2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSome of us are fighting the "Bernie or Bust" types-please HELP us do that.
Those of you who sneer at what Bernie's supporters are fighting for, and those of you who act like Bernie should never have run at all, are HELPING the "Bernie or Bust" thing grow, and are sabotaging the work Sanders supporters who seek unity in the fall are trying to do now and will try to do if HRC does end up getting nominated.
If she is nominated, HRC will have no chance of winning if her supporters goad Sanders supporters into staying home or voting but not voting HRC.
She will need to check her campaign's hubris at the door, recognize that most of the country supports at least most of our agenda, and recognize that the path to victory involves reaching out, acknowledging the validity of what the Sanders movement stands for, and choosing dialog and respect on the issues rather than just expecting people who didn't back her in the primaries to simply fall in line and do what they are told.
She will also need(and she and you will have no real reason to object to doing this)to make it clear that she will welcome and ENCOURAGE grassroots activism and mobilization. I assume none of you would actually object to that. It's never a bad thing for Democrats to have a strong and growing activist culture.
She and the vast majority of her supporters have nothing to lose from doing that.
This is just a call, if your candidate does become the nominee, for her to make it easy to bring the party together...to make sure no one leaves Philly feeling crushed and disrespected. To make us the best party we could be in that situation and to run the best and most effective fall campaign we could run in that situation.
If we get there, help us help you.
Not a lot to ask, really. Just good politics and common sense.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TDale313
(7,820 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)I am pretty sure they will get to vote for Bernie in the general election. Hillary is sinking and Bernie is rising. Facts are facts.
The Internet isn't real life.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)What do you mean by that?
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)I don't understand that comment.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)and hostility. No one forced them to wallow in right wing propaganda, no one forced them to come here and wrap themselves in false witness, and no one is to blame for what they are but themselves.
Furthermore, since there are probably less than a dozen or so of the real thing in total, they can all go vote for Trump and big deal. Goodbye is my message to them.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Sorry for living in a reality based community.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)
?itok=yP-sh4AJJaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)"The far right hates everyone who is different, while the far left hates itself."
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)Inconvenient truths about the New Democrats, the Third Way, Democratic Leadership Council, etc (My OP DU 2008)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027630485
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)His supporters will be working all over the country this fall to flip Congress...doing it the only way possible...grassroots mobilization and mass small-donor fundraising.
Your candidate and her husband, by contrast, didn't do anything to take back the House or the Senate in 1996 or 1998...even though flipping the House in '96 should have been easy after Newt's government shut-down.
We both know no Republicans will ever vote for any even mildly progressive HRC proposals.
Unless you consider lobbying for mass incarceration and more executions in exchange for the trivial concession of VAWA renewal to be the sort of thing a decent president should do.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)....running for Houses and Senate seats? How many Sanders supporters have actively donated to Democratic Congressional campaigns?
If Bernie were to win the nomination many Democrats running for Congress feel that Bernie's candidacy will hurt their chances and that's why they have endorsed Clinton. Many believe that embracing a Socialist will lead to their defeat, especially those running in purple states were the Democrats desperately need wins to take back the Senate. They will run away from Sanders, not with him. However, their Republican opponents will do everything possible to link them to Sanders and that tactic will probably work.
The result, If by some miracle Bernie were to win the White House he would face a House and Senate totally antagonistic to his grand plans and they will reject his Supreme Court nominees one after another. He will be a lame duck President the day he moves into the White House. The young people who supported Sanders so boldly will eventually feel betrayed, thinking they were sold dreams that were never politically possible. And they will be right. Even Bernie's most fervent supporters will sooner or later become incredibly frustrated. Bernie could be destined to be the most ineffective President in recent history.
Four years later Bernie will be a worn out old man of 78 who may or may not chose to run for reelection. If he does he is sure to be challenged in the Democratic primaries. If he again nominated he will almost certainly be replaced by a Republican. In the process he will have spoiled any chances for a very liberal Democrat like Elizabeth Warren to ever become President.
bbrady42
(175 posts)cloudythescribbler
(2,586 posts)I have supported Bernie's campaign from day one, including as a (modest) donor multiple times. Like Bernie, I intend to support the Democratic nominee if Hillary should win the nomination. In recent days, I have also contributed to specific senate campaigns including Tammy Duckworth and Russ Feingold, and intend to support more (especially when nominees are decided upon in other states).
This kind of attack on Bernie (including ageism) is just the kind that drives 'bernie-or-bust' thinking. As an Independent previously, it was not his province to campaign for the DNC. Millions of voters have accepted that without problem and voted for Bernie in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, including me in MA.
Frankly, in the heat of the primary campaign is NOT the best time to talk about corralling Bernie supporters to endorse Hillary should she get the nomination. If and when she were to clinch the nomination (not just in the minds of pundits and HRC partisans, but if and when Bernie himself embraces that) would be the time to start that effort in a major way. As of now it predictably has the probable opposite effect. Hillary kept up her campaign to the very end in 2008, even angling to count MI and FL, and it didn't hurt the Democratic Party ticket that year at all. Indeed the vigorous campaign, not a mudslingfest like the GOP this year, was probably a net plus, in my arrogant opinion (IMAO).
If Hillary is the nominee, I will not only support her, but address myself to 'bernie or busters' very critically, especially wherever there is the strong possibility of a GOP victory in a given election and NO chance for any other progressive (often none on the ballot). I have voted for 3d Party candidates, including in 1976, 1980 and (in CA at the last minute, when east coast results pointed to a huge landslide for Reagan) in 1984. Especially where there is no competitive Republican, which is many races, third party candidates are often a good choice, and I have supported them here in MA in numerous instances. So I understand SOME (but only some) of where Bernie-or-busters are coming from, but see the need, especially for competitive downballot races, to combat it. The way that is being done now, and calls for Bernie to drop out only alienate progressive voters. They serve the opposite purpose from promoting the most progressive elected government possible in Nov
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)energy fussing over. To put it mildly. There are far too few of them too make a difference in the election, and wouldn't it be better if they were badmouthing the party and its nominee over at Cruz or Trump sites instead of here? You truly cannot please everyone, and there are simply no returns to try for in this case.
For all the noise of support for them, when they're gone a certain amount of the hot air will escape with them, less hostile far left DUers who remain will have considered their options, and we will all move on to winning the GE.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)back to your party and leave the party of left to the working class who it was for in the first place.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)that represents the far left. So many here reject all that the Democratic Party stands for and does. Our liberal left ideology is not far enough left. We are pragmatic, cooperative and inclusive, and we reject the attitudes and most of the solutions of those farther left.
So go create a party that is capable of the magnificent change you want.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)has not translated into action.
So I don't think you can honestly use the label.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)reinforced by life. That's why so many are unhappy among liberals and a liberal-dominated Democratic Party. For them it's just a mis-labeling.
votesparks
(1,288 posts)Then the Democrats and Republicans must equalize ballot access laws.
But when you bring that up, the establishment of both sides are all crickets.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)wing of the party and share many of your goals, I don't hate the party. It lost its way at some point, as one book put it, it's "soul," but when it's doing well it's attitudes, goals, and methods all suit me very well. People like me want the party tuned up and directed properly.
But they don't suit people farther left who are not liberals at any time. Not through the heydays of the 20th century, certainly not since the 1970s. Those people want to dismantle what worked so well and reconstruct to their vision.
For that they need a new party -- of their own, because if they could ever have taken over the Democratic Party, they of course would have. If not back in the collapse of the 1930s and 1940s when FDR disappointed them so bitterly, after the 1970s, perhaps the 1990s, when we tried moving right in an unfortunately attempt to keep the nation from skewing even farther right under the GOP. But, nothing.
And nothing now either. Bernie raised the hopes of the far left, talk of putsches and purges, takeovers, etc., but it's not happening. Yet. The far left energized by Bernie needs its own party.
And you need a good name. So people have a label to think of you by and you don't get lost in ours.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)and fix the problems there and not continue to turn the Democratic Party into a center right party......
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)He doesn't like to endorse people. Many of those who vote for him change their affiliation back to I if they've had to register as Dem to vote for him. Change is made by those who not only come to the meetings, but also stay to do the work.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That's what you are saying and is the logical extension of all the crap about ponies?
"The GOP doesn't want it, so we should oppose it too."
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)is also my message to you. 
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)So, when you get one vote in Florida, you know where it came from.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Thank you, Matt. I will look for it.
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Threats like that are about as real as Sanders' chances.
Most of the really loud BoB types likely won't remember to vote anyway. In their ideal world he is already president.
Silly season. Vote for Clinton or enjoy Pres. Trump. You're not doing it for me, FFS. And no actually Clibton does not need the votes of a few die hard lefty sanders supporters in blue states and college towns. She has something better: rank and file democrats who actually vote.
think
(11,641 posts)The corporations that lobby our govt. have given her tens millions of dollars in direct INCOME on top of the tens of millions in donations to her campaign.
Clinton has already acted in some form on behalf of many of these corporations & too big to fail banks while SoS.
There are plenty of reasons to consider Hillary Clinton less than desirable for the highest office in the land.
How she ever made it through the sniper fire in Bosnia we'll never know....
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Oh just fucking spare me. Every criticism of Princess Weathervane, even when accompanied by incontrovertible video evidence of her flip-flopping, gets dismissed and the messenger attacked by the Ostrich Army. Furthermore, that "false witness" bullshit is beneath even a Hillary supporter. Most of us won't tolerate being called a liar, especially from a supporter of a candidate who can't stop lying.
Buh-bye...
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)that there is no reason for someone on the Left to not want to vote for Hillary.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Thump that pulpit! 
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Dont blame us for the fact that Bernie keeps attacking her at his rallies and his audience boos her when he mentions her name. HE should be calling for unity.
Shit, even John McCain in 08 stopped his crowd from booing and shouting obscenities about Obama.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)to have your campaign accuse your opponent of not caring about racism when you know damn well he cares about that as much as anyone else in progressive politics.
And you posts have been nothing but snark, dismissiveness and bile.
Bernie doesn't attack HRC as a person...he just points out that her proposals are too conservative for the party and the times.
JudyM
(29,233 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)His artful smears as he suggests that making money from speeches = corruption, without a shred of evidence. His entire campaign has been about trying to take her down instead of build himself up. A tactic that isnt working but he doubles down on. Hes down by 300 delegates, sees the writing on the wall and still cant call for unity. He needs to rein in his fans.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And if the $250K speeches were innocent, she would have no legitimate reason to refuse to release the transcripts. There's no reason ever to hide an innocuous speech.
He doesn't have to give her special deference. She's not a higher life form than him.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)But, her campaign is no better than the candidate herself and her actions. Unity, love, and kindness - is that how you characterize Libya and Syria after she and Gen. Petraeus "liberated" those places?
daleanime
(17,796 posts)we worry about you. 
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)
Less vicious hate rhetoric about HRC would narrow the gap.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)as the PUMAs did after the 2008 primaries, which is to say none.
Most of the Sanders voters will support Clinton in the GE because they aren't morons, and because DU does not reflect reality.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Many HRC supporters here have said that.
The Sanders movement has done nothing but good...there is no reason, whoever we nominate, for the party not to embrace it.
No one out there is only going to vote Democratic in the fall if the party makes a show of spurning the activists.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)doing nothing but good. The Internet BernieBro is a very real and very, very nasty phenomena. Sanders' supporters have done his campaign a grave disservice with their swarming and bullying.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's much more likely that most of them are either trolls posing as Sanders supporters in hopes of having more people to bait, or wreckers hired by Brock and/or the Kochs.
Their tendency to get more toxic at the worst possible times for Bernie is a pretty obvious clue that they have nothing to do with Bernie OR the millions of people who actually WANT Bernie to be president.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)The far simpler explanation is that young white males on the internet (a huge chunk of the Sanders support network) tend to be assholes to anyone who isn't young, white, and male.
Stop making excuses and take responsibility for the shitshow.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And Bernie has condemned the 'bros.
Our campaign gets more racially and ethnically diverse by the day, especially among younger POC.
We aren't a white boys club and our commitment to an antiracist program is strong.
The 'bros are not Bernie's fault.
And Bernie himself never deserved the distrust of POC.
He emphasizes economic justice because no other candidate was addressing it-and because no other form of progressive change can truly be achieved without strongly addressing corporate control of politics and life. Corporations don't want bigotry to be defeated or harassment and violence directed towards POC to stop.
Bernie's lifetime commitment to fighting bigotry, and his history as a Sixties and post-Sixties leftist, guarantees that a Sanders presidency will fight hard to defeat all forms of oppression. Unlike his opponent, Bernie values activism and accepts the necessity of continued organizing and protest(which MUST include civil disobedience in its range of tactics) in the name of ending social oppression.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)... statistics. I, personally, believed Bernie when he answered quickly and vehemently to a question about some "Bernie Bro" behavior that he wanted nothing to do with them. They should leave. But how many are there? See my post asking this sort of question. The responses have been encouraging, but I'm still not sure.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110781079
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He and the campaign don't have the power to make anybody on the Internet leave.
Neither does HRC.
Neither does Trump.
blm
(113,043 posts)The Buy Gold and Silver crowd.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)same people. Perennially disappointed, betrayed, outraged election after election.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)... and who never intended to vote for Hillary Clinton are among the loudest, most active, all to often the most difficult to deal with Sanders supporters. I don't think that can be denied. They will never ever vote for Hillary and no one will be able to convince them to do so. They know who they are and their predisposition usually readily apparent to everyone else as well.
On the other hand I am sure that many of Bernie's supporters simply are more aligned with Bernie than Hillary and, like most Clinton supporters will eventually vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of which of the two wins the nomination, even if they will do so a bit reluctantly.
I think that the vast majority of Sanders are strong people and will fall into one of these two camps by their own choosing and probably nothing anyone else can say or do will affect their decisions.
However, we have not yet reached the point where any decision has to be made. While it is certainly a very steep climb, it is still certainly mathematically possible for Bernie to still win the nomination. If and when that is no longer the case, then it will be time for decisions to be made, if they haven't been made already.
On the other hand, let's remember that the few thousand people who populate DU are spread across the country and in some cases around the world. How any of us on DU vote will very likely not have any significant effect on outcome of the general election. So let's not treat this as a matter of life or death.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)"How any of us on DU vote will very likely not have any significant effect on outcome of the general election. So let's not treat this as a matter of life or death."
Shouldn't the OPer and his/her colleagues stake out a position for common sense? When I compare the number of Views to the number of Replies, I think that maybe DU wouldn't have such a hostile atmosphere of more people would speak up. I'm wondering if the really hostile posters aren't actually a small minority of the membership and we could, if we took the trouble, wipe out this island of hostility on both sides.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)We don't make any of you do anything.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)I find your post patronizing and insulting. There are 31 replies before mine. I see only the first 2.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie has said he rejects the idea of refusing to support the ticket if he isn't nominated.
We are working hard for Bernie up here in Alaska. I'm in this fight all the way to the convention and still think we can win the nomination.
Those who announce here that they will either write-in Bernie in the fall or vote for a minor-party candidate or Trump hurt Bernie's chances, because they give aid and comfort to those Dems who treat Bernie like he can't be trusted.
If it doesn't go our way in Philly, our chances of building a long-lasting movement for social and economic justice depend on Sanders supporters NOT getting blamed for, God forbid, a Trump presidency.
I've been making the case, more off-line than here but I'll be doing it more here as well now, that we won't be able to build anything lasting if we give the other candidate's supporters the chance to accuse us of being splitters.
In the name of helping Bernie, I'll keep making that case.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)I sure don't.
I think you need to decide whose side you're really on.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And I want to protect our campaign from attacks we can easily avoid.
You are not the arbiter of who is and isn't loyal to our cause.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)for a very few Bernie's campaign would have been much better off without in the first place. They will have zero effect.
Like the PUMAs in 2008 -- who would have done Hillary a great favor by taking their unfortunate influence to McCain's camp in the first place. Some did refuse to vote for Obama and voted GOP instead.
Remember, btw, how those hyperpartisans got that acronym, "People United Means Action" aka "Party Unity My Ass"? It seems very likely some of those are here supporting Bernie, many of the same behaviors, same yammering about stolen elections, evils of superdelegates, threatening to Bern the Barn, etc., etc., etc., just different candidate.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)ended up being a Republican operative.
blm
(113,043 posts)here - we've seen it before in past primaries.
Do I trust every recent member racking up high post counts in GD-P focused more on vitriol than reasoned-filled candidate support?
No. Not from either camp.
We've seen this act before.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)"If it doesn't go our way in Philly, our chances of building a long-lasting movement for social and economic justice depend on Sanders supporters NOT getting blamed for, God forbid, a Trump presidency."
You seem to be operating under the assumptions that (a) this long-lasting movement can only be sustained inside the Democratic Party and (b) the corrupt corporatists who dominate the Democratic Party are going to step away from their personal power and financial gravy train for the benefit of the 99% they've been crapping all over.
I think you're delusional.
If there is a Trump presidency, it will because the Democratic primary voters were stupid enough to nominate a candidate that Trump was able to attack from both the left and the right in an election where independents and a big chunk of voters in both parties are fed up with the status quo that Hillary represents.
It seems to me that you are more concerned with Hillary supporters liking you and pretending they respect you than you are about the success of this political movement that Bernie is currently leading. With regard to Hillary supporters, to quote FDR, "They are unanimous in their hatred for me, and I welcome their hatred!"
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We can only build a movement if Trump isn't elected.
2000 proved, for the rest of eternity, that third-party presidential campaigns will achieve nothing.
I'm fighting to elect Bernie Sanders as president AND build a long-term movement.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)You seem to be operating under the strange belief that if Hillary loses to Trump, Hillary and her supporters who gave her the nomination won't be responsible.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Activism and organization will be impossible under a Trump Administration.
We may not even have another election.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Trump is a blathering, incompetent buffoon who won't have the support of either party for long if he is elected. But you think he will become dictator and turn the U.S. into a police state.
I can't take any more of your posts.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)All three had absolute power until the point at which their loss of power no longer mattered.
I lived through all three of those eras. In each one, the left collapsed.
I'm fighting to get Bernie nominated. Why should I write him in against HRC in the fall when history proves third-party presidential candidates can never get elected and that losing third-party presidential campaigns can't lead to a movement being built?
You build the alternative from below...like Kshama Sawant and her supporters are doing in Seattle.
Grassroots organizing for social and economic justice. Initiatives for electoral reform and campaign finance reform. Initiatives to make it easier to form cooperatives. Living wage measures. radical candidacies for municipal government, state legislatures, Congress and even the Senate.
Those are how you build alternatives.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)and at the right time. Seems pretty obvious both have come together now, Ken.
I do disagree that grassroots organizing would not be possible under a Trump presidency. We're not a banana republic. Our government is very stable with a variety of strong legal constraints on the actions of our presidents.
Btw, the importance to those intent on building of identifying and neutralizing troublemakers, not allowing them to distract and undermine, is the reason I disagreed with your very nice post.
stranger81
(2,345 posts)Whether there's genuine ammunition to support it or not. Every time the republican-lite candidate loses, you can bet on the right wing of the democratic party blaming it on the left wing. It happens like clockwork. Every. Damn. Time.
Personally, I don't spend a lot of time trying to forestall events that are entirely inevitable.
cloudythescribbler
(2,586 posts)At this point, it is premature, and many who argue they won't vote for HRC if she is the nominee (if past elections are any guide about support for the nominee) will end up doing so in the end. Premature calls for "party unity" only alienate other Bernie supporters, which I have been since day 1 (urging such a run from him for a while).
I agree that SOME of the BOBers may indeed merely be trolls (in the Dennis Miller sense) while many are sincere. As someone on the Left, I would say the majority of my contacts through the web etc at this point are folk who will NOT vote for HRC -- often of the view that anything to do with the Democratic Party (often including Bernie) is counter to progressive politics. So I know well all the usual concerns -- felt that way myself in the 1976 and 1980 elections, but shifted during the Reagan presidency when so many of my progressive friends (and progressives I didn't know) were mysteriously dropping like flies.
In 2008, Hillary kept up the fight until the last feasible moment, even angling for MI and FL elections to count as long as she still had any mathematical chance with them counted. It didn't hurt the Democrats in the general and may likely have even been a boon. Those calling for 'party unity' (always as against the candidate to the left, when it's premature) are like the BOBers, hurting the Dems chances in the fall
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)doesn't belong anywhere near the White House.
riversedge
(70,191 posts)
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)But can you do us the favor of cutting out the bulshit that only Sanders side represents "the grassroots"? It's an egregious insult to those of us who have spent many years building the party at the local level.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)needs to hear his policies a lot more then the moderate D politicians.
We've had decades now of Republicans squandering OUR Federal funds for their 'for profit' private ventures. Our Federal Gov. should be non-profit, we shouldn't be using outside private contractors for anything.
To me the worse spending is The tap is wide open on the Department of Defense squandering of Federal Funds.
No D, Sanders or Clinton has tried to stop that spending.
Almost as bad for our Veterans 'health care' and regular citizens health care 'insurance'. All the health care funded with OUR Federal Funds, should be 'not for profit'. We're at costs today like- 57 billion dollar a year for life, for outside profiteers to care for 6,000 disabled 'gulf war' Veterans.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)But those of who are Bernie supporters but will vote for Hillary in November if necessary will still be blamed if she loses. The Democratic establishment is tone deaf, and will refuse to look at what the real problems are. It will just be easier to blame Bernie.
(I am not talking about Hillary supporters here...I am talking about the likes of DWS and her ilk.)
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)They're the same people that think Hillary and Bill can take in hundreds of millions of dollars from the 0.1% and corporate interests and it doesn't influence their decision making. Who cares what they think? There is no reasoning with them.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)to do for 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week.
But the people who gave the Clintons millions of dollars gave it to them just because.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Just happen to get favorable legislation, tax breaks, government subsidized loans, deregulation, ability to buy weapons, etc. All just happy coincidence.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Meteor Man
(385 posts)It's pretty amazing hearing calls for party unity from the DNC side of the party after decades of being thrown under the bus. The DNC establishment is not tone deaf, they have callously disregarded the grass roots left in favor of corporate donors.
Is the decades long decline of registered Democrats Bernie's fault? Or the failure of the DNC power structure to address working class issues? The Third Way Dems, DLC and Rahm Emmanuel corporatists have been decimating working class principles of the Democratic Party.
Now, all of a sudden it's Bernie's fault?
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)The Democratic Party has been courting Corporate funds. That was the reason for starting the Democratic Leadership Counsel.
The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats. This term is also used by other groups who have similar views on where the party should go in the future, like NDN[2] and Third Way.[3]
On February 7, 2011, Politico reported that the DLC would dissolve, and would do so as early as the following week.[4] On July 5 of that year, DLC founder Al From announced in a statement on the organization's website that the historical records of the DLC have been purchased by the Clinton Foundation.[5] The DLC's last chairman was former Representative Harold Ford of Tennessee, and its vice chair was Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware. Its CEO was Bruce Reed.
link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
Now, with some re-branding, it is called the Third Way.
Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism. Blair said "My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice ... Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly".[5] Blair referred to it as "social-ism" that involves politics that recognized individuals as socially interdependent, and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen, and equal opportunity.[6] Third Way social democratic theorist Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the traditional conception of socialism, and instead accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by Anthony Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views social democratic governments as having achieved a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and other policies, and that contemporary socialism has outgrown the Marxian claim for the need of the abolition of capitalism.[7] Blair in 2009 publicly declared support for a "new capitalism".[8]
It supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in society through action to increase the distribution of skills, capacities, and productive endowments, while rejecting income redistribution as the means to achieve this.[9] It emphasizes commitment to balanced budgets, providing equal opportunity combined with an emphasis on personal responsibility, decentralization of government power to the lowest level possible, encouragement of public-private partnerships, improving labour supply, investment in human development, protection of social capital, and protection of the environment
link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
Anything that concerns actual people or this earth as been deemed a left wing action which cannot be further from the truth.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)... every 24 hours, I'll certainly look for it and K & R and make supportive comments. I've posted elsewhere that I'm grateful for Bernie's candidacy. He has good points (even though too narrowly focussed for me). And think where we'd be message-wise if Hillary were unapposed! Although I guess O'Malley or someone might have had a different experience if there were no Bernie.
I'll leave it to you and your colleagues to figure out if there are Bernie or Bust people who are persuadable. Perhaps you could add your comment to http://www.democraticunderground.com/110781079
Anyway, as you said, "Just good politics and common sense."
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)Not if you are truly looking for open and honest replies. Especially after taking a look at some of the responses you've already gotten from the denizens of the group. You're asking Bernie people to step into a buzz saw here.
Might try reposting it in GD
if you honestly want replies from both sides.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)By "this" I mean the OP in this thread.
I invited him to look at the link I included because it discusses the characteristics of Hillary Haters. I don't want their comments on that subject, of course. I've seen enough.
blm
(113,043 posts)I have been dismayed at the utter lack of common sense I have been witnessing from both camps.
BTW - the site liberty blitzkrieg that has been pushing the Bernie or Bust position tracks back to RandPaul supporters - the Buy Silver and Gold crowd. Intent on sh!tstirring this election one way or another.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)...I don't quite understand.
What is "the site liberty blitzkrieg?"
How do you "track back to RandPaul supporters ?"
blm
(113,043 posts)It's not a mystery. You just have to be patient to access the site's offerings - they sure loathe Obama and ACA. And, don't forget to attend one of their Buy Gold and Silver seminars. heheh
blm
(113,043 posts).
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)original PUMAs,an attention craving minority with the temperament of preteens.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)The Clinton's cheat. No support is the best. THEY stole from US. Fuck her and her making history. I hope she NEVER gets into the WH again.
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)I hope she never gets into ANY political office again. I'm sure the private sector will welcome her with open arms (and wallets) ...
Nichevo11
(67 posts)And same message to the other side.
I like both candidates.
The utter nastiness on both sides makes me cringe. I suppose it is all tit-for-tat crap, triggered by some previous nastiness that a DU member was stung by and wants revenge over. But still, how does nastiness help anyone's candidate?
I keep reminding myself that there are probably just a few loudmouths who dominate the conversation.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)and you're just trying to point out how counterproductive the taunting and belittling is, but I don't need to be "fought". 
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)If you really do support Bernie, then your time and energy would be better spent just volunteering for him offline because there's really nothing you could say or do to change my mind, and the same is probably true of anyone who's already made that decision.
#Bernieorbust and not budging
dana_b
(11,546 posts)That's how many in my family that have said that they will vote for Bernie only.
Bettie
(16,090 posts)we're the "loony left" because we still dare to dream of a day when our government works FOR us, not against us.
We ask inconvenient questions like "why not?".
And we're not Dems who would have been Republicans back in the Reagan years.
The dialogue has been shoved so far to the right that what is perceived as "far left wing" used to be moderate and centrist.
Unfortunately, centrist these days is way to the right.
So, they want us gone. Out of the process, out of their party, out of their coronation. The Queen shall rule and the rest of us should just bow down and wait to see if she eventually graces us with a few crumbs from the 1% table.
But I won't hold my breath on that one, the 1% are possessive even of the crumbs.
randome
(34,845 posts)We pretty much all dream of a better world. I would hate it if Sanders became the nominee because then the worst of the cackling, foul-mouthed Sanders supporters would hold their victory over all of us.
But I would swallow my pride and refrain from giving in to my anger and vote and support Sanders. All the way.
Most of us who 'support' Clinton are simply acknowledging the math and the fact that Sanders was a virtual unknown 9 months ago when he decided to join the Democratic Party.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
Bettie
(16,090 posts)there are a variety of posts about the coming purge when the actual lefties will be gone forever from "your" party.
The posts about how Clinton doesn't need any "loony left" voters.
I've said over and over I'll probably vote for her if she's the nominee, but the amount of nose-holding I'll have to do gets larger every day due to her supporters who go out of their way to be nasty and marginalizing to those of us who prefer a candidate who is willing to look for more than "nope, we can't do that" in response to everything that isn't the status quo.
I've known about Sanders for years. He's been an independent, but he's also caucused and voted with the Dems for that entire time.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)"Something something 'leftist tea party'"? Anyone who stoops to that level clearly doesn't need me, and honestly, doesn't deserve any kind of my support. Fuck 'em.
