2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDo Hillary supporters want progressive voices in the party?
It appears more and more that they want to call long-standing dem positions socialist crap. It seems as if they want to redefine progressivism.
In short, progressives are being told in a myriad of ways by Camp Clinton, to shut up and sit down. Nothing new here. Marginalizing progressivism is a bedrock organizing principle within the democratic establishment. Hillary supporters have made it crystal clear that they fervently hope that Bernie fades into the background- after helping Hillary. And please don't bother to deny it. It's been said over and over and over.
Well, that isn't going to.happen.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Besides She's inevitable, she doesn't need Progressives and she is too busying courting Republican voters and Superpacs.
Since she runs right of Trump they should love her.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)
pengu
(462 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)They now want progressive to mean supporting Republican economic and foreign policies while throwing the occasional sop to moderately progressive social issues.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Progressives don't support PNAC, Republican oligarchs, or murderous ex-Secretaries of State from the '70s.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)are progressives? All of them have endorsed Hillary Clinton, who has embraced those endorsements and offered up not so much as a word in objection to their bigoted, ignorant votes.
WV has a closed Primary. Democrats there voted for Bernie Sanders over Hillary 'Reagan was an AIDS Activis' Clinton. 51.4% to 36%. Closed Primary.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)NDPs were part of it, but they were a really small slice... WV is not CA.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Saw a poll last night that said WV Dems consider Hillary to be more "liberal" than Bernie. 
???
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)viciously than the Republicans have. There's nothing progressive about that, just hate.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)My response...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511939175
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)You know, "free stuff" is bad.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)apartments, and to turn this generation into just another gaggle of cynical "pragmatists" so that way, we stop fielding grassroots candidates against status quo corporatists.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Actually, they are not redefining progressive. She is just borrowing the term to get elected, like she borrows everything else. Nothing is 'hers." It is all just stuff she picks up off the ground and carries with her, tossing it out as needed.
The difference between her and Bernie Sanders is so stark..
Hillary is in the race because for decades she has WANTED to be president. It is a NEED with her. She IS a politician, despite what she may say.
Bernie is in the race to help human beings AS a human being. He is a human being first, who chose politics as a way to help other human beings.
pengu
(462 posts)"Decorator crabs...stick mostly sedentary animals and plants to their bodies as camouflage"
These crabs grab sponges,sea anemones, corals, etc. and stick them on their backs so they look like terrain.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I think a healthy debate about not just our values, but how best to pursue them is good. What I don't like are the accusations that someone who doesn't support a particular candidate is somehow NOT a progressive. I generally support Sen. Sanders goals. I do not, however, support many of his currently proposed policies intended , and I personally do not think he's the best candidate to pursue them. I've called every name in the book for daring to disagree that Bernie is the Progressive savior. THAT, I am not a fan of.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)I bear you and completely support you voting for the candidate you think will do the best job. I have not seen much name calling but where it is it is ugly. Someone carry water for their candidate is not wrong. Denigrating people for their choice is.
Vote your heart. I am!
Bernie!
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I encourage advice form the heart. 
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Some will say that even as they simultaneously bash the "looney left".
The fight for the soul of the Democratic Party could be more important to the well-being of the majority of American and global citizens than most General Elections these days. We will have to reverse the "intellectual buyout" of the Democratic Party by the Clintons and other New Democrats if we are ever to reverse course in this country.
Right now, Big Business has got this country under its thumb, and they are clearly fighting to further enhance their prosperity by further impoverishing the masses.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)falls on the same place for my bullshit detector as "I remember landing under sniper fire in Bosnia".
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)
You, my friend, owe me a new cup of coffee.beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)I am sure all our definitions are different...but this I know...the voter base supporting Hillary is a big tent base including the entire democratic spectrum...unlike the base for sanders....in my progressive world...it's not about extreme policies, never has never will. It's about what can be made to work. I don't want see a litmus test on the democratic side like their is on the conservative side....all I know...the present day conservative is a danger to America
baldguy
(36,649 posts)WV proved that Sanders voters are just as likely to be ratfucking RW fascist Trump supporters as they are actual progressives.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)
pengu
(462 posts)It's amazing how the same inane attacks show up simultaneously across all sorts of disparate forums on the internet.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)
Brocking point! 
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)doesn't make it any truer than claiming Hillary supporters are progressives. PNAC and Wall Street are progressive now? LOL
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)McCarthy called, he wants his demonization tactics back.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Try as desperately as you like, you can't make progressive mean "aligned with Robert Kagan, Lloyd Blankfein, and Henry Kissinger".
It's hilarious that conservadems want to pretend to be progressive; why not just embrace the Republican values you espouse? More war, more Wall Street, more wealth for the wealthy.
boston bean
(36,220 posts)
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)People who think progressive and socialist are synonyms are probably not members of the Democratic party.
Sanders didn't join the Democratic party until 2015, coincidentally when he decided to run for President as a Democrat.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Or, they could just continue to be like the emo kids who are "too cool" to attend the school dance, but who'll stand outside the gym complaining that they can't hear the music, and getting pissed off because the band won't play their requests. They also have the nerve to gripe about how much they hate this year's prom theme and decorations (even though they didn't bother to help with ideas, fundraising or volunteering to decorate).
If you guys (and your candidate) had bothered to plan ahead, you might actually have had a chance. But nooooo! It's just easier to complain about how unfair it is AFTER the fact.
Lessons learned for next time, I suppose. Or maybe not... this could be a recurring pattern every four years, with nothing much changing or being accomplished in the intervening years and off-year elections.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)that criticizing Bernie's half-baked plans is not the same thing as saying we disagree with the goals?
Saying that 'millions of people' will force Congress to pass single-payer health care is a farce. Admitting to reality doesn't mean I think single-payer is a bad idea.
Relying on Republican governors to pay a third of the 'free college' is stupid, and never going to happen. Admitting that doesn't mean I don't think the goal is worthy.
There is a high degree of confusion among many Bernie voters that seems to believe that his proposals are not only the only ones that are progressive, but the only ones at all.
BeyondGeography
(39,367 posts)Remember all the opposition to single payer and the fallback of the public option when we were hoping against hope that Lieberman wouldn't torpedo it? Me neither.
onenote
(42,685 posts)You seem to think that progressivism is a monolith. It's not. Never has been.
There are many sides to progressivism.
Some progressives emphasize civil liberties, the rights of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, the disabled, and those who are the victims of discrimination or the denial of equal opportunity, the rights of women, and children. The rights of the accused when being questioned by law enforcement.
Some progressives emphasize economic issues -- the power of corporate establishments and income inequality. The needs and rights of unionized labor.
Some progressive emphasize issues surrounding the use of military power and foreign relations.
Most progressives are generally on the same side on all of these issues, but which ones are most important to them vary. Just as the repubs have had to deal with a party in which some members weigh social issues (including immigration, abortion, crime) most heavily while others are more libertarian and anti-government and yet others are mostly attuned to protecting their pocketbooks from taxation or regulation, so too must progressives (including those who are registered Democrats and those who are Independents) deal with the fact that there are different progressive values and not everyone prioritizes them in lockstep with other progressives.
It's something that folks on both sides of the Democratic party nomination contest ought to try to remember -- we're more alike than we are different, even if our emphases vary.
Beowulf
(761 posts)They don't want our voices. They've made it quite clear that they are the keepers of what it means to be progressive, a curious mix of neoliberalism and realpolitik.
In more detail, they like the idea of those voices in the party, because it helps them feel better about constantly voting for neoliberals.
However, they have no interest in doing anything to keep those voices in the party. And when those voices get "uppity", and actually want something done, they'll happily join the attacks.
The Heritage Foundation created a "health care reform plan", and Bob Dole originally proposed it. It is now called "Obamacare". These folks seem to think putting Obama's name on Heritage's plan makes it progressive.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)They don't agree with your assertion.
Is this now the second time I have had to poll Clinton supporters after you made a wild assertion? I think we can call it projection at this point, not assertions.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Also a big fan of Boxer, Warren, Brown, etc...
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)
dubyadiprecession
(5,705 posts)nobody in Hillary's campaign have told anyone to sit down and shut up. Stop spreading lies!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and it will happen. It is part of the party realignment The Dems might call themselves progressive, but in a standard political analysis they have become a right wing party. The Rs are a fascist party. So in standard realignment theory, the actual liberals and progressive will conclude sooner or later that their future is somewhere else. And they will end up acting accordingly. This will be painful for a good while.
Depending on how things shake up with the Rs, they might even go back to their Lincoln roots. (Unlikely but still possible)
