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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bernie Sanders

eridani

(51,907 posts)

18. You are talking about progressive activists, not typical voters

Reply to HereSince1628 (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 08:39 PM

Apr 2016

You have to do a lot of doorbelling and phonebanking to realize that. I was canvassing for a transportation bond issue, and one 3 for 3 voter told me she had thrown her ballot away because she didn't want to wast a stamp on just one issue. In an open city council primary, one guy told me thaqt he was skipping the primary because he didn't want to read up on nine candidates. He'd just wait for the general election so he would only have to read about two. People like that outnumber issue policy wonks by at least 100 to 1.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Since some of you don't read GD - about the whole Stockholm Syndrome thing [View all] Rebkeh Apr 2016 OP

Clarity and Understanding Meteor Man Apr 2016 #1

I hear you. Seriously though, I'd rather die trying than have not tried at all Rebkeh Apr 2016 #2

On fleek mama Meteor Man Apr 2016 #3

I am tired of hearing the word privileged. It's so overused and not accurate. Bread and Circus Apr 2016 #4

I respectfully disagree Rebkeh Apr 2016 #13

I don't reject the concept of white privilege. It exists. But it is oft over-invoked and inaccurate Bread and Circus Apr 2016 #14

Some people are abusing it for political purposes, which is despicable Rebkeh Apr 2016 #15

I don't view whites as "one group" though with the same... Bread and Circus Apr 2016 #16

That's where context and degrees of privilege come in Rebkeh Apr 2016 #17

Another problem I have with "white privilege" as it is usually applied is that is it undisproveable. Bread and Circus Apr 2016 #19

Why does it have to be disprovable? Why must it be a "fact" in a formal sense at all? Rebkeh Apr 2016 #21

"Stockholm Syndrome" is based on a flat out wrong hypothesis eridani Apr 2016 #5

I don't think that's true. I used that term soon after Rahm Emanuel's comments HereSince1628 Apr 2016 #7

Banning the use of the words Stockholm Syndrome would make the "discussion impossible" but Autumn Apr 2016 #8

I'm not sure you meant that to link to my reply, I never suggested banning words or people HereSince1628 Apr 2016 #9

I didn't say you did. I found your email exchange with the admins to be interesting Autumn Apr 2016 #10

Yes, using mentally disorders as adjectives is approved by the Admins HereSince1628 Apr 2016 #11

Do you remember Patty Herst? That was a perfect example I think and the Autumn Apr 2016 #12

You are talking about progressive activists, not typical voters eridani Apr 2016 #18

Nuanced and refreshingly thoughtful. Thank you! n/t Admiral Loinpresser Apr 2016 #6

Thank you for this! ! riderinthestorm Apr 2016 #20