2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWe the supporters of Bernie Sanders ARE NOT FRINGE.
The DINOS are the fringe candidates...so far to the right that they
are Republicans to all intents and purposes.
In fact we are the virtual embodiment of the core beliefs of most Americans.
I've been a registered Democrat sine the 1972 election.
These young Clinton supporters here have no idea what a Democrat is...
because they have never seen one.
They've bought into the lie that they will become Horatio Alger...
WE are the future of the Progressive Movement which is for ALL the people.
WE care especially for the disenfranchised.
Our issues are the issues of the majority of Americans, not the wealthy minority of
a dying and decaying political structure, and we will win and treat the DINOS with
more compassion than they have, and would have, treated us.
We will win the primaries and the GE, because after we win the caucuses and the NH
primary (which I get to vote in), you will no longer be able to stop or even inconvenience
our movement.
Out of the way Homo Erectus! Homo Sapiens is coming through!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)People are voting against their interests if they support the oligarchy. Enough is enough is enough!
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Always fun when people speak for everyone else.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)At this stage polls don't mean anything. It's about who comes out on the day.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)they have no energy or they're whatever. That is a man stealing another man's manhood. When people minimize and marginalize bernie through his supporters they are doing the same thing. The constant mockery is an attempt to dehumanize both sanders and us, to diminish what he is and what he's doing. Its stealing the human and individual characteristics of their opponent to make them inert. Its cheap and sad.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)been thinking that Tramp's longevity signals the triumph of the Dionysiac over the Apollonian, but I like your neo- Freudian analysis better.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)
ronnykmarshall
(35,357 posts)it's different, right?
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)one set of standards for Sanders and another for Hillary
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I don't think it is "fringe" to suggest that people on minimum wage should still be able to at least earn a livable income, or that people should have access to affordable public insurance instead of mandated extortion through private insurers. It is not fringe to think that corporate monopolies and empires are not healthy, or that is is a good situati0n where one family is worth ariound $130 billion while their employees have to go on food stamps....etc.
If we are to preserve any semblance of a democracy and an economy that is more oriented towards the needs of the majority, we have to stop enabling the leadership opf the democratic Party to be as close to the greedy upper class as the GOP.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)We have state primaries.
The national polls that Hillary Clinton was winning in 2008 (and she was winning all of them) meant nothing either.
In Iowa, Bernie has significantly closed the gap. He started out at .8, Clinton at 60. It's a single digit race now.
When people start paying attention to the election, her numbers erode and Bernie's increase.
You would think that you guys would have learned from 2008.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...polls are "corporate" and "biased" and "don't reflect new voters" , but you'll pick out a solitary poll that puts the race in single digits when every other way has been closer to 15%.
Whatever gives you hope.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)...and yes, the Iowa poll which showed a 9-point race was important, since her polling is considered the "gold standard" of Iowa polling.
That poll was three weeks ago.
I'm also looking at enthusiasm in Iowa, phone calls I'm making to voters all over the state and crowd numbers at both candidates events.
You, on the other hand--can only throw out your worthless, meaningless national polls.
I do have hope. Sneer all you want.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Because Hillary actually won in 2008 didn't she.
I only say that sarcastically because you didn't seem to address the point.
840high
(17,196 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)In a fantasy world you can take an online poll and believe that Sanders will win all 50 States!.
840high
(17,196 posts)Clnton supporters have no meaning at this point. Nor do the Sanders polls.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
reACTIONary
(6,945 posts).... less than entertaining.
840high
(17,196 posts)entertain you.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)You might have seen the Rose Bowl parade and watched all the spontaneously orchestrated events for the Hillary Clinton parade that followed it?
Oh, wait... that wasn't a parade for her... It was a huge parade with flotillas and signs and people and crowds and live coverage touting the leadership qualities and the likeness of ... um, er.. ahh... Bernie Sanders!
I suppose you'll say that's fringe now? Could it be that the majority of people who could, in good weather, knowing that a national event was going to be seen by so many would have thought to get behind their Hillary, too?
Well, they didn't. You see... You can't do that with astro-turf organization where the big donors would have to show up in numbers to do all of this. They can't.
But, the people CAN.
Historic NY
(39,575 posts)imagine it cost a pretty penny & people saw it.
http://freakoutnation.com/2016/01/marco-rubio-donor-behind-rose-parade-anti-trump-skywriting/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=P2Blogs they eat their own.....
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Forget for a moment the under-representation of likely Sanders voters due to methodology, and forget a moment that the numbers for Clinton include a great deal of people who support her over Sanders simply for being in the lead (for a motherfucking example, Samuel L. Jackson - prefers bernie, endorses clinton for being the "likely winner"
Forget those realities for a moment, and let's pretend poll numbers are a 100% reliable and accurate representation of overall belief (you know better, but you're the one making the argument) - You're saying a third of the Democratic party is "fringe"?
That's a pretty fucking big fringe. In fact i haven't seen that much of a fringe since fashion in the 70's.
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)Somebody must've been playin' mind games on him.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I'm sure you've seen the videos of people who are asked what they think of the ACA and they love it then when they're asked what they think of Obamacare they hate it.
The people agree with the things Bernie is fighting for, your poll has nothing to do with that.
.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Long way to go.
reACTIONary
(6,945 posts)..... the things hillary is fighting for, and at the moment, are much more suportive of Hillary .
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And agree more with him. Did you see the chart? Do you see the enthusiasm of Bernie supporters? The sizes of his crowds? It's real and it's not based on name recognition or picking him because they are afraid to pick someone lesser known.
They/we are incredibly enthusiastic. I honestly don't see that in Hillary supporters. They just seem to accept her. Look at the difference in crowd sizes. I really believe the polling isn't reflecting what is really going on with the people and that a lot of her poll numbers are due to name recognition.
.
reACTIONary
(6,945 posts).... Bernie's having a hard time getting past 30 in his own (adopted ) party. I can't see how that can be construed as support for bernie whatever it is based on. If you support clinton, that's who you support.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)As I mentioned, Bernie's crowds are huge while Hillary can't fill much smaller venues to capacity.
Bernie's supporters exhibit an enthusiasm that surpasses what Obama generated in his.
Polling is only done on landlines and we know that misses a huge demographic, one that is mostly for Bernie.
I'm quite sure that if you believe these polls are accurate that you will be quite surprised when the primary results start coming in. If you don't believe these polls you are not convincing me to believe them either.
.
reACTIONary
(6,945 posts)..... are the ones who go to rallies. With their cell phones.
Enthusiasm is very important. It helps people ignore reality, which is sometimes very useful to encourage in others. I think you are in a state of enthusiastic denial.
Dustlawyer
(10,536 posts)donations and $150,000 - $250,000 honorariums for 30 minute speeches? Do you not see anything wrong with that? Bernie wants to end this practice by enacting Publicly Funded Elections, where does Hillary stand? I will tell you, she stands next to the person writing the check to her!
I am sorry you think that a candidate who sells us all out in return for personal enrichment and power is a good idea. It's not much to be proud of Hillary's lead when she has taken more money in bribes than any other candidate. That she has access to the media who will report the insincere BS that she spews, the same media who denigrate Bernie if they discuss him at all.
Yet despite all of the disadvantages that Bernie has, he is doing well and may beat her yet! That's because there are many, many Americans that are tired of the corruption that is ruining this country. Your snark aside, I hope you see the truth in time to get on the right side of history and the issues that we face.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)power? Fortunately our founders decided freedoms and liberty was more important than wealth.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)and I sincerely doubt they are - it just shows there's blind ignorance on BOTH sides. 
Either there's a LOT of folks tuned out as Bernie very obviously is, or there's an epidemic of Pinoccio Nose at hand!
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)So we can see the methodology and demo
Otherwise someone might think you're slinging BS
LS_Editor
(920 posts)
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)!
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)as has been posted at DU before:
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)You realize that's a Tea Party talking point, don't you?
.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)So pointing out that something is a lot more popular when its tax cost is never mentioned, is now a Tea Party talking point?
I thought that was Politics 101. Hell, most of the time you can tell the things that are pricey because they don't mention how much it costs in the ads.
I guarantee you that if most of those positions that cost money had a tax cost associated with them, they'd lose half their support. The general public likes to vote for free lunches.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)can be paid for?
If we cut the defense budget in half (at least) and make the corporations actually pay their share of taxes, paying for free healthcare and other things wouldn't be an issue.
People who complain that this stuff with cost too much are using cost as a reason to poo-poo policies they don't agree with (and policies that will prevent them from fattening their own wallets). The greedy and selfish have been in charge of the Democratic Party for too long, and "conservative Democrats" should just go ahead and vote Republican as far as I'm concerned.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Some movie starlet might suddenly decide to pick you at random for romance out of the blue.
Will it happen? No.
See, I'm not going to even argue with you whether your ideas are great or not. I'm well aware that, even if they're terrible, I won't be able to convince you of that.
What I can tell you is that these ideas of yours aren't popular with the US public. You want to campaign on the US failing to meet all its treaty obligations? Go right ahead and do that - just not in my party, because anyone who does will lose basically every single state.
You see, my opinions are those of the majority of Democrats. Hell, even Senator Sanders is in favor of using drones. So I'm telling you, I'm not the one out of step.
And while we're at it, telling people to not vote for Democrats is basically how the hard Naderite left got us Bush. How did that work out for us?
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)We can use that funding.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...a guy who doesn't even know what the center of his party thinks, much less the actual public. 
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)nyabingi
(1,145 posts)You need to vote for Trump or one of the other Republican clowns.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Bernie's "free stuff" does something positive for all of us. Your free stuff only jacks up the 1% oligarchy
I'm with Bernie
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Like higher wages and benefits for those who WORK for a living? ... How is that free?
NOBODY wants free stuff ... We want to be treated fairly in a harsh world ... You are repeating a right wing lie .... It isn't free if we work for a living, and PAY for it though reasonable taxation ...
You are gone
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Welcome to right wing world!
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)You are entitled to your beliefs. I'm a staunch supporter of HRC and even though she is not ideologically pure enough for you, she is the progressive that will be our next President. Bernie will do OK in NH but Bernie will be crushed on Super Tuesday. Count on it.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)Do "Progressives" take millions from Wall Street billionaires and ask us to believe they'll regulate them?
Do "Progressives" make a calculated vote of political expediency in favor of a war that kills 100,000 or so innocents?
Do "Progressives" support trade deals that put Americans out of work?
Do "Progressives" support discrimination against Gay and Lesbian Americans until it becomes politically expedient?
Do "Progressives" not support re-instating a law that for 60 years prevented banksters from crashing our economy? (Glass Steagal)
Do "Progressives" scoff at Single Payer health care and call it "unrealistic"?
Do "Progressives" NOT support free education for all?
Hillary is many things, but certainly NOT a "Progressive"....
Not by any realistic definition.
Compared to the GOP, yes, but not by any historical definition.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)Progressive, IIRC (if I remember correctly).
But I sure as hell will back her with money, total enthusiasm if she wins the nomination.
As Bernie says, on her worst days, Hillary is a thousand times better than the best Republican!
JohnnyRingo
(20,405 posts)...to show us this magic wand he has that will do all those things.
For months I've been hearing how Bernie will rebuild the country from the ground up in his first term, but history shows that change comes slowly if at all. Perhaps he'll subject House Republicans to mass hypnosis to go along with his lofty plans, reach into his top hat and pull out the rabbit of socialist ideals, then take a bow and a nap.
The masses couldn't even get anywhere with Occupy Wall Street, why would capitalists care what the White House wants?
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)Please take that strawman elsewhere. The "Unicorn" argument is just tired, kinda like Hillary's Third Way Triangulation. We have a real choice this time, and those of us who are so inclined will choose real change, not the Status Quo.
JohnnyRingo
(20,405 posts)...among many other sweeping reforms posted almost daily by his supporters here.
Certainly the way most contrast him with Clinton is how he'll tear down Wall Street, break up the big banks, expand welfare, and institute single payer health care. I hope he chooses David Copperfield as running mate because that's one mean magic act.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)No thanks, I've got young children who have to live in this country for the nest 80 or so years. I don't want them to ask me why the hell I did nothing while their future was being sold to Wall Street.
JohnnyRingo
(20,405 posts)I voted for George McGovern for president. As despised as Nixon was, it turned out McGovern was too liberal for the country's taste. All one has to do is look at every election since WWII to see what kind of (moderate) person gets elected.
While it doesn't make for a good campaign slogan, the vast majority - those who know more about LeBron James and Judge Judy than the candidates - want a president who will kick the can down the road. People in the wide middle of the political spectrum fear radical change and want only someone who promises to do no harm, and they're the ones who hold the majority of votes.
Our gridlocked political system is by design to prevent any one president from having too much power. Sander's platform, at least as described by his supporters, ignores the cold molasses that is congress and promises to completely build a new country from the ground up. No wonder I'm a skeptic.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)now if you'll excuse me I've unicorns to feed...
JohnnyRingo
(20,405 posts)That's one of the nicest things a Sanders' supporter Has said to me here.
To be clear, I'm not necessarily a Clinton fan either. I see her as deeply polarizing, thanks in general to decades of propaganda from hate radio, Fox News, and now the uncompromising left on DU. I would however bet the odds to ensure the White House doesn't slip back into the hands of the GOP. That's my only real fear.
Again, thanx for the civil reply that didn't demand I leave DU, join the American Nazi Party, or accuse me of being a republican troll, as so many Bernie supporters have done over the past few months.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Not sure what your argument even is except an attempt to insult Bernie and his supporters.
Why on earth would you not pick the person who most wants to achieve the change if your argument is that it is going to be difficult?
.
reACTIONary
(6,945 posts).... believe and suport everything that you personally belive and suport, then the answer is no, they do not.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)in comparison to the knuckle draggers on the right, she is, but she'd be a mainstream Republican in the 60s/70s. Not what most Progressives would consider a suitable candidate when a real progressive is also running. For those who aren't concerned with her right leaning proclivities she may fit the bill, but Progressive she most certainly is not.
INdemo
(7,024 posts)This is for all the fundraisers that Hillary has ever had....
How many of them were held in a room full of "Progressives"?
When in Ohio Hillary said this:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/hillary-clinton-democrat-progressive/index.html
reACTIONary
(6,945 posts)..... are not extreme fringe positions, that they are the typical values that the normal average American holds to. So I would think that it is entirely constient to be "kind of moderate and center" and at the same time "standing up and fighting for progressive values."
INdemo
(7,024 posts)Hillary Clinton has always held her fundraisers for the Wall St. types,the Goldman Sachs employees,the Big Banksters.
She has not ever had a fundraiser where real "progressives" attended.
First of all they would never show up if invited and Hillary would never want anyone that could only give $30.00
In case you missed this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141301686
reACTIONary
(6,945 posts).... in which hillary claims to being a moderate and a centrist and that is contrasted with her earlier statement about being a progressive. If we are to take the premise of the OP serriously then there is no contradiction between the two statements.
Being a progressive does not precluded going to a clinton fundraiser and giving her a contribution. Nor does it preclude being well off or even wealthy. We have folks here on DU who have gone to her fund raising events and given quite generously to her campaign, as well as to other progressive democratic candidates. I don't see that as something to hold against them or the candidates they gave to.
INdemo
(7,024 posts)You Clinton supporters...............................
reACTIONary
(6,945 posts).... the original, hstorical progressive was Teddy Rosevelt. So where does TR stand on your list of genuine, authentic, historically correct list of pure 100% progresive policies?
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)Hillary is just a progressive as Wall Street wants her to be. No more, no less.
reACTIONary
(6,945 posts).... one candidate's positions as if they were the only "relaistic" positions alowed to a progresive and then claim that they are so "by any historical definition."
Hillary is not only "kind of moderate and center" she also will not "take a backseat .... in standing up and fighting for progressive values."
Just the sort of dedicated, liberal, progresive and not-fringe leader we need.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/hillary-clinton-democrat-progressive/index.html
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)She's got a impressive record of warmongering and the neocons just can't get enough of her policies that perpetuate terminal war with the Middle East.
Robert Kagan, one of the founders of the neocon movement, has said that he, "Has no problem with Hillary Clinton's policies."
I guess Clinton thinks the world of the neocons too. She made Kagan one of her foreign-policy advisers when she was SOS.
We don't want purity in a Dem candidate. But it sure would be nice if our Dem candidate wasn't a shameful neocon.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I would like to see a poll of states like California (blue and 55 electors in the Electoral College), New York and other states that are true blue.
Red states will not vote for a Democrat in November. So why should we pay any attention to which Democrat the minority of Democrats in those states wants.
If Democrats in those states are not active, strong and persuasive enough to convince their neighbors and the majority in their state to vote Democratic, then they should just let those of us who can win the November election if our voters are happy and those in swing states decide who our candidate should be.
We do not have an Obama to run this time. We do not have a candidate who will bring out voters who want to vote for an African-American at all cost. (I worked the polls in Ohio including for a primarily African-American precinct and must say how wonderful the enthusiasm for Obama was in that election. I don't think Hillary can get that kind of enthusiasm and loyalty out of any constituency. Bernie might come the closest. Hillary -- definitely not.)
We do not have a candidate who will bring out voters like Obama.
Our biggest issue, the issue that most differentiates us from the Republicans, is our economy. That is why I believe that Bernie is the strongest of our candidates.
This election will be about the economy if we Democrats nominate Sanders. If we don't, it may turn out to be about immigration -- and in a sense that will hurt our country and especially our immigrants.
That's really the choice. It's a choice about what issues will be central to the campaigns. I want it to be the environment, the economy and reform of our justice system. If Trump wins the Republican nomination and Hillary wins the Democratic one, it will be about immigration.
Sorry to have to say that. Don't shoot the messenger.
Back Bernie!
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Even the red states that you disparage have a role in picking the nominee. Currently Bernies chances are very slim. In addition Bernies baggage make him a much weaker candidate in the GE. There is a reason Bernie can't get above 30% in the polling. He has a very limited message and his weakness would be exposed in the GE. The Republicans would have a field day with Bernie if he ever made it that far. Right now 40% of the nation is Democratic- Bernie has 30% of that- not a winning percentage. Why is that? The old excuse was "wait til the debates" so people will know who Bernie is. Unfortunately after each debate his numbers stayed flat. Strangely, the demands for more debates from Bernieworld diminished. Like I said Bernie will do well in NH and possibly Iowa, after that there really is no path to the nomination for Bernie. if Trump is the nominee Hillary will beat him handily.
rynestonecowboy
(76 posts)HRC doesn't have baggage? I'm frankly worried that HRC will lose us this election if the GOP puts someone in there other than trump.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Democrat since my youth and making the same informed choice.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)should never be uttered in the same sentence - it's almost blasphemous and an insult to progressives.
I think Hillary is definitely ideologically pure, but her ideas as purely Republican save a few social issues (which she tosses in to keep people thinking she's actually a real Democrat).
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Condescend much?
sonofspy777
(360 posts)Bernie is the first one you've ever seen.
What comparison could you have?
ismnotwasm
(42,663 posts)Sanders, while he has an excellent voting record and caucuses with Democrats, is not actually a Democrat. There is nothing wrong with being a socialist Democrat, but I don't get your reasoning with this comment;
"Berne is the first one you've ever seen"
This ignores on hell of a lot of history, both remote and recent, and kind of dumps on a lot of very hard working Democrats, as well as ignores Sanders own political views.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)the party. So easy to live in a tiny state and throw stones. While supporting F-35's and refusing to support the Brady Bill.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Everything really started going downhill when Reagan got elected in 1980. He destroyed this country. The first shot of the Reagan revolution was busting the Air Traffic Controllers Union.
He also eliminated free tuition in the University of California system, which was an outstanding university system, because the educated kids went out and protested against the Vietnam War, and had sit ins against the war, and people noticed. Instead of acting like kids who were eager to go get killed in a civil war that was not any of our business. I learned this from Thom Hartmann on his radio show on Air America. The powers that be want an uneducated, easily manipulated populace.
General/President Eisenhower said that "America should never get involved in a war in Southeast Asia." Nobody listened to him. Nobody listened to the French imperialists, which Vietnamese forces had driven out.
The young people don't know what a real populist Democrat looks like, because we haven't had a true populist since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was a member of the wealthy elite but knew that he had to enact labor laws and put people to work because they were desperate and hungry and he averted a revolution.
Bernie is like FDR plus free college and universal health care and bringing back proper regulation of Wall Street, including reinstating Glass-Steagall.
Read the campaign platform of Norman Thomas in 1932. Most of it was stolen by FDR to avert a violent revolution in the U.S., AFTER FDR got elected. He did not say he would do any of this before he got into office. I know this because my dad was a union organizer in the bad old days of the 1930s when there were no labor laws and no worker protections.
If you showed up on a picket line at Crown Central Petroleum on the Houston Ship Channel, you got your head busted open, hauled off to jail, and had to post $100 bond. Nobody had $100, which was a good months' salary in the 1930s, and so the wife of the only labor lawyer in town, Sophie Mandell, had to bail everyone out of jail.
My parents lived through the depression and told me how desperate people were. They also told me about the Bonus Army, which was a bunch of WW I veterans who marched and camped in Washington to get the bonuses for service they were promised.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Absolutely RIGHT ON!
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)My parents were good liberal Democrats and I heard a lot of this ancient history from them.
Another relevant bit: My parents and their friends, Gracie and Bill Nelson, were standing in long lines to vote in 1948, and everyone was saying, "We know Harry Truman is not gonna win, but we're voting for him anyway!!!"
SURPRISE!! HE WON!!
When your parents are Democrats, you save a lot of energy by not having to rebel politically. My parents were ALREADY against the Vietnam War by the time I got to college in the 70s.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Sadly, I lost my dad at age 9, or I would have had more stories. They understood the meaning of the issues which are more vital to recovery today. To so many who claim to be Democrats, it's lost to them. They stopped trying to understand, or got lost in the process.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)"People vote with their pocketbook."
Or what Bill Clinton later expressed as, "It's the economy, stupid."
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Too bad he didn't clarify WHO'S economy after all those social programs withered and jobs went offshore!
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Michael Moore said, "Bill Clinton is the best Republican president we've had."
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
BlueMTexpat
(15,652 posts)left-leaning Dems who supported Ted Kennedy in the primary elections against Carter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1980
The GOP loved THAT primary discord. They were slavering over a chance to wave "Chappaquiddick" at Kennedy if he made it to the GE.
From the link:
I was always for Carter (loved Ted K but knew that Chappaquiddick would kill his Presidential aspirations with the general public) and voted for Carter twice, being called a "traitor" by my lefter-leaning friends, many of whom did not even bother to vote in the 1980 GE. And tada, Ronald Reagan was the result.
There is a LOT of revisionist history about the left's support of Carter on DU. I was there and remember those times well.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)I remember when he made the dynamite speech at the National Convention.
This is funny: My precinct chairman would not talk to me after I declared I was a Kennedy delegate. That was too radical for a blue-collar town. I had not noticed. My father, who was an alternate delegate, told me that the man wouldn't talk to me.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)I'm old enough to remember.
Nice revisionist history.
Oh, and Bernie is NOTHING like FDR, who was also railed against by far-Left.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)transcend the narrow bonds of class privilege is testimony to his greatness imo, but takes absolutely NOTHING away from Bernie's many strengths.
FloridaBlues
(4,644 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)
dflprincess
(29,135 posts)as I noted on another thread the majority of those on my local DFL Central Committee are Bernie supporters and we have all been party activists for years (some of us going back to 1968 or 1972).
We are the people who keep the local party going from caucus to caucus.
We are not "fringe".
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 2, 2016, 07:37 AM - Edit history (1)
Even when the supposed "stronger" candidate does worse in general matchups against any Republican!
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Changing the narrative at this late stage of the game is a freaking joke. Besides there a lot of signature lines for Bernie Sanders supporters that would need to be changed if Bernie is no longer Fringe.......since many of them state they are for the "fringe" candidate haa haa haa
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)think reality is a strong point with you.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You are giving us your opinion
You are welcome to your opinion
You are not welcome to define us
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)And it's "Oompa Loompa" not upaloopa.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)The corporatists have the cash and the soapbox/microphone. We've got the numbers.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 2, 2016, 10:21 AM - Edit history (1)
I see at least two here.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)It really is a question of maturity.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)And of course, you're next on the ignore list.
Duval
(4,280 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)...that I would have to use it, but it makes for a more relaxed atmosphere on this site. I don't come here with the intention of looking for a fight. When I read the posts of many of her supporters I feel like that's their sole purpose and their responses are hardly ever if ever substantive. So, here we are.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Sanders supporters make up a minority of a minority of all voters.
You're still a fringe.
Sorry if the math hurts, but there you are.
The good news is you're getting a little bigger than 8 years ago.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Or you might not be happy at a red electoral map.
Nobody forces people to show up to vote.
pnwmom
(110,172 posts)What gall.
You won't win any converts with that smug attitude.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)After the multi-daily loyalty oath threads and condescension of Hillary supporters, I think the problem will be getting his supporters to vote for her.
If you care to go to the #BernieorBust hashtag on Twitter, you'll find thousands of posts from young Democrats, Independents and those moderate Republicans who've changed their party just to vote for Bernie in the primaries who are pledging to write him in. You guys really should be more careful with the phony memes and fake concerns.
pnwmom
(110,172 posts)What utter nonsense.
We actually see at least a comment a day that 'Bernie isn't a real democrat.'
or accusations that
"Bernie supporters aren't real, they are just right wingers trolling"
So... yeah, no one gets to play superior today. Sorry.
riversedge
(79,154 posts)
Gothmog
(174,176 posts)7% is not a great number http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-democratic-nomination/
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)And they were wrong on Jeb!
While Bush has been eclipsed by Trump in opinion polls, the former Florida governor is riding high with online traders who give him a 40 percent chance to capture the party's presidential nomination, according to prediction market aggregator PredictWise.com.
http://www.newsweek.com/jeb-bush-donald-trump-prediction-markets-polls-366122
Gothmog
(174,176 posts)The free market system works and people who invest their money in positions on election outcomes are very very careful and use a number of different tools. Intrade was very accurate in predicting election results https://www.quora.com/How-accurate-has-Intrade-been-at-predicting-the-result-of-U-S-elections
The interesting part about the Intrade data is that you can make accurate predictions a week in advance of the election,
Here is the actual results of the intrade prediction for the 2008 election vs the actual results http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php
Shown immediately below is the electoral map depicting the results of the 2008 presidential election in which Barack Obama won with 365 electoral votes to John McCain's 173. Below, the Intrade results are shown. Further down you will find the 2008 pollster report card.
2008 Electoral Map - Intrade Forecast
Shown immediately below is the Nov 4, 2008 election day forecast from the Intrade prediction market. Intrade did not predict Nebraska splitting its votes, and it was the first time in state history that this happened. Missouri and Indiana were also reversed in the forecast, but both having eleven electoral votes resulted in a nearly dead-on electoral vote count.
Predictwise is the successor to Intrade with features built in to make it harder for US investors to place bets. I would not discount the accuracy of these systems
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)but "These young Clinton supporters"
I have a hard time imagining a legion of "young Clinton supporters", apart from the few shown in clumsily distributed and calculated photo-ops.
okasha
(11,573 posts)
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Hillary supporters will protect you from a Republican presidency.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)vast majority of Americans on the issues is what they mean by "fringe." Issue by issue Sen. Sanders is simply the closest to the vast majority of Americans. Everyone knows this. Of course issue by issue - progressives have almost always been the closest to how most Americans think. But, it has not necessarily cashed out on election day. Why is this? There are a number of reasons, I suppose. But, Sanders seems to have a talent for communicating and turning voters into issue-oriented voters.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.
Then Bernie will win.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)The see Sanders as a threat and all those that support Sanders need to be cast out.
These are the same types of people that loved Bernie before he announced he was challenging the coronation. Everything Bernie stood for, people that hate him now believed in.
But he dared to challenge the great HRC. . .and that's cause for bile, scorn and venom.
pnwmom
(110,172 posts)I'm proud of the job President Obama has done and glad he gave Hillary the chance to prove herself as S.o.S.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Unless we forgot the PUMA people after Obama won the nomination.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)Many of the HRC supporters here remind me of them
pnwmom
(110,172 posts)But just because I supported him then doesn't mean I can't support her now.
Autumn
(48,715 posts)about Bernie this election as they did about Hillary last time.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5692646
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4493689#4493880
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6186699#6194706
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5815396
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6017420
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5143928#5145916
pnwmom
(110,172 posts)Whatever.
Autumn
(48,715 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)I'm fired up for Hillary
Nitram
(26,928 posts)I was hoping she'd run again, though.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)They are both Real Democrats in my opinion.
One is more like a Roosevelt Democrat, who will fight / has fought to give ALL Americans a chance to prosper.
The other one has taken millions from the oligarchs, and will never threaten their wealth or power.
A modern DLC, 3rd Way, Wall Street "normal" Democrat.
Gee, who am I gonna support?
They are both Democrats.
The question is, what kind of Democrat am I.......
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Most young people go for Sanders. You know that, right? Clinton's camp consistently dismisses Millennials' concerns, so they respond in kind by not caring for her triangulated campaign messages.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Feel the Bern.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)However he appears to have hit a ceiling of around 30% since late October and I doubt that is going to change by Iowa caucus day. Hillary is very likely to win the nomination but she and her campaign and the DNC should not dismiss the Bernie phenomenon. Clearly there is something important going on here and needs to be taken seriously. I hope her campaign can find a way to incorporate Bernie's supporters and the issues Bernie has brought to the table.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)#2. Most Sanders supporters are ideologues. Just like Bernie. They're really good at giving speeches, making demands and pointing fingers. But TERRIBLE at building coalitions and making the gradual progress involved in real world politics.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Decide who the REAL Democrats are. Pretty funny.
comradebillyboy
(10,935 posts)worked for the election of Democratic candidate and helped build the party at the state and local level. If the 'real democrat' is a person who was never a member of the party and never supported the party or the party's candidates I am pretty confused about what a 'real Democrat' is.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Those of us that believe the Democratic Party should serve the interests of the people are considered fringe by those that currently control the party. i.e. the 1%ers and their enablers.
My attitude is "FUCK THE 1%ERS, THEIR ENABLERS AND MINIONS,AND THE HORSE THEY RODE IN ON!"
fredamae
(4,458 posts)What I am Not is Third Way/New Dem/Old DLC supporter-therefore I am labeled as "fkg retarded and compared to the tea party".
If "they" want to label me as "fringe" to discourage/discredit/dismiss? Go for it. I am undeterred at this point.
uponit7771
(93,464 posts)... and for the life of me you can't get one in 6 months to outline how Sanders is supposed to work around a gerrymandered congress enough so someone would take a chance on him vs Clinton.
FloridaBlues
(4,644 posts) But Hillary supporters are not DINO'S either.
Not part of 1%, not reblican lite or any other label you put on us.
All the dems want to win the WH and get majority back in Senate!
So let's drop the labels.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)(I think there is more to that, but it escapes me right now)
The Democratic Party spans a wide range of thought. Pretty myopic to focus on only a subset of that range and declare it to be the "embodiment of . . . most Americans."
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)JohnnyRingo
(20,405 posts)...who stands to your left? Who in politics in general is so liberal that you consider them out of line with your view?
Standing with your toes on the goal line of the political playing field and shouting at people on the fifty yard line to call them right wing kooks only makes sense to you because they're so far away. I stand nearer the middle, where most American voters find themselves, but many of my friends still call me a left wing loon.
BTW... Congratulations. I too voted for the first time in 1972, for George McGovern of course. I always wondered if The Crook would have seen re-election if my party ran a more moderate candidate. There's no way to know, but if Sanders pulls it off this time, I'll stand with him without reservation, like I did McGovern back in the day. Certainly I won't call people names for foisting him to the ballot.
BKH70041
(961 posts)"If you're not on the fringes of the Democratic party, who stands to your left?"
Very good question.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)An excellent analogy, and point worth asking.
You, of course, won't get an answer.
Number23
(24,544 posts)And is an answer that surprises absolutely no one, let alone anyone that's spent any time seeing the constant howling on this board.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)I know many that don't even give political parties and self-governance a second thought. That would change rather fast if they KNEW who and what they are mattered. Good luck shaking it off if it takes hold 
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)issue is closer to the majority of Americans than any other viable candidate can be called fringe. That is Orwellian nonsense and scary
JohnnyRingo
(20,405 posts)I've heard the talking point that Sanders' positions are individually agreeable with what Americans want, and that much may be true, but if you ask people if they want socialism they shrink like Superman from red Kryptonite. One of the biggest errors in judgment always begins with; "the American people are smart enough to know..."
Don't get me wrong, I'm not much of a Clinton fan, but in order to ensure the White House doesn't slip back into the hands of the GOP, I'd bet the odds, and right now that's statistically Ms Clinton, especially if it's against a relatively moderate republican (as it likely will be).
If Bernie somehow pulls it off, I'll join him wholeheartedly without reservation. I'd like to hear Sanders supporters say the same if Hillary becomes the eventual nominee.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)- even DU - shows that most Sanders supporters would do the same. But, the status quo will never get people excited, mobilized or singing folk songs about it.
There is nothing misleading about pointing out that most Americans do agree with Sen. Sanders on most issues. He is after all only advocating that Americans have what most people in most advanced democracies have had for a long time. In fact even Margaret Thatcher supported a healthcare system - real socialized healthcare - well to the left of what Bernie is proposing
Trajan
(19,089 posts)There are real bona fide communists who still exist in this country, and THEY would occupy that place in the political spectrum .. NOT Bernie ..
Hence, you are full of it ... This is nothing but a blatant attempt to marginalize Bernie and his supporters by placing them in the 'icky extremist' category ...
And for that? ..... It's byebye time ...
JohnnyRingo
(20,405 posts)...who stands to his left? What figure with an elected position in American politics is so liberal that even you shrink from their extreme positions?
Trying to sell Sanders as a moderate is one of the most disingenuous acts I've seen by his supporters, but when you stand on the political left end goal line and look downfield, it must seem like those on the 50 yard line are right wing kooks. Perhaps it's unfortunate for (you and) Bernie, that it's the huge masses huddled about the middle of the political field that elect our presidents, and always have.
Others who admit Bernie is a devout liberal try to move the goal posts so the vast majority of voters stand in the end zone with him. This is equally ridiculous. Moderate democrats like myself far outnumber the extreme left much as moderate republicans greatly outnumber the Tea Party. That's political fact.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
Uncle Joe
(64,065 posts)Thanks for the thread, sonofspy.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts) Phlem
(6,323 posts) Response to sonofspy777 (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)FOR THE POOR AND NEEDY
NOT
THE RICH AND GREEDY!!!!!!!!!!!!
