progressive values and democratic party politics

[clu]

I'm a little too young to remember details about howard dean's 50 state strategy. What I do remember is that Howard Dean himself seemed to the left of the other major candidate (Kerry? I would have to look it up). he was popular and likable and he was taken out of the running by the MSM's "mrrrahhh" hitpiece.

fast forward to 2016 - the two most popular and energizing candidates (sanders/trump) were those who spoke their mind, stood true to their beliefs, and motivated the average guy to vote. how many people *don't* vote? it boggles the mind. the two parties are ideologically different. IMO there is little room for "winning over the other side". the middle of the road/non-voter is not stupid, but maybe they simply sit out most elections until they are motivated by something.

there are many things that unite democrats: environment/energy, health care, economic policy, and education. we need a strong articulate progressive candidate who will focus on diplomacy (while maintaining a strong defense) and lead us into this century.

[regnaD kciN]

1. Just sitting back, waiting...

[Control-Z]

2. Yeah. It's the safest option on this one. eom

[beam me up scottie]

4. Yep, this should be good.

Scootch over, I brought liquid refreshments...

[George Eliot]

11. Lol...it's begun.

[beam me up scottie]

13. *dons flame retardant suit*

I have a spare if you need it.

[BainsBane]

3. I was a Dean supporter

from early on. I was pissed off by the way the media treated him. But the fact is optics are a big part of politics, as much as I despise it. Dean wasn't prepared for that aspect of the campaign. I still voted for him in my primary even though he had dropped out months before and Kerry was the only candidate remaining. Kerry was my very last choice, but I turned around and volunteered hundreds of hours on his campaign and led voter turnout in four precincts.

You could well end up with a presidential candidate who reflects exactly what you want, and they probably would stand the same 50/50 chance of being elected as any other Democrat. But they would not be able to govern, any more than the tea party can govern. US government is ceasing to function precisely because people care so much more about having their views and emotions validated that governance.

And then when nothing gets done, people start to look for a strong man to take care of it all without the approval of congress or the majority of the electorate.

Besides, every single thing you list above was in Hillary Clinton's platform. All of them. Yet you don't credit her with being progressive. I suspect that is because you see politics the way the vast majority of Americans vote, based on cultural signfiers rather than issues or policy.

And you're dead wrong about elections. The middle 20 percent are the people who determine every presidential election. That's a fact.

[radical noodle]

5. plus 1000 n/t

[clu]

6. Would be nice to have someone there

Who uses the bully pulpit and helps take some midterms. Id rather have WI/MI/PA than Momtana or Missouri

[BainsBane]

8. What?

Are you claiming previous Democratic presidents haven't helped with midterms? Or are you saying you want a president who doesn't pass a national healthcare bill so that there is no blowback in the midterms?
I think that is what you must be saying since it is the reason the Democrats lost seats.

[clu]

10. I'm claiming their policy wasn't strong enough to warrant midterm support

Obama went from "we need public option" to "we can do it without" in the span of 9 months and the middle of the road people who voted for him, who wanted change from bush cronyism, recognized it was more of the same

[BainsBane]

15. Do you know what congress is?

Do you understand that presidents can't pass legislation by themselves, they only sign it? Would you prefer he have vetoed the healthcare bill so that preexisting conditions were still a hindrance, so that people still had lifetime caps on policies? Is that what you think he should have done? Or do you think he should have sent the army in to disband congress and run the country as a dictatorship?

It wasn't more of the same. You don't seem well informed on the matter.

How are you liking the draining the swamp? Is that the kind of change you wanted? The tiki torch mob certainly is a change, and now 788,000 dreamers are being deported, people who Obama offered a chance to. Do you think that was more of the same for those DACA recipients, or do they simply not matter to you?And how about the workers who saw their wages increase due to the overtime policy Obama implemented, which Trump is now rolling back? Or the victims of rape on college campuses who benefited from Title IX being extended to include rape as part of discrimination? How about enforcement of voting rights and DOJ Civil Rights division investigating police brutality, all of which is being repealed by Trump?

If you feel no difference between Republican and Democratic administrations, then you are extremely fortunate. The great majority of Americans don't enjoy that privilege.

[clu]

17. I see what you are sayinf

And I think the argument is negated by the voter totals for obamas first term. Sorry dude I know personally (online gaming forum where people have posted political debates for 15 years) several conservatives who voted for obamas first term

[BainsBane]

21. What is negated?

Are you claiming Obamacare didn't have an impact on midterms? Or are you claiming what those conservatives really wanted was single payer, what the right calls socialized medicine?

Or are you saying the views of conservative gamers matter more than the lives of the DACA recipients, women and people of color?

[clu]

23. Yep

I'm claiming that lemming behavior result in people who make a point as identifying as not democrat, and do not vote (or maybe not often), yet still know a good idea when they see it. These same conservatives I know from the gaming forum stated as much, "It would be nice if Obama would have implemented single payor, maybe then I could respect him."

As wrong as that statement is, in the context of passing bills through congress, that's what they think - I have seen it

[sharedvalues]

45. Be careful with gaming conservatives

We now know (see Joshua Green's book) that Bannon, Breitbart, and Mercer set out intentionally to lie to and radicalize gamers to turn gamers into a political force.

Gamers have been heavily propangandized and are not reflective of conservatives as a whole.

[clu]

48. respectfully

I've known these people since ~2000 and this precedes any /pol/ fakenews. these are their statements that's all i'm going to say there is nothing to debate.

[sharedvalues]

74. Fair. I'm talking about the Breitbart-brainwashed

Like the guy who just got fired by Google
Like Curt Schilling
Like anyone online who complains about SJW

All of those have been brainwashed in part by Breitbart.

You may know some who haven't been influenced by right wing hate propanganda. I do too. But we should all differentiate them from the former group.

[George II]

51. BainsBane isn't a "dude".

[brush]

57. Woohoo! This reply deserves a standing "O". Thank you for not suffering fools.

[pnwmom]

36. Ted Kennedy's death changed EVERYTHING. Obama, unlike those who slam him, faced reality.

The new reality was that the vote of Joe Lieberman, Independent, suddenly became critical -- and he opposed the public option. The choice at that point was to approve an ACA without a public option or get no national bill passed at all.

[George II]

52. You would have preferred sticking with the public option and not having the ACA at all?

[clu]

53. there was a lot going on after obama inauguration

there were a few things he needed to do... economy, Iraq, ACA.... no of course the ACA is a good thing, but it is notable that he campaigned (and I submit he got elected) based on a progressive platform and this deserves consideration.

[clu]

7. More to the point

Why can't the tea party govern? Is it because everything they float is a bad idea? Maybe a little... is it because of the republican establishment? That might be a bigger part of it. I would wager that progressives meet the same obstacle

[BainsBane]

9. Because hardly anyone agrees with them

Because they oppose the very concept of government. Because their goal is to "starve the beast," government, of all funding so that it collapses. What about Koch money says anti-establishment to you?

Didn't you say you were very young? Are you in college? I recommend an intro to American government course.

[clu]

12. Ah I see

I read this response as "all their ideas are bad ones." Sure they may oppose the idea of govt but how much government are they really trying to cut, other than entitlements? You are correct - there is nothing antiestablishment about them. They are about complete establishment, suitable to their donors

[Vinca]

43. I always thought Dean was brought down by a lousy sound system.

[oberliner]

50. That doesn't explain why Dean did so poorly in Iowa

He came in a pretty distant third there in spite of serious, sustained campaigning, tons of volunteers, and many high profile endorsements.

[clu]

54. i didn't follow politics closely enough at that time

to have an opinion here. he dropped out fairly early IIRC - that is a corn state maybe they just lean a little red? that was a long time ago.

[oberliner]

58. Dean was way ahead in Iowa for months leading up the caucus

Kerry and Edwards shot up only during the final week or two.

[clu]

59. mrrraahh

was this after the mrrraah soundbite? to me it looks like establishment took him out

[oberliner]

61. This was before the "Dean Scream"

That took place during his speech after the Iowa caucus results came in.

Here's an interesting 2004 article from the Atlantic about the Dean campaign:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/05/the-front-runner-s-fall/302944/

[sharedvalues]

44. No. Govt broken due to GOP.

The reason our government is not functioning has nothing to do with people needing validation. Our government is not functioning because GOP billionaire donors want tax cuts, so they fund propaganda saying government is broken and fund politicians who will try to destroy government.

Scott Pruitt and every Congressman who voted to cut medicaid are good examples.

[clu]

49. how do we fight propaganda

we could buy a radio station and try to advertise on it, or we could have politicians lead the debate (see trump bold statements - the media has to pick them up and run with them, and the public debate begins). a lot of these voters have a slight lean towards some conservative values but as we can see, they are woefully misinformed. they are still smart enough to cast the right vote when it counts. I don't think the increased participation in black voter turnout is the only reason that Obama's first term presidential vote totals were that high.

he captured the middle of the roaders by campaigning on a progressive policy

[brush]

60. Middle-of-the-roaders? Are you serious?

Middle-of-the-roaders are 90% white.

Most whites vote for the racist party — the repugs. Fact!

The Obama coalition attracted POCs and progressive whites.

[sharedvalues]

73. Grassroots: we need to talk to neighbors

Grassroots action:
- Tell people to turn off Fox news because its lies harm america
- tell your neighbors you stand with immigrants
- buy a Planned Parenthood shirt or hat and wear it outside

We won't own cable news stations, but Democrats who care about helping others outnumber Republicans. If we take responsibility for broadcasting our values we can bring those values back to America.

[NastyRiffraff]

69. Post of the day!

If not of the year. I too was a Dean supporter, for many reasons. I volunteered for him, even went to Iowa to campaign for him. I too was angry at how unfair the media was to him. I was in that room in Iowa for the famous scream, and believe me, the media got it completely wrong.

Dean would have made a good president. Hillary Clinton would have made a better one. I don't agree with either of them on every single thing, just as I don't agree with my friends all the time. But either Dean or Clinton would have been VASTLY better than what's occupying the White House now.

[BainsBane]

80. They really distorted that clip

Played it on a loop with "scream" repeating over and over again. It was clearly so deliberate.
It's cool that you were there in the room. I can imagine it was nothing like the media made it out to be.
My mom went to Iowa to canvass for Dean. I live in Fl at the time, so it was way too far for me to get to.

[clu]

14. Energy policy and the gulf

Progressive dems should latch into recent TX EPA rulings and use this as an argument against over reliance on fossil fuels (they will be refining again in TX soon enough I think), climate change (two hurricanes), and guided energy policy to push normal, level-headed, almost-retarded-due-to-reluctance-to-declare-a-party-yet-still-progressive-non-voters

[BainsBane]

16. How about weaning America completely off fossil fuels?

Is that progressive enough for you?

[clu]

18. Legislating electric cars?

Sure - it's the only way to get me out of a V6. It won't be popular but at this stage of the game it's about long term survival

[BainsBane]

19. One law? You think that's all it takes?

Just cars. To be effective, energy policy needs to be comprehensive. It's a long term strategy, not a single bill "legislating electric cars." Rather, a comprehensive set of priorities and policies designed to transform the economy and its reliance on fossil fuels. Something like this: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

It doesn't fit on the back of a bumper sticker because it's serious, detailed, and smart.

[clu]

20. This is the same platform

That rejected raising the taxable income cap on SS income and got booed in the debate. Don't get me wrong I still voted for her, but again, more of the same.

Sure it takes more than one law - I'm replying on a cell phone at work. Meanwhile let's discuss the advantages of moving to the center

[BainsBane]

22. You didn't read it at all

I linked to climate change, but you could also read about her position on SS on that same website. That is what serious voters did before the election. You chose not to inform yourself, and now you repeat blatantly false claims. She said no such thing during the debates. What a load of shite.

[clu]

24. I didn't read it at all

And neither did people who didn't vote for Hillary. They may have watched the debate however, and that is what stick with them.

I apologize - let's make this not about Hillary. I only mentioned her as an example of demonstrable reaction to the candidate put forward. This is not a criticism against her but instead an example of a positive reaction to progressive politics

[BainsBane]

25. Why don't you provide a link to the part of the debate

or an excerpt from the transcripts. Let's do make this about Hillary. I'd like to see the evidence for what you claim happened.

[BainsBane]

26. Find it yet?

I'll keep reminding you, in case you forget.

[clu]

27. i just watched the majority of both debates thinking i'd have to find it

but it was already posted to youtube

[BainsBane]

33. Your claim

This is the same platform

That rejected raising the taxable income cap on SS income and got booed in the debate

This is what "the same platform" actually says:

Expand Social Security for those who need it most and who are treated unfairly by the current system—including women who are widows and those who took significant time out of the paid workforce to take care of their children, aging parents, or ailing family members. Social Security works well, but it should work better. Hillary will fight to expand Social Security for those who need it most and who are treated unfairly today. For instance:
The poverty rate for widowed women 65 or older is nearly 90 percent higher than for other seniors—in part because when a spouse dies, families can face a steep benefit cut. For a two-earner couple, those benefit cuts can be as much as 50 percent. Hillary believes that we have to change that by reducing how much Social Security benefits drop when a spouse dies, so that the loss of a spouse doesn't ’t mean financial hardship or falling into poverty.
Millions of women—and men—take time out of the paid workforce to raise a child, take care of an aging parent or look after an ailing family member. Caregiving is hard work that benefits our entire economy. However, when Americans take time off to take care of a relative, that can reduce their Social Security benefits at retirement, since those benefits are calculated based on their top 35 years of earnings. No one should face meager Social Security checks because they took on the vital role of caregiver for part of their career. Americans should receive credit toward their Social Security benefits when they are out of the paid workforce because they are acting as caregivers.

Preserve Social Security for decades to come by asking the wealthiest to contribute more. Social Security must continue to guarantee dignity in retirement for future generations. Hillary understands that there is no way to accomplish that goal without asking the highest-income Americans to pay more, including options to tax some of their income above the current Social Security cap and taxing some of their income not currently taken into account by the Social Security system.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/

Your claim about her platform is factually and demonstrably false.

As for your clip, it does not show her rejecting raising the cap on Social Security. In fact, it omits the majority of the discussion. Why do you suppose the person who posted it chose to omit the majority of the discussion? Clearly the point was not to help voters become informed on the candidates' stands on social security but to clip one section that he believed made Hillary look bad, yet it doesn't even show her rejecting raising the cap.

Which debates is this? Was this the same debate where she talked about increasing benefits for lower income Americans, particularly women who fare worse under SS--a proposal that Sanders rejected?
There were not 2 but 9 planned DNC debates and several other forums and town halls held by the cable news networks. To verify if she truly did "reject raising the cap on social security" we need to be able to see the entire segment where that discussion took place, not just the 34 seconds someone opposed to her put on Youtube.


Additionally, you started out by claiming you wanted more progressive policies, only to list a series of positions that our nominee advanced during the last election. You then claim to care about the environment, but not enough to actually bother reading a couple of paragraphs on the sites of one of the two major candidates for president.

I'm sure you're right that most voters didn't read it. People are poorly informed, and some are committed to keeping them that way. If you want to remain under-informed, you are of course within your rights to do so, but then I submit you shouldn't really be making pronouncements about issues that you don't care enough to read even a little bit about. Democratic self-government requires that citizens inform themselves, that they take at least a few minutes to read about the most crucial issues facing the nation and the planet. It is impossible to play any productive role in advancing those causes without doing so.

I don't favor the low-information voter approach to politics myself. I believe in informing myself and pointing other to how they can become informed so that they can make the most informed decisions. I take that approach because I care about my country and I care about democracy. The people who post 34 second clips on Youtube seek to keep the public misinformed. They seek to mislead and promote an agenda--whether that be the election of their own favorite politician to power or to ratfuck an election to promote interests of a foreign power. They are part of the problem, not because they don't prefer the same politician I did in that primary but because the promote ignorance and misinformation. It is that misinformation and propaganda that led to the election of Donald Trump and the rise of fascism , which was indeed the purpose of the anti-Clinton, anti-Democratic propaganda, as testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee has established. Voters fell for that because of they were uninformed and because they lacked the ability or inclination to inform themselves. That is how democracy fails in America, and that matters far more than which particular politician wins an election.

Your online gamer buddies didn't want "more of the same." They wanted change, and they got it. They got Nazis in the streets with Tiki torches, nearly a million DACA recipients about to be deported, they got a president who is using the office to enrich himself and who is a pathological liar. They got White Supremacists in the Oval Office, and plans to slash taxes on the rich and on corporations. They got a White House and Congress working round the clock to find ways to throw millions of people off healthcare and kill tens of thousands. They got a president threatening nuclear war. They wanted change, and they got exactly what they voted for.

But hey, at least the president is a white male rapist rather than a woman or a black man. That's what really counts.

[clu]

47. i heard her response during the clip

about increasing women's services. what's worse, during another clip of the debate (not in the youtube clip but in the full debate), hillary comments about healthcare wrt sanders "we want the same thing, we just have a different means to get there". I believe that 100%. I also believe that a partially centrist strategy may be the practical way to get there, but it should be done by leading from the left, bartering from our ideal position, and then conceding some on the way, and use of the bully pulpit to keep the debate alive until you have support from congress, instead of stemming the debate completely.

the ACA bought us a little luxury time to do these things. good. now it's time to do them.

PS
dude come off faulting me for not reading her platform. I voted for her. i'm talking about public perception in middle America, and Russian meddling or not, this was a weak candidate. my republican buddies are not my buddies, we debate this stuff every time around, and in this case there was a palpable perception that Obama was going to shake things up (which they want from trump please watch and learn), and disappointment when he did not.

edit- that is a lot of typing to justify why she didn't just say "yes" to raising the SS income tax. something about lobbyists and donors come to mind. such is the state of politics in this country

[zentrum]

28. Bernie is

...the most popular politician in the country. His approval rating is somewhere around 75% if I remember correctly. People trust him when he speaks even if they don't agree with him.

Also, as Michael Moore has pointed out--the majority of people in the country support progressive polices--"but", he says, "we have no power."

Obviously the country is ready fro a clear messaging, authentic progressive. So I understand and support what you're saying.

[pnwmom]

30. There is no evidence showing Bernie is the most popular. The silly poll that purports to show that

only named 10 politicians out of thousands, including only 4 Democrats and Bernie.

[BainsBane]

31. 54% according to the latest poll commissioned by the Hill

the most popular of 12 public figures, six of which are current politicians. He had the highest favor ability ratings of the six public figures polled. There are more than six politicians in the country. So your point is without factual basis.

Additionally, that poll showed his ratings much higher than Elizabeth Warren's. Why do you suppose that is? Her voting record is at least as progressive, probably more so, than Sanders.

What you might call progressive policies poll well, until they are associated with Democrats. Political Science research demonstrates that people don't vote based on policy or issues. They vote based on cultural signfiers, including race and gender. That, I believe, is why Sanders polls so much more highly than Warren. One, he's male. Two, his rhetoric is directed at both political parties, the Democratic and the Republican. That plays into the frustrations people feel about government.

Note that Warren's numbers are significantly lower than Hillary's in that same poll. What does that say about your claim about "authentic progressive" politicians?

[lunamagica]

41. I don't agree with him and I don't trust him

[pnwmom]

29. Hillary spoke her mind, stood true to her beliefs, and earned the votes of several million

more voters than Bernie, and almost 3 million more than DT.

She did NOT lose because she wasn't a "strong articulate progressive candidate who will focus on diplomacy (while maintaining a strong defense.)
"
She lost because of voter suppression eliminating millions of votes, including votes in key states; because of James Comey's two letter bombs; and because of Russian meddling, including voter roll tampering.

It won't matter how wonderful our next nominee is if we don't solve the problem of voter suppression and Russian election meddling.

[clu]

32. as i have posted on that same gaming forum

the fakenews we see from messageboards and /pol/ are in essence karl rove's bastard love child from a Koch sponsored sex orgy. comey didn't help but Hillary was toxic for some time at that point (keep in mind I voted for her - i'm talking about average joe voter).

Russian hacking Hillary is a false flag for Russian hacking the dem primaries #911 #LIHOP

[pnwmom]

34. Again. Hillary had 2.9 million more votes, the vast majority of which

were average joe and jane voters. In fact, the median income of her voters was lower than DT's voters.

[clu]

35. needed them in PA/MI/WI

nt

[pnwmom]

38. We'll never know how many votes in those states were suppressed,

but it was very likely enough to make the difference -- only about 70K votes combined.

[John1956PA]

42. Yes we needed them in PA where I live. RW propaganda demonized HRC and cost her Middle class votes

I am dismayed how many middle class voters (for example, many of my co-workers) bore intense hostility for Hillary. I attribute their antipathy to the poisonous right-wing propaganda machine with supported tabloid magazine lies, scurrilous web sites, social media bots, hate radio, church influence, and other means of indoctrination.

[pnwmom]

75. Not just RW propaganda. The Russians targeted their propaganda at specific segments of voters

using social media. The rest of us didn't see what was going on because the ads weren't targeted at us.

[John1956PA]

83. +100

Yes. In April of this year, I attended a seminar in a certain professional field. It so happened that the presenter of the seminar was an anti-Clinton (both Bill and Hillary) retired federal employee whose government service career I will not mention, but which you may be able to guess. He asserted that the Russian election intervention was limited to revealing the embarrassing emails regarding Podesta, and were thus inconsequential in the election outcome. After the seminar, I told him that, if he presented that point of view to a group having in attendance a strong, informed and progressive Hillary supporter, he would receive a strong rebuff detailing the Russians' propagation of fake news and implementation of social media algorithms designed to debase Hillary. He scoffed a bit at my suggestion. I am convinced that a certain percentage of the educated populace is willfully ignorant of the fact that the Russian involvement in the election was sophisticated and possibly determinative of the outcome.

[yallerdawg]

55. ANOTHER dismissal of the actual voting?

Hillary got more votes than Bernie - but he was more popular?

Hillary got more votes than Trump - but he was more popular?

On and on it goes.

[heaven05]

78. exactly

[brush]

62. It's wise to stop digging when you're in a hole. Isn't it strange to you that the exact 3 states...

needed to swing the EC to trump were obviously calculated, and the exact number of votes needed, 77,000 were also calculated/hacked, and trump suddenly picked up and changed his campaign plans and headed to those exact 3 states to make it look like his campaign there swung the votes?

Nah, Russian tampering and Comey's letters were huge factors in the stolen election.

It was a fucking coup, but keep on digging and making your gamer/conservative, uniformed arguments.

[clu]

63. you're calling a sanders supporter

who wants to discuss progressive positions for the DNC a conservative? can someone link to me to the proposed strategy now? I read somewhere the goal is to reach out to middle amerca. one other thing about these three states - how did sanders do against hillary in WI/MI/PA? this isn't rocket science

progressive politics gets out the vote. that is what I am discussing and it is interesting (although maybe due to vested opinion here) that the conversation keeps turning back to electability, policy effectiveness (amendment king), and sanders vs hillary.

[brush]

64. You may want to turn it back to Sanders v Hillary. I'm talking about a stolen election between...

Clinton v trump.

[clu]

65. ok then

i'll answer my question - sanders trounced hillary in MI/WI/PA and the DNC selection of hillary disaffected the middle 20% that bain alluded to earlier, and that cost us the presidency

edit - getting a little toasty here - sorry for any bad vibes I think I will go to home depot

[brush]

66. Yeah, right. Repug vote suppression, Comey and Russian interference had no effect.

Last edited Mon Sep 4, 2017, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Time to get to post-primary mode and take off the blinders.

Repug vote suppression, Comey and Russian interference had a huge, history-changing effect.

It was a stolen election — a coup.

Maybe you're too young to remember we've been through this history-changing-stolen-election-by-repugs -crap before and are still suffering from it.

Gore would never have gone into Iraq and therefore Bremer would have never had the chance to fire the entire Iraqi army which ultimately resulted in the generals and colonels leading ISIS to take over huge swaths of territory and necessitate the on-going war in the levant resulting in the immense refugee crisis and the horrible terror attacks repeatedly occurring around the world.

Yeah, we've been there and done that with stolen elections.

We are just at the beginning of the horrible ill effects that will result down through the years of numbskull trump decisions. Ten, fifteen, twenty years from now we'll still be suffering, just are we are now fourteen years later from Bush's foolish decision to go into Iraq.

[heaven05]

79. you voted for sanders

in the GE???? Is that your point?

[pnwmom]

81. No, this isn't rocket science. You asked so I'll tell you. Hillary trounced Bernie in PA, 56-44.

But he trounced her in Wisconsin, and had a narrow win in Michigan.

None of this is particularly relevant to the contest between Hillary and Trump, however. Anyone with a brain larger than a pea could see the difference between Hillary and DT.

[heaven05]

77. you're serious???

and misinformed, either willfully or out of ignorance of the truth...HRC was best choice, whether one believed ALL the LIES about BENGHAZI or EMAILS!!!!! As has been borne out as true...for the last 8months looking at 3 yrs, 4 months more of this horror show that ALL who did not vote for HRC had a hand in enabling a fascist, racist, sexist idiot getting elected in as potus. Period. No tinfoil hat about ALL allegations of hacking by Putin and his agenda of destabilizing our government, SOCIETY and it's cultures and races.

[BainsBane]

37. And was rated the most truthful politician running in 2016

according to fact checking sites.

[pnwmom]

39. And sadly, her unwillingness to over-promise and to lie probably hurt her. n/t

[BainsBane]

40. Yes, we live in a time when voters demand that politicians lie to them

So much of what I see makes me despair for the future of American democracy.

[heaven05]

76. ++++++

[tymorial]

46. And awayyyy we go

[DinahMoeHum]

56. If progressives want to take over the Democratic Party. . .

Last edited Mon Sep 4, 2017, 10:35 PM - Edit history (1)

. . .they should get off the sidelines, shed their "Independent" fig leaf, and actually JOIN the Democratic Party. On a local level.

After you register as a Democrat, you join your local Party committee/club in your home town/area. Maybe even get in as a district leader (they are always looking for warm bodies).
You get to know the players on a local and state level (and your federal level if your Congressional rep drops by); and you get to know where the wires are being pulled in the government.

If we had progressives joining their local Party committees/clubs in droves, we could really start making an impact; and the state Party apparatus would start taking notice; get off their
john brown hind parts, actually listen to the rank-and-file, and take real action, knowing that we'd have their backs.

It starts this year. 2017. After November 7, we move on to primaries in 2018, then the GE in November 2018.

As a candidate for County Executive in my area likes to say:
"If you want to get to Berlin, first you have to get to Normandy"

[Expecting Rain]

67. That sounds like so much work

[MineralMan]

68. +1000

That always seems to get lost in the argument. They're doing that in some places, of course, but in others they're nowhere to be found when there's actual work to be done. And there's always actual work that must be done to win.

[NastyRiffraff]

70. But it's so much easier to whine on a message board!

That's an awful lot of work you're asking of the keyboard warriors! (But you're right.)

[clu]

71. i had feet on the street for obama

Clinton didn't seem to ask for help on the ground but I'm in North Texas. Your words have merit and I don't think they imply the derision that's alluded to above

[treestar]

72. [phone]

[delisen]

82. More "mind boggling" is voter suppression & votes not counted

I am sympathetic to your concern for more votes from your "average guy", who, in your view needs to be "energized."

I am much more interested in making it possible for people who are informed be able to vote and have their votes counted.

I am also interested in voters who want to vote having all the information they need to vote wisely. We have a representative democracy to maintain, not a mobocracy.

If people are not informed and need a pied piper to energize them to vote, I would prefer they not be coaxed and pressured into voting

The two candidates you mentioned had little foreign policy experience. One of the is now in the Oval Office and his lack of foreign policy experience is harming us daily. He was also never "popular."