2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThings are coming to a head. I believe vast changes are coming, whether we want them to, or not:
From the way I view it, there seem to be two Democratic factions: 1. Those who are
beholden to the Corporate Power people, and 2. Those who are fighting against the
corrupt Corporations.
Hillary is the leader of the Corporate-beholden Democrats, and Bernie is leading the
Progressive or Liberal Democrats.
Hillary sometimes refers to herself as a Progressive. I don't think she is one. The
Democratic Party seems to be splitting up, and the same thing is going on with
the Republicans -- they have their Establishment people and Donald Trump is leading
his own faction. Of course they have several other factions in addition. The Republicans
seem to be even more split than the Democrats are.
The Corporate Power people, of course, will do their best to have a strong hold in
every faction -- as usual -- and control things from behind the scenes.
Somehow things are coming to a head: Large numbers are sick and tired of their same old
Establishment policies, and are leaving their Parties -- both Republican and Democratic.
Changes are probably coming, whether we want them to, or not.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)simply are not.
The issues we have in common, economics mainly, yes, but almost every factor which drives them to the polls is based in hatred and fear.
Your thinly veiled attempt to throw Hillary into the same camp as the rightwing, is part of the problem.
revbones
(3,660 posts)and probably feel the same about you and your issues.
I think you misrepresent what was in the OP as well. There are similarities as noted in it. Denial without reason is just someone yelling "BUT my opinion says otherwise!"
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Saw that coming for a while now.
revbones
(3,660 posts)I did not mention racists and bigots, you did. Do you honestly feel that all your opponents are racist and bigoted?
Trivializing the beliefs of one side in such a broad and general stroke, does not allow you to understand and combat their views.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I know a few people who support Trump who are not evil or racist. They are simply conservatives who are seeing through the corporate bullshit of the GOP Establishment, and tired of the same quagmire that progressives -- and many moderates -- are.
They may be ideologically misguided, but rather than assume they have base motives, it is more constructive to a look at all the reasons for the discontent of people, and separate out the racist crap from the legitimate grievances.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)to avoid the point of the OP.
Why don't you believe Hillary is pro-corporate? Doesn't she do enough fund raisers with them?
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)You are not seeing the big picture
daleanime
(17,796 posts)the pro people side isn't represented. The 'elected democrats' have shown over and over that the concerns of the rest of us don't matter unless they're running for office, and then they rate lip-service at best and are easy forgotten once in office.
The problem is I am seeing the big picture. The world has pressing problems that have to be addressed by all of us and as long as making money is our main concern we won't even begin.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)only because of all the unfair advantages and tricks the Democratic Establishment people are
favoring her with, right from the time Bernie announced his candidacy for the presidency in
May, 2015: The way DWS arranged the Dem. Primary debates is well known. And right now
the Arizona legislature has just announced it will be officially looking into the possibility of illegal
voter suppression that may have taken place last Tuesday.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511563148
I believe there are more Americans who support Bernie than those supporting Hillary.
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)Just because the DNC reduced number from 26 to 6 from 2008 to 2016 does not mean they did it on purpose. Maybe someone forgot the 2 in front of the 6 when they planned them.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)That'll draw in the viewers!
senz
(11,945 posts)Autumn
(44,984 posts)
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)
God, am I proving my point or what !!
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)over to the right. Some to the middle, and few to the left. And some of the important ones just depend on the way the wind is blowing.
I fear a Hawk...IDC which party. I fear a person owned by groups of people who care not one whit for me or my issues....bankers in boardrooms. IIDC which party.
This is a subterfuge...blame discussing HRCs real issues (many of which are shared by the RW) on the Left/Bernie folk being accused of "driving hatred and fear".
When we discuss issues, that's what is appropriate to respond to. Not accusations of "flirting with the enemy".
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)
yourout
(7,524 posts)DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)As we hit the point where 50% of likely primary voters would vote for Bernie, and Independents leaning left break for Bernie at above 70%...
Even if he doesn't win the nomination he has started a Progressive movement with a detailed platform.
The next step is for Berniecrats to start or join a Progressive meetup in every congressional district.
It only takes 2 or 3 people per district to get started.
Then they will start a primary challenge against every Democratic Congress person that doesn't support the Progressive platform.
JEB
(4,748 posts)Fucking blue dog Kurt Schrader.
http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2015/11/kurt_schrader_splitting_with_m.html
Lorien
(31,935 posts)is "Progress" :
Bernie is a Progressive in that he believe in economic and social justice for all, and environment and worker protections.
The two sides of that photo can't be from the same location. It makes no sense.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)Leon Panetta is a progressive, he ran on environmental issues and showed west Democrtic party how to win. He was raised, in his words, within the tradition of “progressive Republicanism,” which he dates in California to Hiram Johnson. Parenthetically, sitting on his desk is a certificate his grandfather received when he contributed a dollar to the Progressive Party campaign of Theodore Roosevelt and Hiram Johnson in 1912.
randome
(34,845 posts)As exemplified by angry white men becoming less numerous and less powerful. And by the GOP's ongoing dissolution.
The Democratic Party isn't splitting up. DU might but what does that mean in the vast scheme of things? Not much.
The over-dramatization of events is getting tiresome. And who is 'The Corporate Power people'? All corporations or only those you disapprove of? The only strings that are getting pulled are those connected to Congress, not the Presidential race. If you can't see that Congress is where the power lies, then you're going to be as effective as OWS -a brief sunrise and then fading away again.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
Cal33
(7,018 posts)and 2008 that economically ruined our nation. The oil companies that profited from the War in
Iraq. The insurance companies that overcharge their clients, but provide as little coverage
as possible ....etc.
I am referring only to those companies that overcharge or steal from the general public, and
financially help elect politicians into office, and those who accept would then help to enact
legislation favorable to these companies. This is corruption.
I realize that there are many banks, insurance and pharmaceutical parties, etc. that do business
in a fair and square way, which is the way things should be done. I am not referring to these.
Are you satisfied now?
randome
(34,845 posts)A Presidential bully pulpit only goes so far, which is not far at all. Regaining control of the Senate (doable this election) and the House (possible but unlikely) is where we get the power to actually change things.
Like it or not (and I don't since I've said many times that I'd prefer someone other than Clinton as President), it is nevertheless Clinton who has the coattails to bring change to Congress.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
Cal33
(7,018 posts)the one who has been bullied by the Republicans for the past 7 years. In the last 2 or
3 months, MAYBE he is beginning to wake up. Just MAYBE.
Congress: Never in the history of our nation has our Congress had a lower approval
rating from the people. The last I heard, it was in the single digit range -- something
like 9%. It's disgusting! I wonder if a reason could be that too many of them have
sold out, and are working more for Special Interests than for their constituents. Does
this miserable rating bother them at all? Not likely, politicians are noted for having
very thick skins. They simply don't listen to the people. They prefer listening to the
Special Interests. Corporations, in short. (There's that word "corporation" again).
The American people are more than fed up to the gills. You may call it whatever you
wish to, but I feel we are right now already at the beginning of a dramatic change.
Where it will lead to, and how it will end, I have no idea.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts).... "PRETTY SPEECH".
The disgruntled left is reactive, not proactive.
They spent ALL of the Obama Presidency complaining about Obama (reactive) and doing nothing to develop candidates for 2016 (proactive).
All that time wasted ... demanding Obama face a primary challenge in 2012 even-though there was no candidate to challenge him. Brilliant political strategy!!
I've noticed a bunch of DU members who only appear when the general election is approaching. They complain about Obama and the evil DNC, and then disappear when they don't win. Only to return again, when its too late.
The folks who have attached Obama endlessly wanted Warren to run in 2016. She turned them down. So Bernie stepped in, and suddenly he is the only person who can save America!!!!!!
These "fed up people" you speak of ... don't appear to have the stamina of a house fly.
My prediction is that after Hillary wins the nomination, they will again disappear. Only to return and demand she face a primary challenge in 2020.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)To fight AGAINST "disgruntled leftists"... pushing things like the TPP
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)I've noticed just the opposite. The numbers of Hillary supporters increased dramatically with the
approach of the Democratic Presidential Primaries. I'm pretty sure most of these latter will stop
posting here soon after the General Election this November. All we have to do is to wait and see
who is correct.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)In fact though I'm reading less and less and posting less and less, I joined Democratic Underground not Democratic Establishment, I can get the corporate spin just by watching the electrical television machine or talking to my neighbors, I don't need DU for that.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)Except the rest of the world. Just keep your eyes shut tight and repeat: "There's no place3 like home".
randome
(34,845 posts)Minority rights, income inequality, voting rights, equal pay, climate change, all these things need greater attention. But those calling the loudest for a transformation usually do so on social media, which is next to useless. Until we have dedicated protesters demanding change, I don't see that anything will actually change other than on the margins.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
DanTex
(20,709 posts)perpetually angry people on the far left who are in love with the word "Corporatist".
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)It will be fascinating to watch.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)that way.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)Than the Bernie supporters here barely able to contain their wishful thinking and glee over an HRC indictment. Items from the RW fever swamp on this topic are posted here nearly every day.
But you keep on pretending it's a one way street.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)endorse her, but I would vote for her should she win, simply because I couldn't
possibly vote for a Republican or help them win in any way
Autumn
(44,984 posts)coyote
(1,561 posts)Something is going to give and soon. I am placing my bets that it will happen in the right 1st. Either way, change is coming.
The manifestation of Trump and Sanders is no fluke. The anger has been simmering for a long time.
procon
(15,805 posts)I doubt that anyone likes the effects of out of control corporate power and influence, but it has been in existence for nearly a century, all fully enabled, endorsed and perpetuated by both sides. And it's all perfectly legal because our elected officials made it so to keep themselves in power.
Citizens United added ungoverned volumes of money as an unending anonymous resource. I'm happy Sanders found a successful schtick that worked so well and allowed him to fund his campaign at the grassroots level. Kudos. Would there have been room for other Democrats to repeat that and tap huge amounts of cash from the same source... no, I think not.
Do I fault Clinton for gathering funds from other sources, using the wealthy to back her campaign against the unchecked corporate money pouring in the Republican coffers? No. If elected, the question is not about whether Clinton or Sanders can change the status quo, but if they can convince a majority of the old bulls who have been comfortably parked in Congress for decades to give up their perks and jump off the gravy train.
So I ask, of our two remaining presidential candidates, which one would have the most clout and leverage to influence changes in the system we have now?
djean111
(14,255 posts)If she did become president, then, obviously, the system will have worked for her the way it is now.
(What she may have said about this is irrelevant, because she will say anything, it seems.)
Cal33
(7,018 posts)sure that, if Sanders became president, he and Elizabeth Warren would be hard at work in
trying to get non-bribable Real Democrats into Congress.
procon
(15,805 posts)Under what authority does any president control who can run for office, how they fund their campaigns or what policy platforms they promote? Are you saying that a president Sanders will somehow be able to stop all other sources of funding and provide gobs untainted money -- all gratis??? -- to directly fund all the down ballot campaigns of aspiring pure Democratic politicians?
How do you envision that existing laws will be changed when it seems Republicans will yet hold the House for years to come? Then there's a Constitutional amendment needed to overturn Citizens United, and knowing how many states are already in the hands of Republican legislatures, how do you get the ratification to change this?
Tell me...
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 25, 2016, 08:29 AM - Edit history (1)
Democratic leaders will have to fill in where they suffer from the lack of not having their own news
media, which could have been doing at least a part of the work.
Beginning with Sanders, whenever the opportunity arises (such as giving a speech, at the end of it
tell the people about what's going on in Congress, how many Republicans and Democrats there are,
what the bills they just voted for or against may mean in terms of helping or harming the American
people. How it would hit their pocket books. The Republicans will provide all the ammunition the
Democrats need. Each time they make proposals to cut down spending less to help the poor and
try to give the "savings " to the Super-Rich, point out clearly the insanity of such a move. What
could be done to have the situation remedied. Then point out who was responsible for taking away
from those who alr have too little to live on, and giving it to make the rich richer.
If blatant lies on the part of the Republicans have been told, give the American people the real story
backed by evidence.
It will take some time, but more and more uninformed Americans will get to learn the truth of who are
trying to make their lives better, and who are the ones who are trying to make them still poorer.
They will also begin to realize that voting during off-years is just as important as voting during
presidential election years, because bills have to be passed in Congress first before they reach
the President. And the Party with the larger number of Congress members have the say wnich bills
get to be seen by the president , and which bills don't.
This doesn't have to be long, but it should be done often. Warren and other senators could be doing the
same thing in the Senate, and Pelosi and other Representatives in the House. It could be done briefly
when they are speaking on TV. Just give a short but clear message whenever something interesting
or important has happend.
I feel very strongly that Democrats should strive to have a news media of their own to counter the
omissions, propaganda and lies of the Republican news with true news, and backed by evidence.
The above is a gist of what could be done. But you get the picture.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)without the will to change the status quo, the ability to do so doesn't count for anything at all
procon
(15,805 posts)I can have a strong will to get an education, paint a masterpiece or become a rockstar, but without the ability to be successful, nothing will ever happen. You might have the will to change the status quo, but you have no ability to force the majority to vote to change anything.
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)... doesn't like that and buck against the revolution by supporting Sanders
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The disgruntled right and disgruntled left will what, join forces???
yea ok.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Establishments. We'll have to wait to see how things turn out.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... and Bernie is not killing the Dem establishment.
Am I wrong?
Cal33
(7,018 posts)killing the Republican one. To do so, Bernie would have to act as crazy as Trump does.
This is something that I wouldn't recommend.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)RNC. They are just under the surface. No endorsement will stop the process of party realignment or disappearance
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... lots of Bernie supporters will follow his lead.
If anything, the Bernie supporters will SPLIT.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Is well underway go read some poli sci and try to learn something. Or not...
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Very persuasive.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Party realignments happen. This is what is happening. It has Butkus to do with Sanders the current D transformation started with Bill Clinton in 1992. When it is over you will be free of the left you hate.
As I said. You can go find info. The Google is useful. Or you can continue to cast aspersions. I really don't give two shits about it, really.
But ignorance is truly a choice
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... I "hate".
I think, based on evidence, that many of those in the "disgruntled left" are full of shit. They do nothing but complain.
I'd be happy to see more progressive candidates all across the country.
I simply understand that in many states, those candidates will struggle because the country, while becoming more progressive, is still very much split.
After Hillary wins the primary, which she will, Bernie will endorse her (he might even do so in prime time at the convention).
What happened then?
I think, his supporters will SPLIT. Some will follow him to help ensure we stop Trump, and some will go off and SULK.
I'm not sure which of those you will end up to be, but I now have an idea.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The Google try it...or not. Don't care
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You being my intellectual superior (as proclaimed by you), I expected more.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Search string Sixth political party realignment
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)President and that you are wrong about Hillary
Cal33
(7,018 posts)is now ahead of her by 6 points.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511346023
This shows that more American people prefer to have Sanders as president. The only
reason why Hillary is winning in the Primaries is that the Democratic Establishment
people are propping her up with unfair means. (Example: DWS's rigging the number
and dates of the Democratic Primary Debates). The Dem. Establishment want her
even though more Americans would be voting for Sanders than for Clinton.
I am sure the Republicans would also prefer to have Clinton as an opponent during
the General Election, as she would be easier to beat.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)big blocks of delegates which is what he'll need to defeat her. Where does he make up for the 300 pledged delegates (we wont even discuss her HUGE lead with super delegates) she's ahead by. We don't have winner take all states.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)because of unfair and partisan tricks, which should never have taken place. But it did take
place.
Bernie has said that he would stay in until the last vote has been counted. I'm rooting for
him all the way.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)The guy who voted to fund every single war vote isnt a corporatist?
Cal33
(7,018 posts)since he has stated that as president he would break down the Big Banks to size, cut down the
insanely high prices of some pharmaceutical companies, enlarge Obama's ACA to a Universal
Health Care Single-Payer system that would cover every American...etc...
How did you come to such an idea, to begin with? Bernie a Corporatist?!?!
Response to Cal33 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The stripes and solids are ready for a run to the 8-ball. Win or lose we win. She is young and hopefully will continue the work. Perhaps as veep.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)try to make the changes our country so desperately needs.
procon
(15,805 posts)Well, she's 8 years younger than "old" Bernie Sanders, 3 years younger than me and The Donald, and 2 years younger than HRC. LOL - Is that how it works? Yep, she's practically a Spring Chicken in political years.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)average. Both Elizabeth and Bernie seem to belong to this group. The main thing is
that they have started a political movement to return to the policies of FDR's New
Deal. I hope this movement will continue to grow, flourish and blossom after they
will have departed from the political scene.
Big Business dominated during much of the second half of the 19th Century, until
Teddy Roosevelt came along briefly. Then Big Business resumed its domination
again until FDR. His New Deal carried on by his successors lasted for half a century.
Then Business Corporations took over again until the present time.
From the way it looks, there will always be changes, there will always be this up
followed by down and up again. Enough damage has been done to the American
people now. It's time to bring true Democracy back to our nation again.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)the things being talked about have changed
the possibility of a move back to the left is being created
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)
Zambero
(8,962 posts)Why is that? Many hate Trump as well but would vote for him in a heartbeat if Hillary was the alternative. Are they seeing something that's being missed by her progressive detractors?
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)She is not progressive. But maybe i would be more honest to say she is a right-leaning Dem. The far right has pulled the country so far right that sometimes we do not have the vocabulary for what we are trying to say. Or at least I do not.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)within 10 years as the catastrophe begins its real impact.
Are you voting for more status quo or for meaningful change?
The planet's health won't wait for us to fiddle around the edges.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)The Dem establishment is telling us to wait again. That tact might have worked if climate change hadn't been put off so long that it's a full time disaster every day.
Personally, I think the status quo can only continue for 2 more years before things really start unraveling. By the time 10 years roll by, this place won't be recognizable.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)but I'm thinking I'll just get shouted down by those who will want to argue over the number of years so I'm being "generous " (cough).
I figure 10 years should have people really getting the point even though I believe irrevocable catastrophes will be occurring much sooner.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)10 years is easily the longest we're looking at...the problem with that is, someone will then say we have time for 2 full terms of status quo before we actually have to do something about it.
We really needed to deal with it at least 8 years ago 
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)He should have been using his bully pulpit on this from day 1.
I fully recognize his inability to have effected major change but dammit, he really needed to be leading the charge years ago.
I really like and respect him too so I'm saddened at what's ahead.
Trump or Clinton will be even more vilified (if elected) and they fail to propose, and work for, massive change.
History won't be kind to those who failed the planet in its 11th hour.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)now on a serious note. We are in trouble and I think the eiltes, no matter what letter behind name, are in denial. So all this is to hold off the peaseants
Califonz
(465 posts)That is, a first-past-the-post electoral system with multiple parties, which power going to whichever party can get 35%+ of the national vote.
Bernie could have started his own party, and I kinda wish he would have a decade ago, but it was easier to run for POTUS as a Democrat.
In some states (such as California) the two major parties saw the writing on the wall and attempted to shut out other parties with their "jungle primary" system, keeping them off the November ballot in state elections.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Some of us would like to honestly address issues like climate change. Corporate shareholders fear this as it would harm their income and might drive some of them to the point of having to attempt personal labor instead of feeding off the destruction of our only home.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)to our climate is a part of natural changes. But the rest, as you say, are made up of Corporate
shareholders who care about their income, even to the point of risking the destruction of Mother
Earth, our only home.
I believe the USA Republicans form the only major group in the entire developed world that
continues to insist on doing nothing about climate change. It is astounding that human greed
could reach the point of being so all-consuming, that risking annihilation of much of life on earth
(including their own) is preferable to losing a portion of their wealth.
Are these people possessed? The rest of the world probably think that Americans must be
possessed!
raging moderate
(4,292 posts)La LA la LA la la!
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)allowed itself to be co-opted, that is, this is the natural outcome. 
I'd rather the party correct itself, I really do, but you're right, it looks less and less likely to happen. It's unfortunate and disappointing.
