2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum'Bernie or Bust' is not a tantrum
Personally, I still intend to vote for Hillary in the GE if she gets the nomination. I wonder how many will angrily reply before reading even this far.
We should recognize where BoB comes from.
Many of the Sanders voters are new democrats (myself included) who are not strongly connected to the party. My beliefs align quite well with the stated democratic platform, but I've been on the short end of plenty of policies from both major parties and feel zero affection for either one. I know I'm not alone. Arguments to the effect of "We just need a majority of democrats," with no specific end-game don't carry a whole lot of sway with my crowd. Remember when the democrats got a supermajority and proceeded to do none of what they said they'd do with it (hence the 'shellacking' in 2010)? Many older voters remember, and many younger voters know only today's do-nothing congress. So the vague promise of a democrat in office leading to a brighter future for some undescribed reason simply does not impress without some specifics.
Clinton doesn't inspire. Clinton's campaign, at its core, has no actual message. Sure, first female president sounds like a good symbol, but the rest of the campaign is primarily "I'm not." Not Trump, not conservative, not a republican, not not not. No "we", and no indication of what role the rest of us could play in her presidency. On its own that can't inspire any voters who haven't already decided to vote for her. So the rest of the message is to fear the alternative. To voters suffering now, watching their lives slide downhill now, and knowing tomorrow will be worse, it's hard to get super excited about somebody promising to be marginally unterrible.
Obama ain't that great. I don't think he's a bad president, but he has some real flaws and people who bring them up aren't doing it out of spite or whatever. He's the president; those flaws matter. Whistle blowers have been persecuted and the government is too secretive. Drone strikes kill civilians. Murdering our own citizens because they're deemed terrorists without a trial is frightening. Deporting families is unconscionable. Wall street was never prosecuted and our economic recovery is so lopsided it might as well not have happened for most people. We're still fighting endless, unofficial wars. He never did find his comfortable pair of shoes. You're telling people pissed off about any of that mess that Hillary will keep the gravy train rolling?
The DNC is awful. It was obvious since before Sanders began his run that the DNC would collude with Clinton. Sharing field offices with her campaign staff, the back-door money hose, DWS immediately turning on the Sanders campaign after the data breech, and of course, the super delegates pre-pledging by the hundreds. Euphemize it all you want, the corruption is as brazen as can be.
Hillary supporters are just mean. "We don't need your vote." "We don't want your vote." "Aww, no unicorn for you." "It's math." "Feel the math." "It's math, stupid." "That's where the boys are." "You aren't a real democrat." "Grow up." "Get over your tantrum." "Stop acting like a spoiled brat." "We're gonna need more foil." "You're wasting your time." "You're wasting your money." "You're losing." "You hateful/sexist/racist BernieBros." Who on Earth would have a positive response to any of that shit? Attacking voters is a no-go.
The accusations that Sanders has been negative are hollow. In fact, just about every criticism against Sanders has been dishonest to some degree. From Capehart's ham-fisted swiftboating to "where was he on healthcare in 1994?" to our seagulls screaming about his speaking at the Vatican, all of it has made critics look like damn fools and by contrast made Sanders look even better to his supporters. So fresh negative attacks on Sanders now go nowhere fast.
If there's ever an election for a protest vote, this is it. Both parties are deeply fragmented, so no matter how this election turns out, nobody will have that much power. Odds are looking pretty good that we'll even witness the death of a political party. And Sanders is the strongest outside candidate in many years. Lots of voters will be giving a big fat middle finger to the two major parties, so the reasoning goes: "One more can't hurt." All the fuckyous in the world won't bring them back to you.
The only effective option for reducing BoBs (assuming you want to) is to honestly confront what they complain about and show them where the solutions to those problems fit into the party and the Clinton campaign. So far I haven't seen even an attempt.
Why will I vote for Hillary? I'm a pragmatist like Sanders. Fight and push like hell for the best possible option, and when the fighting and pushing is done, work with the best available option. Sanders is the best possible option for me. Hillary is currently a better fallback option than a protest vote, but lots of folks supposedly "with her" are working awfully hard to reverse that balance.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Txbluedog
(1,128 posts)That Hillary is the democratic nominee, what does Bernie or Bust mean? It means that BoB is saying that they rather hand the election to Trump Nd get no cake vs the small a slice they get with Hillary. Am I wrong in this assumption?
Actually Hillary and the DNC are saying they would rather hand the election to Trump rather than work with Bernie voters.
Txbluedog
(1,128 posts)Y'alls idea of working with Bernie voters seems to be ignoring the will of a majority of democratic voters and handing the democratic party's nomination over to the loser who wasn't even a democrat a year ago
Meteor Man
(385 posts)means cooperating with a massive block of democratic voters the Democratic Party desperately needs.
Or Hillary and DWS could just shut Bernie delegates out of the convention and platform process and then act totally shocked when Trump wins the election.
uponit7771
(90,323 posts)
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...the Hillary supporter responding to them did.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)He said platform and convention delegates, not 'handing Bernie the nomination'
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I guess they didn't get the memo.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)the very ones who aid the rightward shift of the democratic party. Bernie certainly is more of a democrat than a blue dog or a third way dem. Without a doubt.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)and IS, in fact, the real democrat, your unoriginal, copy and paste propaganda, to the contrary
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Talk about clueless!
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)who made the most f-ups against them. You'd be surprised.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)or hurt Moms on welfare. That's all the Clintons.
BTW, Bernie has tons of AA and Latino support now that we've left the South. We're kind of slow down here - look at who the majority elects.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)So your point?
However, he did vote for bills that harmed the Latino community...and you can be certain that will be played out vigorously as we approach June 7th here in Cali.
And those "tons of AA and Latino support" is a fable. It hasn't translated in votes, has it? Hillary Clinton still beats him by huge margins, and California has a huge Latino populace who are distrustful of socialist candidates. Wait and see.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Hillary did not write, sign nor vote for the crime bill. Bernie did. He voted for and strongly supported the 1994 crime bill.
I guess now we get to blame wives for what their husbands do? There are many words that describe that phenomenon.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)With Trump, I might get rid of some of the bad trade deals, but I'd lose my ability to make choices about my body.
With Clinton, I might maintain that choice, but I'd have no hope that income inequality would be addressed.
With Trump, we would stop all the insane regime change wars we keep draining our Treasury to fund, but I'd be very concerned about the safety of our Muslim and immigrant brothers and sisters.
With Clinton, those immigrants would be safe (maybe not the Muslims - she seems to like bombing their countries), but I'd lose the expansion of Social Security. She'll probably means-test it, effectively killing it.
Seriously, #ImScrewedNoMatterWho
Txbluedog
(1,128 posts)If you think like a pragmatic, the decision you might have to make in November might be a lot easier
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)And it's none of the above (if Clinton is the nominee).
I will not be a party to driving the Democratic Party further right and I think Trump is a bigoted dumbass.
I'm not struggling with this.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)you say it so often, it's actually like hearing static noise from an old transistor radio.
Can't you figure out how to carry a new tune?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Can't you figure out how to block me if you don't like what I say?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)your persistence in telling other what to do, and then repeating ad nauseum your hatred for Clinton, and voting for anyone but Clinton, is laughable.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The top block will be left blank or I will vote green. My state is to red for my vote to matter.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)Lots of Sanders supporters would be Trump supporters if Sanders were not in the race. So they'd be 100% OK with Trump beating Hillary in the GE. Lots of others are involved in politics for the first time ever, so Sanders leaving the race would signal them to go back to not participating or worrying about the outcome. Both of those groups get listed under BoB. Then there's a somewhat small (and shrinking) fraction that will stay involved and support Hillary. And lastly there's my group. I'll vote for Hillary, but not "support" her.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)A lot of Hillary voters are old, and wont be around for many more election cycles.
The party would do well not to alienate Bernie's enthusiastic first time voters. These are your seeds. Will you plant them and tend them lovingly? or will you contemptuously discard them?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)It is not your right to tell people how to vote. They can do with it as they like. If enough voted for a third party then they would give us mo options and would appear the next election in all of the states. The parties would take their people more seriously and the corrupt would lose some of their power. It is only a vote for trump if you vote for Trump, otherwise by your logic a vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump since every f@cking poll has shown her as weak and hated by the majority. But hey I am sure you will get tons of people to vote for Hillary using that line, nothing works better than ignoring a person's legitimate complaints and insulting them to make them help you.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If it seems that neither candidate is standing up for their interests and their beliefs, then why should they care, if they're not partisan Democrats?
I will vote for Clinton if necessary....but I totally understand why people think it will be a dog and pony show if the election is between two unpopular figures with no particular empathy for the actual voters.
snort
(2,334 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Bernie supporters are often accused of being children, but their reasoned posts are usually the most adult in this forum.
I will not try to dissuade you from voting for Hillary, but know that I won't. I've voted for the Democratic nominee for the past 28 years, but the rightward shift of the party has left me out. I am not a Third Way Democrat - I am a liberal.
If the party continues with its plans to nominate a Third Way Democrat at a time when it's clear the country is ready to return to FDR policies, then I can no longer stay in its ranks. It no longer represents me.
But, bravo(a) on your excellent post!
NewImproved Deal
(534 posts)
[link:
|StayFrosty
(237 posts)[img]
[/img]
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Oh - you didn't read it, did you?
Because, if you had, you'd know why this meme looks so moronic in this thread.
One Black Sheep
(458 posts)
You damn traitor and sellout!
Heh, just kidding. Good post.hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)puffy socks
(1,473 posts)This is vote shaming vs pointing out that voting for third party losers or not voting could end up with a Trump presidency.
Apparently many can't tell the difference
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)You did a great job summarizing what a lot of us have seen during this campaign and a superb job on the history prior to the campaign. Thank you. Everyone's vote is their own and I thank you for not trying to force your view on anyone.
ThinkCritically
(241 posts)because Sanders beats Trump in the polls by far bigger margins than Hillary Clinton. Either candidate can beat Trump easily (considering no one gets indicted). It's a moot point. Other than the "Beat Trump" narrative, she hasn't inspired anybody on any of her policies. I mean, when you look at what she has said about her policies it sounds like she wants to keep everything the same. She wants to take baby steps when we have a huge influx of voters to the democrat party at our disposal to make some real changes happen. With Trump as the opposition, we could have an incredibly huge blow out up and down the ticket. But she is simply not budging and is causing Sanders supporters to flee the party after the nomination. We will see the effects of it on down ticket voting. Especially in elections where the only choice is a super delegate who supported Clinton.
Jezebel Jackson
(45 posts)Response to Jezebel Jackson (Reply #18)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to hellofromreddit (Original post)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
beltanefauve
(1,784 posts)agrees with you.
Response to beltanefauve (Reply #100)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
beltanefauve
(1,784 posts)If you worked 40 hours a week, at a minimum you could expect to not be in poverty. Most families, in fact, could be homeowners and feed their families on one income. Today's youth have never seen or known of this.
In the early 1970s, "Womens Lib" came about. It wasn't just about burning bras. There was also cigarette advertising on TV and advertisers were telling us we would be more liberated if we smoked their brand. Womens Lib, both good and bad, permiated our culture. And with it, the big question: should women work outside the home? In retrospect, I wonder if we were being set up for the lowering of our standard of living. It wasn't long before we had to have double incomes to maintain what we had, and from there the decline happened, and in ernest.
And to this day, women still get paid 79 cents per dollar that men get. I can't believe we're still fighting so many battles.
Response to beltanefauve (Reply #106)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
beltanefauve
(1,784 posts)
SpareribSP
(325 posts)Nailed it. Hillary also doesn't help her message with the whole Barrier Breakers stuff and breaking encryption... She does the opposite of inspire to me. Still better than Trump!
basselope
(2,565 posts)At least for most of the people I know (including myself) who will not vote for Hillary.
I have not been a member of the Democratic party for many years.
I didn't vote for Kerry or Obama. The democratic party left me behind in in the 1990s.
I voted for Gore in 2000 and then organized and campaigned for Dean in 03/04. After it became apparent that the DLC was firmly in control.. I haven't voted for a democrat since and had absolutely no plans to vote for a democrat in this election UNLESS someone new came along.
They did. His name is Bernie Sanders and I switched my registration just to make sure there was no confusion and I could cast my vote for him.
If he doesn't get the nomination. I'm not voting for a democrat, as I originally planned.
So, no, it's not "Bernie or Bust".. it's Bernie or I'm voting the way I originally planned.
rdking647
(5,113 posts)Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)If Bernie is not the candidate, I won't be posting anymore.
I was here from 01-04 after I saw the banner during the "inauguration" of bush.
However, I left once Kerry became the candidate, because I wouldn't vote for a war voter.
Don't have access to my e-mail from back then and don't remember my login (thought it would have been basselope since I have been using that for many years), but I guess not or it was wiped due to inactivity.
Either way, sorry, I feel about political parties the same as I feel about religion your post strengthens that point. It's all blind faith. You MUST support and vote for the person with the D next to their name even if you don't trust them or believe them capable of doing the job.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Vote how you like, no problem, but you lost me there, great post till that, really excellent.
I've posted this before, but I see the fight as one against corporatism, and my working metaphor is swimming in a rip-tide. A rip-tide carries you out to sea, where you drown on your own far from help. You can swim towards shore as hard as you like, the problem is, you get tired and the rip-tide doesn't. Eventually you end up sleeping with the fishes. Is that pragmatic? Some say it keeps us moving more slowly in that direction. I don't see any real benefit to that, it's the direction that matters more than the velocity.
The way to beat a rip-tide is to swim side-ways. Rips are unforgiving but they are often narrow. By swimming to the side, rather than just going with the flow or fighting in its opposite direction (in my mind the Republicans represent going with the corporatism flow, and voting for Democrats supposedly slows that a little so represents swimming against the rip), you get a paradigm shift. No more tractor beam to heartless corporate profiteering. Without that, you can manage to swim ashore and start a better reality.
What do we find when we swim sideways? If we swim one way, we support only candidates who refuse corporate money and the fealty it brings. I consider this a viable path. If we swim the other way, we start a new party that states as a founding principle that it won't accept corporate money and that its candidates can't either. I also consider that a viable path. Anything else, I see as political suicide.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I could see a #SwimSideways hashtag for some political involvement in the future.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I haven't gotten in to the social media thing, keep meaning to but also keep putting it off. Anyway thanks for your comment, and fawk 'em.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)and his or her program is struck down by the Supreme Court, with Scalia's replacement as the deciding vote?
Wouldn't it be better if people figured this out now, rather than after it is too late?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The strategy being:
1. Hold our noses and vote for increasingly conservative and corporate-entangled candidates.
2. ???
3. LIBERAL GOVERNMENT!
Nobody can explain how #2 works.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Let's assume for the sake of argument that voting for Hillary will not result in a liberal government. (I disagree, but we can assume that for the sake of argument.)
So what? How is that relevant to my post? After all, I'm not saying that you will get what you want (in this election) if you vote for Hillary. I'm saying that you are significantly reducing your chances of EVER getting what you want if you don't vote for Hillary. In order to get what you want, you need both liberal justices to be appointed today, AND a future liberal president to win a future presidential election. Both are required -- not just one.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and we'll live forever in a twisted Libertarian dystopia. That's the "disaster politics" propaganda that the Democratic Party is selling, and I'm not buying it anymore.
Sure, in the short term we'll have to deal with a President Trump and that will not go well. However, America has had to weather some pretty bad Presidencies in the past and we're still here.
I'm looking at the long-term effects of your strategy, and so far it has got us into the mess we're in now: conservative Democrats who refuse to stand up to corporate over-reach and who are extending the Reagan Doctrine indefinitely. If we continue to do what you suggest - hold our noses and vote for increasingly conservative candidates - where will we be in 2024? 2032? 2040? Better to lose one election and get the Democratic Party back on track, than to win elections and lose the country.
As for the Supreme Court, the Democrats will have to learn how to block nominees like the Republicans repeatedly do. That's their job.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)And how did that work out for them? It is a bit much to hear people who caused Citizens United to be complaining about it.
Democrats can't block Republican Supreme Court nominees if they don't control the Senate. What do you propose -- Democrats stealing the gavel? It turns out that (surprise!) elections have consequences, that reverberate for long after the election takes place.
Your question about 2024/2032/2040 is kind of irrelevant, if your plan would make the country demonstrably worse in those years. Trumps Supreme Court nominees will remain on the court in all of those years, having veto authority over any hypothetical liberal president's actions.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and Democrats control the Senate, so your assertion is not quite backed up by reality.
I see you have swallowed the propaganda hook, line, sinker, rod and reel. I have no interest in hearing you repeat talking points I've been hearing for years.
/ignore list.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Breaking news: Republicans have controlled the Senate since January 3rd, 2015. (See that whole election we had in 2014.)
"I have no interest in hearing you repeat talking points I've been hearing for years."
Have you considered the possibility that if you have been hearing something for years, there might be at least a grain of truth to it? If people are telling you that what you are looking for might not be feasible, maybe you should listen. It helps to know who controls what branch of government, so you can make accurate judgements about what is feasible, and what are the consequences of one's actions.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)trouble with it is that somehow Hillary supporters and the Democratic powers that be don't seem to see this writing on the wall.
I applaud your post, and urge everyone in the Democratic Party to pay attention to this and to get on the Progressive bandwagon and lead the charge into 2016. (Hillary supporters are always telling us how Progressive she is, so why would this be any problem) History has presented us with a massive chance to make big Progressive breakthroughs that are complete in line with what the majority of Americans want.
Or we can continue the pretty lackluster policies that have sprung up since Reagan and that have had largely disastrous results, decimating our ranks, pitting us against one another, and discouraging those who would enthusiastically join with us.
Long live the formation of the NEW NEW DEAL!
uponit7771
(90,323 posts)hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)uponit7771
(90,323 posts)pansypoo53219
(20,966 posts)which was seditious. and the gnewz media let them get away w/ it cause it was good for RATINGS + they are still licking reagan's balls.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The GOP forced him to codify indefinite detention into law? To claim the authority to execute citizens without due process? To authorized "signature strikes" and "double taps?" To destroy Libya based upon lies? To increase military operations in Africa by 217%? To condone torture?
He did all those things by his own volition.
beltanefauve
(1,784 posts)Admits to being more like a "moderate" Republican and in "The Audacity of Hope " praises Ronald Reagan. You are correct about the media but there's collusion on our side, too.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...it was my first election I was eligible to vote in, was coming out of a right leaning home, and hadn't done any real looking into anything. I made a mistake and I'm associated with that for the rest of my life. I figured some things out after that and voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and also voted in both midterms for Democrats.
Now, looking at who will most likely be our candidate in the Fall, I can't vote for her. I don't want my name associated with another president that will most likely get us embroiled in more overseas escapades. One who will not address the drastic changes coming at us economically and environmentally. I'd never vote for Trump but I can't vote for Clinton either because I have no idea what she's really all about.
Largely, for voters like me who were still growing up in the 90's, whatever scandals or foolishness happened during Bill's presidency doesn't have much effect on my opinion of Clinton. There is more than enough video of her supporting bad policy of her own free will. It's been frustrating to have every criticism of her filed under VRWC when it involves things she said or did on tape, unless the contention is that the RW forced her to vote certain ways or go on camera and say the things she said.
So I'll vote down ticket where I can. If that means I won't be welcome here, that's fine. I will say I do think everyone who votes for her will be part owner in whatever foolishness she pulls in office. Whether that's more corporate welfare, overseas military involvement, and lack of real action on climate issues.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Most will get over it, the few that won't are a statistical insignificance.
PS - I didn't read a word of that. "Brevity is the soul of wit", y'know... 
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)He's sort of a loose cannon. Speeches and finger-wagging don't translate into building policy positions with co-workers.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)I'd rather you stop whining about how 'unfair' everyone is to you, though. No one will make any progress on the issues if you keep telling people you despise them and refuse to work with them. It's that simple.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)And said he would be a hypocrite to run ad a Democrat. Not exactly words of a friend.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)Obviously there's some middle ground where the truth is.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And you know damn well he would have gotten publicity in the General and had a high profile and likely impact much greater than Nader did in 2000.
randome
(34,845 posts)Which is a word that can mean anything you want it to. Instead of focusing on issues and building bridges and support for himself, all he does is tell everyone how bad they are. It's not a tactic, it's a tantrum. People tend to tune him out after a while and when he can't see that, the response turns to distaste. He lacks the messaging skills needed of a leader.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And despite all the attempts to sully his reputation, he still has a yuuge group of people who support him.
More importantly, he has a message and agenda that DOES resonate with many people -- including many people who don't much care for Clintonism, but reluctantly support her as the defacto "electable" establishment candidate.
randome
(34,845 posts)But like OWS, he can't quite close the deal. I don't see that we're ready for a revolution yet. Sanders has 'followers' more than 'revolutionaries', imo.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I do not think he intended that for the US. Careful what you wish for.
randome
(34,845 posts)Most of which will be accomplished with the growing irrelevance of the Old White Male demographic and the continued weakening of the GOP.
But most of Sanders' followers don't even know what they want, they're just angry and looking for whatever convenient target they can find. No leaders, no objectives, no change.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And we cover social justice issues. Things are not as tidy in the real world.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)And getting their vote.
I get you aren't voting Clinton. That isn't even the PUMa of 2016 but the other party refusing to vote our candidate.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)But it's not PUMA. To have "party unity," which is part of the acronym, there has to be give and take - you know, unity.
Clinton isn't giving Bernie supporters anything. She's not responding to nearly half the party who wants the things Bernie discusses. She's a "it's my way or the highway" candidate.
So, as a result, it, ironically, is Clinton who is promoting PUMA (again).
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)But, many are not Dems. Never have been, never will be. That is who I refer to that simply are not even PUMAs. Just Republicans, Libertarians and baggers.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)1) Nice broad brush there.
2) You would not BELIEVE some of the things I've been called by a couple Bernie fans, simply for saying I think Clinton's policy plans are generally better. If you think the things you listed are "mean," The things said to me would curl your hair.
3) I honestly think that Bernie or Busters come in two categories: The ones that are simple angry and will vote for the nominee in the end, because they understand how electoral politics work in this country and they are not idiots. . And the ones who won't vote for her and can't be convinced.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There are many valid points -- debatable, I realize, but valid
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)
AirmensMom
(14,642 posts)I am a long time Democrat, so I don't exactly fit the demographic. I live in a deeply red state where my vote is symbolic and not going to change one thing. I would have voted for Bernie in the GE and did so in the primary. Wild horses can't make me vote for Hillary, but no one really cares (well, except for the ones who erroneously say I will be responsible a Trump victory.) I am very discouraged about the prospect of either a President Clinton or President Trump. I am thinking that it might be less painful to just stop paying attention to politics. I'm getting too old to care. Nothing will change, except for the worse. The idea that a Democrat can even talk about "strengthening" Social Security by means testing or "compromising" on abortion rights is Twilight Zone stuff. And that's just a sample.
Add that this election has made it clear that the people don't have as much of a voice as we thought, and you have potentially discouragement across all demographics.
Anyway, thank you for your post.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I'm an old fart who has identified as a Democrat since the 70's but often wonders why.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Lindsixo
(18 posts)She will probably try to cut social security as Obama has done. I remember one of the debates Bernie tried to get her to say that she would not cut ss and she refused to say it. He asked like four times and each time she talked around the question. Not to mention her pushing TPP which is probably the scariest legislation I have ever heard of. It would potentially ruin any chance of future generations stopping climate change. How could this be anyones second choice?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Start at 4:57. She simply will NOT state how she would "protect" Social Security.
SMH
YouDig
(2,280 posts)To pick one. The last time the Dems had a supermajority, they didn't do "nothing", they did just what Obama said he would do, and passed Obamacare. And that was a huge victory, and many people are alive today because of that.
Anyway, yes BoB is just a big tantrum. Anyone who cares about any of the issues you talk about and is not a complete idiot understands that all of those issues will be better with Hillary than Trump. If, after that, they still want to vote third-party, they are doing so purely out of spite and emotion. They didn't get their guy, so they want to ruin it for everyone else. That is a tantrum, same as a kid who doesn't get seconds on ice cream and jumps on the ground and starts screaming.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)The rest of your post doesn't warrant a response.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)They got Obamacare, one of the biggest pieces of legislation in decades. They didn't get everything they wanted, for example the public option, but that's what happens in legislation. You don't get everything you want, even with a supermajority. especially when one of the Dems is Joe Lieberman. But the more Dems we have, the better we do.
As for the rest of my post, the reason you won't respond to it is because I'm right. No sane person can think Hillary and Trump are even close to the same, and letting Trump win out of some kind of spite is as good an example of a "tantrum" as anything I can think of.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)The ACA hardly resembles the universal healthcare program Obama and the democrats campaigned on. A thing with the same name shambled through, great. That changes nothing and you're quibbling over a single tree.
The rest of your post is still trash.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)It's not "literalism" to point out that you made a totally false statement. And, yes, ACA does closely resemble what Obama campaigned on. In some ways it is even more progressive -- Obama didn't campaign on the individual mandate, Hillary did.
ACA was a huge achievement, a great example of what we can accomplish when we elect Dems. Anyone trying to deny its significance is deluded. Almost as deluded as people who can't tell the difference between Hillary and Trump.
BigMin28
(1,176 posts)I personally know someone who died recently from pancreatic cancer. She did not get the care she should have received. She worked hard but because of the way it was set up, she didn't qualify for a subsidy. Yes I blame the Republicans who opted out, bu I also blame Democrats for making so many concessions and side deals with the insurance industry. No should have to suffer like my friend..
MisterP
(23,730 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)buying it, though. Good for us!
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)You claim that Clinton doesn't inspire anybody and nobody is voting for her, just against something. But that is your subjective opinion. You seem to have confused that with objective fact.
You claim that Clinton supporters have attacked Sanders supporters, but neglect to mention that some Sanders supporters have behaved in the same fashion.
You repeat the same old whine about the DNC being biased but don't prove it. The same things happened to Obama with regards to the super delegates. They switched when it was apparent that Obama was the choice of the primary voters. That somehow didn't stop Obama from winning. Sanders isn't the choice of the Democratic primaries.
Complaining about the DNC response to the data breach is laughable. The Sanders team cheated and got caught. Getting slapped on the hand was more than deserved.
Saying that Sanders is the strongest outside candidate is silly given that he's been in Congress for years. If you want to talk about a strong actual outside candidate, it's Trump. Sanders is claiming the mantel outsider, but he's been in politics for decades.
Of course some Sanders supporters have a hard time with some criticism of Sanders. But you put up some very silly criticisms and ignore one about how he intends to pay for his proposals. Not every criticism of Sanders is as silly as the ones over him going to the Vatican conference.
And yes it's a tantrum when Sanders supporters say they won't vote for Clinton or that Sanders should be given the nomination so that his supporters don't get so upset they won't vote again because their preferred candidate didn't win. I didn't not vote again because Bush won in 2000 and 2004. If somebody says they will be so disillusioned that their candidate lost that they won't vote again, I don't have any patience for that attitude. Hard work is required to get things done. Pouting doesn't accomplish that.
Obviously not all Sanders are like that. Not even all of the ones who currently say that they won't support Clinton in the general election will hold to that. But some Clinton supporters in 2008 acted the same way. It was just as silly then.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)/ignore.
beltanefauve
(1,784 posts)Very well written. I'm my case, I am an older voter who will vote for Bernie in the CA Primary. I've voted for Carter, Dukakis, Mondale, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama for President. I've watched the Democratic Party move increasingly rightward. I voted for "Hope and Change " and watched Obama make a sharp right turn as soon as he got in office. I've watched our representatives in Washington get richer and richer while in office and get even richer once out of office. Public service isn't supposed to be about getting rich! And I'm appalled (but not surprised ) that the Convention in Philly has so many sponsors that are pro-TTP and anti-Affordable Care Act. (I won't get into what an abomination the ACA is.)
Bernie's values square more with my own. "The Amendment King " works well with others, but threatens to stop the gravy train, hence the lack of Superdelagates. And this Primary has been blatantly corrupt and rigged in Hillary's favor. So you can put me in the BOB category as well.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)election is going to be dreadful
azmom
(5,208 posts)she did in the primary. I expect nothing less from her and the DNC.
Nedsdag
(2,437 posts)They are expressing their democratic right to voice their displeasure.
Besides, isn't your girl 3 million votes ahead of Sanders? Why should you give a hoot? She's in a seat of power.
