Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Since the late 80s the party's policy has been to shut out the left until election time. [View all]rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)215. Maybe the reason that Sen Sanders supporters are so enthusiastic is because they've been
treated with contempt for a long time. The Oligarchy bought our Party's leadership and we will have to fight to get it back.
It's not a threat to point out that lots of Democratic voters are unwilling to support H. Clinton and big money politics. That's a fact. And if the Party leadership doesn't heed that fact, we will lose the Gen. Then they will look around for someone to blame, like Nader. I suggest that the Conservative Democratic leadership look in the fracking mirror. The election is theirs to lose.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
226 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Since the late 80s the party's policy has been to shut out the left until election time. [View all]
madfloridian
Jan 2016
OP
indeed, the insults, condescension and abuse from some of Hillary's most
Douglas Carpenter
Jan 2016
#49
I always voted out of duty and volunteered with pride. But, something has changed
leveymg
Jan 2016
#116
If the left wants to have influence in the Party, there's a simple solution...
brooklynite
Jan 2016
#2
Well, wait till I dig up the old posts about how the party kept liberals out of races...
madfloridian
Jan 2016
#3
Rahm Emanuel's DCCC was a big factor in putting us in such a bad position in the house in 2010...
cascadiance
Jan 2016
#191
Haven't been following the Left over the past few years have you? We have found and elected many
sabrina 1
Jan 2016
#5
You're in Florida I think. Thanks to DWS it was difficult in that state to get anything accomplished
sabrina 1
Jan 2016
#13
As I Read This... I thought... Geez This Sounds Like Florida... Then I Saw Who Posted It...
CorporatistNation
Jan 2016
#221
Remind me who won in 2012 when DWS was Chair...and how many House/Senate seats we picked up?
brooklynite
Jan 2016
#10
Obama was an incumbent. 3 guesses who controls House/Senate...1st two don't count.
madfloridian
Jan 2016
#11
Under DWS Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate
Scuba
Jan 2016
#89
Point Scuba. DWS has been a disaster for the Party - Unless you're a Corporatist
Ferd Berfel
Jan 2016
#169
Progressives retained their seats, except one I believe. Thanks for noticing. WE did that, not DWS
sabrina 1
Jan 2016
#114
Yep, exactly. What the people want doesn't matter, it's all about the $$$$'s. I quit my membership
RKP5637
Jan 2016
#29
You missed my point - 40 or more years he did spoke down to the Democratic Party....
George II
Jan 2016
#35
He hasn't earned any respect from them while voting with them? Makes no sense.
madfloridian
Jan 2016
#39
Oh, wait now. He would not vote WITH a party he despised. Also...to be clear...
madfloridian
Jan 2016
#36
First of all, a legislator doesn't vote "with" a party, he/she votes for or against legislation.....
George II
Jan 2016
#94
And how many times did the likes of Ben Nelson vote against the party when they were in Congress?
nxylas
Jan 2016
#156
Raul Grijalva was elected through the hard work of the Democratic machinery, i.e., the "centrists"..
1StrongBlackMan
Jan 2016
#150
I vote for a progressive Democrat for the House, and Barbara Boxer, also progressive for the .
JDPriestly
Jan 2016
#131
In other words sell your souls to the Wealthy 1%. Drink the kool-aide and let them continue to rule
rhett o rick
Jan 2016
#213
I thought for sure you'd say, "Sell your souls to the Oligarchy. Take money from the billionaires
rhett o rick
Jan 2016
#211
But, they're very fond of blaming the left when the "not as bad" candidates lose. K&R
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jan 2016
#15
yeah, after 1991 the neolibs took over and, in the US, ran off a bunch of bubbles--telecom,
MisterP
Jan 2016
#92
K and fucking R!!! - The party's so-called "Big Tent" habitually shoos-off Lefties
99th_Monkey
Jan 2016
#22
I'm close to going "Bern or let it burn!" They may get me to vote for Hillary if she's the nominee,
brewens
Jan 2016
#44
I said I was "close". You're working on it though. My vote in the general won't matter anyway if
brewens
Jan 2016
#96
Ain't gonna do it from the inside, no more than the Union could have joined the Confederacy to
jtuck004
Jan 2016
#75
Republicans did the same thing to the religious right for years. Get their votes and then
brewens
Jan 2016
#40
Why do you think they did that? Because electing folks who act like that is next to impossible.
stevenleser
Jan 2016
#42
No, people who payed lip service to such folks were elected in 2000 and 2004 and...
stevenleser
Jan 2016
#50
Bernie supporters are fringe. But you refusing to accept that is OK. Bernie should know better.
stevenleser
Jan 2016
#53
You blame Bernie "for risking the future of this country on a fools errand"?
madfloridian
Jan 2016
#56
That was to be expected. Hillary may well lose the ge, and at any rate the party
Doctor_J
Jan 2016
#64
sadly, it's the Hillary Campaign that bears the responsibility of leading Dems on a fools errand
nashville_brook
Jan 2016
#84
Nope, it doesn't. There is a factual basis for Bernie's entire reason for running being a fools
stevenleser
Jan 2016
#87
The G.E. polls now don't mean anything, they are for entertainment value only.
stevenleser
Jan 2016
#127
Maybe the reason that Sen Sanders supporters are so enthusiastic is because they've been
rhett o rick
Jan 2016
#215
Doesn't this lay it out well. We have the rightwing (disenfranchised republican-lite) "dems"
Ferd Berfel
Jan 2016
#46
Last week someone here called us "little idealists" who needed to grow up. That's why...
madfloridian
Jan 2016
#54
if they don't keep the GOP around and rabid people might not vote for their DINOs
MisterP
Jan 2016
#83
SURVIVAL mode during the REAGAN ERA love fest the media had w/ ronny raygun. but the lie pendulum is
pansypoo53219
Jan 2016
#58
Been voting for D's since 1978. I'm done voting just because they're marked with a D
Doctor_J
Jan 2016
#59
From the 1985 DLC blueprint for reforming the party...words could not be more clear.
madfloridian
Jan 2016
#88
I think the irony of their protests for non-divisive discourse is lost on them...
kjones
Jan 2016
#222
Not a matter of moderate....If "the left" weren't consistently sandbagged....
Armstead
Jan 2016
#223
Corporatism; is ideological one believes that conglomerates can't become too big, that
Uncle Joe
Jan 2016
#99
K&R Our world, our country, our democracy, has been sold out from under us.
raouldukelives
Jan 2016
#152
Thanks. I'll vote for the nominee, BUT this strenghtens my resolve to fight for Bernie.
whathehell
Jan 2016
#155
You can beat the "sensible center" by following their trail of political decisions.
Baitball Blogger
Jan 2016
#170
This so very clear down here in Florida, where Wasserman-Schultz OPENLY supports GOP buddies and
djean111
Jan 2016
#183
The Democratic Party won't be able to do this much longer. The younger generation does not
liberal_at_heart
Jan 2016
#225