What would re-establish trust here?

[Ken Burch]

What I mean is, what would it take to reassure people that trying to expand our vote wouldn't have to mean abandoning anybody, wouldn't have to mean being silent on any form of injustice?

I think we have the creativity and wisdom to find a better path and better future results without discarding anyone, so this is meant to be a thread to try to encourage positive suggestions and get us back towards the realization that, in truth, we have far more in common that not on this site.

[guillaumeb]

1. Perhaps, as you said, it requires abandoning attempts at blaming some Democrats, and candidates,

and realizing that if we believe that government has a positive role to play in assuring equality, we should be trying to support candidates who are working toward that goal.

And realizing that Democrats will never equal the GOP in attracting money from the 1%, so voter mobilization and outreach counts for more than a huge campaign war chest.

[bravenak]

2. Think carefully about who you want to target for votes

Try for non voters as opposed to Trump voters. Better to expand by finding people who already share our purpose rather than trying to win the hearts and minds of people who like Trump and prefer the republican party.

Stop obsessing over white voters lost fifty years ago and remember that we have pro choice people, feminists, blacks and poc, liberals, progressives and all kinds of groups. We don't need Trump voters. We will piss off our own base by trying to pander to them.

[marybourg]

3. I think this is absolutely correct. nt

[Raster]

4. I think we need more outreach to those that did not vote...

...No one is going to change the minds of the hardcore tRumpistas... their minds are made up and they don't want to be concerned with facts or logic. We need new, fertile ground and minds.

I agree, best to find people who already share our core beliefs.

[bravenak]

6. Yep. We need to be smart, not sit around being sadface

Republicans never beat themselves up and move to the center or try for the dem base. Why? They are crafty enough to find ways to rig the system in their favor. Time for us to unrig it

[Ken Burch]

18. A combination of rage, defiant hope, and creativity would serve us well right now.

We need to find the poem of resistance, the song of struggle, the flow of the future. And there's no way to be sure what or which forms those will take.

[bettyellen]

37. I think tapping into the "rage" of new and uninformed voters backfired this time, and I'm not sure

You can unfuck the damage done but the "everyone except Bernie is corrupt" milenials.
Maybe you all should spend some time trying to un-poison that well? I'm sure not the person to do it. All that hatred, they're too much like Trumpers for me.

[Ken Burch]

42. We would have done worse running an "everything is fine" campaign.

Like Hubert Humphrey did with his absurd "politics of joy" campaign in '68.

There was equal bile on both side.

[bettyellen]

49. Hillary didn't lay a hand on Sanders. Some surrogate said he was "unfit" based on his limited

Experience and lack of detailed plans. A surrogate said it, and you'd have think she had knifed him. That was as bad as it got and Sanders reaction was totally embarrassing. I believe he did use the "she was mean first"excuse for the way he lashed out. He was way too dramatic and short fused, I knew he was never going to make it.

What you also don't get is that he slimed EVERY DEM. All of them were "corrupt and establishment". He put down planned parenthood and that was fucking stupid. Never again tolerate that kind of short sighted sleaze peddling nonsense from a primary candidate. Never. Especially since no one wants to acknowledge orrepair the damage they did. But you want to fix the split and regain trust- it's job one.

[Ken Burch]

59. He didn't put down Planned Parenthood so much as disagree with its choice to intervene in the race

when there was no difference whatsoever between Bernie on Hillary on choice and contraception access.

And the repeated claim(a slur Bernie's repeated adjustment of his message should have put to rest)that Bernie cared ONLY about economic justice and was indifferent to the continued need to fight institutional bigotry was as bad as anything ever said about Hillary If some people didn't want to support the guy that was their call, but he clearly proved he was as antiracist as anybody and there was no reason to keep bashing him on that after Super Tuesday. Hillary probably would have taken the majority of the AA vote no matter simply because she had been planning to run a lot longer than he had, had spent eight years networking with that community-Bernie didn't know he would have to run until Elizabeth Warren ruled herself out. He never deserved to be accused of not trying to get AA votes or of running a whites-only campaign(or even of getting nothing BUT white votes-Bernie tied Hillary among AA voters 30 and under).

Had it not been for the relentlessness of the attacks on that, the angrier responses on the Sanders side, the worst of which I spent months condemning and alerting on, would never have happened.

But Bernie isn't going to run again...can't you just leave your anger aimed at him and let go of it regarding his supporters.

It would have been a tragedy if his campaign hadn't happened because nothing he fought for would ever have been addressed. And we would likely have lost the popular vote.

You can't expect all Sanders supporters to apologize for ever supporting the guy, expect them to agree the Sanders campaign should never have happened and that Hillary was entitled to nomination without any challenge, and treat them all as the enemy until they do. In the primary, there was no one else who spoke to what they cared about.

And the issues that stopped Hillary short of an Electoral College victory were not related to anything Bernie did or said. The emails would have had the exact same effect if Hillary had been nominated by acclimation, so would the language on trade(and in my attempts to persuade people to vote for her in the fall, trade was the issue raised to me more than anything else, with the view-a view I actually disagree with-that she was too confrontational with Russia being a close second.

My purpose in starting this thread was to find some common ground. We need all the Clinton supporters AND all the Sanders supporters uniting behind whoever we nominate next if we're to have any chance of improving things. I get it that you dislike me, but can you at least give me the benefit of the doubt that my intent here is positive?

I don't defend the 'bros.

What I want is to turn non-voters into voters and people who voted third-party this year into Dem presidential voters next time. NOT to refight the primaries. Neither Bernie nor Hillary is ever going to run for the presidency again. We all need to let the rivalry on that move into the past.

[boston bean]

61. He called PP a member of the establishment.

[Ken Burch]

62. He criticized PP in the heat of the campaign.

He has always supported what PP stands for. There was never any difference in his positions and commitment on choice and contraceptive access and Hillary's. They were exactly the same.

If they'd endorsed him(which they could just as easily have done on the merits), I'm not sure you can say that nobody who backed your candidate wouldn't have said anything critical.

There were a lot of women who questioned PP's decision, as far as that goes.

and a lot of LGBTQ people who questioned the Human Rights Campaign's decision to endorse Hillary.

I'm trying to get us past the primaries here.

The primaries didn't cause the fall result.

Trump would have carried the EC even if Bernie hadn't run at all and even if Hillary had run on the 2008 platform again.

[bettyellen]

92. He slimed PP, a nice dog whistle for the WWC voter I wonder?

He besmirched their reputation.

Not the same position - he claimed to support no restrictions on abortion. A position he's pretty much all alone on, btw. But it sounded so damned liberal.

[Ken Burch]

94. No dog whistle at all.

Bernie's commitment to defending choice was never in question. There was no way anything he said could ever have led to a justification for anti-choice actions.

[bettyellen]

96. Insulting PP was a cheap shot at women's expense, period. Showed his commitment quite clearly.

[seaglass]

99. The difference was Bernie's support was votes and Hillary's support was actions which PP articulated

very clearly at the time.

[NCTraveler]

24. Yes

"Try for non voters as opposed to Trump voters."

[seaglass]

5. Are you asking what would re-establish trust between DU members? n/t

[Ken Burch]

7. As a start, yes.

That's the group that is most likely to read this thread.

Then moving outward towards the party and the progressive sectors of this country in general.

[Crunchy Frog]

47. I was mostly away from DU for a few months prior to the election.

I feel like the DU that I've come back to is unrecognizable from the one that I knew before. I had expected to see lots of ferment and debate, and diverse points of view hashing it out, more like it was after the '04 loss. Instead it feels kind of...monolithic. I don't even dare to try to post much of what I've been thinking and feeling since the election.

Not really an answer to anything. More like an observation.

[appal_jack]

50. Yes, deviance from the approved narrative is being harshly punished.

There is alert stalking happening at present. I still speak my piece, but pouring thought & effort into posts only to have them disappear for ostensibly breaking a rule is getting frustrating.

I would like to hear more of what you're thinking, Crunchy Frog. But I also understand if you choose to bide your time for a while.

-app

[LanternWaste]

69. Creative story, fella!

Creative story, fella! You certainly seem both oppressed and punished. My sympathies.

[Joe941]

78. I agree...

People around here (including myself) were highly criticized for bringing up polls that were not 10+ points for Clinton. If you point out a poll that says Trump +1 or even Clinton only +3 we were told to ignore that "garbage" poll and stop bashing Clinton because she is going to win by landslide margins. We lived in a bubble that was removed from reality. Only the "yes" men and women were allowed to talk without ramifications.

[mnhtnbb]

93. Me, too.

I have written more than one post in response to an OP, clicked Post my reply!, only to see
that the OP has been locked.

I also have been a DU member for more than 10 years. Never had a post hidden until this summer and again
another right after the election.

I think your observation is correct.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. Stop thinking of the party as a club. It's not - it's a vehicle for imposing governance philosophy.

No more "Oh my Goddess! What will this place look like if we allow a gun-owning white guy in!!!"

[Ken Burch]

11. We don't actually bar gun owning white guys as it is.

n/t.

[boston bean]

9. Stop bashing hillary.

[Ken Burch]

12. Is there any form of critique of Hillary's campaign you could accept as legitimate?

What, as you see it, is the line between fair ground for discussion and "bashing"?

[boston bean]

15. Yes, cease saying she is corrupt wallstreet establishment candidate.

Or any iteration there of.

People think that is legitimate constructive criticism.. I am sure that it is not.

[Ken Burch]

16. OK. But would you at least agree that she probably shouldn't run again?

I think one reason there has been some excessively intemperate words said about this is the feeling that some folks here want to try nominating her ONE MORE TIME.

My own feeling, for the record, is that neither Hillary, nor Bernie, nor anyone else who ran this year or in any past election should seek the nomination in 2020, at the very least. That we need a clean break from the personalities of this year.

[boston bean]

20. She won't run again.

[Ken Burch]

22. Thanks for the response.

n/t.

[Joe941]

79. Bernie for 2020!

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. There is no more value in bashing Hillary than there is Dukakis. And for the same reason.

Both are history - valuable as a case study and nothing more.

[grossproffit]

34. Oh look, it's another jim jones radical.

https://www.jackpineradicals.com/members/liberalguy/

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. Yup, that's me.

Got a point?

[bettyellen]

51. Well, the rules there prohibited supporting Hillary and the rules here require it. So who were you

Deceiving- us or them?

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. You don't understand the rules of either place.

The only rule of JPR that I find difficult to comply with is "no complaining about DU".

DU on the other hand has no such prohibition. So long as we're catterwauling about JPR or DI, the less time we spend examining the contents of our own closet.

[bettyellen]

91. JPR let's you say c*nt and n@&$@r but not support the Dem candidate.

It's a hate site that harbors Trump fans until the day after election.
DU is pretty much the opposite. The blind Hillary hate has no place here.

[LonePirate]

57. They are still fighting the primaries over there and screaming how they were rigged against Bernie.

Nobody ever mentions how Bernie had almost no support from black Democrats and not all that much more support from Hispanic Democrats. Nor do they mention how he was obliterated south of the Mason-Dixon line. Losing every southern state by massive margins is what ultimately lost the primaries for Bernie. If he had run close to even in the southern states, he likely would have won. Yet for the extremists on that site, the crooked DNC and rigged elections are why he lost, not his failure to connect with roughly 1/3 of America.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

71. Yup

[closeupready]

10. Some real self-criticism. What do we get instead? Comey! Russia! Sexism!

[JHan]

65. You can't dismiss those things..

Sexism - Yes, actually , I saw it play out whole year.

And Yes the FBI- Reports about a "Trumpland" in the FBI from which leaks claiming Hillary would be indicted originated, when she was not about to be indicted - Rogue agents using the media to insidiously attack a candidate two weeks before an election is worrying and should enrage every democrat.

Russia and cybersecurity threats - I shouldn't need to explain this..I'm flabbergasted Americans don't think this was a big deal...

All of those were factors, but don't preclude us talking about mistakes made in the Campaign.

[JHan]

83. I can't recall much dishonesty from her during campaigning..

She consistently got good ratings from Politifact: - and their fact checking verifiable and accurate.

What she was bad at was getting her message to pierce through noise and connecting to people in the Rust Belt. They still remembered what she said about coal, some of them hated her for more trivial reasons, but her narrow narrow loss there doesn't tell me she was hated, rather a lil extra push was needed. She also faced a vicious smear campaign from all sides. I saw "Liberals" sharing right wing talking points all year - till we got the absurd equivocation of trump and clinton being the same,

Also would be great for folks to define change for me.. Obama was change, what happened? "change" is basically a new face that gives us false comfort that some great change occurred when it didn't.

Dems need to focus on capturing apathetic non-voters. Develop a solid strategy with a clear message to address job scarcity. Trump aint bringing those jobs back, and as soon as that reality hits, people will get a harsh wake up call. His infrastructure plan will blow a hole in the deficit and jack up interest rates. His tax plan will hit hardest single parent households and his tax cuts are negligible for those in lower income brackets , considering all the other cuts in essential services and gutting to medicaid and medicare Ryan wants.

We focus on our core values at the grassroots level - justice- criminal justice reform, immigration reform, first amendment rights, aversion to overly hawkish foreign policy intervention- notwithstanding the institutional pressures to protect our interests abroad.

[JHan]

86. You can't be for real.

She didn't call out Trump for his "womanizing ways" - - Trump spent a year insulting and degrading women who challenged him and shamelessly made excuses for bullying and "grab em by the ......." remarks.

He was abusive and tyrannical - THAT was the behavior she was calling out.

A photo op is equivalent to those things is it?

[closeupready]

87. Okay, done with you. Bye!

[JudyM]

100. "Bernie Bros"! "Bernie stayed in too long!" "He shouldn't've shown up her weaknesses!"

"millenials!"

[asuhornets]

13. PLAY IT FORWARD..nt

[mtnsnake]

14. I couldn't agree more with you. One thing that might help

is that we all need to understand that there is no reason we can't seek the votes of people in rural areas without abandoning any of our values. If more folks got to know rural folks a little better, they might find out that many of them aren't exactly like the way they are so often perceived here. If more people got to know them a little better and start realizing that some of their dreams are similar to ours, it would make it easier to get our heads together to figure out the best ways to approach rural folks without discarding anyone or without abandoning any of our values. We really need to make a much better effort to court their votes because we're getting clobbered in the electoral college the way it's set up.

[Ken Burch]

17. A campaign that doesn't just talk about poverty(as this one did, to its credit)...

...but actually engages the poor, values their experience, and listens to what THEY think is needed to wipe out poverty would have a great potential for increasing the turnout.

As would a campaign that confronts the fact that there are major forces in our current system, in our current social order, that are bound and determined to keep a certain number of people in poverty and powerlessness.

[mtnsnake]

28. Yeah, the sentence where you put the emphasis on the word "THEY" is vital

We need to listen to them. We really do. The quickest way to get to know them and to know what they're looking for is to listen to them. Ask them questions. Find out how we can help. Win them over by listening, coming up with a plan to help, and doing good by them.

[Ken Burch]

32. Ultimately, it's about reconnecting the poor to those of us who AREN'T in the same condition.

Restoring the acceptance of the humanity of the poor, recognizing that the difference between poor and non-poor(or between degrees of poverty) is as often the result of systemic barriers and luck as it is of "effort".

Or, as Phil Ochs once put it, "There, but for fortune, may go you or I".

[mtnsnake]

36. You betcha, and there is one word that pretty much sums up that emotion

Empathy.

We all know that empathy is one of the main differences between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats have empathy for others most of the time, and Republicans rarely have it. Trump NEVER has empathy. He isn't capable of empathy because he is a sociopath, and sociopaths simply don't have a conscience. As long as we have empathy for others we should have a big advantage over the repubs if we play our cards right.

[Kathy M]

25. Thank you for this post ........ Yes there are some exceptions ( I think excptions can be

found in all states ) . As a whole I believe your statement is correct .

At least the people I know want the same things as people in urban / city

Couple differences on issues ..... one is guns ...... Not sure how that can be improve on without people thinking there is possibility of change down the road ( during an election ) . I was sorry that subject had to be talked about during election , and it could not have waited till after for gun control subject .

Another subject is Heroin ...... and Meth ( sp) ..... Couple families I do know have had to send kids away for treatment , some treatment centers can be hour or longer away one kid I know went several states away ( he got into trouble though while on something ) . Not sure if the amount of heroin / meth in rural can be looked into or not and everywhere .

People want the same things healthcare , jobs , kids going to school ( college ) ect ect There is the cost though and when prices keep going up grocery store , pills , healthcare everyday items there is frustration and anger . Its harder to stretch a dollar .

Going back to healthcare ( ACA ) My husband and myself have looked into it a few times , for us it would be higher than Health Savings Acct . We wanted to sign up for ACA but have stayed with Health Savings . In the meantime one prescription I have taken for too many years I would like to admit is available in generic only and has been for generic only for several years . Not long ago it was around 16 dollars a month ...... same prescription is now a little over 75 dollars ........

Sorry for rambling a bit .... just wanted to through some ideas out .......

[mtnsnake]

27. The point you touched upon concerning heroin is worth looking into

Meth and heroine are much more of a problem in rural areas than they used to be ten years ago. Heroin has been on the rise dramatically, and if Democrats can offer some realistic help to families across the land concerning the real hard stuff, something much more effective than "just say no," there are more than a few families out there who would welcome it with open arms when it comes to the hard drugs like heroin. I'd avoid talking about pot, though, cuz rural folks like their weed just as much as anyone!

[Kathy M]

29. Agree .... its the heroin....

Yes rural and city / urban both in agreement on pot .........

[TrekLuver]

30. Yes and vice-versa.

[Wolf Frankula]

19. Remember It's The Economy, Stupid!

Accept we aren't going to get the values voters. Those who don't care if they starve or freeze, so long as women can't get abortions, kids have to pray to THEIR football Jesus in schools, flag burning is illegal, and they can't just walk into a store and buy a dirty book are NEVER going to vote our way.

Lay off the guilt wallowing. I don't do liberal guilt and don't like it shoved at me. Too often it's an excuse for doing nothing.

Examine your tone. So often it's "We don't want THOSE kind of people in OUR party. They're so tacky." That drives voters away. Never insult the voters.

50 states. Remember that rural areas vote.

Have a positive reason for your candidate. Proclaim that reason. Attack the enemy but remember that people have to have a better reason than "I'm not him."

Burn the pink tutu and fight! fight! fight! the Republicans, not each other.

Wolf

[Ken Burch]

21. I immediately heard these lines go through my head in response to your first paragraph:

"they don't care if they starves or freezes,
'long as they've got Assault Gun Jesus".

I think if we can frame calls for change as responsibility, rather than guilt, we can get a better response. This is a country where people will do a lot of things and support a lot of things if they are given a chance to be part of the solution, to fix the problem, instead of being shame for things that are horrible but which, in many cases, were made horrible before those people or their parents were ever born.

The image of America as a workshop for the future will be helpful in that effort.

[Kathy M]

26. agree with the above

Will say there will be some in any state whether city or rural that fit your description

People really do vote on issues , pocketbook

Hate to say it but the idea of change .......

This past election I do have to say I heard a lot of no more Bush , Clinton



"Have a positive reason for your candidate. Proclaim that reason. Attack the enemy but remember that people have to have a better reason than "I'm not him." " Totally agree .......

[NCTraveler]

23. We promote the party platform.

Stick with it, stay on message, and hold it as an overall guide for our parties members.

The head of the DNC needs to be a full-time position and the right person is extremely important.

We need to stop the bullshit rhetoric that Clinton tanked it. She won damn near every demographic and overall by more than two million votes. That's after billions of dollars over a couple of decades have been spent to smear her personally. The FBI and their bullshit just days before the election. And on an on.

I think some need to realize Clinton was doing it right. I trust no one smearing her campaign on a regular basis. Those doing it seem to have some things in common. With all of the attacks Clinton has been through, and how well she did demographically and with the overall vote, I say we continue the path while getting better leadership at the DNC. That will be a focal point for local elections.

[Ken Burch]

33. I was saying that throughout the fall campaign, and had been for years before that.

Our ads, for whoever we nominate next, need to emphasize the platform and what if offers, and need to do so AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN in order for the message to get through to people. Our candidates' stump speeches need to do the same, and if necessary we should buy tv time for our candidates to make nationally televised versions of those speeches now and then, especially towards the end of the campaign.

In order to make sure our fall campaigns do that, we need people running them who don't work from the assumption that the majority of the country is to our right and that we have to treat anything progressive in our "offer" as something to be embarrassed about and try to hide. For too many years the "braintrust" has run fall campaigns on the assumption that we can't win the argument, that little we propose can ever actually be popular.

This mindset needs to be changed, and that's one of the reasons a lot of us have called for a thorough personnel housecleaning at the DNC, the DSCC and the DCCC(and that's a lot of freaking acronyms to clean out).

We have good things to offer and we need to SOUND like we think they are good things.

[NCTraveler]

35. Drain the swamp?

Last edited Fri Dec 2, 2016, 06:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Heard it before.

Continue with our message and platform. We need a solid head at the DNC. Do better building locally. I see no need to "drain the swamp" as you are suggesting. We need new plans at the local level. Nationally we are consistently winning by millions. The DNC can do a lot with the right pick.

[Ken Burch]

44. Why are you equating what I posted there with Trumpism?

How does any call for a housecleaning at the top end up sounding to you like "drain the swamp"?

I wasn't saying the DNC was a "swamp", or even thinking that.

It's disturbing that what I thought was an innocuous response fills you with THAT much distrust.

[NCTraveler]

67. I was going by your own words.

"This mindset needs to be changed, and that's one of the reasons a lot of us have called for a thorough personnel housecleaning at the DNC, the DSCC and the DCCC(and that's a lot of freaking acronyms to clean out). "

[Ken Burch]

97. I don't even THINK the DNC, the DSCC, or the DCCC are "swamps".

You can't equate ALL calls for substantial change within the party leadership structure with Trump's brand of nihilism.

Whatever you might think of me, I've never said or done anything that would give you any reason to think that I share any part of that guy's perspectives on life.

My intent is to make the party better, not punishment.

What harm could come of a housecleaning?

And how can we possibly change the party for the better at the state and local level WITHOUT big change in the party bureaucracy?

Nothing I suggested there would reduce the role of women, people of color, LGBTQ people or any of the other historically oppressed groups.

[JudyM]

101. Mostly agree. We also need to stop the BS rhetoric that our loss was Sanders/his supporters' fault.

[NCTraveler]

104. Agree. For most of them...

The transition to Clinton was easy as could be. She gave them a lot to like.

[jake335544]

38. Divisions in the party are good, if you want a big change.

Look what the Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus have been doing in the Republican Party? They aren't playing nice. If you have a position about the party that isn't popular or even used at all, being polite and sucking up (Sanders campaign) only gets you so far. That strategy doesn't *win*. Playing dirty *wins*. When the corporate Dems see a lefty Dem nominee lose, they play dirty, organize like crazy **against** the status quo of the party for years, and successfully re-write the entire party operation. When the lefty Dems see a corporate Dem nominee lose, they whine and make criticisms, but go back to sucking up within a a couple years (or just a week for some).

I *do* agree though that we should be striving to *not* abandon swaths of the American population out of spite (white working class anyone?). That's not exactly a recipe for success. And try to push/create policy solutions that work for everyone, because that *is* possible.

[Ken Burch]

45. We need to find a way to have debate without toxicity, though.

Look at how much hostility is seeping up in this thread-a thread that was intended to call for more trust-based way of engaging with each other.

[Dems to Win]

39. We have a racial divide to heal within Democrats

As a white person and Bernie supporter, this election season rubbed my feelings raw. One reason Bernie didn't get a hearing from black voters across the South was the press conference held by the Congressional Black Caucus PAC which mischaracterized Bernie as a 'new friend' of civil rights. It was fine for them to endorse Hillary, but that was quite a slap to a man with a 20-year 100% record from the NAACP.

As primary season continued, I was shocked and bewildered that black activists were gleeful to see white progs get their butt slapped, as their support for Hillary was crucial in helping her to victory. I have no problem with them supporting HRC, but I don't understand why white progressives had become the enemy they were happy to see go down, a few years after we had lined up beside black voters to elect President Obama.

I was called white privileged for supporting Bernie, our issues such as relieving college students of crushing debt were dismissed as mere 'white people's problems,' black authors wrote articles about the 'white entitlement' of BernieBros, and if any white person complained about the broad brush stereotyping, it was mocked as evidence of our 'white fragility.'

Once Hillary was the nominee, there were endless comments and articles demanding that Bernie supporters and all people of good will MUST go to the polls and vote for Hillary, the only one who could beat Trump, because a Trump presidency would be so bad for POC. Anyone hesitant to do so could only be awash in privilege, and is too selfish to think of others who would suffer under Trump.

Ugly personal confession time: I would often read these pleas and think to myself, "My concerns are mere white people's problems, but you expect me to go to the polls and vote for your concerns? How's that supposed to work....."

Of course, I'm an adult and my commitment to civil rights is irreversible, so I did Trudge Up That Hill. But, though I've long been a yellow-dog Democrat, my tail wasn't wagging. And not quite enough people in enough crucial states went to the polls and did their duty, and the Democrats lost.

The opponent was so clearly awful, Democrats should have won by 20 points. This is a disaster.

If white people believe that Democrats want them to sit in the back of the bus and contemplate their white privilege, we are going to have a hard time getting enough votes to win.

There was an article in The American Prospect shortly before the election that really gave me pause.

What’s Millennials’ Support for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson All About?

HAROLD MEYERSON OCTOBER 6, 2016
White skin privilege, that’s what.


"On the afternoon of the opening session of this summer’s Democratic Convention, I was walking into the convention arena while hundreds of young demonstrators, many carrying signs backing Green Party candidate Jill Stein, shouted and occasionally hurled invectives at those entering the hall—an odd tactic, I thought, since more than 40 percent of the delegates entering the building were Bernie Sanders’s. The friend I was walking in with—a Latino legislator from California—cast a cold eye on the demonstrators and noted, “They’re all white.”

endquote

A group of young, passionate Americans airing their grievances and anger and pain, and their opinions are immediately dismissed completely because of the color of their skin. By a legislator, no less.

No similar incident with a legislator dismissing a crowd because "They're all black" would ever be reported by Harold Meyerson as a reasonable intro to a piece in a liberal magazine.

I understand that white privilege is a thing. My heart aches for Sandra Bland. She was me, 30 years ago, in a rental car on her way to her new job in a new town. No asshole racist cop ever made a U-turn to get behind me and provoke a confrontation that ended in her tragic, lonely death. The entire justice system is disproportionately biased against people of color, and we need to thoroughly address it.

It's also true that white skin is not a 100% protection against police brutality and unfairness. There are whites who've been killed by police in unjust ways. I have a family member who is an ex-con, and the police will go to great lengths to run him out of the small heartland town he lives in. They've unfairly extorted thousands of dollars out of my father (bro can't possibly pay the unreasonable fines), and he's paid up, to keep him out of jail. Police brutality and corruption is a problem that affects all of us, and we can work on the entire, big problem while acknowledging racial disparities, but not portraying the entire issue solely as POC problems.

The childhood poverty rate in the US is shameful. The POC childhood rate is twice that of whites, which is horrific. Will I be satisfied if/when the US brings the POC childhood poverty rate down to equal that of whites? No I will not, not until they are all equal at 0% poverty rate.

I voted for Jesse Jackson. I still believe in the Rainbow Coalition: Some of us came over on the Mayflower, some on slave ships, some flew on jets, but we're all in the same boat now. (paraphrase of one of Jesse's campaign riffs) I feel we need to recapture that spirit.

[BainsBane]

41. So the problem is black people were mean to Bernie

And white people? We'll have to make sure all the poorest Americans and people of color line up and apologize for failing to support Bernie, as clearly was his birthright, and for daring to exercise the franchise as they see fit.

To claim that AA voted based on the direction of the black caucus is insulting. You don't seem to be able to acknowledge that people who disagree with you have the same right to exercise he vote.

Bernie's problems with the black vote began long before that, with Netroots a key marker. Bernie supporters can blame themselves for their reaction on social media and how they systematically, in a way that looked deliberate, alienated black voters. They repeated that performance with Planned Parenthood, Dolores Huerta, Mothers of the Movement, and one progressive advocacy group after another. It became clear who their enemies were. You can't systematically attack and insult Democratic constituencies and expect them to vote as you demand.

In regard to the GE, my view now as several months ago is that people have every right to vote however they please. If they do not vote for Democrats, however, they cannot claim to be members of a party or to have a role in its future direction.
Additionally, the choice couldn't have been clearer in this election. People had an opportunity to stand up to fascism or to enable it. While I acknowledge that people have the right to vote for or otherwise enable White Nationalists, I nonetheless hold them responsible for their choices. We stood at a major turning point in American history, what in my mind is the equivalent of Germany in 1933. That some couldn't find it within them to reject fascism means they are complicit in what follows.

[BzaDem]

64. "Whats Millennials Support for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson All About?"

Simple. It was about them not having lived under a Republican President at a time where they were following politics.

While their lack of foresight is most unfortunate for the millions of people that will be hurt because of it, this is a self-correcting problem. Due to their own actions, they are about to see just how small the differences are among Democrats, compared to the differences between the two parties. Of all the problems we have going forward, millennial support will not be high on the list.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

74. So true

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. Aww, black leaders and black activists were mean

To Bernie. This is almost as bad as slavery, Jim Crow laws, school to prison pipelines and voter disenfranchisement.

[BainsBane]

40. If people stopped fighting the primary

when people insist Bernie should have been the nominee and engage in bs about the primary being rigged against him, they make clear that the votes of the majority of women and people of color are not only dispensable but despised. Given that a segment of posters prioritize Bernie's career above the voting rights of the majority, it is impossible to claim they don't want to exclude when it is obvious they do. They make excuses for Trump voters while insulting the 16.5 million Democrats who voted for Clinton in the primary, insisting our votes amount to nothing but a DNC orchestration, because ultimately they refuse to see us as equal citizens with the same rights of political choice. During the primary they made no secret of their contempt for women, people of color, the elderly and disabled, and some went so far to argue that our votes shouldn't count, or the that caucuses that provided for absentee provisions for the elderly and disabled were illegitimate. That argument that the franchise should be restricted or that votes be overturned in favor of corporate polls has far more in common with GOP voter suppression than democratic or Democratic Party values.

Let's cut with the pretense that the concern is unity. The goal now as during the primary is to compel the subaltern to submit to the dominion of a vocal minority of voters insistent that their wishes should supplant the majority. The bizarre thing is that they seem to think an argument on DU can obviate those tens of millions of votes, votes they ultimately believe were illegitimate, just as our ideas and lives are illegitimate. That they insist we shouldn't alienate the ratfucking fascists who pretend to be progressives while voting for Trump, all while insulting Democratic voters, shows precisely where their allegiances lie.

I see people posting the same empty, contentless attacks against Clinton and the Democratic majority who supported her during the primary and the general election. After working for years to bury her candidacy and the party, they succeeded. The party is decimated, which is exactly what they wanted. (Posts at JPR explicitly say as much). The recent influx of people who didn't vote for our nominee in the GE rushing over to blame Democrats for daring to exercise their voting rights independent of their control has the intended consequence of deepening divisions to further weaken the party. Some who did vote for the nominee make similar arguments because ultimately they refuse to accept the Democratic majority's right to exercise the franchise as they see fit. They claim they despise the "corporatists, which are somehow limited to women and people of color, because the inherited wealth of male presidents is perfectly acceptable, to the point the aristocrats like JFK and LBJ are idolized. Whereas a female candidate who follows existing law and doesn't depart from the history or contemporary practice of the party is demonized. Even though her political career is over, they can't disguise their anger that she dared to exceed her place in life, just as they resent her Democratic majority for refusing to submit to their dominion. As long as they act like our votes are illegitimate, it is impossible to believe they don't seek to exclude, particularly since some particularly argued for restricting (and many more argued for overturning) our votes during the primary.

[Ken Burch]

43. That's not my goal at all.

And we're not going to get anywhere if you insist on seeing this as being about "refighting the primary". It's simply about examining what worked and what didn't.

And it's about doing what we have to do to win in the future.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

75. Sure seems like it has been your goal for days

[Ken Burch]

95. Never has been.

"Don't refight the primary" does not mean "don't question any choices the campaign made in the fall".

[BainsBane]

102. Many are.

It's all over the postmortem forum. And you have used the GE results to reignite arguments from the primary.

[mtnsnake]

98. You sound like you're much more interested in holding grudges than winning future elections. nt

[BainsBane]

103. If winning elections is the goal

How is it that so many can't accept the results of the more than 50 contests in the primary? The clear message by some is that their notion of winning means delegitimizing those votes and with them those voters.

[DemonGoddess]

48. FFS

this is ridiculous. Every time I turn around, on this forum, it's ALL Hillary's fault from far too many of you. Yet, when it comes to pointing out where she did good, whether her life's work with women and children, as an example, or what she actually campaigned on (which for the most part was NOT actually covered), those of us who point that out are shouted down.

Each and every time.

[DemonGoddess]

53. So did Bernie

yet Bernie is still the "saint", and Hillary is the "devil". Of the two, only HILLARY is a DEMOCRAT

[CajunBlazer]

54. So how is the Canadian PM doing?

Last edited Fri Dec 2, 2016, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)

[bettyellen]

55. Yep. I'm sick of this shit, it's a ploy. They never appreciated the fact she deserved their support

They took their ball and went home and now want to erase the damage done. In a squeaker like this one, that damage ended up mattering. They need to accept their part in increasing cynicism that led to voter suppression.

[Ken Burch]

63. I wasn't saying it was all her fault.

Last edited Fri Dec 2, 2016, 03:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Some of it was hers(not the majority), some the campaign organization, some of it the more intemperate Sanders supporters(the vast majority got behind her and campaigned for her in the fall), some of it Comey's treachery.

It can't be ALL the fault of Bernie and his supporters, and we're never going to win if it's an expectation that everyone who ever supported Bernie is expected to recant. Some of it, yes, but not all, and it's not as though we'd have won if only everyone had agreed to accept her as nominee before the primaries had happened. Such a campaign would still have been derailed by the emails and the Comey trick.

My point here is trying to get us past the primaries.

Hillary will never run again. Neither will Bernie.

Can't we stop judging people based on who they backed in the primaries?

[NCTraveler]

77. Please try.

"Can't we stop judging people based on who they backed in the primaries?"

[lapfog_1]

58. I have a few ideas

First, while elections are about specific people, lets not turn the democratic party into a personality cult. That goes for both Sanders and Clinton this last go round.

Let's outline some clear ideas to fight for... and then develop the language of the populist to sell them (they repukes are great at this... i.e. death tax not estate tax)

Try not to cover EVERYONE's specific pet peeve... hammer on just a few (no more than 6). That can re-enforce the tagline.

We can't be the nanny-state party. Let's not go there.

Finally, and this is hard, if we want to win we apparently are going to have to fight dirty, spread our own disinformation, and lie our asses off. And, also, make it cool to hate the establishment (now billionaire businessmen like the Orange One). Sorry, but hate seems to work as a motivator more than positive goals.

Last, and I'm serious here, we gotta cheat just like they do, suppress the white suburban vote, rig the voting machines, sign up un documented people to vote. Do all the things they do PLUS what they already accuse us of doing. Hillary should have won 320 electoral college votes and +5 million popular votes... the Senate should be BLUE and, in the wave election, the House should be BLUE too.l

Yeah, I'm a bit bitter... but maybe serious too.

[marlakay]

60. The whole country has turned into tribes

We are all one big reality show now. Everyone has a team, their peeps, who they loyally follow through the mud.

The republican and democrat parties are divided into teams also. And the independent party is getting larger and their teams play both sides.

Some leaders cause tribe members to switch sides.

DU also has tribes. And it has members frustrated like me and some others I have read who miss the days when we all were on the same team.

It doesn't seem to matter to team Hillary if we Bernie folks voted for her, we still are frowned upon if we say good things about him. I would have been fine if either won even though I preferred B.

I think it all boils down to the frustration of losing and how terrible and huge a loss it is, very overwhelming and people are looking at why it happened.

Well it did, so who at this point cares why, let's just become one again so we can get strong. You have to know they are loving us fighting.

[Garrett78]

66. More outreach to rural Dems in purple states (like Obama did), and engage the disengaged.

Find a way to turn out even a fraction of the 40% who don't vote in presidential elections, and some of the 60% who don't vote in mid-term elections. That'd make a huge difference given how close so many elections are.

And give voice to those who are suffering--as in, have them speak at rallies instead of just naming people in anecdotes. Really personalize the struggle.

But forget about reaching the vast majority of folks who voted for Trump, because it ain't happenin'.

[jalan48]

68. A common enemy (Trump), time and and the awareness of what is coming.

I know you are specifically referring to DU, but on a national level, crises will pull us together. As climate change worsens we will be so occupied as a people with just surviving many of our hurts and cares will seem trivial. We will have to set aside many of our petty grievances and work together just to stay alive. Working together because we have to will probably be the best thing that happens to us. We will need one another to survive. Events like Standing Rock and Ferguson are our future, it's what's coming for all of us. We connect or we perish.

I can't imagine what a poor person in a third world country would think reading DU. If it was me I would probably think those American's are a bunch of pampered babies with their Black Friday's, big TVs, expensive cars, all you can eat shrimp plates, and endless entertainment and sports. Meanwhile their government is causing untold misery around the world in order to deliver these people their goods and entertainment.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

70. Maybe if some people stopped using right wing

Terms like identity politics.

Dismissing concerns of the democratic base is stupid but also immoral.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

76. ...

[betsuni]

80. Carefully worded LOL

[DFW]

84. Actually, there is almost no one on DU that I actually mistrust

I find it very credible that people who post here regularly and long-term they really do hold the convictions they profess to hold. Some of those convictions are ones I disagree with strongly, due to my own personal experiences, acquaintances, beliefs and/or set of personal values. Some of them I find outright ridiculous, but I don't automatically disbelieve that they are sincere. I haven't led their lives any more than they have led mine.

[mtnsnake]

89. I think that is one of the best posts on this thread

, if not the best. It should be taken to heart by everyone.

While it's one thing to have open season on politicians, it's another thing to ridicule another poster just because of a difference of opinion. It's too bad a banner with your words on it couldn't hang above the posting board as a reminder.

[DFW]

90. I have no illusions

I'd just be dumped on like everyone else.

But thanks for the vote of confidence, all the same!