Why are some Democrats so afraid of change and hold onto their status quo like a baby blanket?

[rhett o rick]

They are good people but they just are afraid of changing the status quo. When you point out all their fellow citizens that are suffering, they dont want to hear it. They read and watch the corporate news even when you tell them the truth lies elsewhere. They are afraid the truth will compel them to do something. They hold on to the status quo like a favorite baby blanket. They have been indoctrinated in the meme that change can bring worse times. Struggle and you will get The Donald.

But these people are really conservatives although some pretend to be progressive. They know that in this fight between The People and our corporate Oligarchy, their inaction helps the Oligarchy and yet they will eventually suffer along with The People. These conservatives stand by and watch protestors get punched, sprayed and even shot and do nothing. Hiding in their denial bubbles.

Sen Sanders represents a movement that demands change from the looting and greed of the Wealth 1%, while Clinton represents maintaining the status quo that has caused such harm to the lower 99%.

This primary is a fight for freedoms, liberties, and basic health care free from greedy insurance companies.

[SCantiGOP]

1. Because Sanders would likely lose the election and Clinton will win

But we've told you this before.

[TDale313]

6. So much nope.

She can't even put away the 74 yr old socialist. She does worse in the general than Bernie. She's a terrible candidate. I would hope either candidate would win against the Rep nominees, but it's no where near true that she's our best shot.

[SCantiGOP]

9. If you are disparaging the "74 year old socialist"

What do you think the GOP smear machine would do if he were the candidate?

[Armstead]

32. Variations of what they will do to Clinton

[Baobab]

41. A great deal of the reason some wealthy people are so wealthy

are various perks related to their insider status. For example, regulatory capture which is a key aspect of America is designed to chanel taxpayer money to the corporations which are regulated by government officials appointed from their ranks, for example, the banking industry is especially heavily represented in the Clinton-Obama group.

State capture is the highest and most corrupt form of regulatory capture. Global capture, capture of global governance institutions is what they are working on now.

[BillZBubb]

78. TPP anyone? Global capture in the flesh.

[whirlygigspin]

101. This

I raise my hat to you, and smile politely.

[Scuba]

107. Nailed it, Baobab.

[JPnoodleman]

102. The exact same thing they will do to Hillary, They've been calling Obama a...

Nazi socialist Kenyan terrorist secret Muslim for years now.

[George II]

7. Succinct and 100% correct. Thanks for the perspective.

[rhett o rick]

10. You keep saying it over and over hoping that will make it true. The hubris

of the Clinton campaign will be your downfall and maybe the countries. But the Ruling Class is ok with a Clinton vs. any Republicon because it's win-win for them. While your dream of a super-Wealthy Clinton Aristocracy runs the risk of more of the same greedy status quo that Clinton supporters seem to accept.

This is a class war and Clinton is on the side of the Wealthy 1%.

[hamsterjill]

12. Exactly.

The question has been answered. But they keep asking, don't they?

[KPN]

58. So fear then.

Just as the OP said. Even though all the polls show Bernie as the strongest candidate in either party and winning every match-up in a landslide not to mention by far greater margins than Hillary, you are afraid to take that chance.

Think about that a moment. Afraid to take a chance on doing what is right for our people.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR (1st Inaugural Speech. Where would we be today without him and that attitude, that leadership?

[daleanime]

64. Do you think if you repeat these fairy tales often enough.....

we start to believe them? Or are you simply continuing your own programming?

[Ferd Berfel]

87. good gawd

what are you basing THAT on?

[Contrary1]

96. Monday, April 4

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton IBD/TIPP -- Clinton 47 - Trump 35 ------ Clinton +12
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton IBD/TIPP ----- Clinton 44 - Cruz 39 -------- Clinton +5
General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton IBD/TIPP --- Kasich 45 - Clinton 38 ------ Kasich +7

General Election: Trump vs. Sanders IBD/TIPP -- Sanders 53 - Trump 36 ------ Sanders +17
General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders IBD/TIPP ----- Sanders 50 - Cruz 38 -------- Sanders +12
General Election: Kasich vs. Sanders IBD/TIPP --- Sanders 45 - Kasich 42 ------ Sanders +3

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[DemocracyDirect]

2. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt

Some people are more susceptible to this than others.

[TDale313]

3. They got theirs, screw the rest of us? n/t

[astrophuss42]

4. I think it's this

I'm working twice as hard with half the buying power my parents had. They are very happy with the status quo, mom doesn't vote. Dad will probably vote Cruz.

[rhett o rick]

17. I think that's a lot of it. Ignore those suffering and hold on to what you have. nm

[jwirr]

30. Even that can be fear. Down here where I am the next dollar

means something to eat or a rent payment etc. But the ones above me also recognize this and it is very hard to see anyone suffering and be able to reach out.

But for some reason it is often just those people who do reach out. Knowing full well that it is going to hurt them too.

[Autumn]

5. It's her turn damn it!!!!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. Well, let's face it. For decades, every change has been for the worse for many.

Specific subgroups of the population have made gains, whether economic or social or both, but for the majority, 'change' has meant less and less. Even when they thought they were voting for Change, they got mostly status quo. So I can understand why many folks have simply given up on hoping that Change for the better really can happen.

[bigtree]

11. some aren't as privileged as others

...and don't feel they can afford to risk this election on a sketchy revolution led by a marginal senator with negligible support from even his own peers in Congress.

Until this election, it was recognized and acknowledged that the progressive wing of the party was actively opposing the status quo. I think they'd be surprised to hear that they're now in favor of it, as the overwhelming majority of members have abandoned their caucus founder for his rival in this campaign.

[Armstead]

34. That is what the OP is referring to -- Fear of disrupting the status quo, plus privilege

It also depends on what one is "progressive" about.

It is entirely possible to be pro-choice, for example, and also be a money-grubbing corporatist and Wall St. piggie.

As for racial privilege, well economic progress and racial progress are not mutually exclusive, although that is the weird context of this primary, since Clinton decided to do a 180 from her 2008 "I'm the white candidate" persona.

[jonestonesusa]

98. Not every demographic of lesser privilege

is voting for Clinton. Are you referring specifically to people of color here? If so there's maybe a grain of truth to what you say, but my impression has been that whites who are working class or in poverty give Sanders a lot of support. That's a big reason why he just won Wisconsin. Nonwhite voting was 57-43 for Clinton, a majority but barely.

[rhett o rick]

112. I think it's those that are privileged that support Clinton. Those less than privileged

are struggling for jobs, retirements, SS, health care, college educations, etc. They don't feel they are risking much.

Clinton isn't offering those struggling among us, anything but empty rhetoric.

[LonePirate]

13. Demeaning Clinton supporters is no way to win in November.

Perhaps some people do not like this particular agent of change. Some people are leery of old white men, believe it or not.

Perhaps some people are more comfortable with gradual change instead of a widespread, sweeping change.

Perhaps some people want change implemented in a manner different than how Bernie wants to implement it.

Perhaps some people are reluctant to back a candidate proposing big changes because they have been burned by previous candidates who failed to deliver on their promises.

On the flip side, of course, are people who simply are not interested in change. Not all of those people are resistant because of economic reasons. They just do lot like change and fear the unknown so they prefer to stick with the candidate they have known for a few decades.

[rhett o rick]

37. The problem is that the gradual change has been severly harming most of the lower 99%.

The TPP will accelerate that harm. We must draw a line somewhere. How many people need to sink into poverty, how many children must die from lack of decent health care, how many people have to get thrown out of the homes, before you think action is needed.

The Wealth gap between the Clinton Class and 99% of us has been growing and growing. It is larger than any other modern nation and most other nations. People are literally dying and more will die if we dont reverse this trend. Clinton has made no pledge to change this widening wealth gap that has made her extremely wealthy. Those that hide under their beds hoping things might get better are enabling the continuation of this disaster.

It's good that our founders weren't terrified of change. And wouldn't they be disappointed to learn that many Americans are to cowardly to fight for their freedoms and liberties.

[Go Vols]

43. +1

[Proud Liberal Dem]

48. Our system and government institutions

are, essentially, set up to prevent radical change, which both works against us but also for us. It's easy to want to be able to accomplish massive change when it's OUR kind of change but just imagine how much worse things could have been had George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had had more power to change things in this country (and they did a lot of extra-legal stuff as it was and largely got away with it)? Be careful what you wish for.

[LonePirate]

51. What exactly is the Clinton class?

Do you mean a man who rose from humble and economically slight origins who worked hard to achieve career success at a local level before transferring that success to a national level? After which he used his accumulated successes and experience to become a wealthy man, with his wife following a not too different path to self-made economic comfort? Or do you mean that as a perjorative named after your preferred candidate's opponent to represent anybody with more income and wealth than a typical middle class American?

You have the ability to make a sound case without tarnishing the opposition through no fault of their own.

[TheFarseer]

57. Clinton class is

When you give speeches for $225,000 and don't think that's unusual. They probably wonder why anyone works 2 jobs. Why don't they just get on their private jet and give another speech at Goldman Sachs?

[LonePirate]

62. This middle class American has no problems if A wants to pay B over $200K for a speech.

We do live in a country where private businesses and individuals are permitted to make whatever legal arrangements they see fit. Do we really want the government to intrude upon all such perfectly legal business transactions?

Now if you set aside your petty jealousy, the last two sentences of your post have absolutely no basis in reality with regard to the Clintons. She is not the out of touch Marie Antoinette aristocrat you desperately and falsely portray her to be.

[TheFarseer]

66. I don't want to give speeches at big banks

Jealousy of the rich is a Sean Hannity argument. Quit using Rightwing talking points. I don't want a candidate who is in the pocket of big business and doesn't even understand why someone might not like that to be president.

[LonePirate]

70. Supporting legal, free enterprise in America is a right wing position nowadays?

I might suggest returning to reality here.

Also no one is obligating you to give speeches to people. That's the benefit in living under our current economic system. You decide what jobs you do or do not want. The government does not decide for you.

On a related point, given how you have removed public speaker from the list of professions someone can hold before running for office, what other prohibited professions are on your list? Tattoo artists? Pharmaceutical sales reps? Professional football players? Janitor? Journalist? Surely we want our candidate in 2024 to meet your preferred job history requirements.

[BillZBubb]

79. Bullshit. You trivialize a very serious ethical matter.

Potential candidates moving in and out of government making huge sums in the interim from the very entities they will be responsible for regulating is wrong. Hillary's speeches were just a legal way to bribe her because everyone knew she was going to run again. She knew it, Goldman knew it, I knew it and so did you.

If Hillary had ANY ethical base she would never have given those speeches to those groups, and never at those exorbitant amounts. It stinks to high heaven. Her not releasing the transcripts is damning.

And that's not even getting into the Clinton Foundation which will soon be another big can of worms. Another endless Clinton scandal.

[LonePirate]

86. What's bullshit is your selective outrage and complete lack of perspective.

She gave dozens of speeches but somehow the only ones people like you bitch about are the ones she gave to banks. To people like you, the banks are simply bribing her even though they comprise a small percentage of the speeches and the speaking income. And that's without any scrutiny of the bribe claim, for which there is no proof that she has traded modest speaking fees for political action.

If you think her speeches were bribes, then you surely feel the bundlers who arrange or collect large campaign donations from multiple sources must be bribing politicians also given the relative parity between the amounts. All campaigns have these types of people. What are they wanting in return?

Also, the speaking fees are indeed modest when you realize a six digit paycheck from a company is practically nothing when that company makes ten figures a year in income. The fees only seem exorbitant when compared to someone who makes five figures a year. If you think som one with a net worth north of nine figures can be bought off with a six figure paycheck, then you really need to brush up on your math skills. That's like saying someone who makes $50K a year can be bought off with $50. Evidently delegate counting and forecasting are not the only areas where DU has a math deficiency.

[BillZBubb]

88. No what is bullshit is moral blindness to the reality of the system.

Yes, bundlers bundle bribes. Businesses don't donate to candidates or pay for big money speeches from politicos without expecting some return on investment.

Our system is rotten to the core and Hillary is as rotten as they come. That's the real perspective.

[LonePirate]

89. Doesn't Bernie also have bundlers or are his bundlers pure?

If you're going to be outraged over this sort of thing, you need to be consistent, which I suspect is tough when unsubstantiated outrage is the primary motivator.

[Avalon Sparks]

94. Dozens, and Bill gave even more while in office

Calling the bribes speaking fees makes it so much cleaner, than having to deal with laundering money handed over in a suitcase. You know, like the bribe transactions that take place in mostly third world corrupt countries.

Of course in America it's perfectly legal. it's strange how some of the citizens support the ruse of bribe payments to governmental decision makers framed as speaking fees. As long as the reciever sings for their supper, it's perfectly acceptable. Never mind that old conflict of interest thing. Or using political power to benefit personally. In America it's not corruption, it's just capitalism.

It's the frequency, the large sums of cash deposited directly into Clinton's personal banking accounts and where the money's coming from that all clearly point to bribery.


Such is the way of corruption.

[LonePirate]

97. You claim corruption but where exactly is that corruption.

She performed a job. Her employer deposited her paycheck into her personal bank account just like my employer does with my paycheck. Yet somehow, this six figure paycheck from a bank sends the tin foil hat crowd here at DU into a tizzy without one single shred of proof or illegal or unethical action by someone who was not in office at the time.

I ask again, where is the outrage against the dozens of other companies and groups which paid her to speak? There's nothing but crickets when it comes to them because Bernie is not campaigning against manufacturers or software companies or what have you. The outrage is selective and does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny or inspection. It is as much faith based as the rantings from a Ted Cruz supporter.

[TheFarseer]

91. OMG, if you're going to intentionally miss the point

there's not much sense in continuing this conversation. If she was giving Jamie Diamond a tattoo for a quarter million dollars or mowing his lawn, that would look just as corrupt to me.

[LonePirate]

92. You're missing the point that $250K is pocket change to the banks and the Clintons.

[TheFarseer]

93. It's not like it was just one speech! n/t

[LonePirate]

95. The number of speeches and fees is a very small percentage of both total numbers.

[rhett o rick]

110. They amassed $150,000,000 in a very short time. Most of it was given to them by

people or corporations that expect quid pro quo. When Sandy Weill wanted Glass-Steagall overturned he simply called his good friend Pres Clinton and bingo-bango, frack those of us that have to clean up the pieces.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511670575#post1

[rhett o rick]

59. Maybe you have never been exposed to hard work. Have you seen what a sandblaster has

to do to eek out a living? Or a welder whose life will be shortened from breathing fumes, nurses, teachers, etc. These people work for a living. These workers are taxed heavily and have to struggle making ends meet. The Clintons made $150,000,000 in about 15 years all coming from gifts for speaking. This is a transparent method of graft. You insult the honest workers when you say the Clintons worked hard for their millions. And they haven't even started to drain off funds from the Foundation.

[LonePirate]

68. They worked hard to reach the point where they could make millions.

They embody the American Dream if anyone truly does nowadays.

Perhaps you should take up your complaints with a society who places more value on receiving speeches from former presidents than from blue collar workers. But I guess it is easier to direct your frustrations at the Clintons instead of corporations or businesses or civics groups or schools or anybody else who wants to hear what a former president or diplomat has to say about America or the world instead of wanting to hear what a local bricklayer has to say.

And if you think the speaking fees are nothing more than transparent graft, it should be easy for you to prove any wrongdoing in a court of law. Will you let us know the court date for your case?

[rhett o rick]

71. Ah yes the American Dream. To be able to win the lottery or be good enough at politics

to turn graft into wealth. The Clintons gave the banks an end to Glass-Steagall and the banks made them wealthy. That's not the American Dream.

The American Dream was for a family to own their own home, own a car, have one fully employed wage earner working 40 hours a week with two weeks of vacation and a modest retirement. Having the ability to send your children to college without debt. The Wealthy 1% have killed that dream.

[LonePirate]

72. Your selective and misdirected outrage is amusing.

We both know that banks only constitute a small percentage of the income from speaking fees earned by the Clintons yet somehow they are beholden to them. Shouldn't they also be beholden to pharmaceuticals, manufacturers, movie studios and various other companies?

Then there's the whole angle of giving a free speech to some company or organization but requiring a few to give the same speech to others. Does that mean she values the former less than the latter because she freely gave her time and effort to them?

The illogical, faux outrage that has infested DU nowadays is sickening.

[blm]

38. Both camps have been acting far too precious for primary politics, imo.

That is NOT good for us GOTV workers who have to work our asses off even harder.

Sometimes it feels like the bad actors of both camps who post on this board don't give a flying fck about GOTV for the entire ticket, or understand the real legwork it takes year after year.

[LonePirate]

55. All of you GOTV workers are the true patriots and heroes in America.

Let me thank you for all of your work in case no one else does so today. I certainly agree that the petty and sometimes vocal mudslinging from the more fervent supporters of both candidates is making your work far more difficult than it should be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. The same reasons that about 1/3 of Americans were Tories in the American Revolution.

[rhett o rick]

18. Exactly. As we've all seen on the school yard, some like to hang with the biggest

bully. They mistakenly think they are safe and don't care what happens to those victimized by the bully. I have news for them, the Oligarchy doesn't love them.

[HughLefty1]

15. We just gotta keep talking to our friends and neighbors...

The more they understand, the more they are willing to vote for Bernie. MSM is trying to make him into this big, scary socialist that is going to give everything away. We are the ones armed with the real info. so we need to disarm the MSM by spreading the real word about Bernie's policies. Little by little it seems to be working.

[socialist_n_TN]

16. Because the status quo is good for them?........

I think this would apply to all elected Democrats. Even if they are in the minority, at least they're IN. A LOT of people are opportunists in revolutionary situations. And no, the USA is NOT in a revolutionary situation. YET. But it is approaching that state. And finally, liberals as a group, in general, will support fascists if it means that is the only way to prevent a socialist revolution. Just some thoughts on the "whys".

[bettyellen]

24. Comparing Clinton supporters with Nazis? You jumped quite the shark here. Jumped it into Crazytown.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

28. no. comparing them to the people that didn't speak up against the Nazis

Not the same

[bettyellen]

31. so- more like comparing the Dems to Nazis? because the "status quo" = genocide ?

serious shark jumping for sure.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

35. not 'dems' just the ones who claim to be but are really just corporate shills

And still not comparing them to the actual nazis

[bettyellen]

36. So posts with Nazi analogies, aren't comparing anyone or anything to Nazis, LOL.

Nope.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

40. NO. compared them to 'good germans' NOT the nazis

[bettyellen]

56. because good germans approved of what? beer? Nope- they approved of Nazis. Just because the

poster is being coy, doesen't man they aren't comparing supporting Dems with allowing Nazis to take over.
It is what it is. Shameful.

[salinsky]

27. ... face palm ...

[Zorra]

39. ...

[rhett o rick]

115. The hide above is bullshit. You apparently said something that some didn't want to hear

so instead of refuting, they censor the post. Not very "politically liberal".

[mythology]

67. What utter fucking bullshit

You should be ashamed of yourself for referring to Democrats as good nazis.

[bettyellen]

82. no shame, no integrity. I am beyond disgusted.

[rhett o rick]

114. Are you shaking your finger? The point is a point that should be allowed on a politically liberal

message board. But some here want to alert, lock, hide and ban everything that they disagree with.

All of us that stood by and allowed our government to torture people, including innocent people, including children, in some cases to death and in some case to insanity, were not acting like good American citizens.

[seabeyond]

20. Baby blanket? But you were not trying to insult fellow Democrats, right?

[Nanjeanne]

21. Power and money. They need the power to get their lobbying jobs after

They leave Congress.

[NorthCarolina]

22. Because many make a substantial living off the system as it is now.

I bet if you ask most elected officials in DC if they would rather simply be elected public servants in a fair and equitable system, they would tell you that they didn't spend 6 figures or more to acquire a "public service" job.

[restorefreedom]

23. $$$$$$$$$$$$$ nt

[Faux pas]

25. Kickin'

[zappaman]

26. LOL!

[beaglelover]

29. Maybe because we're Democrats and not Socialists.

[rhett o rick]

44. So you are saying that because we aren't socialists we can turn our backs on the 16,000,000 children

living in poverty? The millions that were thrown out of the homes by the banks? The millions that lost their retirements to crooked corporations?

Democrats, real Democrats not the DINO's that kowtow to the rich, favor many socialist programs like Social Security and Medicare. If you object, you are in the wrong party.

[Buzz cook]

99. Yup ya got me there

Fuck kids living in poverty. As soon as I decided to support Clinton I stopped carring about kids and or poverty. /sarcasm.

. 'What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an Angel! in apprehension how like a god!

Unless they disagree.

[rhett o rick]

100. So realizing you were using sarcasm to mask your true feelings, how many children

should have to slide into poverty from the greed of the Wealthy 1% before you stop being sarcastic and decide to fight on our side in lieu of fighting on the side of the greedy 1%? You know that they really don't love you.

[Buzz cook]

111. You do realize that

I don't think Bernie is able to achieve the goals that you claim and that I do believe that Hillary can.

[BillZBubb]

81. Perhaps you could list what Democrats stand for then? These days it is very unclear.

Now, as I understand it, we are in favor of payday loan businesses. Or at least the Hillary wing is.

[The Midway Rebel]

33. It's the toned down, "screw you, I got mine" mentality.

They have a comfort zone they're not willing to leave.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

42. First off, stop with the insults

People can have different and equally legitimate viewpoints, even among members of the same political party. Attacking and de-legitimizing each other doesn't accomplish anything but division.

Second, Bernie's entire "strategy" for change rests entirely on the questionable (and unrealistic) prospect of a "revolution" occurring that will sweep him into office with the ability to implement single-payer healthcare, establish $15/hr. minimum wage, break up the big banks, provide free college tuition and reverse decades-long established income inequality. All of these are fine and laudable goals that I think that we would all like to see come to fruition but, at least for me, expecting a "revolution" to come about is NOT a viable change strategy, especially with the likelihood that Republicans will maintain control of at least one chamber of Congress. I would prefer to support a candidate who fully understands how to work with and through "the system" to accomplish change and has broader support among the Democratic Party, as well as broader experience and knowledge to bring to the office of the Presidency. Yeah, working with what we have in Congress, what we will hopefully have in the WH and federal agencies, and through the courts is not as sweet and "sexy" as what Bernie is promising (but will ultimately be unable to deliver on) but at least it is more grounded in a sense of reality and political tradition in this country. If, by some miracle, Bernie winds up in the WH, he will eventually have to yield to the same political realities that Barack Obama, who still accomplished a lot of important progressive things, has had to.

[rhett o rick]

47. In other words "sit down and shut up". I am not saying it will be easy. The wealthy 1% have

a strangle-hold on our government. But we must start fighting somewhere. How many people are you willing to let die of poverty before you decide it's time to fight? Clinton is part of the Wealthy 1%. She is obsessed with gaining wealth and power. She may throw the peons some cake but that's about it.

This is a class war and Clinton is on the side of the wealthy.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

53. Nobody is telling anybody to sit down or shut up

You hate Hillary and think she's part of the problem, fine. That's your right but just don't insult those of whom support Hillary and/or aren't convinced of the "brilliance" of Bernie's "strategy" for changing things. Whipping up the crowds during an election isn't the same thing as governing.

[BernieforPres2016]

60. Thanks for what is the most substantive post I have ever seen from a Hillary supporter here

You have actually articulated a point of view as to why you support Hillary. I appreciate that even though I disagree.

Do you think Barack Obama has really pushed hard to achieve the kind of goals you want to see accomplished over the last 5 years or so? Are we just doomed to this Republican majority and settling for a few crumbs when we can get them because fighting for real change is just too unrealistic? Where would the Civil Rights movement have gotten with that attitude?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

73. Thanks for your compliment

As for your questions, I believe that President Obama pushed as hard as possible to achieve what he laid out for us in 2008. He's not perfect (nobody is, of course) but I struggle with finding specific things that he could have done more/less of. The Republicans formed a solid wall of opposition and prevented much from getting through the Senate and he got some pushback from even some Democrats in Congress over his policies. It sucked that, like with Clinton before him he basically only wound up having two years with Democratic control of Congress to accomplish things. Is it a new rule now that Democratic Presidents can only have two years of a Democratic-controlled Congress before losing it to Republicans? He could have probably gotten more accomplished if we hadn't lost part of Congress in 2010 and 2012 (even though Democrats got more votes overall but lost due to gerrymandering), and lost the entire Congress in 2014 but he had to work with what the (majority of) voters sent to Congress for most of his Presidency and he even still was able to be marginally successful at the executive level at promoting progressive goals and keep the Republicans from advancing their odious legislative agenda.

Nobody is telling anybody to settle for a few crumbs or not to fight for real change but, to use your example, the Civil Rights movement (or the LGBT rights movement for a more current example) had to work within the system for many years to build up the support to achieve its goals. To use LGBT rights for a second, we started off with a ban on gay and lesbian service members prior to 1993, then (Bill) Clinton came along and pressed for an end to that ban but wound up having to agree to DADT as a compromise because he couldn't get Congress to come along with him (and might have written the ban into law in response to his efforts). It was a sucky policy by today's standards to be sure but it was "better" than what we had had before. President Obama came along 17 years later and got Congress to strike down the ban entirely in 2010. Of course, that might have happened sooner had we not had the Bush "reign of error" interlude from 2001-2009 but that's a whole other story.

The point being that things don't rapidly change in this country (mostly by design) and it's actually probably *better* that they don't because the other side would be more empowered than they already are to make even worse changes to our country.

[BernieforPres2016]

75. You make good points. The GOP has been incredibly obstructionist.

They've basically pretended that Obama isn't a legitimate President, starting with the Birther movement which Bernie points out in just about every stump speech. But I think the Democratic Party has become so captured by money that other than on social issues it has become hard to distinguish from the Republicans. There has been none of the type of enthusiasm that the Sanders campaign has generated and I think that is why the Democratic voter turnout has been so poor in the last couple of midterm elections.

I think a progressive President has to use the Presidency as a bully pulpit and rally people. I don't think Obama has made much of an effort in that regard since the ACA was passed.

Most of us Sanders supporters don't think his goals will be achieved instantly, and many probably won't be achieved at all during his tenure should he win the Presidency. Bernie says all the time that no President can do it alone. But we think he will fight for our interests and we are prepared to fight to support him.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

77. Thanks for the pleasant exchange of ideas

n/t

[forjusticethunders]

74. The problem is that what Bernie needs to accomplish his agenda

should have been built by the left grassroots starting in 2000, if not in 1980. But for the most part the "Professional" Left retreated to their highly-paid, highly-privileged and highly-white cul-de-sacs instead of continuing to fight and organize the downtrodden when Nixon and Reagan defeated the union movement (granted the unions had their own problems) and broke the New Deal coalition. When the far right was defeated in 1964, they reorganized and rebuilt their coalition into a winning one 16 years later. Now we're playing catch-up by trying to forge an intersectional left-wing movement, but that movement, because of the abdication of the economic/socialist left, has more or less decentered class despite the fact that class intersects every single person. The corporate Dems essentially took up the space that the left abandoned.

Because of the left's refusal to participate in coalition politics, they're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. They sit out elections because the Dems is too far to the right? The Dems aren't going to listen to them, let alone be pushed to the Left. Even now you have people on the left saying Bernie is a sheepdog, who sucks progressives into Democratic politics where their "energy" is dissipated. But don't you think, looking at a voting bloc that is roughly 45% of the party, you WANT that energy in the Democratic Party as opposed to the Green Party where you'll just throw the election to a fascist, and thus move the Dems even further right because that's what happens when they lose?

Also a key thing is that a lot of leftists are making money off the status quo just the same as DLC insiders do - by complaining about it while not doing anything to change it other than virtue signaling. But POC, LBGT and other oppressed groups don't want to hear you whine about their oppression, they want you to support them in their struggle, interact in their communities, and make an effort to listen to that. Centrist DLC Dems have done a better job in that than the "Left" has even when Bill signs DOMA and welfare reform and Hillary supports marriage equality at the LAST possible moment, listening matters.

There's a reason the entire Progressive Caucus has endorsed Hillary.
There's a reason most unions have endorsed Hillary.
There's a reason Bernie is losing AAs 80-20 nationwide.

The economic, class-oriented Left has failed for half a century due to horrendous tactics and strategy and the fact that Bernie is not winning, indeed, not crushing Hillary (who's a rather flawed candidate in and of herself) , is a testament to that fact.

[procon]

45. Maybe because they don't want to be associated with the sort of people

who think they are "afraid of change and hold onto their status quo like a baby blanket." Although I am determined to remain uncommitted until my state's late primary, I have a hard time imagining myself in the same camp as anyone who resorts to base name-calling as an argument to support a POV. If Bernie is still a contender by then, he will need the goodwill of all the voters that this OP and others of the same ilk, are determined to alienate and drive away. How is that a winning strategy to attract any prospective voter?

Oh sure, it's fun, there's cute high fives all around and mutual, mucho, macho ego stroking that encourages even more repetitious attacks featuring all the familiar rightwing talking points, but to what end... what is the goal here? While I hope he can pull it off, I wonder if the OP really wants Bernie to succeed more than he just wants to read his own knee-slapper screeds?

[rhett o rick]

49. I want to see democracy returned to America. I want to see jobs and people put back into

their homes. Greed of the wealthy 1% has run rampant leaving us with 50 million in poverty and Clinton having no intention to change.

Sen Sanders is the current leader of our movement. If not him it'd be maybe Sen Warren. But it seems the Clinton supporters don't comprehend that it's the movement we follow and not any one personality.

[procon]

65. If you had led with that declarative statement as your opening gambit,

I'd have no complaint against your views or opinions. However, that's not what you did, you decide to toss Bernie's whole philosophy under the bus for another boorish opportunity to antagonize all the opposition voters that Sanders MUST persuade to support him financially, as well as at the ballot box, if he is to win the GE.

Look, I understand the instant payoff in posting these self-serving threads, but here's the thing, what I don't see is any long term goal to elect Bernie Sanders when most of the Sanders followers are focused on driving away the very voters he will need if he becomes the nominee and has to beat the Republicans. What the hell are you people thinking?

[rhett o rick]

69. Well those that are struggling in America see this primary as a war.

It's no secret that the Ruling Class has stolen our democracy, freedoms and liberties. They have also been stealing our wealth and polluting our environment. Some are ok with that, I guess thinking that poor people should just die. Others see the disaster but are cowards when coming to dealing with it. Content to hide under their beds hoping against hope that things will improve.

But some of us are figuring it out that we are being exploited as we see more and more tent cities being set up. I personally know of people that lost their home. Also, a good friend lost his retirement when Enron was looting the countryside. Actually I know another lady, who has since passed away, who saw her retirement stolen by the company execs. And her SS age was 67. She had nothing but foodstamps and foodbanks and friends before she died. She never collected SS. I know a number of young people, some with college degrees looking for work or looking for above min wage jobs. Clinton would have them starve as she counts her tens of millions.

Just how many need to slide into poverty before you recognize a problem?

[procon]

80. No! We are not at war with out fellow Democrats.

Moving the goalposts with this maudlin appeal to sympathy is a losing proposition because the people you're railing against are likely no better off than the rest of us at DU. Your original assertion was that anyone who is not a devoted follower of Sanders must be fearful, brainwashed, uncaring conservatives just pretending to be progressives by hiding in denial bubbles. Now you have them hiding under their beds while you wrap yourself in a holier than thou attitude and claim that no one knows suffering like you do.

How does this help elect Bernie Sanders? Do you understand, yet, that it's not about you, that you're fighting an unwinnable battle that is doing more harm than good? Think it through; Bernie MUST attract large numbers of Clinton voters and convince them to switch their allegiance if he becomes the nominee. Time is short, and if you continue to drive these voters away with this constant browbeating, you're NOT helping him get to the White House, yeah?

[rhett o rick]

83. It's a class war. The division isn't a nice and easy clean cut between

Republicons and Democrats. The Ruling Class has co-opted some Democratic politicians with wealth. This is a war between the haves and have nots, the Wealthy 1% and the lower 99%. I think it's time we stopped letting the Wealthy 1% dictate who our politicians are. We desperately need change and Cliinton will not bring that change.

[procon]

84. You started off talking about Clinton's voters.

If you want to skip that now, and switch to the "Wealthy 1%", maybe that should be in a new thread, yeah?

I still don't understand your strategy for winning , and now I wonder if you've ever thought that through with an eye toward the goal rather than just the next scuffle with the opposition.

[bettyellen]

106. you nailed it- there is no strategy. It just feels good to some to spew hatred and disgust all day

long. It spreads like a fever here. Just like it did with Obama.

[whirlygigspin]

103. Scorched earth is not good for the environment

How can Bernie attract Clinton voters? This is your question...please offer your suggestions on this point to help unify us.

Would a unity ticket help?

I could imagine Bernie as President, using the bully pulpit to its greatest extent, and in the process scaring the hell out of the republicans with his crazy extreme ideas while Hillary as Vice President would be presiding over the senate creating unity all the while saying to republicans, "I don't want to do it but if you don't compromise, crazy Bernie's gonna take all your money"

-just a thought

[Capt. Obvious]

46. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Wed Apr 6, 2016, 01:07 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Why are some Democrats so afraid of change and hold onto their status quo like a baby blanket?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511660493

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

What a nasty broad brush mis interpretation of greater than 1/2 of the Dem electorate, including DUers.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 6, 2016, 01:11 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "some Democrats" - get a grip, alerter.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I see absolutely nothing disruptive, rude, hurtful, insensitive, over the top, or otherwise inappropriate about the poster's interpretation. He has a right to his opinion.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: maybe we should outlaw mirrors.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Could we have an 0-7 verdict and this alert stalker gets a reprieve for 24 hours?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[rhett o rick]

50. Thanks for posting. Some here would rather hide than rebut. nm

[cyberswede]

54. ridiculous alert

[ViseGrip]

52. AMEN!

[closeupready]

61. $$$.

[BernieforPres2016]

63. The Wisconsin exit polling confirms Hillary is the status quo candidate

52% of voters were for the status quo, said they want the next President to continue Barack Obama's policies. Hillary Clinton won those voters 61-39.

34% said they wanted change to more liberal policies. Bernie won those voters 80-20.

11% said they wanted change to less liberal policies. Bernie won those voters 67-32. (Don't know which of his policies they would describe as less liberal than Obama.)

[Orsino]

76. Same reason so many other people are.

Politics is complicated and messy, and one does not understand much about it without effort. Easy answers are attractive, especially when they are ones we've already committed to.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. They aren't just comforatable with the status quo. They'll fight to protect it.

See Kent State, Birmingham, Chicago '68, for examples.

[fun n serious]

90. We are only fighting for what we believe in..

We will fight hard. It's the American way. Denial bubble not us, you

[ThePhilosopher04]

104. Stockholm Syndrome

[whirlygigspin]

105. Aye papi

[ericson00]

108. because not every Democrat is that far to the left

unlike the GOP, we do have a big tent and a center.

[rhett o rick]

109. Explain to me what the differences are on issues between the left and your center.

Are you saying the left is tooo far left? We want to reduce poverty and keeping the status quo WILL NOT DO THAT.

We want single payer, is that tooo far left? How about ending wars for profits? How about eliminating domestic spying and getting back to the Constitution? To far left?

The "center" as you call yourself has done nothing to help the onslaught of the wealthy 1% that have seen their wealth's triple in the last 30 years while we have been sliding backwards.

You "center" looks a lot like conservatives to me. Hold down min wages, cut back on SS and Medicare, continue with domestic spying and indefinite detention. The center supports fracking and the job killing "Free" Trade agreements.

I think the center likes what they have and are afraid to fight for those less fortunate.

[rhett o rick]

116. I see that we are at a tipping point (if we haven't already exceeded it) where we must draw

the line in the sand and tell the rich and powerful that we aren't going to take it anymore. People in the 99% are dying because we no longer have a viable democracy. Those supporting Clinton and the status quo, want to ignore the suffering of those around us and desperately hold onto the status quo. I guess for them things haven't gotten too bad.

The Rich and Powerful will pull out all the stops to keep a progressive out of the WH. It's worth billions to them. May Sen Sanders and his family stay safe.

[rhett o rick]

118. I wish I'd saved a comment he made before he decided to run. It gave me significant pause.

He essentially said that he recognized the risk he would be placing on himself and his family if he decided to run. I think that pretty plane. It's no secret that people have been harmed in the game of politics. Especially if you dare go up against the Ruling Class. He went on to say he would be willing to take the risk if millions of Americans backed him. I was a bit shocked as I hadn't considered the risk we were asking of him. At the time I was very concerned that there might not be enough support to justify that risk. I am sure now he feels it was worth the risk. And maybe the Ruling Class will recognize that the movement is bigger than just Sen Sanders.