2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumtens of thousands of people who said they were Democrats, but really weren't, will leave the
Democratic party after the primaries
riversedge
(70,218 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Yay Hillary! She can win elections without voters she's so awesome.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)It's not about the NUMBER of votes you get, it is about the QUALITY of votes you get.
True, you might not be elected, but you still have integrity.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)You can dis large groups of voters all you want, just don't expect to win any elections.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)we'll have to wait and see how much longer I survive this political climate. If we finish the primary and the only thing the democratic 'leadership' is willing to fight is me, then it just wouldn't make much sense to stay would it? But you'll only hear what you want to, so make sure to have a lovely day.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)It sure makes sense for you to vote for any Democrat ...and help keep the evil ones out of power...and I mean Republicans when I say evil.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)who try to scare their voters?
Vinca
(50,271 posts)EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)We have a winner
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Vinca
(50,271 posts)He had the best platform ever, but turned out to be just your typical bait and switch candidate. The reason he had a long list of accomplishments was that he signed all the GOP bills. I'm afraid we might see history repeat itself.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)That was very insightful.
brush
(53,778 posts)Excuse me but that's not much time to have built relationships and gained enough influence to overthrow the whole thing.
Maybe he should have joined a long time ago instead of it seeming like he only joined to use the Democratic infrastructure to run for president.
And to those who only joined to vote for Sanders, well you weren't dems before so if you leave . . .
Jarqui
(10,125 posts)the Democratic vote and in doing so, elect a Republican.
That's why he joined. I really don't think that's very evil.
He's really been an independent his whole political life. Arguably, he still is. But he would not allow that to significantly improve the Republicans chances of winning the White House.
if Trump and Clinton were the two nominees, Bernie may well have won that contest as a independent.
artislife
(9,497 posts)You are not helping them do that when you bring in facts.
hedda_foil
(16,374 posts)Not only that , but he is so trusted and respected by our Congressional leaders that they gave him the senior post on the all-important budget committee. In the last Congress, when Dems still held the majority, he was appointed by Democratic Senate leaders to the position of Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. After the Dems lost the Senate in 2014, he became the committee's Ranking Member.
Are you saying that Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer didn't know his politics? Or are you implying that they didn't care about the party's budget priorities? Or could it just be that they trusted his loyalty and his negotiating skill to get the best budget deals possible?
brush
(53,778 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)And they intend for her to win by any means.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)Couldn't find enough to fill the Precinct chairs.
haven't seen a local Democrat candidate in four years.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Either they'll go indy or become like the unemployed who are no longer counted in official unemployment numbers. IOW, they just won't show up to vote.
Svafa
(594 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)I rest my case.
George II
(67,782 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)If the party had given them a reason to stay.
Yeah, but who needs voters right? This is an election! Voters don't matter.
See my post #11
George II
(67,782 posts)...committee set up, and it still says "Independent".
Before someone comes out and says that's the way Vermont is, his fellow Senator, a Democrat, still shows up on record as being a Democrat.
Here are the details:
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/candcmte_info.shtml
S4VT00033 SANDERS, BERNARD 2016 BURLINGTON VT INDEPENDENT S - SENATE
P60007168 SANDERS, BERNARD 2016 BURLINGTON VT DEMOCRATIC PARTY P - PRESIDENTIAL
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/candcmte_info.shtml
S4VT00017 LEAHY, PATRICK J 2016 MONTPELIER VT DEMOCRATIC PARTY S - SENATE
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)There are 2 possible outcomes of this primary.
1. The Democratic Party demonstrates it is capable of supporting true progressive positions when given the opportunity to do so successfully, and we have Democratic presidential nominee Sanders.
2. The Democratic Party decides it prefers the corporatist status quo... the very status quo that has kept the most progressive most principled Senator in the United States out of the party until now. And he will return to his Independent status along with all the progressive voting population that were willing to follow him in and give the party a chance.
And you appear to be sneering at the reality of option 2 as if you want it to happen... because who needs progressive voters in the Democratic Party right?
George II
(67,782 posts)....and I like what we're seeing so far.
Unfortunately some don't "get the significance" of our democracy, where the will of the people is of utmost importance.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...the idea of driving away progressive voters and repellng them from the Democratic Party?
You're in the "good riddance" camp along with so many other I've seen posting here, cheering for shrinking the party instead of growing it?
Or is it just that you prefer it grow in the other direction?
treestar
(82,383 posts)There are other voters out there. They are more numerous than the crowd that wants Bernie or Bust.
The number of Democratic voters who want Hillary is greater than the number who want Bernie and they are going to stay Dem and vote that way in the GE. Why don't those voters matter?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Scan the forums. Not hard to find them if you look.
.The number of Democratic voters who want Hillary is greater than the number who want Bernie and they are going to stay Dem and vote that way in the GE. Why don't those voters matter?
Nobody is saying good riddance to any of them. Because all those voters would also vote for nominee Sanders. Because they have no reason not to.
The same argument does not apply in reverse. That's the simple reality of the situation. Sanders brings in additional voters Clinton does not. And not just any additional voters, progressive voters. Voters that shift the party the way we are all supposed to want it to go.
And the Clinton camp appears dead set on stringing up barbed wire and no trespassing signs to keep them out.
treestar
(82,383 posts)the number of Bernie voters (some of them will vote Hillary in GE too) is not greater than the number of other non-Democratic voters. those other voters will at least consider Hillary whereas Sanders or Bust people will not. Those others seem more persuadable.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And who are these other voters? The people who aren't currently in the party because it's been too far left for them before now? Who?
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)Everyone else is a Turd Way, low info voter.
Purity of essence!
Purity of essence!
YCHDT
(962 posts)mcar
(42,331 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...is to attract voters TO your party, right? Or are you Clinton supporters really so far gone that you think the entire point of this exercise is to glorify Hillary?
yodermon
(6,143 posts)yeah, go with that.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)And no, we are punching the faux-Dem libertarians, actually. At least that is who I like punching the most
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...are obviously the REAL fake liberals in all of this.
How fucking clueless can you be? I mean just how deep in the sand are you able to jam your head?
e.g.
Why are big-shot liberal economists hippie-punching Bernie Sanders?
http://theweek.com/articles/606698/why-are-bigshot-liberal-economists-hippiepunching-bernie-sanders
And look, i think it's fair game to lambaste anyone on this board, or anyone *individually* that you know, who claims they won't vote for Hillary out of spite.
BUT if it turns out to be a real movement of any significant numbers, which could actually throw the election to Trump, then we need a more inclusive approach besides threats and guilt-tripping.
Bernie is attracting some independents... how can Hillary keep them?
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)That is a really good question, actually. It is very, very likely that she will be the nominee. Not a done deal, but very probable. So how do we keep the indys and college students engaged through what will be an intense period of disappointment?
This is where the idea of coalitions comes into play. The Sanders coalition needs to figure out how to stay engaged and continue to push Clinton on their issues. And Sanders himself will be key. He is a better activist than he is a politician, so I trust that he will be able to exploit the moment to get his issues front and center with the more traditional party. But he will totally fail at that if his people do not show up to vote. So pretty sure he will be focused on the GOTV side of the game too. And that will help.
artislife
(9,497 posts)So it is hillary herself along with her surrogates and supporters.
Good luck with that.
Svafa
(594 posts)such as myself are secret libertarians highly offensive. (Yes, to me, "libertarian" is a pejorative word.) Anyone who knows me personally would laugh their ass off at the idea of me being a libertarian. It's quite the opposite actually: the Democratic party has made a sharp turn toward the right, and I am not going down with it.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)was talking about. I just said that I thought that many who were threatening to leave were more libertarian than anything. That is who *I* assumed the OP was talking about. We could ask
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)yardwork
(61,608 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Hillary's "digital outreach strategy."
Spreading her special brand of sunshine and rainbows all across the Internet!
Do her digital supporters realize that they've turned so many people off from the Clinton camp, that they wouldn't vote for her if they were paid to do so?
They are horrible messengers and mouthpieces for her. Unless of course, their goal it to foment hatred. If that's the case, then they're right on target.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Good luck.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)from which you can continue to fail to win general elections.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)You've already made it clear you need neither their support nor their votes.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)party isn't bleeding members who Are long time Dems....I'd think the leadership might want to retain newbies...unless they really aren't trying to rebuild the party after 900+ lost seats.
amborin
(16,631 posts)the nominee
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)What do you actually care about?
George II
(67,782 posts)....who exactly are to asking?
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)to state what they really care about. Since they don't seem to care that large parts of the Democratic Party have been disenfranchised by this process, by the DNC activities, by the debate schedule (since remedied slightly through Bernie's success, persistence, and negotiating skills}. by activities like leaving Bernie's name off of the sample ballot in Cook Country, by debates being populated not with local interested Democrats but with hand-picked DNC plants. They don't apparently care about that or think it's right that people might be pissed off enough by a corrupt and rigged primary system to sit this election out or vote another way. And then to call these people non-Democrats or to just foolishly assume they are.
Where are the "Democratic" credentials of those making such claims? What do they actually believe in?
Because the beliefs that seem to be evidence by so many on this site, including supporting more needless wars, less regulation of banks, possible invasions of social services like Social Security, changing of the laws re Freedom of Choice, seem highly suspect in a site promoting Democratic candidates and values.
I am someone who steadfastly believes in the New Deal, and the economic theories that supported it. The fact that current Democrats seem so beholden to the kind of theories that supported Ronald Reagan through the Chicago School of Economics and through the DLC and the Third Way is a big, big problem for me. Does that mean I am not a "Democrat" or they are not, or we can't get along, or the Democratic Party has outlived its usefulness or is in line for a massive realignment or some kind of big split? I think we've got massive fences to mend and philosophical hurdles to jump, and I hope we can do it.
For me, the only direction, however, is the more Progressive one. We've been flogging this Republican lite for far too long, and it simply is not working.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I quite like Hillary, and she aligns with my political beliefs well, so that is just a plus. But I would happily vote for a ham sandwich over Trump, Cruz, or any of the idiots in the clown car.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)(With the obvious disclaimer that I can't speak for still_one):
Most Sanders supporters desperately want to believe that the disagreement is primarily about ends - if they can tell themselves that Clinton supporters don't care about things like reducing poverty and inequality, protecting abortion rights, mitigating climate change, decreasing the number of wars in the world, and so on, then that makes their opponents the Bad guys and them the Good guys.
But the truth is that virtually everyone supporting Clinton *does* care about those ends, they just disagree about the means to work towards them. You'll notice that I said "reducing", "mitigating", "decreasing" rather than "stopping" or "eliminating" - like most people who prefer Clinton to Sanders, I think that evolution is much more likely to do good than attempting a revolution that is almost certain to fail.
If you base your beliefs about Clinton's politics and views on what you read on DU, you'll probably fairly quickly come to believe that Clinton doesn't support those ends. To be frank, I think this says more about DU being a faith-based rather than an evidence based community than it does about Clinton. But even if the mud-slinging DU majority were right about her and I were wrong, it should be obvious that most of her supporters *believe* that she does, even if they're wrong, and support her for that reason.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It takes faith to think Clinton believes anything that comes out of her mouth since she has so often contradicted herself.
Hillary takes a back seat to no one in her progressive credentials yet pleads guilty to being kind of moderate and center.
Hard working white people know a dog whistle when they hear it, I'm not kidding maddie.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)Autumn
(45,084 posts)after I caucused for Bernie and he won here in CO. Now I've always been a Democrat, never missed an election and voted straight Dem every single time and will continue to vote for the Dems, just as Bernie has always caucused with them to get their agenda passed.
Are we sure I've never been a Democrat? Damn.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Never said I was a Democrat...
bvf
(6,604 posts)"Democrat party," because, speaking as a lifelong Democrat, I think that's exactly how your sentiment reads.
Coincidence
(98 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)in my state, By the way, the the real world effect, Good.
Rs had the same exact attitude.
All I can do is smile.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)I've been a registered Dem forever, but I have to say I can't see a big deal of difference accomplished by sending in a piece of paper, or not. So what? A voter is a voter.
My beef is with other (supposedly) registered Dems. Our establishment candidates, potential and elected, are not democratic -- not big "D" or little "d".
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)How does that work with "weren't really"?
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Everyone I know who is angry at the DNC and considering leaving have been registered Dems their entire lives; their family members are proud Democrats.
I don't know where you guys come up with this stuff.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)and wasting their votes on democrats in an elaborate ruse. The world changes, people change. Deal.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)with JFK was just to fool everyone.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)But indeed: Third Way has overstayed its welcome in the party. I'd welcome some variety in the party leadership. If that means that a couple of corporation-cuddlers have to slam the door on their way out, so be it.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Where will the goalposts move this time...?
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)presidency.
jillan
(39,451 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Democrats since I was old enough to vote and will vote for Democrats in the future, the Republican party does not share my same beliefs.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)and join it.
delrem
(9,688 posts)It's obviously a "call out", but it makes no sense.
Look, still_one, you are as much a faker as any of these "tens of thousands" that you speak of, because you haven't got shit.
Your OP is pure noise.