the DNC DownThe Democratic Party may want to reconsider how they're gambling
By Michael Sainato • Observer
02/25/16 12:45pm
People cheer as they attend a rally for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders on February 21 in Greenville, South Carolina. Sanders and Hillary Clinton continue to battle for the votes of primary voters as South Carolina holds their Democratic primary on February 27th.(Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Such anti-establishment sentiments are epitomized by Donald Trump’s successful emergence as frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, and Mr. Sanders’ emergence as a viable contender for the Democratic nomination. As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich recently wrote, these candidates are a symptom of rebellion, not the cause of it.
“The establishment is having conniptions. They call Trump whacky and Sanders irresponsible. They charge that Trump’s isolationism and Bernie’s ambitious government programs will stymie economic growth,” Mr. Reich said. “The establishment doesn’t get that most Americans couldn’t care less about economic growth because for years they’ve got few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.”
And...
Americans have made it abundantly clear this election cycle that the status quo is no longer acceptable. Donald Trump is on his way to securing the GOP presidential nomination after three consecutive wins in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. As polls show Mr. Trump defeating Ms. Clinton in a general election, the Democratic Party—for the sake of their livelihood—may want to reconsider how they’re gambling.
Link: http://observer.com/2016/02/if-sanders-loses-bernie-believers-will-take-the-dnc-down/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
djean111
(14,255 posts)Bernie believers are not going to take the DNC down - the DNC has been festering for a while, and will bring on its own collapse, if things don't change.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)We must be made to know our real place in the scheme of things: fungible commodities.
Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #3)
PonyUp This message was self-deleted by its author.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Will be their own undoing
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)confer two votes to the establishment figures who are SD- bill clinton is one too- there will be HELL to pay if they try and steal the election this way.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3
http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)within a person to fall prey to such means.
Unknown Beatle
(2,691 posts)The United States is oh so very close to becoming a fascist state. A lot of those bullet points already exist in the US.
Karl Rove is the modern version of Joseph Goebbels.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)They became so addicted to corporate money they've completely forgotten about the voters they're supposed to be representing. If they ain't gonna listen to us, then it's our right to remove them from power.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Democrats and Americans at large can always surely be cowed into voting for the lesser of two evils, even as those 'lessers' posture militarily (Dukakis in a tank), tilt hard toward the right wing during the GE (Gore/Loserman), and vote for unnecessary wars predicated on bald-faced Republican lies (Kerry, and for that matter, Clinton). Just ask former Presidents Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.
Oh, wait...
-app
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)and the reaction of his supporters might be the final straw.
BTW, I think more Bernie supporters will go Green than Trump, given their liberal bent, but I do agree with the rest of the story.
mark67
(196 posts)This is not the year to sit it out or write it in. A Trump Administration would be dangerous. Think W. Bush on steroids.
Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate. Sanders may not be able to get anything down. But if Sanders gets the nomination I'll vote for him and encourage everyone I know to do the same. The same with Clinton.
Let's get a Democrat in the White House and then fix the system.
Unknown Beatle
(2,691 posts)And Obama has his administration full of corporate people, plus assassinating US citizens without due process, trillions of taxpayer dollars for Wall St. and big banks, new wars in the ME. Now, imagine that times ten, because that would be Hillary.
A war with Iran would be disastrous and could possibly start WWIII because of Iran's allies, Russia and China. Hillary has said she sides with Israel against Iran and would like to deal more harshly with Iran, meaning possibly a war.
alan2102
(75 posts)Funny, but it seems like I've heard that before.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Robert Reich seems rather reluctant to be more direct. He often dances around as if searching for the most acceptable descriptive in word or phrase, sometimes missing the mark. I find it frustrating to read his articles because of that.
In this case, while I agree with the over all thrust of his "message to the establishment class" (as I often do) I'd say this is another example of Reich's inability to drive home the point directly and head on. Indeed, he suggests that Bernie supporters are going to "take down" the DNC, when in fact, that responsibility falls squarely on the party establishment as you correctly point out.
As I write this I'm listening to radio broadcast of PBS: The News Hour pundits discussing the campaigns. Among other subtopics in this election, they're reporting that the turnout so far has been significant'y lower than in had been in 2008 at this juncture. Conversely the Republicans race turnout has been significantly higher than it was at this juncture in 2008.
if that isn't taken as an early "wake up call" to the party establishment, including the functionaries and their surrogates on this discussion board (and other social media) post haste early on in this election cycle, I fear will result in 8 years of the Neanderthals.. which maybe more to the Democratic Party establishment's liking rather than have Bernie prevail. cuz their behavior in the campaign and on this board suggests that maybe the case, the way it looks to me.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Do you agree with this?
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Playing out the loyalty oath bullying is the main characteristic of Hillary supporters who have nothing to stand on when it comes to issues.
The important question is can Hillary beat Trump, or Rubio or Cruz or whoever? She can't, especially with the flat motivation in the electorate.
I despise the Thought Police.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)
Champion Jack
(5,378 posts)
erlewyne
(1,115 posts)reminds me how helpless I felt when I had to vote for Gore.
(after he picked Lieberman).
The Democratic Party should have easily won that election
and it was stolen from them. I felt we deserved it. I voted
for Gore and it was a burden.
I'm voting for Bernie!!!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It won't just be the angry "Bernie supporters." It will be the party's failure and refusal to actually address the issues that Sanders and his supporters are talking about.
That will continue to lose traction with the independent voters, while the GOP is on the way to reemnergizing itself (in a perverted kind of way).
It will be terminal illness by self-inflicted irrelevance.
Cobalt Violet
(9,976 posts)DNC is losing, losing, losing. It's done. It's got to be reformed.
nxylas
(6,440 posts)They will just blame the left, like they always do, and continue to collect donations from Wall Street and Hollywood.
For all his bullshit bluster stirring up the rubes,
he ain't gonna slow the gravy train.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)everything else is irrelevant
The real estate mogul and “Celebrity Apprentice” host has made more than $1.3 million in donations over the years to candidates nationwide, with 54 percent of the money going to Democrats, according to a Washington Post analysis of state and federal disclosure records.
.....
Recipients include Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), former Pennsylvania governor Edward G. Rendell, and Rahm Emanuel, a former aide to President Obama who received $50,000 from Trump during his recent run to become Chicago’s mayor, records show.
.....
The Democratic recipients of Trump’s donations make up what looks like a Republican enemies list, including former senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), Rep. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.), Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and the late liberal lion Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-donation-history-shows-democratic-favoritism/2011/04/25/AFDUddtE_story.html
I wonder if his tea party fans know this?
Unknown Beatle
(2,691 posts)Sanders would beat Trump and the rest of the GOP field. Hillary would lose to all except Trump.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)and distancing itself from its core FDR-like principles.
Our party has always stood for protecting Social Security, helping out those who are disadvantaged, protecting the weak and providing a safety net for the poor. Furthermore, the Republicans were always the party of "big business" who championed the rich and used tax policy to benefit the rich, the powerful and the corporations.
Republicans starting going feral a while back. The corporations decided that they not only wanted to be served--they wanted to own our government. The Republicans obliged. But somehow, some Democrats began behaving like the Republicans. Power and money amassed on the Republican side, and some greedy Democrats decided that the wanted in on the party.
There are many good and decent Democrats who don't engage in this debauchery, but unfortunately, many in power positions do.
Now, we've got many Democrats involved in the war-for-profit MIC that Eisenhower warned us about. Some are bought-off pansies cheerleading for the corporations and ignoring "We The People" while the middle class slides into the shitter.
It is so sad. I didn't leave the Democratic party. I'm still here, fighting for what is right. What is so outrageous, is that these corrupt third-way weasels speak as if they own the Democratic party. They do not. The hubris is unbelievable. Good Democrats will not stand for this. Good Democrats will not stand around as our party becomes as corrupt as the Republicans.
The DNC has done this to themselves. They're offering up a warmonger and a corporatist as a Presidential candidate--while working behind the scenes to thwart the efforts of Sanders, a true FDR-style Democrat. Actions have consequences.
Many people won't vote. Many people will write-in candidates. Many people will continue to bring the party back to its roots. Democrats have the right to have an opinion about what has been done to our party and they have the right to fight against it. That doesn't make them any less a Democrat.
That is part of democracy. The Democratic party is a living, breathing construct made up of people with varying views. It's not one or two people. It's a movement that is comprised of millions of Americans. Many good Democrats are not happy with the corruption, warmongering and corporate takeover of many of our politicians.
I don't think Sanders supporters will take down the DNC. I think they will continue to fight within the system to be the chemotherapy that fights this cancer that has invaded our party.
Cobalt Violet
(9,976 posts)And we are willing to donate to someone who supports our cause! That's great to see. Eventually we will outnumber them as inequality goes uncheck. We will change the DNC.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)We'll work within the system.
This is a tale as old as time. If you listen to the arguments against FDRs ideas and policies--it's exactly the same arguments that we hear today against progressivism. Same goes for fighting corporate power and the fight for peace over war.
It's just bewildering, nauseating and sad to hear (and to be fighting) those counter arguments from inside the power structure of our own party.
I never thought it would come to this. Never thought I'd see corrupt corporatism and war mongering entrenched inside our party--and acceptable to so many in our party.
alan2102
(75 posts)"Never thought I'd see corrupt corporatism and war mongering entrenched inside our party--and acceptable to so many in our party."
How strange. You speak of this as though it were some new thing.
The DP sold out to and/or got taken over by corporations and neocon warmongers decades ago. Where have you been?
LiberalLovinLug
(14,689 posts)At least I hope so.
And by "take down" I don't mean destroy. And this article does not means that either, despite your insinuations.
The DNC is long overdue for an overhaul. Look at the track record of wins since 2009. That alone should demand a taking down, and rebuild.
Their long game of slowly transforming the Democratic party from a peoples party to a corporate party is almost complete...or at least they thought so before Bernie ran. They think that going after the small r conservative voter will be lead them to their promised land (not ours), where they can roll in $, get cushy jobs after they leave office, some with speaking tours, some becoming lobbyists for the same companies they accepted payola from in their previous jobs......AND cater enough to the same segment that the GOP caters to in order to steal votes from the Republicans enough to win elections. That is the turd way plan in a nut shell. One great big circle jerk that is working just fine.....for them at least. Their nightmare would be not only a Bernie Presidential win, but also a majority in the House, Senate, or both by new enlightened Democrats, if not this year then in the mid-terms. And they will fight to the death, to not allow their hard fought gains for their own personal wealth and power, to be threatened by true Democrats. Which, when the dust settles, one of the few left is one that never was a Democrat until recently.
840high
(17,196 posts)
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)If they use the super delegates to overrule the public, they indeed will be brought down.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I believe that the DNC is taking itself down by over-reaching into the corporate realm. The more they take corporate money, the more they disenfranchise regular folks.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)I'm leaving the dems to register independent after this election, people may not like it and may even vote to block me or whatever. But I will no longer be complicit with this type of "democratic party" behaviors. Trust me: It's not me DNC, it's you.
mike_c
(37,051 posts)...in the California primary this year, and hopefully in the general election. Otherwise, it's back to the Green Party, whose positions on the issues are very similar to mine. The DNC left me behind more than a decade ago.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)among Bernie supporters to take anything down but themselves. Their noisiness on this little forum may confuse people into believing that that kind of person is part of a major force, but actually most Bernie supporters are also Democrats. 80% of the Bernie voters in the states primaried so far also like and respect Hillary. That's 80% who are happy with her as a second choice, not the total number who would vote for her.
As for those few who've been spewing resentment at the DNC, it's hardly a revelation that some will move to the right when disappointed. Does anyone reading their constant outpourings of right-wing propaganda and Hillary Hate here doubt that? For whatever reason, it's reserved for the DNC. The RNC gets a free ride.
What will surprise them is that many hanging with them verbally now aren't about to betray their principles by actually supporting a right-wing agenda out of spite.
Where the harm might come from is not resentful extremists, but if some few of the balanced, principled people who were excited by Bernie just stay home in November. Hopefully as the campaigns move on they will understand that Bernie is not our only hope. Not by a long shot.
Looking forward to Super Tueday. Can you believe it's only five days away, finally?!
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)That is the key word on why some people do not support Hillary. She isn't principled. The dnc isn't principled. They have moved the democrats to the right when we need to be going to the left . I've stated I will be leaving the democratic party. I won't be helping fix it, but my leaving them will. If you want to sell your principles and beliefs out for a victory that is on you. I won't be part of the corporate money corruption one candidate has.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)about everyone not supporting their candidate, and that is a primary characteristic of those particular people I am talking about. Nor, I will add, would they abandon the principles they do claim to join the right wing, yet from the past we know that some will do just that.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)Do you mean slimy lies like the millions in corporate money she takes? Is that a lie? Do you mean slimy lies like her vote for credit card companies but against people? Do you mean slimy lies like sniper fire in Bosnia? Do you mean slimy lies like supporting TPP before being against it? Or keystone? Or fracking? Or supporting NAFTA? Do you not see how flawed and really not a democrat? I am tired of being sold out by supposed liberals who act more like Rockefeller republicans than anything else. I will not support the DNC again. It's not me DNC, it's you who caused this break up, Have a great day.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)go from there that is inexcusable.
You side with Chief Justice Roberts assertion that money doesn't influence? You justify the hundreds of millions of dollars accepted from Corporate America by saying it's legal? It's legal to evict your grandmother from your rental if she doesn't pay her rent but don't expect me to vote for you. Also, don't take millions from Wall Street and for profit prisons, have a super pac or two and then expect me to believe you when you say you're going to reign in the banksters, stop mass incarceration and repeal CU. It smacks of dishonesty and is insulting to my intelligence.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)We all on the left agree it HAS to be changed. The difference between you and me is that you'll lose the election rather than admit that Hillary IS one of us.
Bohunk68
(1,455 posts)In what universe does that occur? When does she have to struggle on an SS that is below the poverty line? When has she had to go to food banks/pantries in order to assuage her hunger? When has she had to go without to get a repair on a vehicle? When has she had to forego certain foods because of lack of income to get dentures? When did she forego getting an eyeglass upgrade? When did she have to wear a housecoat in order to stay warm because one couldn't afford firewood and the HEAP had been cut by 2/3? One of US? Sure, right. Yup.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)liberal and non-liberal Democrats are doing quite well, even more well enough, some remember those problems from their early years but are doing well enough now, and only some are poor.
Poor, struggling, and resentful is not a definition of who Democrats are. Overwhelmingly liberal, we are the people who built into the fabric of this country the concepts that all are created equal and that our government would one of the people, by the people, and for the people. THAT's who we are.
We also, with some help from others, brought America the New Deal, Fair Deal, Great Society, etc. That's who we are.
Getting lower wage earers a living wage plus some extra for discretionary use, assuming they work full time, comes under our founding principle of entitlement to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all dependent on adequate income, and poverty a prime enemy of all rights. And we inserted other principles that support it too. Like universal education.
You won't like this probably, but I believe you really should thank people like me. I suspect from the tenor of your comments that you could not have done it even if you would. There's a reason people who dislike, resent, and reject a large majority of their fellow citizens -- saving their greatest hostility for those closest to them in ideology -- don't prevail politically.
Thank goodness.
Bohunk68
(1,455 posts)the same as any of the poor that I was talking about. It seems clear that you believe that lack of wealth means lack of ability. Since when has that been a Democratic attitude? Hooray for me, I got mine, screw you? Is that it? Is that what the Hillary supporters believe?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Here's part of it. Please try again. BTW, this was alerted on, so you are likely not the only person who either didn't read it or profoundly disapproves of what I said liberals are.
We also, with some help from others, brought America the New Deal, Fair Deal, Great Society, etc. That's who we are.
Getting lower wage earers a living wage plus some extra for discretionary use, assuming they work full time, comes under our founding principle of entitlement to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all dependent on adequate income, and poverty a prime enemy of all rights. And we inserted other principles that support it too. Like universal education.
I really wasn't kidding when I suggested liberals, and thus Democrats, deserve a lot more respect than we are given, here and on the right. And that absolutely goes for Hillary.
George II
(67,782 posts)
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)I'm not one of her, either.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)and most Democrats are liberals (my "us"
, but some are actually conservatives and some are far lefters who reject Democrats and/or liberalism. There ARE very different groups of "us"es here. It seems that many here from both sides unite in one " us" to villify Hillary, though I notice almost none of the conservatives here are willing to identify themselves and, notably, decline to say what they really think of Bernie.
Then, of course, there are the non-Democrat conservatives Bernie has drawn to his anti-establishment message. Likely most come fully loaded with years of right-wing propaganda and, after acting out their hostility to us (the Democrat us) in DU's attack-Hillary pack, will no doubt swing off to support some right-wing leader, likely the GOP nominee, when/if Bernie withdraws.
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)There's Forbes list.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)trillion
(1,859 posts)
cynzke
(1,254 posts)From Corporate Money and corruption at this stage in our politics and government. It has been allowed to succeed for too long. You can't run away from it, flock to a third party because this problem is here to stay for a very long time. Running away to a third party, sticking your head in the sand isn't going to fix anything. The problem remains to bite you in the ass. If we abandon the DNC at this juncture to spite them, we abandon ourselves to a far greater disaster that will be harder to ever overcome. This is a battle, NOT THE WAR. We have to win one battle at a time. Hang on as tight as you want to your "principles", but in our current state of affairs, those aren't going to help get us out of this mess. We have to stop the GOP right now from gaining any more ground. They are far more disastrous for us than the DNC and we need the Democratic Party right now, THIS ELECTION, THIS YEAR. If they fail,watch how rapidly the GOP dismantle every thing we fought for over decades. Put the Democratic party in the grave and we will all be there with them. The RNC is loving this. We ARE the people who can reform the DNC, but it is going to take multiple elections, hard work and voting. The RNC has weeded out the moderates of their party, and they in a precarious position. The only way they can win and continue to win is if we self implode. This is NOT the time for pulling apart, but consolidating and blocking the GOP. If we don't, then a pox on both our houses (Sanders and Clinton).
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)But I do not think I will continue to reward 25 years of terrible governance. Dear DNC it's not me, it's you!
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)once we get another couple liberal justices. Everyone knows SCOTUS dealt a terrible, potentially lethal, blow to democracy with decisions like Citizens. The only people who support them are those determined to destroy the liberal tradition in government, which requires removing liberal principles from the Constitution.
We will eventually set aside those egregious laws and enact further campaign finance reform IF the next president is a Democrat, almost any Democrat; and the more we control Congress, the more comprehensive it can be.
Fwiw, my own standard would be "Not a damned dime.". Keep it so simple a violation stands out like a fly on a white tablecloth. That could take a while, tho.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I grabbed this scholastic piece from a folder to show you the direction that definition would come from. I like it because the tensions described between the leftists and liberals play out 24 hours a day here, and because it explains why far leftist "non-liberals" constantly remind me of the tea partiers.
You'll see, although I believe your terminology is ridiculously inappropriate, my definition could sort of be "those with ridiculous conceit about not being sold out-little liberal worms like me." Sort of similar. 
"After showing the considerable difference between the political Left and Right in personality and social attitudes, I suggest that they nonetheless share certain essential similarities that are relatively rare in the general population, especially a high degree of moral fervor and moral anger, even while they differ completely on what they are fervent and angry about.
My next step is to suggest that this shared moral fervor leads political Leftists and Rightists to have similar condescending attitudes towards their more moderate left-oriented or right-oriented compatriots, those who are merely "liberal" or only moderately "conservative."
...
"First, they share the same high degree of moral outrage and anger. This strong moral outrage makes them into absolutists. They become True Believers in their cause, with no doubts whatsoever. They see everyone else as sell-outs and trimmers. This includes many people who share their sympathies, but not their fanaticism. This disdain for less fanatical friends who share their general beliefs also reveals to us what the tamer versions of Rightists and Leftists, that is, conservatives and liberals, have in common: they are more pragmatic, tentative, and experimental in their beliefs. As might be expected, then, and as everyday observation makes apparent, there is often tension between moderate conservatives and Rightists on the Right side of the divide and between liberals and Leftists on the other side.
Similarly, there is tension between liberals and Leftists over many issues. Liberals want small gradual improvements, but political Leftists want major changes right now. When various types of Leftists have to define what they share in common, they are sure of one thing -- they are not mere liberals. Put another way, Leftists often define themselves as "not-liberals."
The moral outrage of True Believers of the Right and Left leads them to share a second similarity: they see everything as rushing to a huge crisis. They share the feeling that things have become intolerable and can't go on any longer. This sense of crisis is defined as growing immorality and degeneracy on the Right and as intolerable inequality, corruption, and injustice on the Left. However, at the same time, both Right and Left have hope because they believe that things are going to come out all right, that is, the way they want them to."
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)And, the one part of this article I disagree with is that "many" of Bernie's voters will go Trump should Bernie not be the nominee. I think his supporters are too liberal and, as you say, balanced and principled for that. I think they'll go Green, write-in Bernie or not vote at all.
And that's why Hillary won't win the general election. She doesn't inspire.
BTW, that 80 percent of Bernie Democrats who like her (honestly, I've never met any in real life, though) still aren't enough to overcome the deficit of the Millennials and Independents who won't vote for her AND the enthusiasm of the right to vote AGAINST her.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)I would turn my life upside down to get to the voting booth to vote for a truly liberal candidate, but I don't have that kind of enthusiasm for the corporatist, watered down version that is Hillary. I'm sure I'll vote if I get the chance, but how much effort will I put into getting to the polls if I'm not feeling well or I have to babysit the grandkids?
Besides, I live in a blue state, anyway.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)I am hoping Rahm's machine can get Hillary in if she is the nominee, because this Sanders supporter will be finished canvassing, writing checks, making calls, or any other activity that helps get someone elected. It will then be up to the crowd who wanted her to do that type of work. I do not canvass for corporations, they have enough help. I will vote.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)not blue state! (What was I thinking?)
I understand your sentiments, exactly.
eridani
(51,907 posts)The used to be core values of the party.
barbiegeek
(1,142 posts)The misogynistic Hillary hate from the far left Is disgusting!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)we need to make it democratic
barbiegeek
(1,142 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)an issue, be brave and make it as a statement.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I too notice only what validates by bias, and ignore the rest... rational thought is for chumps and elitists.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Fox Noise uses it all the time.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I agree that, that is what I'm hearing.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)that THIS TIME, we've not only HAD ENOUGH, but that WE NO LONGER WANT THEM! They've betrayed us for WAY TOO LONG and I'm FED UP with their heavy boot on my neck!
Can anyone tell me where we can go to FIND OUR DEMOCRACY AGAIN???
They're so corrupt they want us to STOP voting BECAUSE they've DECIDED THAT we should VOTE FOR HILLARY because THEY'VE DECIDED IT FOR US!
I can't tell you how much this DISGUSTS ME! People don't matter anymore or so it seems! My feelings are turning more and more bitter every single day! I won't be CONTROLLED. And if she's going to be anointed, then the DNC WILL BE THE BIG LOSER!
Just WATCH!
draa
(975 posts)I also feel that after decades of reliable support the party let me down. The concentrated effort to discredit Sanders and the constant stream of lies from the party apparatus has left a bad taste in my mouth. Politics is one thing. Being a lying asshole is something completely different.
I'm leaving the party after our primary. I'll go Indy and decide from there because at that point I won't owe the Democratic Party a damn thing.
It's bad enough they wanted us to ignore Clinton's Wall Street corruption and SoS influence peddling, but now they expect us to ignore the lies and smears coming from the party, it's media, and it's civic leaders. That's not happening this time. At least not for me.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)noamnety
(20,234 posts)a vote for hillary is a vote for Walmart, Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, Kissinger, etc. if she wins.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)100% truth. She is OWNED and will do the bidding of her owners.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)Those groups make up the Democratic base. They're driving those Super Tuesday numbers, not angry white men.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)How about "exceedingly peeved human males with pale skin underneath the salon tan?"
eridani
(51,907 posts)blm
(114,658 posts)Who would that benefit?
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)who the publisher is, if it's the truth...and every sentence resounded with my opinions...stop with the Shoot the Messenger. And also, what in that article was false?
Why must we bury our heads in the sand and wait like good underlings until we're told what we can, should or ought to do. I don't think so. This article should benefit the Democrats. And there is going to be a fight at the Dem Convention...bet on it. And this article just shows why.
The coronation was pre-empted almost inadvertently...but it is not going to happen. At best she'll eke out a small win. The scism between the Liberal/Progressive arm of the party is increasingly at odds with The Third Way Corporatists. And it's all about where the money comes from and who benefits.
Oligarchy or Reinvention ... that's the question Bernie now allows us to ask. Before that, HRC "inevitability" kept all the traditional Democrats out of the race. Surprise.
And Trump? He's just the proverbial canary in the mine. People are fed up. As Bernie says, enough is enough. It's time to take back the Middle Class from wherever it's disappeared to, and also take back the Democratic Party before it sold its soul.
blm
(114,658 posts)of which I am one - as gearing up for a riot as if he is speaking for ALL Sanders supporters, eh?
They are experts at the art of creating self-fulfilling prophecies.
You may feel better by dismissing Trump as unimportant to the motive of the article, but, I prefer to be far more careful.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)And I do not dismiss Trump as unimportant...on the contrary. He is currently the leader in the sharp turn toward non-establishment mood in this country. The last Trump primary was instructive for people who still think...especially Democrats. He trampled the entrenched Republican establishment and their jaws are still dropping. What happened? Hundreds of millions of dollars...down the tubes. Donors Not Happy.
The mood of the country is change...call it what you will...Revolution, Reinvention, Progress, Catastrophe, Disgusted Non Voters...but it is up front and center. The Middle Class wants its place at the table back. We've hemorrhaged Democratic down ticket elections for years under the current regime.
As far as HRC is concerned, she has a record and she cannot run away from it or shame her opponents into shutting up. It's almost comical, if it weren't so deadly serious to our country. The "tell me what I want to hear or go away" crowd is characterizing bringing up her record to hating and bashing and resorts to shaming the opposition.
It isn't about Her. It's about Us. If we want to field a candidate who can take Trump on, IMO it's Bernie.
blm
(114,658 posts)will riot. He is speaking for all of us, and I object, because I am NOT preparing to riot - I am working GOTV for the party with Bernie as our nominee or HRC.
I will not be rioting - too many people in my purple state NEED for a Democrat to be in that WH to preserve and expand the gains we HAVE made under Obama.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)vdogg
(1,385 posts)You'll take the DNC down? How...umm...democratic of you.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)The Caucasus are NOT Democratic, and Sanders holds the popular vote currently.
vdogg
(1,385 posts)This will not be the case after South Carolina or the numerous other primaries to come.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)That somehow GT to go before the blue liberal States.
Who thought it was a good idea for red States to choose our canadites?
vdogg
(1,385 posts)Not just red states. Are you really advocating the disenfranchisement of dem voters simply because of the way their state "typically" votes in November? That's not a very good strategy, and you will surely never turn a purple state blue by doing this.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I'm asking why the states that never vote Democratic in the General get to go first in the process, while the reliable blue states are left for last and are often disenfranchised because many candidates drop out because they didn't do well in red states.
So, basically the opposite of what you said.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)That he DNC is intentionally keeping the liberal voters away from the actual decision process. Interesting.
vdogg
(1,385 posts)And I'm really struggling as to how you came to that conclusion from reading what I wrote.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)in the primary's. You then said that I wanted to disenfranchise voters in the south, the only conclusion from the statement you repeated, I might add, is that the Primary order disenfranchises the states that go last, therefore you want to disenfranchise Blue stats, and have the red states choose our candidate.
If you don't understand what I'm saying, then you don't understand your own words.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Part of his plan when he created the DLC was to move southern states earlier in the primary process. That way it would be easier to get shitty conservative candidates through the primary.
Said out loud: "He's won 12 primaries!!!". Not said out loud: "In states that will never vote for a Democrat in the GE".
How Rockefeller republican she is.. that's the issue .
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Vote for Bernie or we will take you down and ruin the country by giving it to the GOP. I don't respond to terrorist threats!
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)...for fair play and a level field. In other words the DNC needs to take their thumb off of the scale.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Sad that this kind of trash is allowed on Democratic Underground.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)that talks about what people who are DU members will do.
I just read about what general Sanders' supporters will likely do.
But, hey, keep pushing the loyalty oath BS here in the primaries.
riversedge
(80,810 posts)threatening.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)
Raster
(21,010 posts)...Corporate goo, allowing the corporate-worthy candidates to prosper and the grass roots candidates left dying on the vine.
And let's be brutally honest: BERNIE SUPPORTERS WON'T BE TAKING DOWN THE DNC...DWS IS ALREADY DOING ONE HELLAVA JOB.
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)
wryter2000
(47,940 posts)People ought to look at the title of the site before posting drivel like this.
Arazi
(8,887 posts)you do know that right?
The Democratic party isn't in any jeopardy. The DNC is, as they should be. Debbie Wasserman Schultz should be looking over her shoulder - she's been absolutely terrible
The voters SHOULD have the power over politicians - it's the way a functioning democracy works.
CrispyQ
(40,969 posts)vote for us cuz we suck less & if you don't & the GOP wins, they'll ruin the country & it will be your fault.
~yawn.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)...you will say I'm threatening you?
You need to keep in mind the difference between a warning and a threat.
Cobalt Violet
(9,976 posts)You are so offensive!
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)If Bernie loses supporters will TAKE DOWN the DNC. Is that really what you want? It also says y'all will vote for Trump. Seems to me a Bernie loss means some will want to destroy our nation. What else would it mean?
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Would they want to remove an organization that continuously shows a bias in a process they are supposed to be neutral in?
Yes, and if their bias was one sided against Hillary so would you.
peggysue2
(12,533 posts)Nor should anyone. If this is a strategy, it fails and also underscores the level of irrational zealotry in play.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)I don't vote for perpetual war.
freddyt
(27 posts)At least with Trump, he'll do a quicker job of it, and hopefully the disaster will wake people up we'll be able to put a real progressive in the White House afterward.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Has anyone changed their support from Hillary to Bernie after reading something like this?
Probably not one single person.
If they can afford to prefer 4 years of schadenfreude under a Republican president over having a D President, well they are probably well off.
barbiegeek
(1,142 posts)This HRC misogynistic hate & threats have lost my vote if Bernie wins. I am in a purple state- Bernie needs my vote to go blue.
I have NEVER in my 34 years of working & volunteering for the Democratic Party seen such hateful crap towards (in all honesty) the only registered democratic running for the Democratic nomination.
Bernie won't even join my party, but wants my money & vote. Forget it
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)basically you vote for them
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)really? who ran the task force? this guy?
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)They keep talking about it like it's SPECTRE or the Illuminati.
Here's a crazy thought. People could actually become Democrats, get themselves elected to the state committee, and elect who they want to the DNC.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)But pretty much no one pays attention to those elections. The DNC and most state parties could stand to be cleaned out, but again, people need to pay attention. The last time we had a group trying to reform the state party here (a pretty corrupt state party at that), no one paid any attention and they barely got any support. We get the Democratic party we vote for.
wryter2000
(47,940 posts)
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Bad Thoughts
(2,657 posts)If she wants not just the party's nomination, but bring everyone together, she will need to address the things that motivate Sanders supporters. She doesn't need to become a "democratic sociaist," but she needs to be more liberal and not pivot to the the right.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)BS supporters are digging things up from the past when nearly everyone in the US was ore conservative.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)That would mean the U.S. has been moving to the left. We must be living in different countries.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)-none
(1,884 posts)I'm old enough to remember Eisenhower and ever since Reagan, the country's leadership of both parties, has been moving to the Right. The people not so much. But all we normally have to vote for, is some variation of the evils put in front of us. So we keep moving to the Right by voting for the one we think will do the least damage. Step by step...
I'm tired of the status quo of slipping ever downward to the Right for the last 55 years There is a cliff at the bottom of the slippery slope. Let's not go over it, OK?
Bohunk68
(1,455 posts)We're about the same era, it seems.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)for people born in the last 15 years.If old, it is way to the right of pre Raygun now.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Cosmocat
(15,424 posts)real or not (and it mostly ginned up) anything she does is "not real" or "contrived."
Bernistas have gone full conservative derangement over her ...
Bad Thoughts
(2,657 posts)Perhaps what they say to critic Clinton has started to resemble Sanders' talking points, but that is the nature of political campaigns. Even Clinton's supporters incorporate the language of their candidate into their arguments. Clinton has been in politics a long time, has cast herself as a friend of many groups, who feel she has fallen short of those promises. Some of that pain reflects the unfinished business of the the 2008-2009 crash: those people are looking for a champion to help them deal directly with banks, with the source of their anxiety. She may not be responsible for all of this, but she needs to address people in order to build the coalition that is going to win her the presidency.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)that? And yes she does need to become a "democratic socialist" because that means a democrat who believes in social programs that help the people. And so far I have not heard her say anything but "we cannot do that".
I honestly don't think she has it within her to bridge the gap. It is not the 90s anymore.
NOW as to those super-delegates. They are supposedly there to act to keep the party together. They had better all start looking at the 14 points above to see just how the party establishment have betrayed the voters since 1980. And thinking about just how angry we are about the betrayal of the DNC, DWS , DLC and Hillary Clinton. They better start asking themselves if voting for Bernie will be the only way they have of saving the party. And the election.
okasha
(11,573 posts)you're just fine with the Super Delegates' betraying their trust and voting counter to the popular vote--as long as they vote for Sanders.
Gotcha.
Bad Thoughts
(2,657 posts)She could easily align herself with positions that are much closer to where Ted Kennedy was. Even Sanders is not as radical as the tag "Democratic Socialist" suggests. He's not nearly as radical as Kucinich was, but as some have commented, is a classic New Dealer.
Whether Clinton can pull it off is another question entirely. I can't speak for you, but I suspect that most supporters of Sanders entered the race believing that they would support the Democratic nominee, whoever that was, but found themselves particularly repelled by Clinton in the long run.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)this race. We are the ones who encouraged him to enter.
As for when I turned against Hillary Clinton: the day that the welfare reform bill passed and tried to force me to place my severely disabled daughter in an institution so that I could get a "real job". My state of MN came to my rescue and gave me an exemption. But I watched one of the news shows (Dan Rather I think) show the story of another mother as she watched the state come and take her disabled child away so she could get a "job".
For that mother I will never forgive Hillary Clinton.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I don't trust her to be anything other than what she's already showed me she is: a corporate-owned war hawk who takes advise from neo-con on foreign policy and Wall Street on the economy.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)My bet is on her Goldman Handcuffs
She will keep her benefactors happy.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)How is this any different than what happened in 2008? The party will eventually line up to support the nominee just like it always has.
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)People talk about the republican party splitting, but in this case there is major party differences between the classic democratic party liberals and the third way - republican light people
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Obama was not trying to eliminate the DNC like what is happening now...
haikugal
(6,476 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Whether or not Sanders can win a nomination over the wishes of the party leadership, the organization is badly in need of progressive change.
OkSustainAg
(203 posts)It has become a class warfare issue not a party issue. It goes beyond this election.
Vinca
(53,994 posts)All I can do is stop donating which I've already done.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)He's an insufferable ass.
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)this is the same piece of shit that slammed Michelle Obama for not being more like Bernies wife.
comradebillyboy
(10,955 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)And if the super delegates are the ones who decide who the nominee will be and overturn the popular vote, that will be the end of the Democratic Party.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I'm guessing this was written by the highlighted individual in your op. lol.
Republicans have been trying to bring the democratic party down for a long time. They will simply have more company in their efforts.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Given a once-in-a-generation chance to reform health care, the Democrats couldn't even write a bill that helps the working poor. WalMart workers are now 'covered' with 'insurance' that has a $5500 deductible, so they still can't afford to go to the doctor when sick.
And this is the ACA they pat themselves on the back for, every chance they get. Obamacare is a big fat zero for the working poor members of my extended family. I won't miss the Democratic Establishment that is owned by the banks and insurance companies.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)If Bernie felt that way he should have ran as the Independent he claimed he was all those years that he caucused with the Dems. He decided to run as a Dem because it was easier than trying to get on the ballot in all 50 states as an Independent. He caucused with the Dems for all those years to get ahead in Congress, (better committee appointments) since there was not any viable alternative third party and he didn't want to bother organizing one, and never let the Dems forget that he was and INDEPENDENT.
Hillary tried to get universal health care through during the Clinton Administration and it failed. They also lost seats trying. The ACA was not the system that Obama preferred but it was better than what we had and it could always be improved upon. That is what Hillary wants to do. She knows that incremental steps are better than nothing at all. Bernie has no chance of getting the Revolution that he needs to get his bold ideas through a Congress which has been nothing short of obstructionist since Obama was sworn in.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)She may have the title of democrat, but she isn't the type of democrat I was taught about. She doesn't come close to representing me and I will not put my name, money, or activism behind her if she wins, possibly a vote. Possibly.
FloridaBlues
(4,668 posts)Stellar
(5,644 posts)I guess. 
pacalo
(24,857 posts)seaotter
(576 posts)
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)1) With the passage of the ACA, the GOP right or wrongly, convinced enough people that Obama had moved too far to the left with what they claimed was a takeover of healthcare, instead of doing more to provide jobs programs; and
2) Democrats didn't show up at the ballot like they often don't do in off years' elections, while the GOP did because they hate the fact that there was a Black man in the Oval Office, bought the BS the GOP was packaging that Obama was an illegitimate president and was not born in the country, was not a christian but a muslim, was trying to take over your healthcare and doctors were living in droves, were for killing full-term babies, and were running up the debt so much that he was going to bankrupt the nation among other things.
Beowulf
(761 posts)and then follow up. In 2009 Dems had a mandate, the presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof Senate and they did what? The ACA was the best they could do, which wasn't close to what was promised in 2008.
PatrickforO
(15,425 posts)And I'm sick of people telling me that we can't use OUR tax dollars for programs that actually benefit US.
So, you bet. Bernie loses because of establishment ratfucking and other bullshit, I'm no longer there for the DNC. The Democratic party as it stands no longer represents me. Bernie does - he's more a Democrat than the Democrats.
Sorry, but I have to insist on a New Deal.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)What form that takes
Obviously they don't need our "little" money anymore to help do their "work".
JMHO
deathrind
(1,786 posts)"Many Sanders supporters who feel slighted by the Democratic Party for not providing their candidate with a fair and balanced shot at the presidential nomination will either vote for Mr. Trump, write-in Bernie Sanders or not show up to the polls."
Sad but very true.
LonePirate
(14,367 posts)
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)The problem is that they aren't interested in propping it up.
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts) GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)My sentiment exactly.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Do you agree with taking down the DNC?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)cannabis_flower
(3,932 posts)hopefully we will also take the DNC down.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)anyone one to handle the pitchforks?
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)
Bleacher Creature
(11,504 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
seattleite
(79 posts)Lot of Americans, for instance President Carter, disagree with your assumption.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)....that the status quo is no longer acceptable''
And HRC is the epitome of status quo.
longship
(40,416 posts)I will absolutely support and vote for the Democratic nominee, Bernie or Hillary.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)
Go Democrats!
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Go Democrats!! 
ImaPolitico
(150 posts)Bernie supporters will "take down the DNC."
We have to support the nominee -- if either Bernie or Hillary for the good of the party.
How childish the supporters are to say this. We all must support OUR party!
Go Hillary!
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Both are EEEEEvil.
The best way I can figure it, neither of the Dem candidates are, although I have my preferences.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Democat
(11,617 posts)The lesser of two "evils" is in fact better.
If one "evil" is an extreme right winger and one is someone less liberal then you, you would rather just not vote?
That is stupid and immature.
Whichever Democrat wins the nomination will be a thousand times better than the Republican candidate.
If you help a right winger to get elected then blood is on your hands, just like Nader.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)I'm a vet and I wont vote for a candidate that will get us into a war anyway.
I already know what Hillary or a Republican will get us into.
Hillary will get us into a war on her own.
She a hawk if you haven't realized
Democat
(11,617 posts)If you help a Republican get elected, you are supporting another war.
Anyone who helped Bush get elected was not against war, they were just selfish.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)don't care about the country. A fact that I will keep in mind come the GE.
She is a Hawk. She'll get us into a war on her own.
obamanut2012
(29,369 posts)I will absolutely support and vote for Bernie if he is the Democratic nominee.
yellowcanine
(36,792 posts)That is all.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)The DNC is turning up their nose at a chance for a dramatic realignment with a lot of demographics that have written it off.
Imagine if the DNC could claim it passed universal health care AND universal access to a college education.
They'd be the most popular party for the next 50 years.
Right now they're circling the drain.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)playing Russian Roulette, with five loaded chambers.
May they get the fate they have brought upon their wretched, greedy little selves.
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)To give HRC a full-throated endorsement when the time comes. To campaign for her like she did for Obama in '08. With his backing, and Obama's, the "I won't vote for Hillary" people won't have a leg to stand on.
Madam Mossfern
(2,340 posts)Don't make assumptions.
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)But her supporters would never turn their backs on the nominee, so it's kind of a moot point.
Bohunk68
(1,455 posts)In case you do not know, Party Unity My Ass were all Hillary supporters.
BeyondGeography
(41,101 posts)It's called prime-time at the convention. He won't be able to resist and that's a good thing. Nobody takes out Republican trash better than Bernie.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)
William769
(59,147 posts) ladjf
(17,320 posts)William769
(59,147 posts) ladjf
(17,320 posts)you are turning it into a billboard rather than a forum. I would never have blocked your posts no matter what they said unless they were obvious personal insults.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)
Merryland
(1,134 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)YES, it can and YES it most likely will...
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts) 
great white snark
(2,646 posts) WillyT
(72,631 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)that.
Petrushka
(3,709 posts)"...didn't see that coming."? Indeed!
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)DWS has totally failed. Dean had crafted a well oiled machine that is now in bad need of repair. 2014 should have been the wakeup call there.
markj757
(194 posts)if Bernie looses because of super delegates. As long as he is beaten fair and square, this won't be an issue. We've been having hard fought primaries for years, and if its a fair fight, then the losers lick their wounds and we all move on to win the general. And it starts with the candidates leading by example. I'm sure Bernie or Hillary, will follow this tradition, as long as Bernie isn't beaten by super delegates (that obviously won't be a problem for Hillary).
democrank
(12,598 posts)They`ll do just fine because the Corporate Establishment Wing will see to it...so many lobbyists, so much cash, so many favors. They have their way of keeping pre-approved establishment candidates front and center and showering them with whatever they could possibly need to get elected. They do the picking, we`re supposed to do the supporting.
Only, this time it`s different.
Win or lose, many Democrats and Independents are steadfast in their demand for authenticity and honesty, and there isn`t one thing the DNC can do about that.
stonecutter357
(13,045 posts) PonyUp
(1,680 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)legislative seats and 12 governorships. Although most presidents’ political parties suffer losses in Congress, Republican gains under Barack Obama’s administration have been unprecedented. After the 2014 midterm elections, Democrats suffered so dramatically that the Democratic National Committee organized a task force to review how the party connects their core values with voters.
<<<<<<THIS>>>>>>>
Loki
(3,830 posts)Redistricting done by republican state houses and senates. Makes it's almost impossible to win if you are not the incumbent.
You could spend millions, but the votes are so lopsided and divided to support anything other than the repuke candidate it's like climbing Everest without oxygen. We have watched this happen state after state after state because the repukes have run on fear, hatred, racism and the small proportion of people who love that, actually come out and vote for it. We only have ourselves to blame, because we thought this could never happen, but it did. They have won on races decided by less than 30% of registered voters. It's the minority that is making the decisions about the direction the states and this country are going. We have to change the way we draw districts for better representation, and also change our way of thinking about actually how important it is to get out and vote. Because the crazy people will, and it is there for all to see.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)What does DNC do about the hckable voting machines.......crickets. When progressive and moderate democratic candidates tried to run the DNC gave them......crickets.
Loki
(3,830 posts)republican legislatures will do NOTHING to fix those problems. NOTHING.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)But the DNC has been AWOL, asleep at the wheel, indifferent, and just plain wrong about correcting the situation. Keeping the corporate money coming in is the priority for them.
Where has the DNC been on really getting out the vote? Where has the DNC been leading the charge against electronic voting? Where has the DNC been on recruiting candidates who actually draw in voters, expand the party's base, and generate excitement? Where has the DNC been on refining, making relevant and urgent the party's supposed ideals?
The DNC was and continues to be a failure.
Loki
(3,830 posts)what do you think the republican legislatures will do about keeping corporate money out of elections, or fixing the crap we call voting? NOTHING!!!!! It serves them absolutely no purpose to do so. Haven't you watched what has been happening for the past 8 years. I lived in a state, Texas, that there was no way in hell that Democrats had a fighting chance in almost any election because the gerrymandering that had been accomplished by Tom Delay and others, made it fracking impossible. You could have a bazooka and aim it at them, and it would make absolutely no fracking difference. We have to take back the states from the governorships on down. Enact legislation and give redistricting to an impartial panel or they will just keep doing the same thing. To think that you can change that without the help of the DNC or other Democratic organizations, is an illusion. We need to invest ourselves into electing those people who will work for us, whether Independent or Democratic and get our butts out and vote. When you have a district that has been redrawn to have a higher percentage of republican voters, do you really think a Democrat can win in that district? That's what they wanted, and they spent years, systematically making sure that would happen. Fear, hatred, zenophobia, abortion, gays....... hey they crazies will get out and vote every single time for those rotten ideologies, we sit at home, thinking, nah, this crazy won't win, and they do. So don't blame the DNC for our lazy asses.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)The Democrats' message under the third way DNC is "those guys are crazy, we're not that bad!" No surprise people aren't motivated to vote.
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)markj757
(194 posts)There is a reason off year elections favor Republicans, because Democrats simply vote less. And when Democrats hold the Presidency and are more content, Republicans are much more angry and energized, especially with Obama holding the Presidency. The truth of the matter is that we have never lost control of a chamber, when Obama was on the ballot. We have always held whatever majority we had. Obama is obviously not the problem....when he is NOT on the ballot, that's when we loose, and loose badly. And most of the reason we loose so many house seats, is simply because of gerrymandering. In 2012 for example, in the house, Democrats won 1.4 million more votes than Republicans, yet we lost control of the house by 33 house seats. An opinion piece in the New York Times called it the Great Gerrymander of 2012.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)on a suicide mission.
They can't AND won't consider any other options...period. It's the Annointed Elite One or nothing.
They are more concerned about the status quo for the Entrenched 1990's Establishment crowd then they are about the 99% of 2016.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)of the republican DWS was designed by the elites to fail...corporations rule, so far...but if Bernie is not the nominee, the DNC is toast...
Loki
(3,830 posts)Give specifics, except "murica wants change". This is just another hit piece from someone who tried to take a hit at Michelle Obama, might as well call it what it really is, BS. Elect Democrats or elect repukes. Seems you don't care if the latter happens, but I sure do.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)will come down to which candidate can bring more people to the polls against the Republicans. I would say, based on facts in evidence, that the DNC has already bet on red, which is a shame. The DNC should remain neutral throughout the primary. They certainly are taking a chance. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but my view is that the headline is correct.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)1) If Hillary is the nominee, you wish to contribute to her loss and allow the Supreme Court to turn into a 7-2 Right leaning Court that will screw you and your descendant's hopes for a generation.
2) The OP assumes that an equivalent amount of Cruz, Rubio and Bush malcontents don't exist that will cancel out your nullification efforts.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)You keep believing that.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)she will do so barely, and with no coat tails. The congress will remain in GOP hands, and she will not be able to appoint anyone.
The GOP hates her with an unhinged rage, and they will impeach her and remove her from office. They will then impeach her VP and replace them with their guy.
Bernie doesn't have her baggage. He would inspire turnout of the Dems base in a manner HRC will not, and while they may not like, or may even hate Bernie, the intensity is several orders of magnitude less.
Bernie could even mean control of the senate, and the appointment of 1-3 Justices.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The DNC is not going to be burned down and voters aren't going to respond to threats from the socialists. Ain't happening.
Next time build some coalitions before running. It's just that simple.
barbiegeek
(1,142 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)If not, how is it different?
I haven't decided yet, but I'm not too fond of this "I'm going to take the ball and go home" mentality. GW Bush was said to be that way as a child.
There's too much extremism in politics, IMO.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)in support of another great conservative , George W Bush
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Do you have a link for that? I'd like to read that.
you are either for us or against us
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)The OP already made the point clear that at least some Sanders supporters are as extreme as the TeaPartiers. I'm not sure why you seem to be repeating that.
If you are not meaning to simply echo a point of the OP, you are not communicating very well.
You asserted that Clinton said something, I asked you for a link, and you provided a cryptic sentence fragment.
I lack tech abilities I guess. I lack skills regarding computers and am relatively new here. So haven't tried all that but will attempt it. Yes I am a sanders supporter and no I do not hate Hillary. I despise the direction her husband brought the dems. we need to shift back left otherwise given the choice of voting between a republican and a democrat acting like one people are going to vote for the republican. I am disenfranchised with Hillary and with the DNC. They earned it, I am just expressing it.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)So you fall squarely into the group of extremists talked about in the OP.
It's been my hope that the most extreme are merely TeaParty Trolls trying to incite division, due to the total lack of a even a minimally qualified candidate on the GOP side.
One thing I firmly believe is the single most important thing is winning the White House, regardless of who our candidate is. There is no room for TeaParty type tantrums in my book.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)People willing to act against the interest of others because they didn't get their exact way have never been a priority with me.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)It is simple, you candidate has not earned my vote, you may blindly give it because you support fracking, free trade, private prisons, perpetual war, myself, I will vote for the liberal. All she has to do is earn it, what can she do to earn it?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I haven't made my mind up yet, but this "my way or the highway" crap, trying to label me without knowing anything about me is off putting. Your "think skin" (sic) is leading you around.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)Come November, if she isn't indicted I may just vote for her, if she wins the nomination. I don't intend to sway anyone but please support who you wish, as I will.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)not big corporate interests.
If I don't want to vote for her, that's MY business, not yours. It's not a ball I'm taking home, it's a decision I'm making based upon her proposals. She's simply too right-wing for me.
freddyt
(27 posts)We're simply not going to vote for YOUR candidate.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Did you read it?
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)said go to trump ( not happening) write in sanders (possible) not vote at all (possible). That tells me the candidate you support has earned your vote, yet not mine. My vote isn't a guarantee. I will be voting in the primary and the general. I have never voted for a republican or other third party candidate. This election my vote must be earned, so far your candidate has not earned it. I will be voting in all the other races as well. What can you do to convince me to vote for your candidate? What does she need to do? Can you convince me she will hold true to her word? And which word will that be?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I support the eventual Democratic nominee, if for no other reason that the GOP's policies are horrible. I have until Tuesday to decide which candidate I support to be that nominee.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm looking to be convinced.
There are aspects of both candidates that work for me.
However, in this thread, the discussion is the supporters of those candidates, specifically, talk of Sanders supporters quitting the game if they don't win every spin/draw/hand.
You have identified as a Sanders supporter, and mistakenly decided that I am a Clinton supporter. Tell me, what about acting like spoiled children is supposed to convince me to join your camp?
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)I addressed this. I vote the 15th of March. I am voting for a different direction by the democratic party. I am voting for Sanders in the primary. I think it will serve the democrats better to advance with the Sanders agenda than the Clinton one. We are not going to get the independents under Clinton that we will with Sanders. I do not want a candidate willing to give up a fight for minimal gains. I want a candidate that will fight for $15 instead of start negotiating at $12. Minimum wage doesn't even effect me, but it does others. This is the problem, to cozy with big business. To willing to accept their money. She has to centrist of leanings for my taste. Good luck in your decision making. The information is out there.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Many of Bernie's supporters don't belong to a party and don't hold any loyalty to the Democratic Party. They are young and have barely if ever voted before, live in states where you don't have to register with a party to vote or are formerly disenfranchised voters who haven't voted for years.
The DNC is making a YUUUGGEE mistake thumb-scaling Clinton to the detriment of Bernie - he would bring in all these Millennials, all these disenfranchised voters and even a few moderate Republicans that would never vote for Clinton. The DNC could cultivate these people and make them Democratic Party loyalists, but they aren't. Many of these people believe (and there is evidence to support this belief) that Clinton is being foisted down their throats and they simply won't stand for that.
So, if you want to keep these people on board to vote for a Democrat in the general election, stop calling them "spoiled children."
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)is taking itself down. Just look at the last House elections. With Wasserman Shultz at the helm the party is going straight down the tubes.
Petrushka
(3,709 posts)
elleng
(141,926 posts)
TheFarseer
(9,770 posts)It would be much easier to accept, but it doesn't look like the party heads give a damn what the party members think, and that's what's hard to take. We should NOT have a situation where half the democrats are saying, it doesn't matter what you vote, we have enough super delegates and we can pull enough dirty tricks to over rule what ever silly thing you want.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I honestly don't know if I'd ever show up at the polls again. Not just this election. I might simply be done with politics for good if this goes down. Two and a half decades of voting almost exclusively for Dems, and the world keeps getting worse, and the Party keeps moving rightward.
valerief
(53,235 posts)wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)In effect, you're saying the minority of Democratic voters, including the youth vote that has the lowest turnout of any other group, will hold the Democratic party hostage (or worse) if we don't nominate Bernie Sanders.
mariawr
(348 posts).....dems have not given people a reason to vote for them...that's why we lose seats. It's all good to the PTB, a winning game plan.
Makes me retch.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts) 
DCBob
(24,689 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Are they going to hold their breath too?
Raster
(21,010 posts)...Even if it destroys the DNC as we know it, who incidentally, have been solidly in the bag for Hillary since day one! It's not our party anymore. The reign of DWS has been NOTHING BUT A MISERABLE FAILURE.
book_worm
(15,951 posts)
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)Allowing the GOP destroy the country in protest of a primary election nullifies that right. Not voting means you did not use your voice and deserve the consequences.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)If BS couldn't beat HRC, then BS is no better that HRC. So you would let Trump win because the lesser of the two candidates didn't get the nomination.
Think about how bad that sounds. They guy can't beat Clinton so let's let Trump win?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)The Bullet at least is quick.
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts) liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)care much about my country.
Thanks!
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)I respect that you support BS, not a problem, but if he does not win the nomination, you have to think about weather you love your country or would you be willing to risk letting a mad man run it?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)who will get nothing done?
Easy answer there.
Strategically, by writing in Bernie we also stop propping up the DNC and they will crumble their own weight of ineptitude.
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)that is messed up.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Why help prop up a corrupt system?
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts) Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)
sister_rosa_refried
(447 posts)emsimon33
(3,128 posts)It will be the end of the unDemocratic Party! Hillary can not win the general election...plain and simple!
MisterP
(23,730 posts)the DNC tried to burn down the warehouse for the insurance money but ended up covering the whole floor in kerosene--and themselves a few hundred feet from the exit
now they want us to line up against the baseboard and give our lives so they can get out and cash out
Beacool
(30,518 posts)They are just supporters of a candidate, not the party. A Democrat would vote for the nominee knowing full well that whichever candidate won would be a better option than despicable Trump, nasty Cruz or "not ready for prime time" Rubio.
If by some fluke Sanders wins the nomination, I would vote for him.
I have zero patience for people who throw tantrums because their candidate did not win enough votes to garner the nomination. Suck it in like Hillary supporters had to do in 2008.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)So it's a stupid, empty threat. Actual Democrats who are supporting Bernie Sanders will go quickly through their 5 stages of grief if he loses, and then amble to the polls in November, like they always do. The rest, which I suspect is a large segment, or at least the most vocal segment, were never Democrats in the first place. They're either independents, or millennials who are voting for the first time. Neither group turned out in the last midterms for Democratic candidates. Losing them is no loss at all.
This article is both laughable and highly ugly at the same time. Yet we have people applauding it in this thread. Why am I not surprised?
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)I seem to remember a group of supporters called PUMA's. Am I mistaken? Worried about some chickens?
Beacool
(30,518 posts)Most of Hillary's supporters voted for Obama. They weren't about to vote for McCain.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)If people choose not to vote for Hillary, shouldn't matter I guess.. she does have 10 years of having an operation and all she is a sure thing.
merrily
(45,251 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)If Sanders is nominated, the DNC could hold back on money and support, causing Sanders to lose by a wide margin. Then the party establishment would be well positioned to reassert itself and impose autocratic rule. Remember, there are a few people who are in politics entirely for themselves, not motivated by a sense of public service, not bound by concepts of integrity, pretty much free to do what they please. I am certain there are some Democrats who would prefer to see Trump win, rather than relinquish the power and influence they have built over the years.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)There will have to a real liberal party formed to take the place of FDR's old party.
When Democrats start rooting for the other guys to win, you know the fix is in.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Huh? Is that supposed to be a threat from Michael Sainato? Surely not, but it could easily be interpreted as a passive aggressive way to say "select Bernie or else?"
Frankly, at this point, it's pretty clear that it's too late for Bernie's campaign to recover and win the nomination. So I'm wondering what the real purpose and motivation of this article may be. I'm afraid to speculate, I'll leave that to other smarter (and braver) individuals.
Note to Jury: No candidate or candidate's supporters at this web site have been smeared or attacked. This post expressed my personal opinions about the article, and questions what the author hopes to accomplish, his meaning and his motivation. No rules were broken here.
randr
(12,648 posts)It is an election that will decide the future of all mankind on our planet.
The sides they are drawn and the curse it is cast, the slow ones now will later be last. Dylan
We have been drawn into an epic battle between right and wrong; Trump and his minions are clear on their intent.
Choose your side very carefully, your very lives may depend on what you decide to do.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)at least folks I know-will turn their backs on voting this year along with the Democratic Party at large.
They're done. I don't know what that means for the Dem Party nationally-but I know what it means locally.
packman
(16,296 posts)If anything, it should revitalize the Democratic party and propel it into the future and make it the party it should have always been - progressive and dynamic. Bernie is a breath of fresh air and the light in the dark, dank corners of the Dem. party. It's time we shook off the way we are use to do things and look at society in new ways. Thank you Bernie for that.
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)gordyfl
(598 posts)arriving in 2016. (Maybe even a fourth)
Bloomberg is hinting. Anti-Trumps could rise on the Republican side. The Greens could have their best year - or the Reform Party. The way things have gone this year, anything can happen. We can't assume it will be establishment politics, business as usual.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)
Nothing like the smell of FUD with my morning coffee.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)I believe some Bernie Sanders supporters stated it best:
I will not alter my vote out of fear. I will not be intimidated by threats of departure into changing the one that I support.
KPN
(17,377 posts)liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)KansDem
(28,498 posts)...of the Republican or Republican-lite parties.
Gamecock Lefty
(708 posts)he'll go back to being an Independent!
Historic NY
(40,037 posts) Then again Trump is pushing BS, isn't he.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Let me try to get this straight: it's your way or you take your ball and go home, but don't you dare call me marginal even though your attitude is that of a minute percentage and even though you were never really a Democrat to begin with because you feel too marginalized to consider yourself to be a Democrat.
What am I missing?
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)No Joke. If Hillary Is The Democratic Nominee And Sanders Supporters Fail To Vote For Her We Will Not Only Lose The White House We Will Lose The Supreme Court And All Of The Progress We Have Made Over The Past 8 Years....
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)Beacool
(30,518 posts)I would vote for a turnip in the GE if it had a "D" after its name over the bombastic narcissist with orange hair. I would think that most Democrats would lick their wounds, if their candidate didn't win the nomination, and run to vote against Trump. I don't even want to imagine what he would do to the country if he became president.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)With their focus on AIPAC, national elections for insiders and total disregard for the base, I would not donate one thin dime.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Watching Debbie DINO's antics down here in Florida - if Debbie is a Democrat, then I am not. Simple as that.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)
handmade34
(24,017 posts)and the "Bernie Believers" don't get off their butts and vote for Hillary (as Bernie surely will encourage them to do) they will then prove they lack the commitment and wherewithall to make any real change in their future... 
they will then be worthless as players in the Revolution....
Andy823
(11,555 posts)If she is the nominee. Not all those here on DU who make the "claim" they support him, really do. A lot of these fake supporters are here only to stir things up and to keep the fighting between the two camps going strong, and sadly it's working. As long as you post hate filled posts about Hillary, the fake supporters are welcomed with open arms by the old "anti Obama crowd", the same crowd that started the "anybody but Hillary" group over a year ago. Now some of them have been outed and been banned, but many are still here going strong and their numbers grow daily with new posters who come in and start right off causing problems between both camps.
It happens every election, but this year as been one for the record books.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)Nor will I allow you to pretend she is a part of it. You will need my support, I don't need yours.
handmade34
(24,017 posts)WE are all in this together...
lexington filly
(239 posts)no matter who our candidate becomes. I'm voting Democratic no matter what because the alternative of a Republican president is way too awful and the consequences way too great.
I don't agree with the direct cause and effect laid out here. I've no love for the DNC at all or that side of our Party but I don't attribute our Congressional and Governorship losses to them so much as these reasons:
We elected a brilliant, classy, compassionate, ambitious black leader as our President. We stood up for LGBTs loudly and clearly. We stood up for our environment and health care reform. The Tea Party was funded by the anti-everything wealthy and the Tea Party haters were better organized, louder, active than we were. Voter suppression and years of gerrymandering were significant players, too. Media covers the loud and hateful and it took something as dramatic as a multitude of young folks camping out on Wall Street and across the country for us to even get economic equality and the 98% of us publicly noticed. Corporate media has stiffed Bernie, too.
I agree the Wassermans, Schumers, DNC don't embrace meaningful reforms. They embrace the status quo. But I think the answer is for us to fight harder. Louder. More persistently. Bring more people into our wing of our Party. We ought to be fighting now against Schumer being "anointed" by Reed and for getting a progressive in that position. And we need an ongoing 50 state progressive/voting strategy. Don't quit. Fight. Anger is justified but we need to channel it into something productive. Like getting ourselves to the polls every election and not just the presidential ones.
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)
OhZone
(3,216 posts)and give the nomination to Sanders?
I don't take threats and nor should the majority. :/
Oh well.
