HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » It would be nice if the c...

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 01:27 PM

 

It would be nice if the centrists in this party did some introspection, too.

The fall campaign was run exactly as the centrists insisted that it be run.

It focused almost entirely on negative ads against the other party's candidate and spent far too little time talking about how good OUR platform was(or on acknowledging the role in the runner-up campaign in improving that platform, which would have done a lot to persuade more supporters of the runner-up to believe that they hadn't been crushed and that a decision to vote for our nominee would be a validation of their work in the primaries and the caucuses, and would have persuaded undecided voters to support our ticket because we had a lot of good things to offer that they may not have been aware of).

This wasn't a choice made by our nominee...it reflected what our party's "professionals" mistakenly see as "common sense"-in other words, the idea that, in a race versus any Republican, our party can never win the argument-that our ideas can never be more popular than the ideas of the Right, and that therefore we can ONLY defeat the Republicans by personally discrediting their nominee.

You'd think the pros would have noticed that this approach has NEVER worked.

It never worked against Nixon.

It never worked against Reagan.

If it could have worked against anyone, it should have against Trump. But even there, when our opponent was demonstrably a bigoted, misogynist scumbucket, it still didn't work. That should tell us something.

If we had run by making the argument FOR our approach-AND our platform-we could have carried the Upper Midwest.

Yes, those who voted third-party or didn't vote should have voted for our nominee.

But at this point, bashing those who didn't serves no good purpose.

What we need to do is to find paths to unity...and those paths need to be based on every faction of this party treating each other with respect.

And if this party wants people to work with it, it needs to listen to the reasons people who could have worked with us chose not to. There's nothing to lose from that and the future to gain.

The path to unity is respect, not shaming.

405 replies, 42763 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 405 replies Author Time Post
Reply It would be nice if the centrists in this party did some introspection, too. (Original post)
Ken Burch Apr 2017 OP
pangaia Apr 2017 #1
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #2
LakeArenal Apr 2017 #32
pnwmom Apr 2017 #342
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #357
pnwmom Apr 2017 #360
NCTraveler Apr 2017 #3
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #4
NCTraveler Apr 2017 #6
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #11
NCTraveler Apr 2017 #12
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #15
NCTraveler Apr 2017 #17
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #20
NCTraveler Apr 2017 #23
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #25
DanTex Apr 2017 #34
calimary Apr 2017 #46
padah513 Apr 2017 #128
Cary Apr 2017 #133
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #53
DanTex Apr 2017 #68
Cary Apr 2017 #132
ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #158
Cary Apr 2017 #193
ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #194
Cary Apr 2017 #200
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #237
Cary Apr 2017 #248
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #252
Cary Apr 2017 #256
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #258
Cary Apr 2017 #261
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #279
LakeArenal Apr 2017 #37
thesquanderer Apr 2017 #43
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #55
George II Apr 2017 #65
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #69
George II Apr 2017 #77
thesquanderer Apr 2017 #76
Scruffy1 Apr 2017 #120
WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #86
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #90
WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #92
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #97
WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #100
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #105
StevieM Apr 2017 #225
lapucelle Apr 2017 #259
Midwestern Democrat Apr 2017 #79
thesquanderer Apr 2017 #81
Kentonio Apr 2017 #127
kcr Apr 2017 #264
lark Apr 2017 #164
LakeArenal Apr 2017 #31
NCTraveler Apr 2017 #35
Warpy Apr 2017 #40
sharedvalues Apr 2017 #108
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #109
sharedvalues Apr 2017 #112
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #116
Lucky Luciano Apr 2017 #405
Warpy Apr 2017 #117
lapucelle Apr 2017 #274
ehrnst Apr 2017 #131
JustAnotherGen Apr 2017 #7
Gothmog Apr 2017 #52
Gore1FL Apr 2017 #71
Gothmog Apr 2017 #170
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #236
Skidmore Apr 2017 #260
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #282
Gothmog Apr 2017 #293
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #295
Gothmog Apr 2017 #307
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #308
Gothmog Apr 2017 #310
bekkilyn Apr 2017 #325
Gothmog Apr 2017 #291
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #296
Gothmog Apr 2017 #311
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #314
Gore1FL Apr 2017 #318
synergie Apr 2017 #316
Gore1FL Apr 2017 #319
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2017 #5
NCTraveler Apr 2017 #8
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #10
NCTraveler Apr 2017 #13
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #14
NCTraveler Apr 2017 #16
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2017 #19
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #21
sharedvalues Apr 2017 #110
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #9
Docreed2003 Apr 2017 #38
Bettie Apr 2017 #18
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #22
delisen Apr 2017 #47
disillusioned73 Apr 2017 #24
Still In Wisconsin Apr 2017 #26
DanTex Apr 2017 #27
WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #28
OldRedneck Apr 2017 #30
WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #39
Raine1967 Apr 2017 #56
WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #82
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #72
WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #84
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #91
WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #94
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #107
bekkilyn Apr 2017 #188
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #253
WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #263
Kentonio Apr 2017 #326
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #41
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #61
WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #85
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #89
appal_jack Apr 2017 #95
WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #98
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #122
OldRedneck Apr 2017 #29
delisen Apr 2017 #49
Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #134
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #62
Scruffy1 Apr 2017 #119
IronLionZion Apr 2017 #33
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #125
IronLionZion Apr 2017 #138
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #141
IronLionZion Apr 2017 #168
forjusticethunders Apr 2017 #322
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #339
forjusticethunders Apr 2017 #340
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #341
forjusticethunders Apr 2017 #343
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #344
DownriverDem Apr 2017 #36
Leith Apr 2017 #42
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #58
delisen Apr 2017 #44
davsand Apr 2017 #54
delisen Apr 2017 #66
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #74
delisen Apr 2017 #80
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #93
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #70
delisen Apr 2017 #45
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #111
NoMoreRepugs Apr 2017 #48
George II Apr 2017 #50
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #57
Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #59
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #63
George II Apr 2017 #73
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #113
delisen Apr 2017 #67
Heartstrings Apr 2017 #101
BlueMTexpat Apr 2017 #150
YOHABLO Apr 2017 #51
wyldwolf Apr 2017 #64
still_one Apr 2017 #78
alarimer Apr 2017 #60
Cary Apr 2017 #75
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #99
Cary Apr 2017 #126
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #129
Cary Apr 2017 #130
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #136
Cary Apr 2017 #139
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #142
Cary Apr 2017 #184
tonedevil Apr 2017 #213
Cary Apr 2017 #214
Post removed Apr 2017 #215
Cary Apr 2017 #216
Gothmog Apr 2017 #229
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #234
Exilednight Apr 2017 #137
Cary Apr 2017 #140
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #143
Exilednight Apr 2017 #144
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #147
Exilednight Apr 2017 #171
KPN Apr 2017 #207
Cary Apr 2017 #218
Exilednight Apr 2017 #219
Cary Apr 2017 #221
Exilednight Apr 2017 #223
Cary Apr 2017 #232
Exilednight Apr 2017 #233
Cary Apr 2017 #240
Exilednight Apr 2017 #249
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #280
Cary Apr 2017 #242
Exilednight Apr 2017 #250
Cary Apr 2017 #251
Exilednight Apr 2017 #273
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #254
Cary Apr 2017 #255
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #266
Cary Apr 2017 #268
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #269
Cary Apr 2017 #272
Exilednight Apr 2017 #275
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #283
Cary Apr 2017 #287
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #278
Cary Apr 2017 #286
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #299
Cary Apr 2017 #288
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #297
Cary Apr 2017 #303
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #304
Cary Apr 2017 #305
SunSeeker Apr 2017 #313
Cary Apr 2017 #182
Exilednight Apr 2017 #186
Cary Apr 2017 #187
Exilednight Apr 2017 #195
Cary Apr 2017 #201
Exilednight Apr 2017 #202
Cary Apr 2017 #205
H2O Man Apr 2017 #365
BannonsLiver Apr 2017 #244
Cary Apr 2017 #245
BannonsLiver Apr 2017 #246
Cary Apr 2017 #247
colsohlibgal Apr 2017 #83
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #114
KPN Apr 2017 #208
NanceGreggs Apr 2017 #87
JI7 Apr 2017 #96
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #103
NanceGreggs Apr 2017 #118
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #121
PoliticalPie Apr 2017 #88
metroins Apr 2017 #102
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #106
fleabiscuit Apr 2017 #104
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #115
ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #123
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #124
betsuni Apr 2017 #135
ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #157
betsuni Apr 2017 #161
ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #163
betsuni Apr 2017 #165
ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #166
betsuni Apr 2017 #167
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #169
betsuni Apr 2017 #173
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #175
ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #185
betsuni Apr 2017 #189
ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #190
betsuni Apr 2017 #191
JCanete Apr 2017 #238
HughBeaumont Apr 2017 #181
ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #183
elehhhhna Apr 2017 #145
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #146
vi5 Apr 2017 #148
bekkilyn Apr 2017 #199
forjusticethunders Apr 2017 #323
bekkilyn Apr 2017 #324
Foamfollower Apr 2017 #149
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #154
davsand Apr 2017 #224
Foamfollower Apr 2017 #228
davsand Apr 2017 #241
Foamfollower Apr 2017 #243
davsand Apr 2017 #257
Foamfollower Apr 2017 #267
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #270
Foamfollower Apr 2017 #271
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #277
lapucelle Apr 2017 #276
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #285
lapucelle Apr 2017 #292
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #294
Progressive dog Apr 2017 #151
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #153
Progressive dog Apr 2017 #156
DanTex Apr 2017 #159
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #160
DanTex Apr 2017 #162
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #281
DanTex Apr 2017 #289
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #315
DanTex Apr 2017 #317
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #329
DanTex Apr 2017 #332
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #333
DanTex Apr 2017 #337
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #338
murielm99 Apr 2017 #220
get the red out Apr 2017 #152
thucythucy Apr 2017 #155
LanternWaste Apr 2017 #172
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #177
vlyons Apr 2017 #174
steve2470 Apr 2017 #176
FairWinds Apr 2017 #178
randr Apr 2017 #179
heaven05 Apr 2017 #180
beachbum bob Apr 2017 #192
leftstreet Apr 2017 #196
Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #197
zentrum Apr 2017 #198
Gothmog Apr 2017 #203
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #265
Gothmog Apr 2017 #290
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #302
Gothmog Apr 2017 #306
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #327
Gothmog Apr 2017 #330
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #331
Gothmog Apr 2017 #345
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #346
Gothmog Apr 2017 #347
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #348
Gothmog Apr 2017 #349
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #350
Gothmog Apr 2017 #351
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #353
Gothmog Apr 2017 #354
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #355
Gothmog Apr 2017 #370
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #372
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #359
Gothmog Apr 2017 #369
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #371
Bradical79 Apr 2017 #204
JHan Apr 2017 #226
tonyt53 Apr 2017 #206
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #301
NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #373
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #379
NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #390
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #391
NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #399
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #402
m-lekktor Apr 2017 #209
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #298
OldSchoolLiberal Apr 2017 #210
KPN Apr 2017 #211
ancianita Apr 2017 #212
B Stieg Apr 2017 #217
Expecting Rain Apr 2017 #222
JCanete Apr 2017 #239
Justice Apr 2017 #227
Gothmog Apr 2017 #230
PragmaticLiberal Apr 2017 #231
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #235
Justice Apr 2017 #262
SaschaHM Apr 2017 #309
Gothmog Apr 2017 #312
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #300
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #334
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #335
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #336
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #356
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #358
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #361
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #362
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #364
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #366
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #367
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #368
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #376
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #380
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #382
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #384
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #386
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #387
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #388
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #392
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #394
Cary Apr 2017 #374
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #378
Cary Apr 2017 #381
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #385
Cary Apr 2017 #389
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #393
Post removed Apr 2017 #395
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #396
Barack_America Apr 2017 #284
Orsino Apr 2017 #320
forjusticethunders Apr 2017 #321
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #328
La Lioness Priyanka Apr 2017 #352
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #398
La Lioness Priyanka Apr 2017 #400
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #401
La Lioness Priyanka Apr 2017 #403
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #404
lovemydogs Apr 2017 #363
Cary Apr 2017 #375
Ken Burch Apr 2017 #397
pecosbob Apr 2017 #377
BainsBane Apr 2017 #383

Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 01:31 PM

1. Thank you.. but, you better put on your flak jacket...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 01:32 PM

2. I know.

 

The "any dissent is hatred of our nominee" crowd will be here instantly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:24 PM

32. Right on cue.. Flak jacket in place...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 04:24 AM

342. The campaign was NOT run exactly as the "centrists" would have liked.

If the centrists had been running things, there would have been no non-representative caucuses, and all the candidates would have joined together to support the nominee once the nominee was certain -- just as the GOP candidates joined together to support DT once his win was mathematically certain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #342)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 03:08 PM

357. The caucuses had always been there.

 

It's not as though they were somehow created for the first time in 2016 by the Sanders campaign in a conspiracy to thwart the popular will, and victory in a caucus(such as HRC's victory in Iowa)is just as legitimate as victory in a primary(like Bernie's victories in primaries in New Hampshire Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon, Indiana, West Virginia). I seriously doubt HRC's supporters would have made an issue of the caucuses if their candidate had done well(and it's not unfair that she didn't-she didn't because her campaign apparently hadn't learned anything more about winning caucus states than it knew in 2008).

There are valid reasons to question the caucus system, but the only reason HRC supporters are questioning them, as far as I can see, is that HRC didn't do well in them. She did win the Iowa caucus, and that seems to have been decisive.

My view is that we should have NO caucuses. At the same time, we should have same re-registration in all presidential primary states(or at least re-registration somewhere CLOSE to the primary instead of six months earlier like it was in New York). And there should be no super-delegates(your candidate would have been nominated without the superdelegates)because rank-and-file Dems should not be treated like small children who don't know "what's good for them". THAT is what a truly democratic process would look like.

Issues with caucuses should have been taken up with the state Democratic parties(most of which are run by centrists) who set them up. The existence of caucuses does not delegitimize the Sanders campaign and do not mean it had no right to the number of delegates it took to Philly.

Bernie would have run a different campaign if ALL the states had been primaries, and would have found a way to do well in that scenario too.

And it would have made no difference to the fall result if Bernie had done what you probably wanted and suspended his campaign on Super Tuesday. We'd likely still have ended up losing the Upper Midwest and North Carolina.

HRC was nominated, but at some point you're going to have to accept that support for Sanders was just as legitimate and just as real as support for HRC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #357)


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 01:32 PM

3. DanTex should be flattered.

 

He clearly hit the mark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #3)


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 01:36 PM

6. "Destructive"

 



Not "destructive" enough to warrant a coppy-cat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 01:38 PM

11. It was.

 

The result in the fall wasn't entirely the fault of the "far left".

There were choices the campaign could have made that would have gained us those votes without costing us any other.

BTW-other than our choice in the primaries, you and I basically agree on things. So why do I get this response for you?

We're both trying to help the party do better, after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 01:42 PM

12. It was not "destructive".

 

That did make me laugh.

"We're both trying to help the party do better, after all."

Please don't speak for me. My support for the party is clear and I don't feel the need for proclamations like you feel theneed to make(as you have done here) in order for people to believe it. Don't speak for me as you have done here. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 01:55 PM

15. I'm not speaking for you, I'm speaking for me.

 

Is there a reason you can't accept that you and I are different people, with different experiences yet largely in agreement?

I supported the ticket in the fall. To my knowledge, nothing I posted about her prior to that harmed her chances in the fall.

You appear to have the need to go "oh no you don't!" in response to anything I post-to treat anything I might say as suspicious or untrustworthy.

Am I correct in making that assumption?

If so, why?

I have never intentionally disrespected you, and other than the fact that I supported a different candidate in the primaries, to my knowledge we've never disagreed on anything politically.

So what is your issue with me?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 02:10 PM

17. You spoke directly for me.

 

I'm never big on that. You did so in error.

You did it again in the very post I am replying to. I'm not sure why you keep speaking for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:01 PM

20. OK...if I were to say I BELIEVE you and I basically agree, could you accept that?

 

Do you disagree with the assertion that the two of us are both working to make the party better?

If so, why?

Is it wrong for me to think that you and I have ANY common ground?

We are obviously entirely different people...you have faced more repression in your life than I ever possibly could...what is it that you need from me for you to accept that I GET that?

It appears that you regard me as an opponent.

What would it take for you to believe I could be an ally?








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #20)


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:11 PM

25. What do you mean by that?

 

What, exactly, do you think my intentions are?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:27 PM

34. So here I need to defend myself.

Obviously it wasn't entirely the fault of the far left. It was only partly the fault of the far left.

And the other problem is, when I say "far left" for some reason you think I'm talking about you and other Bernie supporters who voted for Hillary in November. Which, once again, I am absolutely not.

I'm talking about the Nader/Stein/Hedges/Scheer/Sarandon/Greenwald/etc people who constantly pushed the "no difference" narrative.

The other thing is, as you put it: "other than our choice in the primaries, you and I basically agree on things. So why do I get this response for you?" I'm not blaming you for anything. I'm only going after the Stein type people who made it more difficult for you to convince disaffected leftists to vote for Democratic candidates. Why wouldn't you be on my side about this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 04:12 PM

46. Yep. ESPECIALLY Jill Stein. NO excuse whatsoever for ANYONE to support that ding-dong.

All she did was keep us divided. When she wasn't enjoying being seated at that VIP table with Putin and Mike Flynn...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #46)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:18 AM

128. +1

She was a Russian plant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #46)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:52 AM

133. No excuse whatsoever

I'm sick and tired of excuses, and right wing trolls and moles and blah blah this or that.

We are at war against fascists. Vote Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 05:08 PM

53. Thanks for saying that.

 

I had the response to that thread that I did because a lot of the time, the term "far left" has been used quite loosely.

A clear distinction should always be drawn between the "no difference" types that you list there, on the one hand-a group we are probably never going to reach and a group that is actually quite small in number-and the larger group of voters I think we could have connected with this fall(and could connect with in the future) who stayed home out of feelings of frustration and alienation.

It is my contention that a lot of THOSE potential voters were put off by the way the party seemed to simply demand their votes, and the voices of many who insisted on labeling the Sanders movement an irrelevant failure and a waste of time. That tone, in my view, probably stiffened the resolve of voters we might have won to NOT vote for us. It sounded parental and dismissive.

We had the chance to make a clear case that, by voting for the ticket, Sanders voters would actually be honoring the work the campaign had done in the primary and, in fact, furthering that work. Making that case would not have required the party to distance itself from any other voters or put anyone else's needs on the back-burner.

That group is a group we need to listen to, need to get feedback from, and need to find some sort of common ground with if we are to win in the future. Making common ground with them doesn't mean throwing anyone who did vote for the ticket under the bus, because, contrary to campaign myth, Sanders voters were and are just as committed to an antiracist, anti-oppression agenda as HRC voters were and our-these voters should not be assumed to have the same shortcomings on that as some saw in their candidate, for they are generally of a younger generation that is more conversant with identity issues and the agenda BLM heroically fights for.

The way to connect with these voters in the future, rather than wasting time screaming at the "no difference" hardliners who are never going to listen to what any of us say, is mainly to listen to them and to make it clear that this is a party that welcomes them to join and to work for what they care about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #53)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 06:55 PM

68. The good thing is that there is a lot we agree about.

We agree that there is a class of potential Dem voters who, for whatever reason or whatever blame, did not turn out this year, or possibly turned out for third party or even Trump.

And, yes, I am willing to concede that part of that blame belongs with the HRC campaign. And, more to the point with HRC herself, who just didn't have the kind of charisma that Obama had to inspire people. Which I think is a shame, she would have been a great president, but there's no way to argue that she commanded the stage and inspired the way that Obama did (for that matter nobody in the world can do it like Obama, he is once in a generation in terms of oratory).

Where I think we disagree is about how much blame what I have been calling the "far left" has for this.

So let me tell you about when I was young. This was around 2000, my first election as an adult. At that point Nader was the "cool" candidate for young lefties. It was entirely too easily to buy into his "both parties are sold out to corporations" rhetoric. I knew a bunch of Nader voters. And then there were people like me, who didn't even vote.

And I see basically the same situation happened in 2016, and continuing to happen. Do I blame the voters? Maybe a little. Sure, I deserve some blame for not voting in 2000 (although, living in TX at the time, it would have made no difference). And, OK, the young Naderites back then should maybe have been able to see through his lies.

But much more than that, I blame the thought leaders of the far left. In 2000 that means Nader. He had to know he was lying when he said there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Fast forward to this year, and the remarkable thing is how little the dishonest rhetoric from the intellectual leaders of the far left has changed. It's still the same talking points. Corporations evil! Both parties are sellouts! Blah blah blah.

The people pushing the "both parties are the same" lie are not innocent or naive. Whether it's the Green Party or the various lefty media outlets supporting that viewpoint, the people manufacturing the anti-Democrat propaganda are intelligent, seasoned people. So, yes, I blame them. I blame them for repeating the same lies for about two decades now.

There is no excuse for what they have done and continue to do. I can excuse individual voters for falling for lies, OK. But I'm not going to excuse people who are intentionally lying and preying on the naivete of others. And that goes as much for the far left as it does for Trump telling poor white people that they will be "winning" as soon as he kicks out the Mexicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #34)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:47 AM

132. You were crystal clear

That isn't going to stop people who don't want to understand you.

Vote Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #34)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:41 AM

158. You did not make that at all clear in your OP

If you were talking about people who did not vote for Clinton because of purity, I agree that is a problem. Especially when the alternative is the marmalade shartcannon.

But numerically, there are much bigger problems. Like evangelicals who vote for an obviously immoral asshole. I hope they do some self reflection, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #158)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 09:56 AM

193. The question is one of functionality

Is what one advocates helping one to reach one's goal?

I have an ex-feiend who insisted that I was for Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders and would not accept my explanation of my own opinion. This fellow also insisted that Hillary Clinton would be indicted. Now he feels I have no legitimate issue with him, for aiding and abetting "conservatives," because he voted for Hillary Clinton.

That's just one example of abuse that I can do nothing with or for.

Vote Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #193)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:02 AM

194. I want to understand what you are writing here

Can you explain to me who is being abused, and by what?

It sounds like you have a friend of voted for Clinton, but believed some of the right wing lies about her. That's really unfortunate that your friend doesn't have a better bullshit detector.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #194)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:38 AM

200. Just an example

Everyone is unique but we have to generalize in order to process. You will not get your bright line distinctions and it's not reasonable for you to demand that.

The bottom line is there are people who sow discord and discontent and they are not helpful. I am not going to fix them, and so what? I will not be sucked into their nonsense.

Vote Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #193)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:21 PM

237. Everyone here supports Voting Democratic.

 

Stop acting as if you're the only party loyalist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #237)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 04:50 PM

248. Vote Democratic Ken!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #248)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:08 PM

252. I do-and it's not as simple as that.

 

Stop spamming an unnecessary message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #252)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:18 PM

256. Or what?

Vote Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #256)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:36 PM

258. Just stop.

 

There's no reason for you to keep doing this.

No reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #258)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:47 PM

261. Vote Democratic!

And worry. A lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #261)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:41 PM

279. You know I already do that.

 

My OP was in the service of helping MORE people vote for our party.

Please stop talking to me or to anyone else here as if we are either disloyal or if you are entitled to insult our intelligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:29 PM

37. You are correct. All the negative crap.. When in fact Clinton won the popular vote.

But you know, the superiority of the full time Clinton supporters over the Bernie turned Clinton supporters is sometimes unbearable.

Sore winners. Can't let it go.. Must punish. Must impugn.. Must blame...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:55 PM

43. re: "The result in the fall wasn't entirely the fault of the 'far left'. "

That's an understatement. There were so many things that contributed, lack of enthusiasm among the far left doesn't even make my top five. But Monday morning quarterbacking is easy.

I agree with you that "there were choices the campaign could have made that would have gained us those votes without costing us any other."

There were also things completely out of the the campaign's control.

However, I have a bit (just a bit) more sympathy than you do with the fact that so much of the Dem campaign was about Trump's negatives.

The thing about touting your own positive vision is that it is always, to some extent, controversial. That is, there will always be some people who will disagree with the policies you promote at least in part, and since no policy is ever perfect, whatever possible flaws it has (at least in the eyes of some) can be exploited by the opposition. OTOH, when you have an opponent like Trump who seems to be handing you ammunition with ridiculous statements and behaviors that almost no one would defend, it seems like the safe bet to use it. I mean, raising the income cap on social security contributions is controversial, pussy grabbing is not. So there's a temptation to take what seems like the easier, safer route.

That said, what this doesn't take into account is these things don't have equal importance. Even if people may have found Trump despicable as a person, that doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't vote for him, esp. if you don't give them a good reason to vote for you. Because despite his enormous flaws that even many on the right recognize, he still had a pitch that resonated with many people. And regardless of the accuracy of the thought, writing off half of them as irredeemable deplorables was probably not a great way to win them over, as entertaining as it may have been to our side. That doesn't make my top 5 either, but it did generate a bunch of press that presumably didn't win her any votes. Perhaps a different way to make the same point: "There are people out there who are bigots and haters... racists, sexists, islamophobes, you name it... and I see my opponent appealing to their baser instincts. I'm not going to tell you that I sympathize with these people. But I will tell you that my plans will make this country better for everyone, even the people I don't like." Or something along those lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 06:06 PM

55. What the campaign didn't seem to be noticing

 

is that, while Trump was indeed providing plenty of material for a negative campaign, going negative on the guy-much as he deserved it on a very deep level-wasn't flipping any votes our way at all.

Our support level was basically on a flatline throughout the campaign.

When the campaign saw-as the polling should have showed it by at least mid-September-that the negative tactics weren't gaining us votes and were, in a way, actually solidifying Trump's voters behind him, it should have switched tactics and focused on presenting the case FOR our candidate and our platform. There was a great focus on her qualifications, but qualifications were not going to be enough in the eyes of the voters. Since any message needs reinforcement, there should have been constant reminders of what we proposed.

I agree that making a case for your candidate and your platform is going to be controversial, but then again, any effort to elect anybody for any reason is going to be controversial. The focus on Trump's personal sordidness was also controversial-and unfortunately, the presence of our nominee's husband on the campaign trail was always going to make it easy for the other campaign to deflect on the sordidness issue. The voters hadn't forgotten about that.

If I had been in charge of the campaign, I probably would have tried to limit the presence of the nominee's husband at campaign appearances, or if he was going to be there, I'd have had him say something "unlike Mr. Trump, I admitted that what I did then was wrong and I willingly paid the price for it on a public and personal level".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #55)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 06:34 PM

65. Are you comparing President Bill Clinton to donald trump in your last paragraph?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #65)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 07:48 PM

69. My point is that his active presence in the race gave the Trump campaign the CHANCE

 

to make that false comparison.

President Clinton took responsibility for his actions and did not try to evade consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #69)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 08:33 PM

77. Despite your prostestations, President Bill Clinton was a huge asset during the campaign...

I'm sure he did more good than the negligible harm that you perceive.

Why you even brought this up at all boggles my mind.

PS - here he is in West Hartford along with Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly, a truly inspirational appearance by the three of them:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #55)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 08:28 PM

76. re: " There was a great focus on her qualifications, but qualifications were not going to be enough"

Good point. People don't vote on qualifications. That's not even something new to this election... The voters chose Obama in 2008 over the more experienced Clinton for the nomination, and over the more experienced McCain in the general. I think what it comes down to is, most people don't care much about what you've done in the past. What they care about is what you're going to do for them in the future. A strong vision beats a strong resume. (Even if, as in Trump, the vision is smoke and mirrors.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #76)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:48 AM

120. Very well put. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #55)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 09:59 PM

86. President Clinton was a tremendous asset on the campaign.

 

And it's pretty disgusting that you compare him to Donald Trump.

It's interesting that you complain that the campaign didn't focus enough on the issues, that they focused too much on Donald Trump, and then you repeat a stupid smear that has nothing to do with issues and attempts to excuse Donald Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WomenRising2017 (Reply #86)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 10:33 PM

90. I'm not excusing Trump.

 

What I'm saying is we all KNEW that focusing on Trump's misogyny was never going to win the election for us.

I wanted HRC to be elected over Trump just as much as you did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #90)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 10:38 PM

92. Why do you feel that Trump's misogyny should not be addressed?

 

It was real, it existed, and it was ticking off millions of women.

But you are mistaken if you feel that was the only focus of the campaign. You are also mistaken if you feel his misogyny should be ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WomenRising2017 (Reply #92)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 10:54 PM

97. Trump's misogyny was loathesome, but it was never going to gain us votes.

 

There was no area anywhere in the country where any significant number of Republican women was ever even going to consider not voting for Trump. The "moderate Republican women in the suburbs" never existed.

We should have called it out...but it was never going to be enough to put us over the top.

It was the focus of much of the ad campaign, and a number of other posters in this thread(some of whom were HRC supporters from the get-go)have said the same.

Look, I WANTED HRC to win in the fall. I was as horrified by the result as you were.

What I'm saying is that some of the choices made by the Clinton-Kaine campaign-choices that were a reversion to the default choices our party has consistently made in non-Obama fall campaigns since at least 1976, in most cases-did her a disservice.

It's not about saying she shouldn't have been nominated(I accept the results of the primaries and endorsed HRC shortly before the convention). It's about arguing for better choices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #97)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:04 PM

100. Once again, the campaign was NOT based on misogyny,

 

But yet it needed to be called out, and it needs to be called out regardless of who the candidate is.

As far as your last sentence, Democrats overwhelmingly thought Hillary Clinton was the better choice.

You endorsed her? Are you a member of the Democratic Party? Is there a link to your endorsement?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WomenRising2017 (Reply #100)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:36 PM

105. I endorsed her in a thread I started on DU. I've been a registered Dem for years.

 

(In Washington state, everyone is a registered independent, but my Dem identification is clear).

It's almost impossible to find threads from that many months ago in our current search feature, but I did endorse her about a week before the convention.

You have no reason to think I would lie about something like that.

It's enough that I accept that HRC won. It wasn't "overwhelming"Bernie took about 43% of the overall vote)but it was decisive and Bernie's support level was not insignificant.

My argument at the time of the convention and in the fall was that the fall campaign should have been treated as a partnership, blending the best of the HRC platform and the best of the Sanders platform, and treating both campaigns with parity of esteem.
Doing that would have harmed no one and would likely have guaranteed us a popular vote margin large enough to put us over the top in the Electoral College.

And to move forward now, we need to move past identification as Sanders people or Clinton people, and simply accept that both groups have a right to be in the party ad the values of both groups can naturally blend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #105)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 01:05 PM

225. I think the platform was plenty progressive. And I am not sure what she could have done, other

than embrace single payer health care, to make some people happy. She did support a public option.

I don't believe the race was winnable, given James Comey's actions through out the campaign, going back all the way to 2015. This was the FBI's election, from start to finish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #55)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:45 PM

259. "I probably would have tried to limit

the presence of the nominee's husband at campaign appearances". That was Brazile's strategy when she ran Gore's campaign, and it has long been cited as a major strategic error.

You certainly have a somewhat idiosyncratic opinion of the popular Democratic former president.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-democratic-convention-2016-live-bill-clinton-s-legacy-1469576026-htmlstory.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 08:42 PM

79. Not only did the Clinton campaign put far too much emphasis on negative ads, but they didn't seem to

understand that the most successful negative ads in the past all had a policy underlining to them - that the goal of the ad was to stoke doubt and concern about how the candidate would execute his actual duties in office. The LBJ campaign's "Daisy" ad portrayed Goldwater as a reckless extremist in the nuclear age; the Bush campaign's "Willie Horton" ad portrayed Dukakis as a soft on crime liberal; the Obama campaign's "Bain Capital" portrayed Romney as a rapacious hedge fund guy who would bring those same attitudes to his handling of the greater US economy. The Clinton campaign's "Our Children are Watching" ads did nothing more than say that Donald Trump is personally an awful human being.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Midwestern Democrat (Reply #79)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 09:16 PM

81. re: "ads did nothing more than say that Donald Trump is personally an awful human being."

Good point. This kind of "don't vote for him" didn't really give people a reason to vote for her. To that extent, even if the ad "works," the end result could as easily be that the voter stays home.

Maybe she was thinking about how people said Bush won in 2000 because people saw him as a guy they'd like to have a beer with, and she wanted to make sure people didn't want to have a beer with Trump (and I'm not sure the ads even worked for that)... but similarly, that doesn't mean they want to have a beer with her either.

In the end, I think lots of people don't care much about character, they care more about what's happening in their lives. Moreover, rightly or wrongly, for those who did care about character, many people saw the character of both of these candidates as flawed, so this is not the game she should have chosen to play. "He's worse" is not a great winning strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #81)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:18 AM

127. You hit the nail on the head

 

In the end, I think lots of people don't care much about character, they care more about what's happening in their lives.


"All politics is local". It's as true today as it was when it was first said. People care most about their own and their families lives and the issues that face them on a day to day basis. People will say they care about bigger issues (and probably do) but it'll never influence a vote as much as the impact on their own lives. I think as a party we've forgotten that along the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Midwestern Democrat (Reply #79)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:02 PM

264. Not true.

She had plenty of attack ads based on policy:

ad about outsourcing:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-ad-shirts-trump-outsourcing

ad about his merch made in Mexico:
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/27/hillary-clintons-ad-trumps-hat-lie.html

ad blasting his comments on vets:
http://thedailybanter.com/2016/09/this-brutal-new-hillary-clinton-ad-blows-up-trump-with-his-own-comments-about-veterans/

ad about his meeting in Mexico:
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/clinton-s-new-ad-hits-trump-over-mexico-trip-756787779856

And that was just with one quick search. Because I knew I remember seeing attack ads based on policy.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #11)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:57 AM

164. I am really tired of the blame Dems first meme.

Russia, FBI, Repugs working with the first 2 colluded to produce bad news and killing optics at just the right moment and by hiding news about trumps criminality and treason. The states stole the election by having malfunctioning machines in the urban areason purpose. 90 machines have been shown to have "errors" that affected the vote. Clinton won, it was just stolen.

Now, having said that, yes, we should have made some better decisions. More focusing on what she would do, more information about what he really did vs. what he said, more focus on voting machines and voting suppression and they wouldn't have been able to steal the election with the same tactics. Getting rid of the Russia/Repug collusion will stop most of the craziness, but don't know if that will actually happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:23 PM

31. Your snarkiness is just what we need..

That text was divisive. Big open tent, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LakeArenal (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:27 PM

35. Yes, I believe we are a big tent. Not necessarily a big open tent.

 

Smile at snarkiness. If my post is snarky, as you state, it has less to do with our big tent party than you think. Actually, it would have nothing to do with a big tent party.

Or was that snark of its own?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:38 PM

40. It was nasty, insulting and divisive

The truth is that no matter how much introspection any Democrat does about anything, we were beaten because a hostile foreign government meddled in our election, a corrupt and partisan corporate media hung on every word the Republicans said while mentioning our candidate only in connection with fake scandals while muting her speeches, and culminated in a weak (if not crooked) FBI director announcing fake news before he'd examined it days before the election, torpedoing her campaign. Democrats didn't defeat themselves. We got robbed.

I absolutely agree with your last sentence in your OP.

All this finger pointing at one group of Democrats or another is distinctly trollish. I wonder where its coming from. I suspect there is a tempest over at Farcebook, that gaping portal for fake news from overseas troll factories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:42 PM

108. Both can be true- HRC should have talked about ideas AND she was robbed

I believe Russia interfered, but I also believe Dems need to get back to defending the middle class and labor. More unions, higher min wage, good healthcare, good childcare, higher taxes for all but especially the super-wealthy.

And there's a third issue -- the media screws Dems and screwed HRC. We need reform of both for-profit infotainment and right-wing propaganda outlets. Bring back the fairness doctrine, break up Clear Channel, and brand Fox news as the hatemongering disinformation source it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #108)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:44 PM

109. I agree with all that you said there.

 

Putting it all on the Russians and Comey is just an excuse to not try to do anything better. It's an excuse to give up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #109)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:46 PM

112. Right - it's both. We need to care about the Russians

And I think once indictments come down we should be clamoring for an election redo.


But if Democrats want to win in 2020, 2022, and 2024, they better start talking about progressive values.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #112)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:52 PM

116. Absolutely.

 

I mean, look, if something were to happen that led to HRC being sworn in after all, I'd celebrate as loudly as anyone else.

But it's not as if shouting "we did NOTHING wrong-it was just Comey and the Russians and bigotry" and silencing all honest discussion within the party is going to make that happen.

And critiquing the fall campaign's choice is not disrespecting the nominee OR "refighting the primaries".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #116)

Thu Apr 27, 2017, 08:10 AM

405. No kidding. Without Comey, the election would have still been close.

It should not have been close at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #108)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:56 PM

117. Well, I hope enough Democrats get into Congress that we CAN reform the media

by busting up the conglomerates and bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, both against a GOP veto.

Until then, we're going to have to do an end run around them somehow because while they are in their present form, they will mute Democratic speeches and over report fake scandals and generally wreck any candidate who relies on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #117)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 08:33 PM

274. I don't know if you read The Daily Howler.

Bob Somerby is a liberal critic of the "liberal" media. His insights and analysis are excellent.

You can also read his book How He Got There The Press Corps' War Against Candidate Gore: How George W. Bush Reached the White House on line. It's about the role that the media played in securing Gore's defeat.

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/
http://howhegotthere.blogspot.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #108)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:42 AM

131. I heard LOTS of ideas. About women, about jobs, about universal health care coverage, college costs

 

However, I detected the misinformation, and wasn't distracted by it, as was its purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 01:36 PM

7. I think so too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 04:57 PM

52. DanTex really hit the mark

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #52)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 07:56 PM

71. If "hitting the mark" means helping to keep the left divided. Yes, he did. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #71)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 08:24 AM

170. Feelings hurt? Too bad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #170)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:19 PM

236. Why do you feel entitled to talk down to people?

 

Those who are to your left are just as practical as you are and work as hard in the real world as you do.

You have no claim to superiority over anyone else here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #236)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:47 PM

260. I would venture to say that

you likely have no such claim either. "Progressive" is in the eye of the beholder, as we saw with some self-styled "progressives" who were happy to embrace Trump. I view liberal and progressive to be interchangable and I have yet to interact with fellow Democrats who did not fit either term. We will all continue to lose with this bitter divisiveness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Reply #260)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:51 PM

282. I've talked down to no one in this thread.

 

I've made critical comments about the campaign's choices...I've said nothing about HRC supporters that could possibly be taken as insulting or disrespectful.

I worked amicably with HRC supporters all through the fall and at the Alaska state Democratic convention in Anchorage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #282)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 12:19 PM

293. Yes you do but the fact that you are unaware of this is really amusing

Have you been to a meeting of Indivisible yet? Please get out in the real world

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #293)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 03:48 PM

295. They don't have an Indivisible chapter where I am.

 

Campaigning for the party for forty years is "real world"-and I've done that.

And there's nothing any more "real world" about Indivisible(a group I support)than about any other anti-Trump group.

You have no reason to keep treating me like I'm delusional.

And I have never personally attacked you. All I've done is respectfully disagreed with some of your views.

There's room for both of us in this party.

And there's room for the ideas I advocate just as much as there's room for yours.

This is not a country with a permanent anti-left majority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #295)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 08:21 PM

307. How is that possible?

There are groups all over. You can start your own Indivisible group easily. Go to the webpage and you will see that there is ways to find a group if you actually look or to find people to start a group.https://www.indivisibleguide.com/act-locally/ There is an easy way to sign up to host a meeting https://actionnetwork.org/events/4d56f7d15f8eecf435ce561305a20ddf7dbc648b/edit The concept that there is not a group near you does not make sense. I am deep red Texas and there are over a dozen different groups in the greater area. The fun thing is that these groups are talking to each other and doing something called organizing.

Again, you should help found a group if your claim is true. I doubt that this is the case in that there are a ton of groups in your state according to the Indivisible webpage.

As for the real world, the local Indivisible and other groups here organized a trip to meet the staff of our local congress person where we demanded a town hall and asked him to support the House requiring Trump to provide his tax return. the staffer was polite and took our letters but I still believe that the effort was meaningful. These groups organized some great protests at the town hall held by John Culbertson. https://www.democraticunderground.com/107834365 The tax day march in Houston ended up at the offices of Senator Carnival Cruz and they had fun requesting Cruz hold a town hall. I admit that I did not make it all of the way and left after the initial speeches but it was a bad ozone day in Houston.

There is a great deal to be done in the real world on the ground. Go meet with candidates and tell them your theories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #307)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 10:40 PM

308. I've proved to you that I work in the real world.

 

I could get a former Democratic National Committeewoman from Alaska(a Clinton supporter, fwiw) to vouch for that.

And former and current members of the Alaska Legislature.

And the people I worked with in the fall Democratic campaign in Olympia.

Why this obsession on your part with accusing me of being out of touch with reality?

You work in one state with one political culture. That doesn't make your own experience the only reality.

Why is it never enough for you to just disagree with me if you do?

Or just to make a case against what I call for and WORK for?

If you keep accusing me of not living in the real world, I'm going to collect links to all the posts where you do that and send them to the mods. What you are doing in response to my posts is harassment and abuse and has no place on DU.

I'm practical, real-world person who just rejects your cynical, defeatist view of what's possible. Nothing I post here could possibly justify your tactics towards me.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #308)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 11:59 PM

310. You have proved nothing-Your posts speak for themselves

I do not believe your claims about there being no indivisible or other similar groups in your area. Look at the links. There are a large number of Indivisible groups in the Washington state area. Go look for one. You need to talk to someone who is active on the ground and lives in the real world.

Your posts speak for themselves. Go run your amusing theories by the people you claim to know. See what they think of your amusing theories. Please explain that we should ignore trump's unpopularity and focus on the platform of a candidate who brought no new voters to the party, I doubt that your theories will be well received by anyone who lives in the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #295)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 10:40 AM

325. I've seen this Indivisible Evangelicalism before

I also support the group's goals, but find it really weird that it has a growing number of followers who believe that they are the One True Way to political enlightenment, and that they and only they, are politically active and that everyone else is doing nothing of any value.

It's just really weird to kind of a cult-like extent in some cases. Hopefully, it's not something that this group as a whole is encouraging on a national level because I do agree with the goals that I at least think it has based on the Indivisible document I've read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #236)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 09:40 AM

291. Please go out into the real world

Please attend a meeting of indivisible or People Power. The real world is a nice place

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #291)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 03:51 PM

296. Please stop accusing me of not being part of the real world.

 

Nothing I've ever done or said justifies you saying that.

I'm as pragmatic and practical as you are.

BTW, before I left Alaska, I played a major role in flipping a longstanding GOP state legislative seat to the Dems, and thus contributed to the end of GOP control of the Alaska House of Representatives.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #296)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 12:02 AM

311. You may want to check the definitions of pragmatic and practical

Ken your theories will not work in the real world. Go present these amusing theories to the people you claim to know.

BTW, I loved your ATA thread. It made me smile

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #311)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 04:04 AM

314. Stop.

 

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #170)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 07:55 AM

318. That's the spirit! keep the party divided! Let's lose elections! Woo Hoo!

Seriously, if that is your attitude, then don't complain when the GOP wins.

You can't shit on people and expect them to help you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #71)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 04:47 AM

316. so it's dantex that's running around bashing Democrats and embracing Trump voters?

 

That's who's dividing the left, and pissing off a whole lot of people. Unless Dantex got a really good mask and fooled WaPo and the various media, he's not the guilty party here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #316)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 07:59 AM

319. He is certainly one of them, but in no way is he the only one.

Anyone who seeks to divide and shrink rather than heal and grow the party is guilty of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 01:35 PM

5. Introspection is an honorable word

I recommend it for our entire center to far left spectrum of activists and voters. Thankfully it appears to me that our new DNC leadership team has no problem with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 01:36 PM

8. "Thankfully it appears to me that our new DNC leadership team has no problem with it."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 01:37 PM

10. I'm giving Tom a chance.

 

He's off to a good start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 01:42 PM

13. "He's off to a good start."

 

I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 01:48 PM

14. Why are you quoting everyone's responses to your posts like that?

 

And what is your objective in your posts in this thread?

All I'm doing here is saying that lashing out at people to the party's left is not the path to victory in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 02:08 PM

16. Thankfully I'm not lashing out at the partys left.

 

So your point there poses little significance with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 02:48 PM

19. Good point, I'll take it :) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:07 PM

21. I wasn't claiming that you were.

 

The OP in the other thread did, it seemed to me, do that.

I don't like Jill Stein any more than anyone else here-but there needs to be a distinction between her and Ralph, on the one hand, and the people who were swayed by them or by other factors to not vote for our nominee this time but could be won over with a different strategy next time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:45 PM

110. The new DNC leadership didn't talk big ideas in KS-09

The DNC ran away in Kansas. That was a perfect opportunity to start talking about what Democrats stand for. And if Ted Cruz flew in to talk about Pelosi, embrace her and what she stands for.

Running away isn't going to win elections. Standing your ground for the things you believe in wins elections in the long run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 01:36 PM

9. Good point. I've found introspection a very useful tool in my own life.

 

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:32 PM

38. Too bad we can't upvote replies!

This should be the proverbial "mic drop" moment in the thread.

Well said!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 02:36 PM

18. During the last few days before the election

I was so frustrated that the majority of ads run in our market focused on "Trump is awful, so vote for Clinton".

In my opinion, that was a mistake. People want to vote FOR something/someone.

Introspection is good, but it hurts sometimes and a lot of people seem really invested in the idea that everything was perfect in the last election, except for the outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:08 PM

22. Thank you.

 

And it's entirely possible to recognize that illegitimate factors affected the outcome and yet at the same time make exactly the point you made there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 04:23 PM

47. All the Trump voters I know were voting against Someone and Something.Lock her up!



Maybe it works for Republicans?

Many of us and not wanting to see the Big Picture and coming up with narrow analysis?

The Big Picture is scary. Right now there is no way to stop foreign powers from deciding our elections. So the politicians who could have prevented the lose of 900 + Democratic seats from 2010 on don't want to take responsibility for their failures and don't want to acknowledge that they could have busted open the Russian involvement last summer/fall but let Republican McConnell shut them up. How many in-office Democrats knew the truth and said nothing?

Right now everyone wants to write the story most advantageous to themselves. Make it a normal problem that we can fix easily.

the irony is that they are focusing on the negative.

Many Trump voters are changing on their own. What will help is Democrats in power expressing a vision -but they are not there yet













Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:10 PM

24. Very well said ..

 

Mr Burch..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:14 PM

26. INCOMING! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:15 PM

27. "Every faction of this party treating each other with respect." I agree completely.

The centrists should respect the left, and the left should respect the centrists. For the good of the party and the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:16 PM

28. So your analysis of the campaign is that

 

too much time was spent criticizing Donald Trump, and not enough time was spent acknowledging Bernie Sanders?

As a supporter and someone who did volunteer work I will tell you that the campaign strongly pushed our platform.

Those who voted third party, or didn't vote, knowing full well the differences between the two parties are the ones who need to reassess their priorities.

If they chose to ignore which party was offering a very progressive platform, and also ignore the racism, sexism, and bigotry, I'm not sure how they are reachable.

I've been listening to the reasons people chose to not vote, and they are all based on the racism, sexism and bigotry that Trump promoted.

I recently read on this board that some didn't vote because they are against marriage equality.

Abandoning civil rights is not an option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WomenRising2017 (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:20 PM

30. That's not what he said

 

He said we spent too much time attacking Trump, not enough time telling people what we can do for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldRedneck (Reply #30)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:32 PM

39. Read the second paragraph

 

I'll quote it here

been aware of)It focused almost entirely on negative ads against the other party's candidate and spent far too little time talking about how good OUR platform was(or on acknowledging the role in the runner-up campaign in improving that platform, which would have done a lot to persuade more supporters of the runner-up to believe that they hadn't been crushed and that a decision to vote for our nominee would be a validation of their work in the primaries and the caucuses, and would have persuaded undecided voters to support our ticket because we had a lot of good things to offer that they may not have


And again, a great deal of time was spent on advocating our platform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WomenRising2017 (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 06:06 PM

56. Welcome to DU!

.. and good point.

I don't want this infighting anymore myself -- but I am just over this idea that HRC should have done better -- she lost to the FBI, trumpsters the Russians and the independents.

I Was neutral during the primaries after O'MAlley dropped out, FTR.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raine1967 (Reply #56)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 09:27 PM

82. Thank you,

 

and I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WomenRising2017 (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 07:58 PM

72. I was talking about the campaign's supporters, not the candidate.

 

Whatever you think of Bernie-and I had my own criticisms of him, especially on the way he expressed himself on anti-oppression issues-That campaign was one of the most positive things we've seen in this party, and it brought a lot of good ideas and energized people into the process. We should all be glad that it happened.

My point was that, regardless of what anyone feel about Bernie as a candidate or as a person, we needed to actively reach out to his supporters and make sure they knew they were needed and that what they had done was not a meaningless waste of time. Far too much of the time, their support was simply demanded and their concerns were dismissed.

The ads I saw-and those were national ads-were skewed heavily in favor of attacking Trump. Would you at least agree that, when it became clear that that tactic wasn't going to flip any significant number of traditional GOP voters our way-when it became obvious that the "moderate Republican women in the suburbs who were alienated by Trump's misogyny" this strategy was meant to win over simply didn't exist-that we should have switched exclusively to a positive campaign?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #72)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 09:46 PM

84. So you are critiquing supporters of the campaign, but not the campaign itself?

 

I can understand your disappointment that your preferred candidate didn't win the Democratic nomination, primaries are tough, but I'm not understanding how you feel that played a role in the General Election.

The choice was clear. Support a progressive platform, or vote for the sexist, racist bigoted campaign of Donald Trump.

Polling shows that Sanders supporters overwhelmingly supported the Clinton campaign, so who do you feel was ignored?

Like any campaign, there were ads against the Republicans and ads for the Democratic platform.

Once again, as a supporter and a volunteer for the campaign, we strongly pushed the Democratic platform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WomenRising2017 (Reply #84)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 10:37 PM

91. I'm not refighting the primaries.

 

I'm critiquing the fall campaign and by extension other supporters of it(I supported our nominee in the fall just as much as you did, and you have no reason to question that).

I watched the national ads closely. It was clear by the beginning of October that none of the attacks on Trump were working. Once that was clear the focus-in the name of electing our nominee-should have been solely on making a positive case for our candidate AND on making sure that everyone knew that a lot of Sanders proposals, all of which were popular, were in the platform.

The Electoral College results prove that the focus on negative ads was a total failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #91)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 10:45 PM

94. I'm not talking about the primaries, either.

 

I'm not sure why you seem focused on them.

You also seem to have this mistaken belief that the campaign did not run on issues.

I don't know what to say, except that you are not a very good Monday Morning Quarterback.

I don't agree with any of your assessments, at all. It seems like you completely ignored the campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WomenRising2017 (Reply #94)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:42 PM

107. You said I was posting this because my candidate didn't get nominated.

 

The OP had nothing to do with that.

I accepted HRC as the nominee.

My intent was simply to say that the campaign strategists didn't make the best choices.

Had they chosen better-had they even sent her repeatedly to the Upper Midwest in the last two weeks of the campaign rather than wasting time in states they already knew we had no chance of carrying, like Ohio, Georgia, and Arizona-HRC would be in the Oval Office today and we might have a Democratic Senate as well.

I watched the campaign intently, and there are many posts in this thread who saw what I saw and cited people in the party leadership who agree with the analysis I offered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WomenRising2017 (Reply #94)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 09:38 AM

188. There was a study done on the ad campaigns of Presidential candidates

And it found that:

1. Clinton’s unexpected losses came in states in which she failed to air ads until the last week.
2. Clinton’s message was devoid of policy discussions in a way not seen in the previous four presidential contests.

http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/blog/2016-election-study-published/

Note that it doesn't claim that it represents ALL reasons for the loss, but the point is that when a significant number of people are claiming that the national ads did not include enough policy and did harm to the campagin, maybe it would be a good thing for the party and party loyalists to at least consider it and think about whether some strategy changes need to take place next time.

For people who are already on-board to a campaign, the issues seem obvious and while you might think you are getting the message across to others, it's not always the case. Most people aren't all over the internet like we are paying close attention to all this stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #188)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:09 PM

253. Thank you.

 

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #188)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 06:43 PM

263. Truth be told, it was difficult to turn her wide ranging platform

 

into a 30 second soundbite. But still, the information was all there. Her social media platform was very impressive.

It's hard to dumb down a policy wonk for people who put little effort into their decision making.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WomenRising2017 (Reply #263)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 11:33 AM

326. Oh come on

 

EVERY national campaign has to fit a huge amount of information into easily digestible sound bites. It's part of their job. It's not like Hillary was the first candidate to ever run on more than one policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WomenRising2017 (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:43 PM

41. "DNC leaders say Hillary Clinton lost because she talked too much about Trump"

DNC leaders say Hillary Clinton lost because she talked too much about Trump

Every leading contender to take over the Democratic National Committee believes Hillary Clinton focused too much on attacking Donald Trump at the expense of articulating an affirmative case for holding the White House. During their final showdown before the chairman's election in Atlanta on Feb. 25, there was consensus that the party's problems derive mainly from subpar organization and communication - not anything fundamental.

"We forgot to talk to people," said Tom Perez, who was secretary of labor until last month and a finalist to be Clinton's running-mate last summer. "I'm a big believer in data analytics, but data analytics cannot supplant good old fashioned door knocking. . . . We didn't communicate our values to people. When Donald Trump says, 'I'm going to bring the coal jobs back,' we know that's a lie. But people understand that he feels their pain. And our response was: 'Vote for us because he's crazy.' I'll stipulate to that, but that's not a message."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-dnc-clinton-trump-20170213-story.html


Apparently it's not just the op's analysis. And thankfully the new leaders of the DNC don't believe these voters can't be reached, they know we need them. In fact that's why Tom Perez And Bernie are visiting red states this spring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WomenRising2017 (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 06:22 PM

61. Out of interest, what state are you in?

 

And it wasn't about "acknowledging Bernie Sanders". The primaries were not about any one person's ego-hell, if Bernie was an egotist, wouldn't he get a good haircut and a well-tailored suit?.

The people who needed to be acknowledged were Sanders' supporters-what they achieved in building support for the candidate and more importantly the principles they fought and fight for was nothing short of heroic, yet in many places they were treated as nothing but spoiled children-spoiled PRIVILEGED WHITE children, even though many weren't privileged and there were larger numbers who weren't white as the campaign went on-whose candidate should never have run and who accomplished nothing.

In many areas(yours may have been an exception)they were treated as spoiled losers, what they did was derided as a failure, and those who treated them like that turned around and simply demanded their votes.

Would it really have been asking to much for the party to say, all over the place "what you did was worth doing, and if you'll stay with it, if you'll work with us, this party will be a place where you can go on working for what you want"?

If it was done that way where you were, good, but shouldn't it have been like that everywhere?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #61)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 09:52 PM

85. I'm not sure how or why you have formed this opinion.

 

I'm certainly not going to share any personal information with you.

Would you care to address the rest of my post?

Once again, I'm sorry that your preferred candidate didn't win the primary, but I fail to see how it plays a factor in the General Election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WomenRising2017 (Reply #85)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 10:32 PM

89. I accept that HRC won the primaries and I wanted her to win in the fall just as much as you did.

 

And I only asked which state you were in(which is not personal information, since it's unlikely that you're the only person who lives in that state) because location might shape how the campaign was run where you are.

And this is not about "refighting the primaries", so please stop acting like I don't accept that HRC won the nomination. I proved I accepted that by working for her all through the fall.

I formed my opinion from participating in the fall campaign(in my case, in Washington state)and from seeing the national campaign ads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WomenRising2017 (Reply #85)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 10:50 PM

95. Sharing your state or region is "personal information?

 

Guess I'll have to change my username then...



-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #95)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 10:58 PM

98. To me? Yes.

 

It's not really any of your business.

You can share any information you wish to. I choose not to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WomenRising2017 (Reply #98)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:39 AM

122. I wasn't asking out of any intent of trying to find you.

 

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:20 PM

29. Now that I think about the 2016 campaign . . .

 

I do not recall very many positive Hillary ads. Damn near every ad was anti-Trump, anti-Republican.

There's a local car dealer in Richmond, VA, whose every TV ad ends with a shot of him saying: "Don't tell me what you can't do, tell me what you CAN do." If it works for selling cars (it does), it will work for selling candidates.

I agree with the OP. All those attacking him need to pull your heads out of rectal defilade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldRedneck (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 04:26 PM

49. I recall Clinton looking positive and Trump muttering, Nasty woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #49)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 06:04 AM

134. There were some strategic mistakes made, I think.

Had she won, like everyone thought she was going to, they probably would have played out as genius chess moves.

As it was, though, realistically- the poster is correct. Looking positive? For sure. But lets talk actual messaging. Actual issues. There was a lot of "boo scary trump" and not a ton of here's why you should vote for me, here's what I'm going to change.

And like it or not, it was sort of a change election. A lot of us- me, for sure- thought Obama did a great job. Certainly we were better off than 8 years prior.

But a lot of the people who were looking for more motivation to go to the polls- people in the rust belt- well, they got "boo scary trump" ads and they got a candidate whose strategists told her to ignore those states after the convention.

The people on the ground, our party people? In Wisconsin? In Michigan? Begged the Clinton campaign for help.

But they thought they had it in the bag, so why rock the boat.

Trouble is, "don't fuck with success" only works if it succeeds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldRedneck (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 06:23 PM

62. I agree with you.

 

(btw, "Rectal Defilade" sounds like the worst thing you'd ever see on a French restaurant menu).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldRedneck (Reply #29)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:46 AM

119. Exactly.

There's an old saying in sales that goes "When you call the competition a jerk you are one, too. " all your doing is creaing more negativity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:25 PM

33. Centrist on what? We were told it's the most liberal platform in party history

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/democrats-advance-most-progressive-platform-party-history-n606646

And there are those who claim that the upper Midwest's labor ship has sailed. Those voters know their jobs aren't coming back and people with the means to do so have moved already to the south and west for new jobs. You can't deny that our party picked up new states from before: Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and have been competitive in other previously red states.

Our liberal people are increasingly clustered in urban coastal cities. What policies are going to help win voters in the rural middle of America?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #33)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:06 AM

125. Actually, we just retained those three states. None were gains from 2012.

 

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #125)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 06:23 AM

138. What policies are going to help win voters in the rural middle of America?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #138)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 06:33 AM

141. An interventionist policy to subsidize high-wage jobs

 

This would involve an industrial bank, federal subsidies to help start co-ops, especially in cases where the unemployed could band together to re-open, and probably do a better job of managing, plants that were closed due to outsourcing.

This would probably involve retooling many of those plants and having them make more popular products-former auto plants could actually make affordable, fuel efficient cars rather than the gas-guzzling land yachts Detroit insisted on putting out. Places that made things like refrigerators and air conditioners might be retooled to make solar panels. There are many possibilities.

What happened to the Upper Midwest happened because we let "the magic of the market" decide who kept their jobs and who lost them. Since the market declared war on the Upper Midwest, something on the scale of a domestic Marshall Plan will be needed to repair the war damage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #141)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 08:15 AM

168. Sounds expensive

Meanwhile, lots of people move for jobs. They move to places where jobs are growing or housing is cheaper or there is some opportunity for a better life. That's why people moved to the industrial north decades ago. That's the story of America.

America does make things like cars and refrigerators that would be expensive to ship from overseas. They're being made in the South and areas that have cheap land, labor, or electricity/energy.

I get that you want to rebuild and retool upper Midwest economies so people can still live there. But manufacturing is probably not enough. The conditions that existed decades ago are not there to provide enough jobs for enough people. We now have more automation, less labor intensive manufacturing processes. One-industry cities have suffered and Republicans have hung that around the necks of labor and liberals claiming that Democrats did it not the corporations.

Look at how Minneapolis and Pittsburgh have diversified their economies to survive while other rust belt cities rusted out and died. There is a tremendous difference in Minnesota and Wisconsin's outcomes of their policies and investments. Minnesota's liberal Democratic policies could help similar states who have voted in Republicans to destroy everything (Wisconsin and Michigan). It's not a coincidence that Minnesota is the only one in the upper Midwest to vote for Hillary.

As far as winning presidential elections, we could look to expand our party's presence in Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and other big states with growing populations and economies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #141)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 09:40 AM

322. That could work but a lot of modern lefists honestly fetishize manufacturing

 

Which Bouie referred to in this:[link:http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/04/the_response_to_the_retail_apocalypse_shows_which_workers_count_in_trump.html|

While also showing a fundamental misunderstanding of how manufacturing became so secure in the first place (there's nothing about manufacturing that makes it better than services; the problem is that service and retail hasn't been organized to nearly the same extent). And the racial aspect of it is disturbing because manufacturing is largely a white male thing outside Detroit, while retail is a lot more diverse.

Also, the left needs to organize in a manner that doesn't presume any kind of big, WWII/postwar government actions to be successful. We're about 10 more years out from that to be honest in terms of realism (unless you go for broke, take back the House and Senate in 2020, and break the legislative filibuster)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #322)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 11:47 PM

339. We have to have it as part of the vision, though.

 

Getting to transformational policies is the goal you use to keep people hanging in there, to keep the organizing going.

It's not possible to build on incrementalism as the only possible pace of change ever.

You've got to keep the notion of a big, sweeping moment of deliverance in there somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #339)

Fri Apr 21, 2017, 06:00 AM

340. I agree and disagree

 

I feel like building class consciousness relies on getting wins anywhere even incremental ones because workers need that feeling of power to organize further, garner support, etc. It's not enough to want a revolution, you have to make workers as a group think its possible. Incremental victories do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #340)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 04:12 AM

341. And I wasn't saying NEVER settle for increments.

 

Last edited Sat Apr 22, 2017, 03:39 PM - Edit history (1)

But there needs to be a push to at least eventually get a transformational moment, and the push should be for the increments to get bigger.

The San Francisco Mime Troupe did a show called STEELTOWN in the Eighties. There was a great song towards the end of it, sung by a shop steward whose local had led a very effective wildcat strike, only to have the timid national leadership sweep in, take over and force the local to give up the strike and settle for minor gains because the national leadership-the story takes place in the late Forties, during the Red Scare-was afraid of having the union look too radical.

Early in the song, these words are sung by the shop steward:

We fight for little things.
"Reinstate our fellow workers,
their fight for us was not a crime.
Give us wages we can live on,
without working overtime.
These are little things we ask for,
But they resist us all the way,
Because they know the real question,
is "who's to have the say?"
"who's to say which one gets fired
Who gets hired...who's to say?"
"Who's to say if we make steel here,
or if the steel mill goes away?"


A bit later, he and the others
add these questions, about the rest of the economy:

"Shall the wealth of this great nation
answer to a world in need?
Shall the power we produce here
Be used for war, or used for peace?
Shall we yield to the masters
Our farmer's corn, our miners' ore,
And all the steel that is rolled here,
Or shall we grow it, mine and pour it,
us deciding what it's for?


At the end, after the smug, redbaiting jerk from
the national office forced the local to stand down,
the shop steward ends with the show another verse of the song
finishing with these words:

if we ask only little questions,
and we do not ask for MORE,
we may seem to win a battle,
but still not win the war.


Take the little in the short term if that's all you can get,
just don't let go of the vision of the big.
And don't let anyone from above tell us that we HAVE to give up on the big,
that we have to accept that all there is is all that we can currently see.

Do you go along with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #341)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 07:50 AM

343. I agree certainly

 

The problem is a lot of people on the farther left don't seem to have that balance down.

The idea is that those small victories entrench within the mind of the workers "hey wait a minute, we do all the work, why don't we get to decide how the work is done? I feel that's how you get TO that class consciousness to unite around that vision of the big, as well as the ability to feel you CAN win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #343)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 03:37 PM

344. The key, then, is to make sure that we aren't made to settle for JUST the small victories.

 

That the goal of a great transformation is never abandoned.

Good having this exchange with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:28 PM

36. About that path

The path to unity is joining together to fight the repubs. Focus on that or we won't win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 03:50 PM

42. There Was a Slogan That Irritated Me to Pieces

Love Trumps Hate


Rule number 1 is to never repeat the opposition's phrasing. So why the hell were people putting "Trump" on their pro-Democratic signs?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leith (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 06:11 PM

58. I thought we should have gone with "Trump Loves Hate".

 

When you do go negative, do it with style.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 04:00 PM

44. Interesting but you are forgetting Clinton won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #44)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 05:25 PM

54. No. She had more votes. Trump won. THAT is exactly the problem.

Look, I voted for her. I did all I could for the entire ticket. Nobody gets to crank my tail that somehow, as a member of the Progressive wing of the party I am somehow at fault for who is residing in the Whitehouse right now. Clinton had the popular vote win, but managed to blow the strategy of winning the EC. THAT is the reality.

Yeah, there was fuckery in the election, and there was a lot of extraneous crap thrown at the 11th hour by Comey et al, but how in the name of god could anybody with her level of experience even be CLOSE in a race against an orange shit gibbon who bragged about assaulting women and incited violence at his campaign rallies? Had the campaign strategy been even halfway sound, that race should have been SO one sided that there was nothing possible to do to "fix" it.

Gore's race against Dubya was another example of this same failure. There was not enough of a clear distinction between the two candidates in either case. I still blame Donna Brazille for Gore's loss, but I honestly have no idea who was actually driving the Hillary bus this time. I'm afraid it was a bunch of that same crew in both campaigns, and I am terrified that unless we get some distance from that whole scene we are gonna be doomed to yet another disastrous loss next time.

YMMV, and I'm sure I'll be swarmed with hateful crap for saying it, but we have got to get to a new campaign model if Dem want to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davsand (Reply #54)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 06:37 PM

66. I don't think her strategy was the problem. How did Trump defeat all those Republicans


to go the Show? Trump defeated them all-so how was he not a formidable opponent.

Democrats lost over 900 seats to Republicans in about 6 years. Progressives weren't aware enough to sound the alarm. Why? I expect people who claim to be on the cutting edge to be, well, on top of things.

The Democratic political landscape changed dramatically between 2008 and 2016. Why did progressive candidates lose? How did Russ Feingold lose?

Why did all these voter in Democratic territory in Michigan not enter a presidential candidate on their ballots?

How did a dreadful anti-progressive governor get elected, and then survive a recount? What were progressives doing wrong in that state?

Gore won-he lost the vote count and the Supreme Court-but before that Democrats lost the Secy of State office in Florida and the governorship to Jeb Bush. Gore suffered a political loss, not a ballot box loss.

Why did a select group of Democrats let Mitch McConnell be the decider on telling the people about Russian interference?

Why weren't progressives smart enough to see the Russian connection coming?

Some of the Trump voters will dump him because he can't deliver; others may turn against him when the Russian connection comes out--but their dumping him will not be because of a a so-called progressive takeover of the Democratic Party re-targets a particular voting block.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #66)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 08:11 PM

74. "Takeover" is a very loaded term.

 

Nobody on the left is trying to turn the party into her or his own personal cult.

Nor would greater influence for supporters of the Sanders agenda mean the party was targeting any "particular voting bloc"-especially any racially-defined voting bloc.

Sanders supporters have always been just as committed to an anti-racist, anti-social oppression agenda as Clinton supporters, and they have never called for any groups in the party's current demographics to be knocked out in the cold.

We all acknowledge that Russian interference and what Comey did played a role-it's just that we don't have to pretend that our campaign made no major mistakes in the fall. It isn't "either/or".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #74)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 08:57 PM

80. "Nobody on the left is....."


Nobody on th left is trying to turn the party into his or her own personal cult.

How do you know that no is----can you really speak for everyone on the left? Of course not-its millions of people.
In any case its not something I have thought to0 much about as it seems to me to be almost impossible for anyone to achieve that.

Greater Influence for for supporters of the Sanders Agenda.........
Is anyone stopping supporters who want greater influence? Are there barriers of some kind preventing participation by Sanders' supporters?

Please tell me if there are. I would like to write about it and your input would be helpful?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #80)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 10:41 PM

93. No significant number of people want to turn the party into her or his own personal cult.

 

Even Bernie doesn't want that.

And, contrary to myth, even those who have called for an to connect to working-class voters(of ALL races)aren't calling for any OTHER groups in the party to be thrown under the bus.

There's no significant disagreement on the need to keep fighting instutional bigotry. There never was.

All some of us wanted was for economic justice and the need to stand up to corporate power to be given a significantly greater emphasis. Doing that doesn't have to mean de-emphasizing anything we already stand for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #44)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 07:51 PM

70. I acknowledge that she prevailed in the popular vote total.

 

That fact does not mean the campaign was run properly or that the strategy was effective, given the campaign's inability to carry the states we needed to carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 04:05 PM

45. Let's unify for the Right to Vote Without Interference from Voter Suppression

at home and Voter interference by foreign powers.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #45)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:45 PM

111. There's no conflict between doing that-which we ALL agree with-

 

and offering respectful critiques of the choices the fall campaign made.

We need to do both.

OK?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 04:24 PM

48. Unity through Respect - I can support that.

Respecting all the opinions under the Democratic tent and working together to defeat Republicans everywhere is a lofty goal for sure, but we better get our butts in gear soon or the fight will be for a charred piece of ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 04:32 PM

50. It would be nice if someone said something positive about this party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #50)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 06:09 PM

57. OK. We had a pretty good platform

 

(all we need to change on it for 2018 and 2020 is to be a bit more willing to challenge corporate power and to be a bit more questioning of force as an aspect of our foreign policy).

Still it was good, and what the Sanders people added made it better.

Our Congressmembers' sit-in tactics on the gun bill were heroic.

Our nominee this year was eminently qualified to be president and should be appointed to the Supreme Court the next time we elect a Democratic president.

How about those as positive statements?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #50)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 06:11 PM

59. We have good leaders coming up the ranks, particularly from the West Coast.

Tom Perez is doing an excellent job so far correcting the prior mismanagement - "worthless", in the words of Harry Reid - of the DNC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #59)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 06:24 PM

63. Agreed.

 

That's something to be hopeful about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #59)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 08:07 PM

73. That's the way to say something positive about the party, aka the Democratic Party!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #73)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:47 PM

113. Which I also did in post #57

 

There's no conflict between saying positive things and offering suggestions on how to do some things better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #50)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 06:48 PM

67. Democratic candidates in general are vastly more knowledgeable about

the Constitution and issues. They are deeper thinkers, The have much more empathy and are far more likely to want to improve the lives of people.

The Democratic Party has people warmth and that is a very good starting place for a Vision of the future.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #67)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:22 PM

101. We just simply care about humanity...air...water...etc., etc., etc.... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #50)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:16 AM

150. + a million or so! eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 04:37 PM

51. Quote from Jim Hightower

 

"There's nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow stripe and dead armadillos ." - Jim Hightower

get that folks? if you call yourself a centrist you're a fool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YOHABLO (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 06:29 PM

64. He should give advice, huh?

* Managed the presidential campaign of former Senator Fred R. Harris of Oklahoma in 1976. LOSER
* 1992 presidential election, he supported the candidacy of U.S. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. LOSER
* After Harkin left the race, Hightower supported Jerry Brown. LOSER
* 2000, joined Susan Sarandon in support of Nader. LOSER.
* 2004, Dennis Kucinich. LOSER

The real problem with "progressives" is they don't know how to run campaigns and only appeal to a narrow piece of the populace. And since campaigns have to be WON to hold office, that is a problem.

Perhaps the introspection should lead to the realization that only spectators are on the far left and far right. The game is played and won in the middle of the field.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #64)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 08:42 PM

78. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 06:21 PM

60. In some ways, this is like herding cats.

Centrism doesn't really sell and people are angry as hell.

Wall Street and Silicon Valley have done and are doing a lot damage out there. The issue for Democrats now is standing up for labor unions (traditional trade unions and the more recent service sector unions- who have had a great deal of success in pushing for a $15 minimum wage) and the social safety net. I've noticed since the election very few Democrats of any stripe are talking about raising SS age or anything like that. Some of the leftward drift is attributable in part to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. And many others are certainly more vocal now about these things.

And it is obvious that the Republicans under Trump are a complete horror show. Fortunately they are also incompetent and divided. This is an opportunity for addressing the people's needs in every way, instead of the same old, spineless routine that usually happens. There is an opportunity here to capitalize on people's anger at the system. And winning does matter. But Democrats win by telling the truth, especially the truth about how bad Trump and Co. really are. That didn't work before the election because no one (except us) quite believed it would be this bad. But here we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 08:28 PM

75. The reason we have conflict is:

Certain people want conflict.

I gave up trying to find common ground because invariably these people twisted my good intent and used it.against me. That led me to ask who and what these people are. That led me to ask if I needed to try to work work with these people.

The only rational conclusion was that I could never change these people and my best and only course of action was to reject them and.move ahead without them. In the meantime radical leftists call me names, shout me down, and don't have anything much to offer in exchange.

Do you want to work with centrists, Ken? I see nothing from you that suggests you do.

Vote Democratic. It would be nice if you could work towards that, for your own benefit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #75)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 10:59 PM

99. I do work for that.

 

And I can work with centrists-it's just that I won't work from the assumption that they are automatically entitled to be the natural leadership of the party. It should be enough for them to be one faction among many.

And I think we can redefine "pragmatism". For example, a strong case can be made that on healthcare, single-payer would have and would still be far more practical and workable than what we ended up with in the ACA.

And it would have been far more pragmatic to get our troops the hell out of the Arab/Muslim world in 2009, given that we already knew that there was nothing more we could achieve militarily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #99)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:17 AM

126. You live in a democracy

"I won't work from the assumption that they are automatically entitled to be the natural leadership of the party."

You want to sow discord and discontent. It's all about what you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #126)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:27 AM

129. That's simply not true.

 

I worked to help elect our nominee all through the fall campaign and started a number of threads here calling on others in the primary campaign I was part of to communicate with greater civility prior to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #129)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:33 AM

130. You have a right to sow discord and discontent

I have a right to disapprove of your discord and discontent and to advocate for voting Democratic.

Vote Democratoc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #130)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 06:22 AM

136. I advocate voting Democratic just as much as you do and I've proved it.

 

And you've now spread a false accusation about me in two successive posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #136)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 06:29 AM

139. Defensive

Try introspection

Vote Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #139)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 06:34 AM

142. I do vote Democratic.

 

False accusations of bad intent make everyone feel defensive.

Try honesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #142)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 09:07 AM

184. Defensive

I didn't accuse you of not voting.

Vote Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #184)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:55 AM

213. This strategy...

 

that you have adopted may be the most annoying and off putting thing I have ever witnessed. I vote Democratic, I have since 1974. You no doubt don't want my advice, but in my opinion what you are doing is going to drive people away. For my part I only hope that you and your annoyance aren't where the Democratic party is going because I get tired of losing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonedevil (Reply #213)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:09 PM

214. I'm happy for you

Vote Democratic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #214)


Response to Post removed (Reply #215)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:14 PM

216. I'm from Chicago

We don't lose.

We vote Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #99)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 01:59 PM

229. Ken-your analysis does not work in the real world

I have been to several meetings of indivisible, the People Power group (do you even know who this group is?) and an off shoot of the Pants Suit Republic. At these meeting, several dozen of people are worried about losing the Affordable Care Act but not one person has mentioned single payer. There is outrage against Trump and the GOP on health care, taxes and immigration/muslim ban but the way forward is not based on a platform that could not bring in any new voters into the party but on dealing with that anger.

I had fun marching for taxes on Saturday and talking to Congresswoman Jackson Lee. I have also delivered a demand to hold a town hall to my local congressman with a letter demanding that he support forcing trump to release his taxes. The People Power people are arranging meetings seeking to get some smaller cities to agree to be sanctuary cities (Houston has already done so). None of these actions will be advanced by a platform that brought in no new voters to the Democratic party.

The real world is a fun place. Come work in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #229)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:16 PM

234. I live in the real world just as much as you do.

 

And have worked in Democratic politics since the 1970s

I've been as active as you are.

In the real world, we lost by running a bland centrist campaign focused almost entirely on campaigning against the other party rather than campaign.

Staying bland means continuing to lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #75)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 06:22 AM

137. How do you define "radical leftist"?

The Clinton's, in my view, and I work for her husband, are middle of the road pols. They view the world in a way many Democrats do not.

Yes, they stand up on social issues, for the most part. It's also their belief that many of the world's ills can be cured through free market privatisation of what i view as government functions.

Bill expanded the use of private comtractors: including prisons, military contractors like haliburton, doctors within the VA and a slew of other departments thus raising the cost of these functions to the average tax payer.

Private prisons have no interest in reforming prisoners, their revolving door policy keeps them in business.

Military contractors have no interest in ending wars, perpetual war keeps them in business.

These are the issues no one talks about.

If you want to have an honest debate, then let's debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #137)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 06:32 AM

140. I want Democrats to win

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #140)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 06:35 AM

143. So do the rest of us.

 

You have no reason to think otherwise of anyone else here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #140)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 06:39 AM

144. By that logic, if Donald Trump switched to beimg a Democrat you'd be happy.

Thanks for the honest debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #144)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:04 AM

147. Can't wait for the response to THAT one:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #147)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 08:25 AM

171. This is the problem.

People complain that no one will debate them, but when offered to have an honest debate, they find every excuse as to why they will not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #171)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:18 AM

207. +1!

exactly ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #171)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:25 PM

218. That's rich

You gaslight me then whine about how I refuse to be gaslighted.

Pfeh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #218)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:37 PM

219. Slogans and memes aren't debate, no matter how many times you repeat them.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #219)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:47 PM

221. Why is it so important to you to change the subject to me?

That's incredibly dysfunctional, and you're wasting your time because I have no use for your nonsense.

Vote Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #221)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:54 PM

223. It's not important to me. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #223)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 02:25 PM

232. As long as you express your obsession with me...

...I have no interest in you or in your nonsense.

I know that bothers you. Cry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #232)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:04 PM

233. Obsession with you?

You amuse me, but that's about it. Your posts are good for a laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #233)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:41 PM

240. You change the subject to me, personally

That is prima face evidence that you are obsessed with me.

And the fourth rate psychobabble is good measure. You NEED me to react, but that's never gonna work out for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #240)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:02 PM

249. And yet you keep reacting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #240)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:44 PM

280. You don't have a subject.

 

You are simply trying to derail this thread, even though there's been little if anything negative within it and even though some within it are reaching out to each other in dialog.

You aren't showing the discussion any respect, and it's a worthwhile discussion to have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #233)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:56 PM

242. FWIW

I don't find you the least bit amusing. You have nothing interesting to offer. Your ploy is quite pedestrian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #242)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:02 PM

250. It's not worth anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #250)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:06 PM

251. Is that supposed to bother me?

Yawn. I've heard the same low level schtick a.million times, from every "conservative" fool I've ever run across on the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #251)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 08:19 PM

273. And I've seen you post this low brow schtick a million times.

*yawn*

Wake me when you get new material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #221)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:12 PM

254. Why is it so important to you to equate disagreement with lack of party loyalty?

 

Everyone in this thread already votes that way.

There's no reason for you to imply that they don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #254)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:17 PM

255. Have no idea what you're babbling about

Vote Democratic Ken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #255)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:14 PM

266. You don't need to keep telling me that.

 

And you never had any reason to accuse me of sowing division.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #266)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:36 PM

268. How do you know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #268)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:46 PM

269. If they didn't, they'd have been kicked out of here long ago.

 

Last edited Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:38 PM - Edit history (2)

You are not entitled to act as if you're a party loyalist and the rest of us aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #269)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 08:04 PM

272. I am absolutely entitled to express my opnion

I don't need your approval.

Vote Democratic Ken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #272)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 08:37 PM

275. It's true, Ken. Cary is entitled to express his/her opinion.

No matter how misguided or ill-informed it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #275)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:53 PM

283. If he were actually expressing an opinion, I'd agree.

 

All he's doing here is falsely accusing anyone who disagrees with him of NOT voting for this party.

And doing so over and over and over again while also implying that everyone who disagrees with him is a spoiled child or something.

None of it serves any good purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #275)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 06:01 AM

287. Thanks

Your approval means so much to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #272)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:40 PM

278. You are entitled to express your opinion

 

You are not entitled to treat anyone here as if that person is an idiot or the enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #278)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 05:54 AM

286. Dude

Last edited Wed Apr 19, 2017, 07:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Vote Democratic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #286)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 03:56 PM

299. Why did you feel compelled to come to this thread and disrupt?

 

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #269)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 06:08 AM

288. Ha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #288)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 03:54 PM

297. You identify with "Otto" in that movie?

 

the guy who thought the London Underground was a political movement?

All I did in this thread was make a few RESPECTFUL observations about the need for some change.

I didn't demonize anyone-I didn't disrespect anyone-nothing I called for, if implemented, would do the party any harm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #297)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 05:21 PM

303. Vote Democratic Ken

Stop making excuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #303)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 05:36 PM

304. Stop accusing me of NOT voting Democratic

 

or of not understanding the need to do that.

What I'm trying to do is help us get more people TO do that.

You have no reason not to trust me on that.

(btw...as a Chicago person, you should be aware that just re-electing mayors named Daley never made ANYTHING better).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #304)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 05:51 PM

305. Dammit Ken

Vote Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #305)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 02:17 AM

313. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #144)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 09:05 AM

182. Donald Trump didn't run as a Democrat

That's something called reality. And with that I'll leave you to your rabbit hole. I'm not interested in going down there.

Vote Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #182)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 09:22 AM

186. Reread my post. I never said anything about him running as one.

There's an irony that you claim others aren't open to honest debate, but I offer one up and you run away.

You do not even have the integrity to put the words out there to define what you believe to be the "extreme left".

If you want to be taken seriously, write serious replies instead of off the cuff dismissals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #186)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 09:37 AM

187. Which part of "not going down your rabbit hole" don't you understsnd?

Diverting the subject to me, personally, is not honest debate. It's deflection.

Stop deflecting. Vote Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #187)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:12 AM

195. I'm offering to debate an issue. You're the one who refused.

You throw out terms like "extreme leftist" and then you will not even stand by the courage of your convictions and define the ideology that you so deplorably state repulses you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #195)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:40 AM

201. "... then you will not even stand by the courage of your convictions..."

Pfeh.

That's not debate. It's trolling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #201)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:42 AM

202. You're the one who put the term on the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #202)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:11 AM

205. Vote Democratic!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #137)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 04:10 PM

365. That group of

citizens that consumed cookies at their meetings, as seen on Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" perhaps?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #75)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 04:15 PM

244. OPs like this do cause conflict

2016 is like a toothache some people can't stop touching with their tongue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #244)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 04:26 PM

245. And if it wasn't the 2016 election

The contrarians and attention whores would abuse something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #245)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 04:31 PM

246. I have no doubts

It's like the race in KS. They wanted 20k, but that wouldn't have made a difference. And if the DNC had ponied up 20k they would have asked for 100k. It's never going to be enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #246)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 04:35 PM

247. Exactly

Vote Democratoc!

I love the way I was lectured and was bitched out about my positive message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 09:41 PM

83. Agreed

Free or quite affordable college. Non profit eminently affordable health care for all....as it was before HMOs led to CEOs skimming 100s of millions off the top. Cut the Defense budget to something less exorbitant. Reigning in Charter Schools while better funding public schools. A move to renewable energy to save our planet and the people that live on it. Public funding of elections, elections sans voting machines and run supervised by neutral parties and witnessed, including video/audio. A reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine to stop Fox propoganda.

What kind of democrat would have a problem with any of that?

Now I even favor a base income for all adults, enough that everyone could be food secure and housing secure.

Greed by many and people wanting a theocracy are bring us to the brink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to colsohlibgal (Reply #83)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:48 PM

114. You should work that into an OP.

 

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to colsohlibgal (Reply #83)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 11:22 AM

208. Good stuff ...libgal!

especially like your summary statement -- right on target.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 10:11 PM

87. Exactly who ..

... are the "centrists", Ken?

The reason I ask is that it seems to have become a term that means "people who don't agree with me".

Here on DU, especially over the past few years, I've seen all kinds of arguments about who is where on the political spectrum, almost invariably as determined by other posters based on - well, based on what would be the question.

Let's not forget that in the months leading up to the primaries, the self-proclaimed "progressier-than-thou" crowd were quick to label anyone who didn't see things their way as centrists, DINOs, useless middle-of-the-roaders.

And where are those True Progressives (TM) now? A lot of them are posting at JPR, extolling the virtues of a Trump presidency.

I truly question why some people seem far more interested in categorizing Democrats than they are in fighting Republicans. Pigeon-holing any Democrat as being one thing or another does nothing for unity, but goes a long way, IMHO, to dividing us.

If a Democrat supports Democrats, canvasses for Democrats, phone banks for Democrats, and ultimately votes for Democrats, I really don't see what purpose is served by you - or anyone else - slapping a label on them based on god-only-knows what criteria you're using.

So I'll ask again: Who are the "centrists", Ken? That seems to be a catch-all term for people who don't agree with you.

If you look through the posts leading up to the election, you'll see posts complaining that the Dems went too negative against Trump. You'll also see posts complaining that the Dems weren't "going for the throat" where Trump was concerned. So are all the people who disagree with your take on things "centrists" who require introspection until they come around to your way of doing things?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #87)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 10:52 PM

96. exactly, and i have said there is a reason they feel the need to always scream about how left,

progressive, liberal etc they are.

these fuckers supported and defend fucking trump .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #87)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:27 PM

103. OK...in this case, I'm defining the "centrists" not as people who simply disagree with me

 

-I'd never call you a centrist, just a person who prefers different tactics but whose passion and commitment to change I nonetheless respect-but as people who make a habit of self-righteously demonizing everyone to the left of their personal comfort zone.

The ones who equate ANY critique of how our fall campaign was run(and attacked any calls for that campaign to try different tactics as our lead in the polls eroded)as disloyalty to the party or "refighting the primaries".

The ones who insist that we can't discuss changing anything at all, and seem to believe that we have to run the 2020 fall campaign exactly as we ran this one.

The ones whose response is simply to shout down discussion and try to silence any critique, even though discussion and critique are what we most desperately need.

The ones who still perpetuate the myth that there's a chasm between those who prioritize "social justice" and those who prioritize "economic justice", even though in truth the two movements agree 95% of the time and are often made up of the SAME PEOPLE.

And the ones who use loaded terms like "takeover" to describe what are nothing more than honorable attempts to win the party to ideas it currently doesn't support-ideas that would not require the party to betray or abandon anyone.

I don't see YOU as one of those people...and mainly, I'd like to get to the place where you could trust my intent enough to not get all "oh no you don't!" in response to almost everything I post.

I'm fine with people disagreeing with me...I'm NOT fine with anyone trying to keep us divided based on our choices in the presidential primaries and on those who are simply trying to silence honest conversations about our future. If you disagree with someone's views here, make a case for YOUR views...don't just try to shut people up. So long as the person wasn't trying to persuade DU'ers to vote for Stein or Hair Fuhrer OR personally attacking our nominee, that person didn't deserve to be shouted down or banned.

You're right there were some critical posts in the fall, but people were vilified or threatened with banning for making them, even when the criticisms or suggestions were in the mildest, most respectful and constructive form possible. What good did it do to use those tactics against people who didn't agree with every single thing that was being said and done?

I'm for people having the right to constructively disagree and to offer suggestions made in the spirit of trying to help get our candidates elected. And I've defended people's right to do that if the primaries had gone the other way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #103)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 12:23 AM

118. How nice of you to decide ...

Last edited Tue Apr 18, 2017, 01:40 AM - Edit history (1)

... by whatever Ouija board you're using, that I'm not a centrist.

As for "people to the left of my comfort zone", how do you know who is to the left of anyone's comfort zone - or indeed, exactly what anyone's comfort zone is?

"You're right there were some critical posts in the fall, but people were vilified or threatened with banning for making them, even when the criticisms or suggestions were in the mildest, most respectful and constructive form possible."

Let's be honest about who was vilified and who wasn't. As Skinner himself pointed out (and I assume he was in a position to know), 85% of DUers were Bernie supporters. That means they were 85% of the jury pool - which in turn means that Hillary supporters were 85% more likely to have their posts hidden, while BS supporters had free rein to post whatever they wanted.

(And there's the cue for someone to "alert" - a tactic I'm all too familiar with, as are many of us.)

"Constructive criticism" does not include labeling fellow Democrats as centrists, DINOs, middle-of-the-roaders, ConservaDems, etc. And unity does not lie in "agree with me or be labeled as such".

I, for one, am not buying the "we're all in this together, but some Democrats are more worthy than others" meme. And by labeling certain fellow Democrats as being in need of introspection, that is exactly what you are advocating.

I will now prepare for my next "hide" - because the "let's divide Democrats into categories of worthiness" has become a popular way to divide us, and a jury system that allows such posts only serves to further that agenda.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #118)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:37 AM

121. If you're hidden, it won't be by me.

 

I meant what I said about you as a gesture of respect. Why can't you trust that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 10:15 PM

88. The conservatives have controlled the message for several decades, it is they not the party who

 

dictate the message and our news people loved promoting Benghazi, and email and our now President Cheeto, so colorful and all.


The news is as busy suppressing liberal ideas as are the Republicans. This has been true for so long I wonder why anyone thinks there will be any support from any national news group that opposes our wealthiest and most conservative citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:24 PM

102. I did that.

I know when a thread reaches 100+ replies that you will likely not see my post.

But I personally did some introspection.

I found that it's better to promise the world and set the bar high, rather than being boring and pragmatic.

That's not a knock on either candidate, it's just that people want hope. Setting the bar high also likely reaches higher than a moderate goal. If you win in a wave, $15/hour might not be passed but $12 might. If you start at $12, you only get $10.

In retrospect, I should have backed Bernie.

I really didn't like his platform, but the goal is to win and the masses would've backed him. I made a mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to metroins (Reply #102)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:37 PM

106. Thank you for the positive message in your post.

 

I deeply respect what you said there and the way you said it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:29 PM

104. Who are you thinking of when you say "centrist?"

A couple of example names and offending centrist positions would be helpful for context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleabiscuit (Reply #104)

Mon Apr 17, 2017, 11:49 PM

115. It's not about naming individuals(which would be against site rules)

 

It's about a mindset.

Maybe "insider" would have been a better term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 04:59 AM

123. Ken , I agree with everything you wrote in the OP

And respect the way you have handled all the replies in this thread, even the ones that were deliberately stupid and unnecessarily provocative. Well done. Let's hope that progressives find their rightful place and voice in the Democratic party, and that our messaging reflects our outstanding policies far more in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #123)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:04 AM

124. Thanks.

 

I actually feel pretty good about most of the responses in the thread. Even in the majority of posts that disagreed with me, the tone was of mutual respect and some dialog seems to have started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #123)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 06:05 AM

135. LOL

"even the ones that were deliberately stupid and unnecessarily provocative" LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8939636

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #135)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:35 AM

157. People that continue to bash progressives for not being

Thrilled about corporate friendly politicians can go fuck themselves.

Do you have a problem with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #157)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:51 AM

161. LOL!

Hey, I don't judge about fucking. I choose not to tell people who they should fuck. All politicians are corporate friendly. This is America. People need jobs and corporations like Ben and Jerry's and L.L. Bean and Whole Foods provide them. Do you have a problem with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #161)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:55 AM

163. You are just full of mirth

Of course we need healthy, well regulated corporations and companies. Harnessing the power of capital is one of the best ways to improve how we live. What we don't need are corporations to run our government, make all the decisions, and decide how, if at all, they are themselves regulated. Otherwise they are free to poison and cheat us with impunity.

LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #163)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 08:00 AM

165. The only time corporations are running our government is when Republicans are in charge.

Republicans are the corporatists. Duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #165)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 08:04 AM

166. Oh you beautiful, naive child

Good luck in the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #166)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 08:06 AM

167. Oh, projection!

You must be very young and cynical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #165)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 08:21 AM

169. You seem to have forgotten the Nineties.

 

The president during most of that decade put corporations before people by fighting hard for NAFTA when two-thirds of the country opposed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #169)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 08:35 AM

173. What was the origin of NAFTA? Please provide links to prove it was Bill Clinton's idea

and that he put corporations before people and was drooling to screw over American workers. I thought it was something Clinton signed on to, not his idea. The economy was doing great in the nineties, although it was a bubble economy and headed for a burst sooner or later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #173)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 08:39 AM

175. It was negotiated before him, and there was no good reason for him to fight for it.

 

He should have done the pro-worker thing and withdrawn it. There was no particular need for that pact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #173)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 09:09 AM

185. You seem to be terrible at using the Googlemachine

go provide your own links. Since no one suggested that NAFTA was Clinton's "idea". It was just something he pushed like hell to put in place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #185)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 09:40 AM

189. I asked you to give it to me. Why should I believe you that Clinton pushed like hell to do anything?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #189)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 09:45 AM

190. You never asked me at all.

You can (presumably) do your own research

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #190)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 09:49 AM

191. Does this mean we're breaking up?

My sleeves are wet with bitter tears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #165)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:36 PM

238. that is a very very simplified way of looking at things. You have to know this? There is way too

 


much evidence that could be pointed to over the years of democrats making horrible decisions to the benefit of one industry or another...obviously horrible decisions, at every level of government.

I know there's a difference. The democratic base wants different things and cares about things that the GOP doesn't, and that tends to reflect the people we get into office, but when it comes to power, do you really think there is something special about the D itself that makes it so that the party is never infiltrated by people who find it an expedient vessel towards money and power? Do you really think that big money won't gravitate towards those people?

I'm not pointing fingers at anybody specific, but please...that level of blind certainty is dangerous, and frankly undercuts any credibility when actually trying to fight against corporatism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #157)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 09:03 AM

181. +1,000,000,000,000,000,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HughBeaumont (Reply #181)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 09:07 AM

183. Fantastic post

and I agree, it is well past time that the Democrat party renounced GOPernomics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:00 AM

145. And how do we be inclusive of Christians who voted against the poor, old, kids and etc.

 

Because of their opposition to gay rights and women's choice? They're everywhere here in tx.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elehhhhna (Reply #145)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:03 AM

146. I'm not sure you can do anything with those folks.

 

The only voters who backed Trump that might be movable are those who actually believed he would fight for working people.

Not sure if the scales have fallen from their eyes as yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:13 AM

148. The only problem I have with this is that I believe in evidence....

 

...and at this point it's been proven time and time and time again that right leaning, trickle down, corporate centered approaches to economics don't work.

It's been proven time and time again that when we take bottom up approaches to economics that it works.

It's being proven right now in places like Kansas and North Carolina and other places that right leaning economic policies are abject failures on a local and national level.

It's been proven at this point that strong unionization benefits everyone and that when unions are dismissed or knocked down or diminished that it hurts workers, hurts the poor and middle class, and increases economic inequality.

It's been proven that throwing good money after bad when it comes to the military industrial complex doesn't make us safer.

It's been proven that bombing our way to peace and safety is not happening.

We can no longer say that these experiments are unproven because they have been tried several times over at this point and it's been proven that liberal, progressive, left leaning policies work and that right leaning, conservative policies do not.

I have no problem respecting someone who thinks something different than what I believe works. But when there is proof that it doesn't, I'm not sure why we have to pretend it does just to preserve their feelings. And that in a nutshell is what we are confronted with in this "centrism versus progressive" debate.

And the bigger problem is that many of these issues are not just taken or approved of by a few minor player red-state Dems, but too often the entire party takes this stuff as proven truth and starts our negotiations and positioning from a stance of thinking that they are true.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #148)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:27 AM

199. +1 good definition

This is a pretty good match of my definition of a centrist too. Those who support and defend right-wing economics and/or right-wing economic concepts (either because they truly think they are good, or because they have been duped into thinking they are the only "realistic" methods) even though they are otherwise very socially liberal.

It makes me wonder if this is where all the vitriol surrounding identity politics vs. economic justice is coming from. I don't personally understand the conflict because it makes no sense to me not to support both as a given. It's even more aggravating when those of us in red states are matter-of-factly informed that we're only allowed to have right-wing economics here because it's the only thing that will work for us. I don't think red states need to be thrown under the bus so people sitting safely in blue states can have all the good things while we get stuck with the crap choices, and the party reinforcing it because "that's just how things are there."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #199)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 09:56 AM

323. While I do appreciate the frustration with the centrism I have an alternative theory:

 

Basically, a lot of the working class Dem base pretty much abandoned the party and economic justice with it because the Dems started to fight for social justice more. After all, LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act knowing it would make the South unwinnable for generations, and sure enough, Dems lost 4/5 elections (though maybe no Vietnam would have helped, also Nixon cheated). Basically the money, funding and organization had to be replaced, and thus you get middle class and upper class professionals who are more progressive socially but centrist economically, especially when pushes to the left got punished by voters (see Bill's first 2 years versus his later 6). We're now getting to a point where the strength of the minority working class is starting to replace that lost strength, but politics tends to be a lagging indicator, thus Obama's caution and incrementalism (never mind the unprecedented obstructionism based on racism).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #323)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 10:28 AM

324. Could help to explain why there are so many people registered Independent now

If the Dem working class did abandon the party, but yet didn't want to join the Republican party.

I think we're going to have to become a party for both social and economic justice once it's all said and done though. Even if people were more centrist economically in Bill's time, we've had a number of years since then to realize that right-wing/Regan-type policies just don't work and now we even have conservatives in places like West Virginia giving support to Bernie's policies because I think even they can see that we've been operating under bad economic models.

While incrementalism may be the most "rational" approach, I don't think we have time for it anymore, especially after all the damage that 45 has been causing after all the years of Republican obstruction during Obama. I think we're now in a period of time where, at least for certain issues that can't wait for years and decades longer to fix since people are desperate and need help NOW, we will need a more "revolutionary" approach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:14 AM

149. OFFS!

 

It was the extremists on the left who sat out the election or went for Stein handing it to Trump. And why are you refighting the primaries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Foamfollower (Reply #149)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:30 AM

154. I'm neither refitting nor refighting the primaries.

 

There's a huge difference between saying our fall campaign made mistakes and saying we should have nominated a different candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Foamfollower (Reply #149)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 01:03 PM

224. By law, a Green was not part of the Dem primary.

That's how it works. Stein was a part of the General Election.

As a Progressive Dem, I have all kinds of criticism for the folks who refused to back the party nominee in the general election. (Hint, the DEM part of Progressive Dem is a focal point there.) I lost friends because I backed the party nominee and I still feel kinda salty about it. Bottom line is, if you want to call yourself a partisan, you support your ticket. Period. You can (and should) fight like hell for your vision in the Primary, but once that is over you work just as hard for the entire ticket in the general. I spent 18 months out there working for Sanders--with no regrets--but once the nominee was chosen, my work turned to the nominee.

I'm still a progressive, and I'm still a Dem. You can be both in spite of the crap being flung around saying "Progressives" are somehow unwelcome or somehow to blame for current events. Let me make this real clear, the people that are an issue are the ones that didn't bother to vote or even engage.


Laura

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davsand (Reply #224)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 01:50 PM

228. By STUIDITY, many who participated in the Democratic Primaries voted Green in the GE.

 

The compete idiocy of these people goes beyond imagining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Foamfollower (Reply #228)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 03:44 PM

241. Purely on a numeric basis, the non-vote was larger.

I understand (and share!) your frustration with the ones who voted Green in the General. I'm no more thrilled than you are with what we have in the Whitehouse right now.

However, I'm more concerned at the huge percentage of people that didn't even BOTHER to go vote. That 4 or 5 percent who chose to go Green are frustrating, but what about the other +50% that never bothered to show up on election day? THAT makes me furious, and it has a lot to do with candidates and parties that didn't inspire any passion or even a minimal interest in the race.

Instead of Dems bashing crap outta each other on ideological disputes, it seems to me that we all probably will make bigger gains if we figure out what our party needs to do to motivate people enough to show up and vote.

Just a thought.


Laura

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davsand (Reply #241)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 04:10 PM

243. Every election, somebody says "go after the non-voters!"

 

And every election, the same people who refuse to participate once again refuse to participate.

They are non-voters for a reason, They just plain don't give a fuck and they never will.

Reliable voters are all that are important in an actual election. Those who don't vote, won't vote.

So since the extreme left cannot be counted on in a general election because their fucked up sense of purity gets in the way, we MUST MOVE RIGHT AND PICK UP VOTES FROM THOSE IN THE MIDDLE WHO ALWAYS VOTE!!!! The middle mixes it up between Dems and Repugs. That's where elections are truly decided.

Going after people who can never be bothered to vote and trying to placate the purity extreme left is how Democrats LOSE elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Foamfollower (Reply #243)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 05:33 PM

257. Maybe this will illuminate the discussion a bit?

Demonizing the progressive wing does absolutely NOTHING to advance the party just like progressives sitting there pissing on Hillary doesn't do any good either. Take the personalities out of the discussion and just look at the bottom line. I'm sorry, I can't make make my point any clearer than that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-democrats-real-turnout-problem.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davsand (Reply #257)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:15 PM

267. And I don't see that you've made any point whatsoever

 

No matter what, the extreme leftist purists ALWAYS feels demonized.

Jettison the morons in favor of voters you may actually sway. That's how Obama won twice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Foamfollower (Reply #243)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:48 PM

270. People say "go after the non-voters!" but the party never does.

 

You can't expect non-voters to become voters without the party making any actual effort to appeal to them.

Obama at least made a effort on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #270)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:53 PM

271. Non-voters NEVER vote.

 

That's why they're called "non-voters"

They don;t give a fuck and nothing you try to say to the will change their minds.

Trying to get these walking talking pieces of crap to vote is a complete waste of time and resources.

Instead, yu do what Obama did. Jettison the moronic extremist purist left and move to the right to pick up the middle. IT worked twice for Obama and it worked twice for Bill Clinton.

We've tried going left to excite the morons who are never satisfied while tying to get the fuckheads who never vote to actually vote for once and every time we did in the past few decades, it led to two Nixon terms, two Reagan terms, two Bush Jr. terms, and so far one Trump term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Foamfollower (Reply #271)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:37 PM

277. It had nothing to do with either Nixon term.

 

Nixon didn't beat Humphrey because people thought Humphrey was too liberal, and there was no one to Humphrey's right who'd have done better against Nixon in '68-the only ones who could have done better were to HHH's left-RFK, who was murdered, and McCarthy, whose delegates were literally beaten by the cops in Chicago.

McGovern was running against the Dirty Tricks squad...his positions on the issues had nothing to do with his loss, and the most electable candidate, Ed Muskie-who agreed with McGovern on 98% of the issues and was just as antiwar as McGovern-was destroyed early on by that SAME Dirty Tricks squad.

Scoop Jackson would have lost 49 states, too in '72-Humphey, had the party renominated him, would have taken almost no votes that McGovern didn't take.

Nor did it have anything to do with either Reagan term-Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980 as a result of Iran and the right-wing economic policies Carter implemented-the ones that placed a greater emphasis on low inflation than full employment. Carter, good man though he still is, was doomed to lose that year from the moment the hostages were taken-the result would have been the same had Teddy Kennedy not run at all.

And in 1984, we nominated Mondale, who made a show of presenting himself to the fall electorate as more conservative than Carter-refusing to connect with the massive nuclear freeze and Central American solidarity movements, distancing his campaign from the grassroots anti-Reagan resistance-and who also made the indefensible decision to promise a tax increase NOT to restore cuts in social spending or to more vigorously enforce environmental protection and labor laws, but in the name of the Wall Street obsession with balancing the budget-even though doing that was never going to be to the benefit of anybody in the Democratic coalition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #270)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 08:57 PM

276. I'm a New Yorker who spent weekends in PA

registering new Democrats, re-registering Democrats who may have been dropped from the rolls due to inactivity, and formulating election day plans for those who would have a hard time getting to the polls. Dozens of us went down weekend after weekend in buses chartered by our local DNC. We weren't the only out-of-staters doing this kind of work. I know people who did the same thing in Ohio and Nevada.

We could have used your help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #276)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:55 PM

285. I was phonebanking in Olympia, and we made calls all over the country.

 

I thank you for what you did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #285)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 09:55 AM

292. And I thank you for what you did.

But I think you are mistaken to say that the party did nothing to reach out to non-voters.

One thing I learned is that not voting is not always a choice. It is a genuine hardship for some of the poor, working poor, and marginalized to get to the polls. And this was the first presidential election in which we saw the true impact of the gutting Voting Rights Act.

Those who are privileged enough to demand to be "inspired" to do their basic civic duty are the non-voters I'm angry at. They're narcissistic parasites. They should have voted in honor of those who make every effort to exercise their franchise only to have the door slammed in their faces.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #292)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 02:57 PM

294. I am aware of all that you said

 

My intent is mainly to push the party towards a different way of communicating with some of the people we could make common cause with.

Clearly, in the case of the people you describe in your second paragraph, our usual tactic of DEMANDING their votes isn't working, and it doesn't appear that it ever will. I actually spent a fair amount of time using that one myself this fall, and got nothing but blowback.

If something doesn't work, isn't the only sensible choice to switch to something ELSE?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:20 AM

151. People should join a party because they believe in what it stands for

They shouldn't join because they want to run it their way and will settle for nothing less.
The Democratic party is made up of people who decide in a democratic fashion, what they stand for. Democrats get to decide who their nominees will be. When self described factions of the party disagree with those decisions and actively work against and speak against the Democratic candidate(s), then they are not working for or with the party.
As to negative political ads, they've worked a lot of times. Johnson's daisy ad., Bush 1's Willy Horton ad, Bush 2's multiple attacks on Gore's trustworthiness, the attacks on Kerry over his military service all worked. Political ads are aimed at undecided voters, not at political activists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #151)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:28 AM

153. Yes, negative ads have worked-but almost never for OUR side.

 

None of the negative ads gained us swing votes or switched votes to HRC instead of Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #153)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:31 AM

156. I don't believe that undecided voters

are only swayed by negative ads from Republicans. That doesn't make any sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #153)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:43 AM

159. That's not true either. The negative ads Obama ran against Romney, painting him

as an elitist with Cayman bank accounts, were very successful.

And it's impossible to say how many votes the negative ads against Trump got us. Not quite get us enough, that's true. Although her campaign did win the popular vote by a significant margin.

A few more votes in a few key states and we'd now be talking about how great her strategy of attacking Trump was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #159)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:50 AM

160. The polls never showed any increases in HRC's support after those ads.

 

Instead, we plateaued and then slowly slipped down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #160)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 07:53 AM

162. That means nothing. The question is whether her numbers were better

relative to what they would have been had she not run the ads, and there's no way of knowing that. There's not nearly enough data to draw any reliable conclusions about which of her ads, whether positive or negative, had the best effects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #162)

Tue Apr 18, 2017, 10:49 PM

281. The stated intent of the campaign in running the ads was to try to get the apparently mythical

 

"moderate Republican women in the suburbs" to throw their support to HRC out of nothing but disgust for Trump's skeeviness.

The only thing that was ever going to be a valid sign that the ads were working would have been if a large bloc of normally GOP voters had switched to HRC and that the polls were showing HRC's lead increasing from where it was after Philly(at which point we were twelve point ahead at a time when it looked as though the HRC campaign was going to make a genuine effort to reach out to Sanders primary voters-an effort that campaign never chose to make at all, from what I can see).

As the lead not only did not increase when those ads and that emphasis in the stump speech started, but instead began a slow downward slide, we have clear evidence that the negative ads didn't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #281)

Wed Apr 19, 2017, 06:29 AM

289. You're acting like the negative ads were her entire campaign. Not even close.

Rather than blaming negative ads (which every campaign since the advent of television has used), a much stronger case can be made that she shouldn't have spent so much effort trying to placate the far left.

Look at the actual evidence. Her platform was the most progressive in history. More so than the successful campaigns of 2012, 2008, 1996, and 1992. She constantly talked about progressive policies on the campaign trail and in debates. The Dems even let a jackass like Cornel West play a large role in the platform committee.

She got an endorsement from Bernie Sanders, and the endorsements that she played up the most during the campaign were his and Elizabeth Warren, probably the two most progressive members of the senate.

And, in return for all that, what does the far left to? Bash her constantly and talk about how either there's no difference or else (like Jill Stein) that Trump is not as bad.

Clear evidence that trying to appease the far left doesn't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #289)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 04:17 AM

315. She barely mentioned the platform in the ads and on the stump only talked about

 

her own original proposals.

There were no more votes she could possibly have gained by moving to the right after the convention-No significant bloc of traditional GOP voters was ever going to even consider voting for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #315)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 06:38 AM

317. What you are saying is factually incorrect.

If you use google for a few seconds, you can find plenty of ads or speeches where she talks about her progressive proposals. For example: https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/statuses/760847322922090496

Also, she did get some traditional GOP voters to go for her: college educated whites. So you're wrong about that also.

Problem is, she lost some working class whites, and those people lived in certain parts of the country that the electoral college artificially gives more sway. But she didn't lose those people because her message wasn't progressive enough. She lost them because they were drawn to Trump's racism and nativism.

There's this fantasy on the far left that racist white people who found an outlet for their racism in Trump would have voted for Clinton if only she had embraced $15 instead of $12 for minimum wage. It's absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #317)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 01:33 PM

329. It's not as simple as the wage thing.

 

And to my knowledge, nobody, not even Bernie, is arguing that the party should ever have soft-pedaled the issue of racism, so can the myth that the Left wanted the party to privilege white voters and ignore social oppression finally be put to rest?

It was about saying to economically hard-hit voters of ALL races that we get it that corporate power had kicked them to the curb, that people on the bottom had been put through hard times and never should have been, and that our nominee, if elected, would work to heal the damage, would work in some way to create a better life for those who lost because of "the magic of the market".


And we could have done that with the candidate we DID nominate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #329)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 02:40 PM

332. Of course not, the wage thing is just an example.

I never suggested that Bernie argued that. What I did suggest, and believe to be true (and is backed by polling data), is that Trump's racism and nativism actually helped him make headway with non-college whites. Which contradicts your argument that what we needed was better economic messaging.

The message you are recommending for the Dems is, basically: corporations are screwing everyone except the top 1% economically, and it's time to put them in their place and make people and not businesses the top priority. The problem is, the reason you think that's a great message is because it's exactly the message that you want to hear. And that makes you not a very good judge of how it might go over with other people.

In reality, it's a risky message, with certain groups. College-educated moderates, for example, who Clinton did well with, can easily be offput by what would be perceived to be an anti-business message. And it gets even more risky once we talk about specific policies. Wall Street transaction tax? People with retirement accounts start to worry. Single payer healthcare? People who don't want a huge tax increase and are happy with their current healthcare (which is most Americans) start to worry. And so on. It's not the slam dunk you make it out to be.

And it's questionable to me whether that would have brought many more working class whites on board. One thing Trump's campaign showed is that there really is an appetite for blaming minorities and immigrants for the problems in society. The risk of going all-in with an anti-corporate message is that working class whites decide they would rather blame Mexicans than corporations, and at the same time you scare off middle class voters who don't want the whole system torn apart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #332)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 07:18 PM

333. Racism played a role with a lot of Trump voters...but that doesn't account for all of them.

 

In some cases, they simply believed that we, as a party, were on the side of corporations AGAINST them. And yes, there was a contradiction between that and their decision to vote for a billionaire scumbag, but there was a valid feeling driving that choice...and that feeling was desperation.

To get them back, we don't need to push any groups in the current base down...we just need to help working-class and poor folks of ALL identities folks get back up off the canvas. If we don't, if we just write them off and say "it's all because you're all personally wicked", they will just stay in backlash mode forever and they'll not only vote for Trump after Trump after Trump. they'll be locked in permanent violent resistance against modern life and any form of change...and we'll never be able to just wait them out.

A message that said "you've been done wrong-you never should have been treated as expendable by this system. You have value and we want you to be part of the project of creating a future that includes all of us" would resonate with the voters I'm talking about, ad do so without causing anyone's justice struggle to be put on the back burner.

Obviously we need to get every suppressed voter registered or re-registered-ALL of us agree with that, I think-and obviously we have to deal with subversion of the electoral process, but too often, the insistence that the November result was ALL due to racism, Comey and the Russians is a coded way of insisting that we preserve the status quo in how this party works and what it stands for no matter what. At times it comes way too close to arguing that ANY calls for change are support for white supremacy or something. And it leaves us with no way to ever recover in any future election.



As to the "college-educated moderates"

We're getting close to being a party that takes the side of the rich against the poor. No party that does that, no party that limits inclusion to the "successful" and the "aspirational" can truly be progressive...because progressivism, to be valid and sustainable, needs to be egalitarian, needs to be bottom-up, not top-down. All top-down politics end up being characterized as elitism and then inevitably stopped.

We don't have to make "people and not businesses the top priority". We just need to treat business as simply one part of life...there, but not more important than everything and everyone ELSE, not the only thing in life that really matters.

How would THAT be "risky"? Are there really that many people who think we should treat CEO's as if they are gods who walk the earth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #333)

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 08:22 PM

337. I just don't see evidence to support your view of Trump voters.

I don't see it in polling. I don't see it anecdotally. I don't see it in the many "meet the Trump voters" stories in the media.

And the contradiction isn't just that Trump is a billionaire scumbag. It's that he fully embraced trickle-down economics. He promised to cut regulations and taxes on corporations "bigly". He said wages were too high. He's virulently anti-union.

No, people didn't vote for Trump because they thought the Dems were on the side of corporations against them. That's a description of Jill Stein voters, not Trump voters.

We actually did win lower-income voters, by the way. And with the exception of white lower-income voters, we won by huge margins. I'm not advocating a strategy of going around telling people they are racist. But at the same time, trying to pretend that a lot of Trump voters aren't motivated by racism is contrary to real