2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI don't want the young driven away again.
It happened after 1972, when McGovern supporters(who were blameless for the loss, since it was caused by Nixon's dirty tricks and the China trip)were purged. It happened between 1988 and 1992, when the Rainbow Coalition was silenced.
Nothing good ever comes of driving the idealists and the dreamers away.
HRC may win the nomination, but she can't win in the fall if you treat those who supported Bernie like they had no right to have a say and like Bernie should never have run.
The traditional pattern of the establishment crushing the insurgents has to stop. It never does this party any good and it can't lead to victory in the fall.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They're with us on the issues.
What I'm saying is that, if she does win, she can't just demand that everyone get in line. Your side needs to so some dialog here.
A good start would be admitting that Bernie never deserved to be attacked on race. I assume you'd go along with that.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"The voters who backed HRC did so because they believed the lie that she's the only electable Dem."
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And the targeting her campaign did on Bernie's commitment to anti-racism was never justified. Bernie addressed every concern that was raised and did so as quickly as possible.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"The voters who backed HRC did so because they believed the lie that she's the only electable Dem."
If you are going to continue with multiple ops in the same vein each day, I suggest you don't blatantly veer into the exact territory you are railing against.
Then again, nothing you say would stop me from voting for Sanders if he gets the nomination. I'm just not that petty.
stellanoir
(14,881 posts)That *was* the story that the media foisted on the masses & it's thoroughly plausible that some agreed with that perspective.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"The voters who backed HRC did so because they believed the lie that she's the only electable Dem."
I agree with you about the narrative built. It doesn't make that claim any more honest. The way you worded that did make me smile.
stellanoir
(14,881 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:34 PM - Edit history (1)
"electability" is kinda subjective.
So veracity can't really be absolutely conclusive until someone actually wins an election.
So I always think that narrative is vacuous no matter whom is declared to be so.
Will bet that drumpf's minions are convinced that he is electable.
There's really no accounting or formula for mutually shared consensual appeal.
Pleased to inspire a smile.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I like her and always will.
You do not speak for me or my fellow HRC supporters.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You can't be a hawk and do anything humane or progressive at home.
And there's no reason for us to be hawkish as a country anymore, anyway.
The last fourteen years have proven that US intervention in the Middle East is pointless.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The big difference is, Bernie will actually try to make gains.
One thing HRC could do would be to vow to sign anything Bernie and our movement can get through Congress.
That would make a big difference.
Also, she could apologize for ever praising Kissinger, since there is no excuse for any Dem to ever praise a war criminal. We'd have re-established relations with China in the Seventies even if Kissinger and Nixon hadn't overthrown Allende and bombed Cambodia back to the Stone Age.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He was a disaster for this country and the world. And nobody who still agrees with anything the guy did would ever vote Democratic again.
No one who cares about workers and the poor and LGBTQ people and choice thinks we were right to turn Chile into a fascist dictatorship.
Nor do they think we were right to abet the overthrow of democracy in Honduras in 2009.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)That we follow through with shit like Libya and Iraq.
Btw, as a fellow member of the GLBT community, do you think that the TPP has any protections for us or workers? Trust me when I say Hillary will pivot back on that.
She will also pivot back on Net Neutrality because Comcast doesn't like we get REAL news from outlets like RT America, FSTV and Al Jazeera America. They will try to block or impede our access to Wikileaks, Democracy Now, the Intercept, Der Spiegel, the Guardian, etc.
There's a reason why most of us who stream most of our news or watch outside the MSM bubble support Bernie, we've heard his COMPLETE message and we prefer it to Hillary. Also, we know that even outside politics, especially on the economy, they're full of crap. Listen to "Boom Bust" and "The Keiser Report" on RT about the economy.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Lying to the president, and are beginning to look like she dabbled in some form of shady arms dealing in conjunction with the Clinton Foundation.
I have thoughtfully detaled why I'm supporting Clunton in the primary. The claim they just made wasn't a part of it. Ok. Maybe a very small part. Lol
Codeine
(25,586 posts)I support Clinton because I believe Sanders, while a good and honorable man with an ideology almost identical to my own, is temperamentally and intellectually unsuited to the highest executive office in the land.
Do I think he's "good" enough? God yes. He's probably the most "good" man to run for the presidency in my lifetime.
I don't, however, believe he's savvy enough, skilled enough, or smart enough to deal effectively with the job. 
YMMV.
djean111
(14,255 posts)So - votes for Trump, or stay home. They don't respond to the scary stuff. They are the ones who get sent to fight, who have the crushing college loans, etc.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)54-19
ttp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/14/poll-millennials-clinton-sanders-trump-president/81612520/?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-K5y.pcWK.Iuodxz4ekvXWA
No need to worry.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie is the only candidate who cares about workers and the poor. Your candidate is a liberal only on issues that are safe and non-threatening. They are worthwhile things, but none of them are transformative.
Doesn't it bother you, if nothing else, that her foreign policy experience is mainly about being really eager to get into lots of wars?
hack89
(39,171 posts)being young does not mean you are special and your ideas deserve special consideration and coddling.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)treating Bernie's campaign as if it were a Republican conspiracy when it never was.
It was the attitude that HRC's path to the nomination should never have faced any opposition at all.
hack89
(39,171 posts)in this thread you are basically saying that HRC supporters are backing a war mongering neo-con and support her only because they are not smart enough to see past the lies.
But that is not "talking down" HRC supporters in your eyes I guess.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That they see her contradictions, but they are willing to tolerate them because of "the Court, the Court, the Court" and all that.
I'll support HRC in the fall because she's slightly progressive on some domestic issues...but what else would you call her foreign policy views but militarist?
She still thinks war can be progressive...that somehow, it can actually help women.
The only decent view of war is that it is, on extremely rare occasions, an unavoidable tragedy which can't have any outcomes anyone could possibly celebrate.
There's nothing positive we can ever do militarily in the Middle East. Or in Ukraine.
hack89
(39,171 posts)if young people want to participate they need to understand there are no safe zones and people will say upsetting things about their candidate. They are not special.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)No one is entitled to hand pick a president in violation of the democratic will of the majority, whether young or just plain angry. Clearly millenials have no problem voting for Clinton in the general. You've been on a vendetta against Clinton since I joined this site over three years ago. It's obvious from your comments above that you aren't concerned about the issues enough to even bother looking at her policy proposals. Unions have endorsed Clinton. Clearly they see her as the best candidate to advance their interests. They speak for their interests, not you.
Bernie never advanced an alternative foreign policy. He didn't care enough to even engage substantively in the subject or even assemble a foreign policy team. As much as people like me might wish for a less hawkish foreign policy, no foreign policy is not a plausible alternative. I rather have someone who has some understanding around the world. It's too important to leave to someone who doesn't even care to engage with that aspect of the job of president.
Then there is the fact that his entire talking point about "not having a super pac" proved to be empty rhetoric. Staffers who just left his campaign are working for one in Alaska that started a year ago!. http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/ By the way, that's illegal, as were the $23 million in excess campaign contributions that went to his affiliated pac and his campaign, prompting a series of FEC inquiries (middle and end of Feb).
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?_r=4
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
And again. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80999298/
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/26/feds-flag-bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80985898/
That's more violations that any candidate in US history. You fell for it hook, line and sinker, all because you despise one woman who seeks to be president, on a platform to the left of any General Election candidate in thirty to forty years. Oh, the party has gone to the "right." Nonsense. Her policy positions show the very opposite. That is the doing of the American people. They have made clear to her what they want and she has listened, which is in fact the responsibility of elected representatives.
The chorus of cries against the "establishment" just so happens to correspond to the presidency of a black man and the first woman as a serious contender for the presidency. Voters who want "anti-establishment" have Trump as an option. Like Bernie, he hearkens back to a "great" American past, that just happens to correspond to a period when the majority were denied civil rights or economic opportunity. Unlike Bernie, his appeal is brazenly racist. That may be partly why independents and even some Democrats have crossed over to support him in larger numbers. Polling demonstrates that it is not the poorest Americans who are most angry but rather whites, even those far more prosperous than the majority; they see themselves as having lost out in comparison to the rest of society.
Voters will have a stark choice in the general election. Trump stands for everything that Clinton doesn't. She Clinton doesn't believe the white male bourgeoisie deserves more than the rest. She doesn't seek to restore them to what they see as her rightful place atop the capitalist world order, during the great years of American empire that ensured their comfort along with the subjugation of the majority at home and abroad.
The irony of decrying American foreign policy while also lamenting the decline of the middle class is that American prosperity was secured through coups and massive land grabs that maintained access to national resources for US corporations, whether American Sugar, United Fruit (La Fruteria in 100 Years of Solitude), ITT, or Kennecott and Anaconda Copper. An entire theory of economic inequality was developed around that geopolitical relationship: Dependency theory. People who have more than 99% of the world's population complain about how exploited they are because a few billionaires have even more, with no concept of how their lifestyle is made possible by horrific exploitation around the globe.
I see the same people who go on about corporatist this and that talking about their wardrobe of couture gowns, four bathroom homes, and how exploitative intern salaries of $70k a year are, like they can't imagine getting by on so little. It astounds me. I have been insulted about my so-called alliance with the rich by people who have never been depended on food stamps or welfare in their lives, who didn't grow up surrounded by drug dealing and prostitution, and have no idea what it's like to be poor. I know that isn't every Bernie supporter, not by a long margin. But I resent the construct of the 99% since it empowers those in the top 20% to pretend like their experiences have anything in common with people at the bottom. I've been in the very bottom 5% (US, not global) and in the 50%-55%, and the difference is monumental, completely life changing.
If you haven't yet voted in the primary, no one is stopping you from doing so. Bush, Fiorina, and O'Malley all got votes on Tuesday. I myself voted for Dean even after Kerry was the only one in the race. Your vote is your own, but it is only one vote. No one owes you, or your supposed concern for millenials, their vote. Democracy. One person, one vote. Deal with it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I realize there is a good chance that HRC will get nominated. We all do. We're not delusional.
But she needs to handle that nomination, if she does get it, differently than the nominees we get usually do.
The rigid control freakery will need to be abandoned, and she will need to make it clear that, unlike the way things were handled in Bill's era, the progressive wing of the party will not be left out in the cold.
The whole "you lost, get over it, get in line" thing needs to stop. It needs to be replaced by dialog and major platform concessions.
And I agree with you about the whole Dependency Theory thing. I'm not the one who is supporting a candidate who abetted a coup in Honduras in Dependency Theory. Nor the one who doesn't care that the candidate they support sees Henry Kissinger as an honorable foreign policy advisor. That's the same Henry Kissinger who engineered the coup in Chile. You have never once, on this board, condemned HRC for praising that monster. You should.
Most people who back Bernie are working-class. So there are a handful of rich ones. So what? Why does that even matter? What matters is that the handful of rich folks who do are supporting the people against their own class. They get it. They have that Bobby Kennedy vision of life.
At the very least, HRC has an obligation not to move to the right on anything once nominated. It never gains us votes in the fall when our nominees do do that, and there is no reason we should ever campaign on the assumption that most of the country wants something more conservative than most Dems want.
Bernie has never harkened back to a racist past. What he wants is the best of the FDR tradition combined with the values of the freedom movement. The small gains made against racism since 1964 do not mean the losses for all working people in the same time somehow don't matter. It is those losses, more than anything else, that have fed the white backlash. The main thing that keeps grassroots bigotry alive in any form, anywhere, is hardship and the fear of hardship. It creates the false narrative that any gains for LGBTQ people or POC are going to mean losses for other working-class people. It's not going to be possible to break that pattern without a strong commitment to egalitarian economics of some form. You can't have market values AND a hate-free society. The corporate power structure needs to keep hate alive, or else it will fall. Why do you think the most openly bigoted candidate in this race is a billionaire?
Finally, I get it that HRC is "experienced". But how much is that a trade-off for? If her experience was in working for a more humane, egalitarian and democratic world for all, I'd be fine with it. But, in practice, her experience has been in fighting globally to preserve the power of the rich and in defending "American interests", which always means nothing but corporate interests. It would help if she would disavow the whole Scoop Jackson foreign policy tradition, a tradition that has brought nothing but misery to the world.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)America disenfranchised huge portions of the electorate, and the Democratic Party was the key political organ that enorced it. The New Deal sought to life up white people with scant attention to African Americans and other people of color, when they weren't deliberately targeting them. FDR was super wealthy and got 25% of his campaign contributions from Wall Street, far more than Clinton. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/08/why_its_ok_to_accept_wall_street_campaign_cash_129584.html
Pretending like there is something unique about Clinton's foreign policy is to ignore the very construction of the American empire that payed for the American prosperity during the times you and Bernie both hearken back to. You claim that Bernie doesn't hearken back to a racist past and then in the next sentence evoke FDR. It's phenomenal. That you don't acknowledge the racism doesn't mean it didn't exist. It was in fact endemic. The question is not just racism, however, but that the majority of Americans were denied basic rights of economic and political participation.
Yes, I get you see the fact Clinton has served as Secretary of State as unacceptable, especially that she dared to appear in the same room with Kissinger. You've made it perfectly clear you prefer someone who doesn't care at all about foreign policy or feel any responsibility to even inform himself for the job of Senator let alone president. Your choice. I will NEVER see ignorance as a virtue, and willful ignorance is the worst kind.
It isn't the gains for the subaltern erode the financial standing of white people. Their household income over the past years is more or less the same in real terms. It's that they are increasingly pissed off because they no longer have more than the rest.
Bernie's claims that poverty is at an all time high are blatantly false. It is lower than at many points in US history. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/23/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-poverty-us-all-time-high/
The one group who has experienced economic decline is white men.
How grand of you to consider African Americans' basic right to vote, to have their views addressed in the political sphere and not be legally excluded from education, the workplace, restaurants, and public space more generally is a "small gain."
This country is founded on market values. It's constitution is the quintessential capitalist political text. That you buy into the completely false narrative that pretends there is some ideal American past of equal opportunity and freedom from "market values"--capitalism, shows how invested you are in the foundational mythos of the capitalist state. Freedom for whites was made possible through enslavement of blacks. (Edmund Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom.) You want to change that, focusing non the presidency is ridiculous to the point of surreal. The notion that one man with among the weakest record of accomplishment in the Senate can transform that simply by being president is ludicrous. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2015
This piece addresses very well the false narrative of history that Bernie and his supporters advance.
Above all, Sanders’ candidacy is premised on a dangerous mistruth about American government. When he calls our political system merely broken, Sanders pretends as though it once worked and can be fixed. In fact, it has never been just. To trust any politician is to trust a political system that was founded on oppression and that is not built for the liberation Sanders promises. Ironically, as the putative independent and self-proclaimed outsider who cut a deal with Democrats to win his seat in Congress—and as both a white man’s populist and the most progressive candidate for President of the United States—Sanders is proof of this. Revolutions unfold outside and against power structures, not within them. In selling voters on a figurative revolution, Sanders dangerously legitimizes the American political system.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/3/1/Dont-trust-bernie/#.VtlFxFdjsAE.facebook
I just pointed out his entire campaign is founded on falsehoods. The article linked in my previous post shows that He does have super pacs. He does take money from Wall Street. He has more violations of campaign finance law than any candidate in history. You don't care that your entire political focus for several months now has been founded on lies.
http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/ By the way, that's illegal, as were the $23 million in excess campaign contributions that went to his affiliated pac and his campaign, prompting a series of FEC inquiries (middle and end of Feb).
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?_r=4
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
And again. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80999298/
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/26/feds-flag-bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80985898/
He is not better or more honest than Clinton. By repeatedly lying to the American public about his campaign financing he has revealed he has less integrity.
Hillary has a great deal of experience working for a better world. You have willfully ignored that to promote your obsessive fixation on undermining her. Her first job out of law school was with the Children's Defense Fund. She went undercover to document racism in Southern Schools to provide evidence for lawsuits that worked to overturn that illegal oppression.
As Secretary of State she implemented benefits for LGBT. She elevated LGBT rights and women's rights to key criteria for the US in considering human rights standings of nations around the world. She made domestic violence a key priority and advanced human trafficking to a priority within the state department. She repaired relations with countries throughout the world following their nadir under the Bush administration. That made it possible to create international agreements like the nuclear treaty with Iran. All of that.
She was the first to work to implement universal healthcare in the country, which people here have condemned simply because it wasn't single payer, as though that would have enabled it to overcome GOP opposition. She championed SCHIP. Through the Clinton foundation tackles global hunger and works to improve the lives of women and girls around the world.
The list goes on and on. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-debate-hillary-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157
What has Bernie done? He has one major legislative accomplishment: Veterans funding. Good for him. But that isn't much for a 25 year career and it certainly doesn't approach revolution or social and economic reform. Besides that, he has made a lot of speeches and opposed international climate treaties, immigration reform, efforts to bring healthcare, and just about everything except immunity for gun corporations. Clinton has done more in any given year to improve people's lives than Bernie in his entire lifetime. You may admire speeches over action, but they don't make people's lives better.
Again, your vote your choice. My vote my choice. Each and every voter makes their own political decisions. That is ultimately what you refuse to accept.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I said he wanted FDR combined with the antiracist, antioppression spirit of the Sixties.
He doesn't have to repudiate the New Deal to be anti-Jim Crow. There's nothing to the right of the New Deal that can ever be progressive.
And yes, Bernie could be more forthcoming about foreign policy...but it says a lot to me that Noam Chomsky supports him.
I don't disapprove of the idea of HRC having been Secretary of State...just the militarism. If she had stuck to the things you listed(which were the only decent parts of that)I'd have been fine with her. And she wasn't just in the same room as Kissinger, she praised him. You can't praise the man without praising his record. Why didn't she refuse to be anything like him in the job? Why did she always push for us to stay in the Middle East, when any intervention we have there can only have right-wing and reactionary results, when it is impossible for American military intervention to make anyone's life better anymore, as Iraq proved?
She did good progressive things as a young woman, but then she helped found the DLC...a group that fought for the idea that Democrats should tell the poor, working people, people of color and activists to go to hell. How can you possibly defend that or act as if it doesn't matter?
And of course, our relationship to the developing world has always been horrific...but how can a historic supporter of U.S. military intervention, a person who wants to replace current Cuban government with a capitalist(and therefore more homophobic and conservative)government that has "elections"
whatever those mean in a world where corporations control everything) do anything to change that? It matters a lot that Bernie condemns the overthrow of Allende and HRC seems to be perfectly OK with it.
If you don't like Bernie, fine, but don't accuse him of not caring about bigotry when you know he does. And don't defend the reactionary idea that there should be a huge distance between the social justice and economic justice cause. We all support BOTH of those causes, and social justice is never served by ignoring economic justice.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)...or vote Trump is so laughable there really is nothing to say.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)because only that way can we get anything to the left of bland corporate centrism into the platform.
We'd lose if we went back to the '96 platform.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)---
CountAllVotes
(20,867 posts)the establishment (whoever they are (?)) thinks they have "won" already. Sickening to treat human beings in such a subordinate fashion! 
& recommend!!
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Absent a miraculous turnaround (or an indictment, and that happening soon enough would be similarly miraculous), that's exactly what's going to happen: young voters will stay home in droves. A critical component of the "Obama coalition" won't be there in November for Hillary. Then, when the recriminations begin, they'll get singled out.
Of course, they won't see that...as I rather doubt they'll be paying much further attention to the party after this. Center-right parties and cynical election tactics don't interest them.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You are responcible for what you do! Not us!
Voters have made this happen!
Jesus weeping on the cross!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to provide excellent advice in that regard.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)The younger generations are on to Hillary. They can sniff out propaganda and are too savvy to buy what she is selling.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and the 'youth' vote will not fall for her campaign suddenly courting them now, after all they were the ones who coined the name Camp Weathervane
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)we don't get our way. Dirty tricks didn't undermine McGovern, even though I thought he was the best candidate by a long shot. The voters in the USA, no matter how stupid we think they were, rejected him.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The voters weren't against McGovern on the issues. They wanted out of Vietnam ASAP.
Muskie's collapse in New Hampshire proves HE would have gone down in flames in the fall, too.
So would have Humphrey.
The lesson of '72 is not "we have to nominate centrist hawks for the rest of eternity".
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...compared to Gen-X Republicans.
stellanoir
(14,881 posts)The examples you gave could be furthered with those would held so much hope that Obama wouldn't have his progressive intentions obstructed so diabolically.
The Arab spring is another tangental example.
And then there was the Occupy Movement. Though I've heard many of those involved went on to provide debt relief, others were disenfranchised.
Change often comes in "fits & starts."
Distinguishing one from the other is unbelievably tricky.
Discernment is a well earned virtue far more often than it is not.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)It's not about us, it's about them.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)It is anyone who cares.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)while I think it's fine to talk about the Millennial vote, there are many (millions) in older age groups who are equally turned off.
LisaM
(27,794 posts)I got over political disappointment lots of time. You have to.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Giving us a lot of stuff in the platform would help. So would announcing DWS' immediate firing.
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)1.She changes her educational platform from debt free to tuition free.
2.Goes to Medicare for all.
3.Commits to keeping out TPP.
4.Enshrines Net Neutrality.
5.Cuts the crap and pushes pro-Legalization for marijuana.(tough shit CCA, eat the nonviolent offender profit loss)
6.Optional: Approves more low power FM station and dictates a number of them will be secular.
w0nderer
(1,937 posts)i do know i want to vote liberal, not centrist
i can't vote, so i suggest people vote liberal, not centrist
right now assuming a bernie, hillary, trump, cruz (In left to right order..see what i did there????)
for me i'd say bernie then hillary
most of my younger friends at work are bernie..or not at all
their attitude is .....they have hunkered down already
they can do it another 4-8 if that is what it takes to teach older voters how dumb they are (in fact the term, 'trump the dumbasses to hell' is becoming a term in this area)
as for me...i came as an immigrant 2002-03 i hunkered down under BushII
i heard a LOT of people sneak up to me and whisper(after finding out i was 'furriner' they'd 'admit"..'i'm not with him' *looking around* "really i'm not" *sneaks off*
that hidden resistance don't mean SH**!
it's also not only who can 'win' the dnc and primary...who can enthuse people to get a good congress/senate to support a prez
without that it's all nada!
LisaM
(27,794 posts)Looking back, I realize that only one of my first choices in the primary became the nominee. One! I still have always felt that it was important to vote no matter what. I don't even miss the small elections. I've voted three times since last August alone and will caucus on March 26th (even though it's during Easter weekend). I guess people are entitled to check out of the process if they want, but I've endured a lot of disappointment over the years and it was never enough to force me out of the system.
If they're really presenting lists of demands like that, then they're reinforcing every stereotype about millennials that there is, but I have to say from what I've observed lately, it's their parents who are demanding that we not disappoint them! I think the young people themselves have it a bit more together. I mean, these are the parents who go to job interviews with their kids, call professors about bad grades, and now - apparently - get a special Parents' Orientation week when their kids go to college. Now they're afraid we're going to scare their kids out of the process. Mind boggling.
w0nderer
(1,937 posts)but keep posting, if i pass it on to them they'll just get further and further from the sHILLs
LisaM
(27,794 posts)I haven't threatened (and didn't in 2008) to withhold my vote if my candidate lost and, in fact, I've never threatened it, even though a couple of times the losses have been bitter for me.
You don't need to call me names, but feel free to do so. I won't run away because of it.
I have never suggested Bernie Sanders drop out of the race, either - I've said many times I think that he should stay in. It sharpens debate and keeps people engaged. If he does ultimately lose, I would expect him to act exactly as Hillary acted in 2008 and come and make a standout speech at the convention (I would not have withheld my vote - strange phrase, but I guess it's how we talk now - then, of course, but her amazing speech went a long way towards healing my wounds).
I simply don't think it's all right for people to carry a list of demands for their vote (like the candidates care) or that we need to get some warning that we're going to drive people away from the process if they don't get what they want, etc., etc. The cream will rise to the top, I guess. People who care will participate, even in a losing cause, and those who don't, won't.
I still stand by my stance that maybe we're not giving young people enough credit about taking the longer view. Despite what people are saying, I'll keep my faith undiminished for now.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)most is Sanders bullshit, underhanded campaign was like a Pied Piper for our youth at a time they should have been having a blast with a Democratic win. Thankfully, I was able ot get most of mine off the roller coaster and they will be able to have an enthusiastic first vote, but so many are going ot miss out because Sanders had to feed his ego playing games with their ideology.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Incidentally, citing the eras between 72 and 76, and between 88 and 92 - that is to say, two periods when the Democrats went from massive defeats to victories - as eras "nothing good came of" is truly amazing. What *I* don't want to see repeated is 1972, when the Democrats ran an idealistic far-left candidate and got creamed.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)is not slandering.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It was never a good thing for this party to put young voters and idealists in "their place".
hack89
(39,171 posts)book_worm
(15,951 posts)
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)It's politics. Your guy is losing. Been there, done that..... If y'all came to play, then play the game. This is the part where we see if you have grit, determination and the heart of a champion. Part of that is how you deal with defeat. If you curse at the officials and then take your ball and go home at the first setback, then you weren't a player to start with. And no one can fix that problem for you but you.
