Like nominating Humphrey in '68, nominating HRC in '16 means telling the young to go to Hell.

[Ken Burch]

It means saying we are a party in which ideals are nothing, dreams are nothing, all that matters is cutting deals.

Even though nothing progressive can come from deals.

It will mean saying we want our party to be a place in which activists will never be welcome again, the poor will never matter again, and working people are "so pre-1981".

We will be a party of nothing but the "knowledge class" and the stockbrokers.

I know there are some people who call themselves progressives who support this candidate now(rather than just after the primary) and while I respect them, I'm mystified as to why they would reduce us to this.

It isn't possible to get progressive change in the future by settling for a corporate centrist in the present. If we put constraints on ourselves now, we'll never be able to remove those constraints later.

[daleanime]

1. K&R.....

[brooklynite]

2. Except that Humphrey didn't actually run in the Primaries (which were very limited in '68)

If Clinton wins because, you know, Democrats voted for her. the young are going to have to accept reality.

[virtualobserver]

4. they will accept reality....but you may not like that reality

[Fawke Em]

15. Psstt... little secret here. Independents get to vote in the general.

And they don't like Clinton.

[forest444]

39. Bingo.

Plus, she's a GOTV dream come true for the GOP. Millions of Republicans or Republican-leaners will get off their duffs to vote, who probably otherwise wouldn't, if they know her name's on the ballot.

Kiss Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania good bye if she's nominated. Possibly a few more.

[dhill926]

44. So theyll like Trump more…

And to be clear, no dog in the fight yet, except for the eventual Dem nominee.

[Jarqui]

53. Some of them will be turned off or disillusioned by the dishonesty

and deception Hillary has used to get those votes.

Young people tend to be more idealistic. They're getting an ugly lesson on politics they'll never forget and for some of them, they'll not forgive in this cycle.

If they do not come out and vote for Hillary, there is only one person to blame: Hillary.

[leveymg]

75. Just accept reality, and shut up. That worked well for Nixon.

And, it will do equally well to turn out the progressive vote in '16. Sure. Would make a hell of a bumper sticker, too.

Your statement captures much of what has been wrong with the Democratic establishment going back to Truman.

[JDPriestly]

78. Those who vote in the primaries for Hillary are telling the eager young Sanders supporters

that they are not wanted in the Democratic Party.

And the eager young Sanders supporters will stay home.

Sometimes it is wise to listen to the young people.

This is one of those times.

[vdogg]

79. The hell they are.

What bullshit. You don't get to tell me how to vote. My vote has nothing to do with what young people think. They are fully within their rights to vote for the candidate of their choosing just as I am within my rights. Their rights do not supersede mine and if they can't handle the fact that there are others within the party that strive for the same goals but differ on how to achieve them, then good riddance and I wish them best of luck in their future endeavors.

[Lizzie Poppet]

84. Let's turn that around, shall we?

If Sanders wins because, you know, Democrats voted for him, blacks are going to have to accept reality.

Doesn't sound so nice, does it? Might even be a little annoying, huh? Guess how your version sounds to the young?

[brooklynite]

85. Except that I'm prepared to accept and support and work for whomever the Democrats vote for...

...unlike, apparently, a lot of people here.

[LuvLoogie]

3. No. It's more like telling the young to eat their vegetables and

do their homework.

[Ken Burch]

22. And you say that in the assumption that HRC and her supporters are entitled to talk down.

Why do you feel that way? It's not like Bernie's campaign should never have happened.

[LuvLoogie]

25. Hey, it's your OP. Your analogy. Your syntax.

My perspective as an audience member to your drama.

Electing Hillary as our nominee means telling the young to go to hell? Whatever.

[PyaarRevolution]

64. Wrong.

Vegetables are known to be healthy and beneficial, the same can't be said for Hillary on the down ticket.

[LuvLoogie]

81. She's the only candidate supporting downticket state and local races and issues

with money and personnel.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/21/1473138/-Progressive-Praise-for-Hillary-Clinton-From-a-Bernie-Supporter

For those who have criticized Hillary Clinton on many issues, I’d point out that it was her campaign that made real entreaties to state parties and encouraged them to become more progressive in their platform and legislative approach. Items like the Missouri Non-Discrimination Act push in Missouri? While numerous Missouri Democrats favored, pushes by partners and support through elements like the Clinton campaign showed many that they would have support, all the way up the ladder...

...This is something that many in these areas haven’t seen in a while. Democrats have been too used to campaigns that said “don’t talk about this there, let’s not inject national into your state, etc.” and yet, when asked, at every turn, the Clinton campaign said yes. Repeatedly. To raise money for local candidates, to provide support for federal candidates, to help recruit federal candidates.

No matter who you endorse, this groundwork benefits all democrats, everywhere, including Bernie Sanders.

[coyote]

91. LOL!

[Hydra]

83. And what will we be getting for eating our peas?

Bushco policies? Kissinger advised plans? More dirty power?

[LuvLoogie]

87. More energy and clearer vision...

[Hoyt]

5. II voted for McGovern with the young. Do I need to explain what happened?

With that said, we need to do a lot for the young if for no other reason they'll be paying our Social Security and shoring up the economy.

[Ken Burch]

9. There was no one who'd have done better in '72.

Nixon had that one rigged no matter who we nominated. It's not as though we'd have won if only we'd chosen a "fuck the hippies" candidate.

HRC can't get any votes Bernie wouldn't get in the fall anyway. She has no strong appeal.

[Hoyt]

16. Well, I think Sanders is this generation's McGovern, Mondale, Carter II, Dukakis, Kerry. I'll still

vote for, and support him, but as a realist, I think it will end bad. If somehow he wins, he'll get nothing done. I guess his rants will be better than Trumps, assuming he wins.

[Ken Burch]

19. He's not McGovern. McGovern had no labor support, and was tripped up by the "social issues"

that HRC's supporters pretend only she cares about. Plus Bernie beats the Rethugs in most polls...McGovern never beat Nixon in a single poll.

The lesson of '72 was that dirty tricks work...NOT that we shouldn't ever nominate a progressive. No one to the right of any of the candidates you listed would have done better against the Republican candidate. And Carter in 1980 ran well to the right of the program he had run on in '76.

[senz]

30. Not one of those people had his fire, vision, steely determination and following.

So cool it with the lame comparisons, Hoyt.

[PyaarRevolution]

67. Nonsense.

He's not a WIMP like Carter especially and Kerry were. Carter had no real backbone, else he would've hired mercs like Ross Perot did to get our people out and screw Reagan out of the win. Additionally, he asked that pos Kissinger for advice. Kerry wimped out on a recount.
McGovern, far as I know, wasn't a wimp and I can't comment on Mondale or Dukakis as I didn't really see much of either in terms of the debates, especially Mondale.
Carter meant well from what I've heard but jeez what a softie.

[LW1977]

6. Letting Trump become President is like telling America to go to Hell

[Ken Burch]

13. I didn't say we should let Trump become president. n/t.

[senz]

31. That's why we should nominate Bernie. He can beat Trump.

[dana_b]

42. +1

[INdemo]

43. What you might find interesting are differenct articles about the early days of

Hitler and his rise to power. It is really scary as we watch the actions of Trump and other GOP candidates,,It is really scary.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/index.htm

[itsrobert]

7. So, abandon what the voters determined

and select Sanders instead? That would mean telling over half the voters to go to hell.

[Ken Burch]

11. The voters haven't finished determining yet. n/t.

[tkmorris]

29. Telling voters to go to hell is PRECISELY the function of Superdelegates

So I assume you are vehemently against those?

[senz]

32. + 100

[itsrobert]

33. True. Get rid of them.

Bernie seems to like them.

[tkmorris]

37. I don't know that Bernie likes them. Such would surprise me mildly

Good to know you think we'd be better off without them though. That's at least consistent.

[MADem]

45. Yes--those would be the ones that show up to vote, too. nt

[appalachiablue]

8. The CEO candidate just TCB now, then back to more status quo to suit the

Investor Class. And nada for workers, the middle class or the young and their futures, agreed.

This far right country must take a HARD LEFT, now.

[Chan790]

10. I think it's interesting that you're speaking of this today.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/poll-33-sanders-supporters-wouldnt-120220441.html

33% of Sanders supporters say they cannot see themselves voting for Clinton in November according to an NBCNews/WSJ poll out March 9. That's 1 in 3 that's willing to lose the White House rather than back the corporate centrist. It seems the opposite is true...given a choice between "settling" and seeing Democrats go down in flames in November, a sizeable minority would choose the latter...presumably hoping to regroup in 4 years and that this defeat will kill the Clinton center-right wing of the party.

I have to say, things look not-good if the future of the Democratic party seems willing to shank the present of the Democratic party because it doesn't listen to or respect them. We may be facing the metaphorical 40 years in the desert.

[Ken Burch]

18. I'm talking about the primaries, not the fall.

The primaries aren't over yet. And there's no non-right wing reason to want them over.

HRC represents the past of the Democratic party...the dead zone of the Nineties when being a Democratic presudent meant being twenty degrees to the right of center.

[Chan790]

20. ...and I'm talking about the consequences of it.

I don't see this going well for us if the party gives us a Clinton nomination and turns its back on the the same youth support they're counting on to keep Democrats ahead of the GOP in elections.

[Ken Burch]

24. I see where you're going with that. n/t.

[Peace Patriot]

34. YOU need to ask yourself WHY so many Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton.

Try this, for starters:

SUNDAY, MAR 13, 2016 03:04 AM PDT
Bill Clinton’s odious presidency: Thomas Frank on the real history of the ’90s
Welfare reform. NAFTA. The crime bill. Prisons. Aides wondered if Bill knew who he was. His legacy is sadly clear
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/13/bill_clintons_odious_presidency_thomas_frank_on_the_real_history_of_the_90s/

[BernieforPres2016]

60. Thanks for the link

That is a great column. I recommend that you originate a thread with it so more people see it.

[MADem]

46. You know, if they can't, well, then they can't.

They'll reap what THEY sow.

If Sanders wins the nom, I'll vote for him. I will show up at the polls and fill in the little oval next to his name. Will I be thrilled to vote for him? NO. I think he means well but he's not ready for the Big Chair.

But I wouldn't "take my ball and go home." Why? Because I am not childish nor irresponsible. And I'm not stupid, either.

And if a group of Bernie or Busters (or GOP people DISGUISED as Bernie or Busters) wants to organize a boycott that will, at the end of the day, produce an end result to put a Cruz or a Trump in the Oval Office, well, they're the ones who will reap what they sow for a generation or more. Enjoy!

[Scootaloo]

76. Yeah, it can't be that your candidate is flawed and turns people off from voting for her

It's gotta be that those people are stupid evil awful people who just don't understand how important it is to vote against their self-interest in order to avoid voting against their self-interest.

[dflprincess]

12. Poor Hubert

if only he had never agreed to be LBJ's VP or had had the will to split with Johnson on the war long before he finally did.

He would have been a better president than Nixon and no doubt continued and expanded the Great Society programs.

[Ken Burch]

14. Well yeah, obviously. n/t.

[MADem]

49. If you think it took money and influence to get elected now, it was even worse then.

The amounts weren't as obscene, but you needed way more scratch than the average schmuck had--and it was easier to bribe people because there weren't as many electronic transmissions of funds and everyone did end runs around the rules.

If you weren't rich -- or a Vice President FIRST -- you had no hope of becoming POTUS. HHH was a pharmacist or something--he had no big bucks. He was a progressive, though (an anti communist, but that was popular back in the day), a civil rights leader, and he did believe that loyalty was important. LBJ should have given him the High Sign to break with him -- HHH wasn't going to do it on his own because he had too much integrity. He was between the rock and that hard place.

He was dead in ten scant years after that campaign, from cancer--might have taken him sooner had he won, but we'll never know.

[H2O Man]

17. Very interesting, Ken.

I like that this OP challenges one to think .....

People my age are noticing a number of curious, usually unappealing similarities between this season, and 1968. These are, in my opinion, warning signs -- flashing red lights, so to speak, telling us to pay mighty close attention.

I really like this OP/thread. Thank you!

Recommended.

[democrattotheend]

21. If Hillary wins the majority of the pledged delegates, it won't be like 1968

But if Bernie ends up with a majority of pledged delegates and she gets the nomination based on the superdelegates it will be.

[Ken Burch]

23. Good point. n/t.

[zeemike]

63. The real similarity is the running an establishment candidate

At a time in history when the people want real change.
But if the superdelagates chose HRC against the will of the people it will damage the party even more. And I am convinced it will turn out the same as 68 did.

[democrattotheend]

82. But if she wins the pledged delegates, not enough want change

And it would not be right for the super delegates to override that barring extraordinary circumstances.

[warrprayer]

26. K&R

Well said.

[senz]

27. Worse. It means telling workers, the environment, & democracy to GTH

1968 was pre-Reagan. America, for all its problems and growing pains, was not yet a corporatocracy.

1968 was a time of innocence compared to now. The stakes are much higher this time.

[Peace Patriot]

36. You're damned right--like the very habitability of our Planet!

Believe me, that is on the minds of the young in a very big way! And they know that Clinton will compromise away the very future of the Earth, to keep her fossil fuel and other transglobal donors happy. They also know that Sanders is not kidding--not lying, not triangulating, not flip-flopping--when he says that it is THE MORAL IMPERATIVE OF OUR ERA to stop climate change with pro-active and swift action on renewable energy.

The young may find other ways to save their very future habitation of Earth, but they are quite right to believe that a U.S. President passionately committed to that goal, as a moral imperative, will move things along faster. The "bully pulpit" is critically needed! And a president willing to kick butt in Congress, and one who knows all the in's and out's of Congress, is also critically needed. And mobilizing the entire country is critically needed. Who can do that? Not Clinton. Who wants to do that? Not Clinton. She's. Stuck. In. The. Past.

[marions ghost]

86. +++++

Voting for Bernie is a gift to the children born in 2050.

[Kip Humphrey]

28. They had no bold ideas in '68. Everyone with bold ideas had been blown away.

Fear set in instead...

[JohnnyLib2]

35. Some 30,000 troop deaths, a very active draft--

"Motivation" for the young in 1968 was acutely different than this year. I just can't see the comparison with Bernie's call for revolution.

[JoeyT]

38. Well, narrowing their base as much as possible worked well for Republicans,

let's see how it works for Democrats. I mean, sure the Republicans have the older vote pretty much locked up, but how much could that matter?

(In case it isn't readily apparent, this is 100% sarcasm.)

[90-percent]

40. 2016 emporers new clothes

found elsewhere on DU and shopping it around because it's concise, precise, from my extent of correct knowledge, pretty spot on and a rather easy read on to of it. cuz its the internet, is it mostly true and real? Matches my POV for sure.



https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/01/05/the-corporate-capture-of-the-united-states/

-90%

[StevieM]

41. Yeah, isn't it horrible that we nominated a guy who was advocating for civil rights since the 1940s?

Humphrey stood for the Great Society, just like LBJ did. He wasn't a Carter-style conservative, or even a Bill Clinton-style New Democrat. And he would have gotten us out of Vietnam a hell of a lot sooner.

If Hillary gets the nomination it will be because she got more votes and delegates than Sanders. And she won't have gotten them by drowning him in money, since Sanders outraised and outspent her. So when you say "the party" what you mean is a majority of Democratic voters.

Does the majority owe it to the minority to nominate the candidate they prefer? Wouldn't it be just as easy to say that if Sanders is nominated then that means that Clinton voters were told to "go to Hell?"

Given that this country has historically been unwilling to vote for many candidates simply because they were identified as liberal, it isn't unreasonably to suggest that America isn't ready to elect a man who labels himself a socialist. Bernie will get my vote if nominated, but I have concerns that the Socialist label will drag him down. 12-20 years from now that might not be the case, but for now I think it is. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see it as an insane conclusion.

There are only two candidates in the race. To say I can't vote for Clinton means that I have to vote for Sanders. Maybe I just don't want to do that. I hardly see how that means I'm telling anyone to go to hell.

As for why electing a Democrat is so important, it is because he or she will appoint 3 liberals to the Supreme Court and lock up the court for a generation.

Let's say Hillary is elected without your vote. Would you support a challenge to a sitting Democratic president in a primary?

I assume your answer is yes. Which is fine. My point is that you can still do that. You can vote for Clinton, if she's nominated, in the 2016 General Election, and vote against her in the 2020 Democratic Primaries.

[Ken Burch]

59. I will personally vote for HRC in the fall.

And I didn't say electing a Democrat wasn't important. But it's always going to be easier to nominate the Democrat who actually inspires enthusiasm. Sometimes it seems like HRC doesn't WANT anyone to feel enthusiasm and passion about this election.

[Le Taz Hot]

47. This is shaping up EXACTLY like 1968.

[tinrobot]

51. There were some very tragic assasinations in 1968

I certainly hope this year isn't EXACTLY like 1968.

[Le Taz Hot]

55. I was speaking of Chicago and what led up to it.

[tinrobot]

66. In that case, the shoe is on the other foot.

The GOP is now the party having to deal with protests and disarray.

[Le Taz Hot]

70. Wow!

Clueless.

<flush>

[tinrobot]

73. You still haven't told us how this is EXACTLY like 1968

How is Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and 10,000 other protesters getting maced by police EXACTLY like the situation a few days ago?

[mythology]

48. What utter trash

I know this is hard for you to accept, but at this point, Clinton is ahead in the primary vote and in delegates. Meaning that as of the race now, the Democratic party is saying that as a whole, it prefers Clinton to Sanders.

And if nothing progressive can come from deals, please explain how Social Security expanded? Roosevelt cut a deal so it didn't cover blacks. Please explain how the right to vote expanded considering the 3/5ths compromise and women being barred from voting and the removal of property requirements. Explain how LBJ got the 1957 Civil Rights bill passed with support from both the Civil Rights movement and the Southern segregationists, if it wasn't deal making? And then we had the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. Progressive change often comes in steps, even if it doesn't fit your world view.

[MADem]

50. Aw, stop making such utter....SENSE!!! +1000! nt

[Chicago1980]

52. "nominating HRC in '16 means telling the young to go to Hell."

That's not what it means at all and the fact that you think that is pretty say.

Nominating HRC means that she got more votes and or delegates than her opponent.

Just because something doesn't go or someone doesn't vote exactly your way doesn't mean they're putting you down.

The statement made was pretty immature and selfish. Who do you think you are exactly?

What makes you think that all young people think or vote as you?

People have different feelings abut different candidates, but we're all in this together.

Just because your type of progressive is an attempt to be purist doesn't mean that those who vote for HRC aren't progressive.

Your statement was condescending and offensive.

Who made you the goddamn prince of progressiveness?

[Carlo Marx]

54. The Democratic Party has yet to vote.

So far, the conservative Dixie states have front loaded the early primaries, a policy enacted decades ago to harm liberal democrats. Only 4 northern liberal states and none of the western liberal states have had a chance to vote. The New Deal, the Civil Rights and the environmental movements in no way resemble the technocratic splicing of bureaucratic hairs Hillary proposes. They were fueled by mass civic engagement.

[lovemydog]

56. I've been thinking about this more this evening,

after watching the democratic town hall. While I wouldn't state it as strongly as you do I think you and Sanders make very good points here. Sanders made a strong case that his presidential campaign attracts a large numbers and that he's not only beating Trump in the polls, he's beating her by a larger margin than Hillary. Also though, Clinton makes a good case that she's getting more voters in the democratic party and has gotten more votes than anyone thus far.

As you probably know I'm still undecided but I'm leaning Sanders now (after going from Sanders to Clinton and back). I believe the democratic party needs to open up way more to young people and in turn they and all of us will benefit from their involvement in progressive politics. I don't vote until June and will vote in the primaries and the general. Like the guy this evening who asked the question to both candidates, I want to stop republicans from gaining the white house. I also think both Sanders and Clinton would make a fine president.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

57. That's like my claiming, nominating bernie is like asking African americans to got to hell

even though that demographic (especially middle aged AA's) are a solid democratic bloc and one we depend on every election to win any damn thing at all.

[Ken Burch]

61. No it isn't. Bernie never ran a campaign that was hostile to AA's or dismissed AA concerns.

The AA vote will not be overwhelmingly for HRC in Illinois, Ohio, or Missouri. HRC has nothing to offer AA voters in those states.

In Illinois, HRC is the candidate if Rahm Emanuel, and she has never disavowed him or called for his resignation.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

62. And Hillary is not running an anti young people campaign either.

So no your point still makes no sense.

[tinrobot]

65. If a lot of young people vote for Bernie, he'll win. Simple as that.

That's how our current primary system works.

That system was the result of 1968, where Humphrey came in through a brokered convention.

[Carlo Marx]

68. The Clinton strategy is what drives the base insane.

Using Cheap republican talking points to savage single payer health care and tuition free college, the vitriolic smears disparaging Sanders civil rights record, calling him and his voters sexist, referencing the safety net as '"free stuff"--the dirty politics hell bent on getting rid of Bernie Sanders really turns people off.

[Carlo Marx]

69. The Clinton record of selling out working people in favor of their rich donors also sucks.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

71. They're all for social change as long as we don't marry their daughters.

[Onlooker]

72. Who do you prefer, McGovern or Humphrey?

McGovern was the liberal youth candidate and suffered the worst loss in US history. Humphrey was the moderate Democrat and lost to Nixon as well, though the race was closer. But, the important thing is that Trump is not Nixon, Sanders is not McGovern, and Hillary is not Humphrey.

If the dynamics of the 1960s play in the election, then the Democrats will lose either way. But, comparing these candidates and these times to to that era is completely off base.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. In '68 the party bosses gave us Humphrey and we got Nixon.

[Betty Karlson]

77. Albright Afterlife Expectancy (tm) will look into the matter.

O wait, the conclusion has already been drawn. Special place in Hell already reserved. Extra hot for those who (as per sex-shaming Steinem) sleep with millennial boys.

[PatrickforO]

80. I agree with that last sentence.

The establishment is trying to tell us that this corporate candidate will eventually give us progressive change is little more than obfuscation.

I'm mindful of what King said from Birmingham Jail. Why wait if later means never?

Vote Bernie!

[LisaM]

88. I am pretty sure all of us were once young and idealistic....

And good for us then, and good for those who are now. While I disagree in some sense that voting for the older, male candidate expresses the most idealistic choice this election cycle, how about giving newcomers the benefit of the doubt? I have faith that those on the losing side - whichever it is - can brush themselves off and try again.

[G_j]

89. Who do you mean?

newcomers?

[LisaM]

90. First time voters.

Newcomers to the process.