2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCan someone explain to me the intersectionality between...
Current Progressivism and tangible concern for the issues, and the current Bernie Or Bust campaign (apparently a petition going around)? Im very confused how they intertwine and/or overlap.
Is Bernie or Bust just a bunch of rabble rousers or is this current progressive groupthink? If so, what is the intersection between tangible concern for issues and Bernie or Bust?
Personally I think the Dem base will unite.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I can't explain anything to you.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)we've tried explaining but nothing gets through. .. . any issue we have with Hillary is never addressed, they just attack the messenger. . .and that's what I think this post is, a passive-aggressive put down of Bernie supporters.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)"what it means to be a progressive."
"... the central progressive message is one of fairness and equality:
Our approach is simple to summarize and is built upon the ideas of generations of progressives from Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Barack Obama:
Everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does his or her fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. As progressives, we believe that everyone deserves a fair shot at a decent, fulfilling, and economically secure life. We believe that everyone should do his or her fair share to build this life through education and hard work and through active participation in public life. And we believe that everyone should play by the same set of rules with no special privileges for the well-connected or wealthy.
Progressivism is inherently liberal and arose with liberalsm from the Enlightenment. Both Hillary and Bernie are progressive. The Democratic Party is progressive. Almost all liberals and far-lefters are progressive.
"Bernie or Bust" is a plan to throw progressivism itself under the bus if a majority of voters don't choose its supporters' favorite candidate. Obviously, this is inconsonant with the principles of fairness and equality for everyone that are intrinsic to progressivism.
These true believers see themselves as a righteous elite, The Only Ones Who See, and thus The Only Ones Who Can Save America, but if they go forward with this they will just be really bad losers who have abandoned their goals.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)by this loose definition you would include Hillary, at least what she gives lip service to.
But Hillary is certainly not what I think of as progressive. She is Status Quo.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Not mine.
Although they have some good moments, it might reassure you to know that this site is maintained by people mostly to my left, some of whom actually remind me of the extreme partisanship here. In fact, one article actually lumps Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton and Obama into one conservative economic reganism-obamaism continuum. The author dresses it up with a lot of history-referencing verbage, but it's largely just the usual far-left partisan rejection of Democrats. They maintain a rather elegantly designed site and know how to sound high minded, but I'm pretty sure behind the scenes chortling over anti-Hillary lies is going on these days.
And yet, as you yourself recognized, the definition they worked over so thoughtfully absolutely includes Hillary, and the rest of the Democratic Party and all liberals, including me. Go figure.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)not familiar with it--will check it out. I'm just saying that what people think of as "progressive" varies a lot. We may not all be singing Kumbaya in the big tent anymore.
Whether it's an "extreme" view or not, I do think it is fair to say that there is a conservative continuum over the last decades that includes both Dems and R's. This is the result of DLC influence, among other factors. The DLC was the wrong direction for the Democratic party--and Bill and Hill were part of that conservative alliance. Pragmatic, perhaps, maybe the best we could do at the time you could argue--but allowing for a lot of the horrors and abuses we are witnessing today. It's just not working.
I don't think that Hillary can bring about significant changes in this country. She is way too heavily invested in the status quo, with all its corruption and excess, so damaging to real Democracy. It's what she had to do to get where she is--OK, but that's not saying much at this point. I admire the candidate who has, to a far greater extent, stuck to his principles from day one. I am voting for the candidate this time--not so much the party.
thx for your reply
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)to the right that should never have been crossed in its attempt to maintain power and get some things done. But it largely came back and did so some time ago.
We can agree that, regardless of their ideology, in practice our representatives are far too interested in protecting their own jobs and power, but that's an effect of the corruption that would infect Bernie's people also -- almost as soon as they got membership in the DC winners' circle and within sight of those go-for-the-gold lobbying careers.
The problem in 2016 isn't that we're too far right. We're not. The problem is that our representatives are much too protective of their DC membership to put themselves out for principle.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)if I read you correctly-- the disease of corruption is part of the system, and Bernie & Co. would succumb to the disease once in office. So that's a given? But there's no evidence for that statement. I think his record shows otherwise.
How do you see the Dem party as "coming back" exactly--without real reform.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)demonstrated by dozens of refusals to discuss, embarrassing to some. Yet not embarrassing enough to stand up and reject.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)And you can check the #BernieOrBust on twitter.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Sure, who doubts that "organic integrity" comes very easily to the kind of righteous zealots who flocked to Elizabeth Warren, then Bernie, and are now considering joining Bust as they see the end down the road.
However, other infamous characteristics also include a tendency to burst into flame and turn on literally anyone at any provocation, as witness the egregious attacks on our most powerful progressive leader, Warren.
But to use "organic integrity" in connection with Bust, which is asking a commitment to literally abandon progressive integrity and principles and give aid and comfort to the implacable enemies of progressivism? Unbelievable hypocrisy.
Response to litlbilly (Reply #4)
Chichiri This message was self-deleted by its author.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)all hail the peti.........
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but generally I like sting
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)bound to cover just a little more ground!
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)G'night.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)coded messages.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but they still don't know the super duper top secret entry code, and if you don't know that it could 'appear' to be a website started last summer based on working to get Bernie nominated
daleanime
(17,796 posts)sorry about that. But have a lovely evening anyways.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)"One who bases one knowledge off twitter hashtags and what they read on internet forum are"
That was all that was on the paper as it ran out of room to finish I guess, anyone got a guess what it would say?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,975 posts)I could have sworn...ah well.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Nope. Not weird at all.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Like "berniebros", it's an expression someone somewhere on the internet is talking about. Whether that makes it "an actual thing" i suppose depends on how one defines "thing".
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)A big part of reality is 3rd party perspective.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Thank God, that means that something like 60% of reality is nekkid ladies. Sweet.
ETA: "3rd Party Perspective", well done on the double entendre.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)unintentional snark.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But then, consistency is the small knob-gobbling hobgoblin from gobbler's knob.
Abraham Lincoln said that.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)The notion of a thread having a subject just a shackle on small minds?
Here is a scenario: It's this time next year and it turned out to be BUST for you guys. Either BS or HC lost to President Rubio or we have another President Clinton working with a bare Democratic majority Senate to force what she imagines to be progressive changes through as best she can, step by partial step.
What are you doing in this scenario? Are you launched on 8 years of denying any progress can or will be made under Clinton or on 8 years of blaming Hillary and liberals for electing Rubio? Will you be here at DU?
In any possible scenario, do you expect another decade of complaining and arguing that liberals are not "real" progressives to be worthy and satisfying?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Please, tell me what it is I'm saying.
Or shit, just find someone to create an account that will say whatever ... The fuck that was, you just tried to shoehorn into my mouth, and blargle it at them. Okay?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)And now I've asked how you see yourself spending the next decade of your life, politically, if it's "bust." No matter which party wins the White House on November 6, it is highly unlikely we will have a President Sanders, after all. It's not too early to wonder.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)So if you want to make some authoritative statements as to what I, personally, do or don't believe, you can start by looking at the shit I've actually said, instead of arguing with one of these.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)See how easily your logic disintegrates? You are being sanctimonious about something you also participate in everyday.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Internet commentary is quite a different kettle of fish than news via the Internet.
Your reasoning for why Warren's logic "disintegrates" is actually quite laughable and false on its fac.e
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)The news doesnt channel into your brain, you get it from an actual source.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)ah, but alas, I am in GDP, where all that happens is team B and team C throwing poop at each other.
C'est La Vie.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)via Post #28 and the subsequent downthread. Quite disheartening.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Ah, well, fuck.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It happens, occasionally. Obviously there's a system bug. I'll put something in ATA about it right now.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)But there is also plenty of truth out there. Start researching!
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Since you decided to hijack this thread which has nothing to do with Hillary.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but thanks.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)as an idea hatched on the internet, makes it a "thing". That doesn't mean it is organized. That doesn't mean everyone has heard of it, or approves (or disapproves for that matter) of it. We are not a monolith. PS: Berniebros is probably a term fist coined in Karl Rove's stink tank, and he thanks you for keeping it alive.
You sure do have a lot of posts for someone who has only been here since 2012. I'm going to have a gander at some of them to see what you are about.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)The realization that Clinton has no intention of fulfilling any kind of progressive presidency. Why reward the party (the DNC, largely, for setting up a race with massive advantages for Hillary) for backing a candidate who only pretends to care about the issues that we care about? I imagine the Bernie or Bust crowd (not identifying myself as one such person, necessarily, mind you) is pretty fed up with the charade of democracy when the party can put its finger on the scale, when party leaders are publicly supportive of one candidate over another, and when the candidate offered to us is a corrupt politician who will lie and shape shift on a range of topics as needed to obtain votes.
In this view, the question isn't why Bernie or Bust, it is "why the hell would I vote for Hillary?"
*Note to jury: I am not advocating for any of these ideas, I am explaining to JaneyVee how persons caring deeply about the issues can still vow never to back the nominee. My personal feelings on the subject, I choose to keep off DU.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)So youre saying the Bernie or Bust mentality is based on a conspiracy theory ginned up in there own imaginations which led them to despise a candidate enough based on their own imaginary scenario to allow Trump to pick SCOTUS?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)The charade is debates scheduled ad hoc, at first to discourage too many people from gaining a thorough look at the candidates (why O'Malley never had a chance, for example) and then in a dramatic shift, adding debates as it helped Clinton. DWS, the chair of the supposedly neutral DNC saying that Bernie is not a real Democrat. The tactics are transparent.
Or consider this excerpt from Politico:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-2016-inside-213692?o=1
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)And it was Bernie's team who breached data.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)If you want to have an argument with an avowed Bernie or Buster, you will have to find someone outside of DU to engage in that discussion, for I certainly will not.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)might think.
Like whether or not the flying spaghetti monster is a "real" Deity.
Is the thought of a unicorn a real thought?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Not everyone does.
I suppose if "groupthink" is what one is used to seeing all the time, in their own circles, they might imagine it is everywhere.
FWIW, I will call "bernie or bust" what it is, namely the 2016 version of PUMA. No thanks.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)I was actually looking for someone who will not unless its Bernie to explain. They seem to be missing now.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Bernie supporters here aren't quite as clueless as you seem to think we are.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)My point was basically: is there an actual movement that would throw all of their concern about the issues out the window unless their preferred candidate is elevated to power? If so, how real was that concern. Many arent as privileged to go uneffected by spitefully allowing Trump to pick SCOTUS. Do you think the Bernie or Bust crowd would come around in solidarity on the issues or leave concern at the door?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)They do not see it that way.
So your premise is flawed.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Sometimes elections are about defense as much as offense.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)It is a matter of understanding the other side vs. agreement with that position.
I think that's it for me, absent an effort to understand what Bernie or Bust is really about rather than snidely dismiss and lecture them.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Thats kinda the point.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I relayed that information. Then you tried to pick a fight over whether they were sensible, as if I had to agree with them simply by understanding where they are coming from.
It's bad form to ask a question, allegedly in good faith, about how a group of people think and then attack the messenger for relaying their thinking as actually espousing said beliefs. If you cannot understand how that might be considered rude, then we really have nothing further to discuss.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)I thought we were having a discussion....on a discussion board.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Are there going to be Sanders supporters who won't pull the D lever if the nominee is Hillary? Sure.
I'd advise waiting to have those conversations until we actually have a nominee, but that's just me.
840high
(17,196 posts)answer to you is how we vote is none of your business.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)I dont alert on anyone. I dont even have anyone on ignore. Its only the internet.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)FWIW, far and away the worst examples of "groupthink" I've seen in the past 8 months have all come from Hillary supporters here, but unlike some people I don't let what some yarblocko on the internet says influence my political decisionmaking.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)and I could run down the myriad examples, but honestly certain strains of mindlessly repeated nonsensical flatuations have already gotten way more airtime than they deserve.
I said before, Bernie or Bust is PUMA version 2016, which, BTW, was the original "Hillary or Bust".
It was stupid then, it's stupid now. Of course people should support the nominee.
hillarysong2016
(83 posts)Destroy over half century of aid to single mothers during the 1990s? Check. One of Hillary's many, massive attacks on women and children, so the head explodes at how she can get away with calling herself a champion of these groups; but there's more,
Demean single mothers as "deadbeats" in the 1990s? Check. Just kidding. Hillary demeaned single mothers at least as recently as 2002 as "deadbeats" while defending the 1990s assault on lower income women and children...check.
Was for NAFTA? Check.
Believes the U.S. should continue to be one of the few western countries in the world with death penalty, and where healthcare is a "market commodity"? Check and check for Hillary.
Pushed for Fracking in the U.S. and around the world too? Check:
Claimed pro-NAFTA was a "mistake"? and but now tells us we should like the ultra-NAFTA TPPP, TransPacific corporate trade deal? Check.
Voted for Iraq war leading to thousands of dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis including dead Women and Children (but brown skinned, so Hillary can still call herself a champion of Women and Children, right?) and estimated 3 Trillion dollar long term cost? Check on all three.
Helped massive incarceration increase in 1990s to explode? While talking not about rehabilitating adults, not even rehabilitating kids, but telling us that even minors are "super-predators" who, Hillary told us, "have absolutely no conscience or empathy" so "lock 'em up" while trying to scare the public, led to explosion in prison even though crime had already peaked:
Claimed Iraq vote was a "mistake" that she "learned from" (It wasn't a mistake, it was a political calculation, anyone paying attention knew it was a scam that war...Her defenders must thing she was both stupid and incompetent to be "fooled" she was not, she is not kind or empathetic or progressive but she is very smart, cold calculating smart, but smart) But let's assume it really was a "mistake"
Did Hillary "learn from" that mistake? Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, reminds us Hillary only pushed for the same thing in Libya, leading to another disaster:
Not getting into what "or bust" means, it's different for each person..some of us are in states where it's not even close, so there's always Dr. Jill Stein of the Greens...others have a more difficult tactical choice to make if right-wing Hillary Clinton (who is more right wing than Trump on the whole regime change, bomb, invade, occupy thing...though Trump is obviously worse in other ways) and I do not envy them that difficult choice..
But if "or bust" means, "or else our changes of getting a liberal, never MIND a progressive" will be "bust" (unless someone runs third party who can win) then of course they are right: a right-winger like Hillary, who was able to destroy more than Reagan could in some big areas of social programs, that is indeed "bust" for any hopes of an actual progressive or even liberal...she isn't even liberal on foreign policy, and only in some areas domestically (she's not liberal on civil liberties, Patriot Act, corporate trade, public non-profit healthcare, or scores of other areas, not even liberal)
I'm not even including another set of hundreds of thousands of women and children Hillary's policies have killed off long before the 2003 Iraq war...But like white American women who are low income or moderate income, their massive killing doesn't preventt, mind bogglingly, doesn't stop Hillary from calling herself a champion of women and children, it's almost as crazy as Kissinger being given a Nobel Peace prize...oh, wait..
"Tangible issues"? Yeah, I think we've mentioned a dozen or so extremely tangible ones, but that won't stop the "you just don't like her personally" charges and other victim playing charges from some of her supporters...who, in fact, are the ones refusing to know about and acknowledge the above tangible issues..
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Under Bill Clinton: 25 Million jobs. Longest stretch of peacetime in US history. Lowest black unemployment in US history. And a budget surplus!
And sorry, but youre not going to fake meme your way into the WH: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/11/10961362/clinton-1994-crime-law
hillarysong2016
(83 posts)No replies about mass-murder and Trillions spent on wars on lies and on fracking and corporate trade positions of Hillary...or mass killing of women and children thanks to her Wars in not only Iraq but Libya, not a word about that...silence I guess means, "no big deal, beating the crap out of single mothers and women in the third world doesn't count...doesn't bother me one bit" and instead brining up "but, but, but the economy was great in 1990s!"
Which is kind of funny since we hear so often, from Hillary supporters, "She is not the same as her Husband, don't blame her for bad things under him!" except it WAS her policies in the case of the ones I mentioned, it wasn't just Bill, it was Hillary promoting those disastrous things in the 1990s and beyond...But you support Hillary it's not enough to pretend the bad things were "only Bill's doing" you also have to pretend the "good things" were her doing, like economic boom? Very amusing...but putting all that aside...thank you for brining up "black unemployment" and incarceration side by side, 'cause it brings up this:
An oft-repeated myth about the Clinton administration is that although it was overly tough on crime back in the 1990s, at least its policies were good for the economy and for black unemployment rates. The truth is more troubling. As unemployment rates sank to historically low levels for white Americans in the 1990s, the jobless rate among black men in their 20s who didnt have a college degree rose to its highest level ever. This increase in joblessness was propelled by the skyrocketing incarceration rate.
Why is this not common knowledge? Because government statistics like poverty and unemployment rates do not include incarcerated people. As Harvard sociologist Bruce Western explains: Much of the optimism about declines in racial inequality and the power of the US model of economic growth is misplaced once we account for the invisible poor, behind the walls of Americas prisons and jails.
When Clinton left office in 2001, the true jobless rate for young, non-college-educated black men (including those behind bars) was 42 percent. This figure was never reported. Instead, the media claimed that unemployment rates for African Americans had fallen to record lows, neglecting to mention that this miracle was possible only because incarceration rates were now at record highs. Young black men werent looking for work at high rates during the Clinton era because they were now behind bars [so not counted in official unemployement stats]out of sight, out of mind, and no longer counted in poverty and unemployment statistics.
http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/
So while I never give any President, Republican or Democrat, full "credit" or "blame" for when the economy is booming or busting since it's complex, let alone use that as a reason to vote for their spouse who was busy throwing poor men in jail and throwing poor single women, single mothers, off of support and calling them deadbeats, it turns out, what do you know? Even the "good" (which Hillary couldn't take credit for even if it had been real) turns out to be have been a fraud, too..
This won't change the minds of those for whom facts don't matter, but there are those with open mind that Bernie supporters can inform with these seldom talked about facts
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Bernie voted for crime bill, guns 5x, deregulate Wall St (2000), against 2007 immigration, against closing Gitmo. Hillary did not. He also voted for more wars and war funding than any candidate running. How many have died per year from his war and gun votes? He even voted for Afghanistan and Libya.
Feel free to fact check it all.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)They don't identify withbthe Democrats becausevthey see no committment to fundamental principles. They are more concerned with supporting candidates whom represent their values over loyalty to some nebulous institutionsl entity,
I do not endorse that, but I certainly understand it.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)(Doesn't mean I won't vote for the nominee, however...)
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)They can think how they want, and they can vote how they want. Since neither you nor I can control them, nor should we want to, maybe we should not worry about them any more than we did about the Pumas back in 08.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I've said for a while Hillary needs to do a better job. The playbook she's been running is woefully dated and not suited to a 21st Century Campaign.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Having the most diverse electorate of any candidate running. Ok.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)self-described socialist Senator?
In terms of "vote totals", how's that turnout thing working against the GOP's so far? Seen those numbers? I think they're "out there" speaking of the google.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Working out great so far. Hows Bernie's playbook working out?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I've figured all along that she would probably be the nominee. Sanders always faced long odds, one of my hopes would be that he would force HRC to run a more substantive, issues-oriented campaign as opposed to the meaningless pablum and gibberish she was pretty clearly set to roll on at the beginning ("everyday Americans", etc)
That has happened a bit, but like I said, she's still running a set of 1990s style campaign strategies woefully out of whack for the 21st century political reality we face today. That's my opinion, since I want her to win if she's the nominee I have a vested interest in expressing it, but obviously not everyone is gonna agree.
Other than that I just hope we're not looking at some FBI indictment shoe dropping between the Convention and the GE. It'll be tough to blame THAT sort of clusterfuckerry on "berniebros", although I have no doubt some will try.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)The two issues are rather clearly orthogonal.
This is more than a horserace where one side "wins" and the other "loses" so that it is better to be on the "winning" team.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Quite a failure in logic, to think that merely repeating oneself is a refutation of my assertion.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)The people will speak.
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)I am voting for Steve Gold Austin Because he is only man on Earth who can stop Trump. I saw him knock trump on his ass.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)We are done being enablers.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)people are feeling or why they are voting, so it is impossible to reason with them. Explanations for why calls of party unity fail are similarly poorly-received, as this thread shows.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's silly, it's juvenile, and it's demonstrably false, but it's driving a large part of the campaign emotion.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)to "justify" an extreme partisanship that cannot otherwise be justified.
What is unacceptable about admitting that Hillary is progressive but does not go nearly far enough for them? For me nothing, but that would require accepting her as one of them, just not with them, and a rigid refusal to validate any differences from them by acceptance is a defining characteristic. From there the course is inevitable: Disagreement with extremists on both right and left inevitably results in hostility, rejection and aggression, and so
Hillary was the first major progressive leader they tossed under the bus -- this election. Obama met his fate with them long ago.
Question: No, it's not why are so many here not flat denouncing the Bernie or Bust campaign; hyperpartisaniship and the spector of loss provide that answer. It is this: For those very few who actually do join the Bernie or Bust campaign and finish up the election by tossing progressivism itself under the bus, where do they go from there?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)It is about voting ideas over party unification, a party that works actively against progressives.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I couldn't agree with you less.
If some abandon progressivism if Bernie loses, has it occurred to you that maybe this wasn't really all about progressivism? I don't mean there were no progressive dreams, but just that for them Bernie-ism was mostly just a way of acting out against the Democratic establishment?
Like their counterparts on the far right who are supporting Trump to give the finger to the GOP establishment?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Someone should let Vermont and Maine know, because they keep voting for Independents over Democrats and Republicans.
Obviously I could not disagree more with that position, which I find ludicrous.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Bye now.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)1) some are caught up in passion and may not mean it.
2) some mean it and have had enough with playing the game by the establishments rules.
shrugs* lol
Response to JaneyVee (Original post)
Post removed
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Bernie has put out details about the plans in most areas and how he will fund them. . .Hillary has not. .. . all Hillary says is,"We can't do what Bernie says and I can do a better job."
Let's see something tangible and maybe there will be a conversation.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)A Clinton-Obama Democratic party, a Trump Republican-Nationalist party, a Kasich-Republican party, and a Sanders Independent party. That way every voter would get to vote for a party aligned with their interests The Clinton-Obama Democratic party would get at least 40% of the vote and the three remaining parties can fight over the remaining sixty percent.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)lying secretive triangulating corporate third ways.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)hence, I wonder about its origins.
I think one might be more successful finding intersectionality between BoB and RNC/anyGOPcampaign.
Lord knows this would be the place to float that petition.
Bettie
(16,086 posts)doing their level best to alienate and malign Sanders supporters so that they will have a very hard time voting for her.
Many of us probably will eventually vote for her should she be the nominee, but it will not be with enthusiasm or hope, simply with resignation over again, choosing the lesser of two evils.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)The Hillary supporters just solidified up my determination.
Bettie
(16,086 posts)and I do believe that Trump would be worse.
So, I'll hold my nose and vote for her.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)who has an agenda for TPP,to Privatize SSA (look at her picks for treasury), more war, will do nothing about climate change.
I think the madman can actually do less damage.
Bettie
(16,086 posts)We all have to do what we think is best.
I am tired of seeing our country sold to the highest corporate bidder, but Trump is just such an embarrassment.
I, do, however, love that Sanders is forcing a conversation that would never, ever have happened if we had the victory march/coronation that Clinton supporters expected.
At least the issues that affect non-1% people are out there. They wouldn't have even been discussed in the victory march/coronation model.
Clinton is modifying her speeches to include talk about the common folk. I just wish I had confidence that she actually means any of it.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)I agree with you.
Personally I think she will pivot 180 once she gets office and put the US on a fire sale. I think within 3-4 years we will look like Greece.
I wish you the best of fortune, no matter how it goes!
Kōun no saikō no
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Seems like a waste of time when all I have to do is not vote for Hillary on Election Day.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)I mean, is modern progressivism solely about electing one person, or does it stand in solidarity with allies against the rightwing all out assault on our rights?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Hillary is simply a different flavored extension of the rightwing assault on our rights.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Labeling Bernie supporters such things won't get their votes if the time comes. If you think the Dem base will all of a sudden come together and sing Kumbaya with Hillary you're deluding yourself.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Lost badly because:
o incumbent
o good economy
o Vietnam War winding down (536k in 1968 vs only 24k in 1972)
o Cold War winding down (Détente; Reagan tried putting the genie back in the bottle, but could not)
o lost the votes of Moderate
Most of those points were lost on Democrats after the 49-1 loss. All they concentrate on, then and still now, is the loss of those Moderate voters. So the Party moved Right.
If we lose Moderate votes then we must be too Liberal.
If we lose Liberal votes then we must be too Conservative.
Same logic.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)If Hillary sets the standard for the Democratic party, then Progressives no longer have a party.
We can now argue about Hillary being Progressive or not, but that is a different discussion. You asked someone to explain why some people feel it is "Bernie or Bust". The answer is that Bernie is the only Progressive in the race.
H2O Man
(73,528 posts)I'll recommend the OP.
"Progressives" includes a span of people. There are progressives who are registered in the Democratic Party, and progressives among the Democratic Left. The vast majority of them support Bernie Sanders for president. Some on the far-left consider Bernie as too far to the right.
Progressives are joined by the majority of young adults. And there are numerous other groups supporting Bernie. who you've never heard of. No single one of them may have access to socio-political power, but united, they seem to be doing pretty good.
I would agree that most registered Democrats will vote in November. And I don't think there will be many Trump votes from DU, either. I do think it's important to note that Trump's influence has resulted in a real bump in voter participation. I do not think that one of the Democratic candidates has the ability to get that type of potential voter to the polls. More, I think that campaign wrote off the Democratic Left months ago.
I respect that you support Hillary Clinton. I enjoy reading your contributions to the DU:GDP discussion.