2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFor the rest of the campaign, please...NO MORE EVENTS WITH RICH PEOPLE
From now on, HRC needs to be solely at factory gates, in poor neighborhoods, with the jobless and the homeless.
No more fundraisers with bazillionaires are needed now...from here on in it's got to be about contact with the people. Anything more with the wealthy just helps the opposition.
We've already got enough money for the next two months, now it needs to be stump speeches(like the Labor Day rallies), pressing the flesh, and listening.
That's what will win this election...not anything else involving the 1%.
Only grassroots politics can work the rest of the way.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)At least your not telling her to adopt the losing platform again. Bad advice. She is who she is and is winning.
stopbush
(24,392 posts)If she needs to raise money from rich people, she needs to raise money from rich people.
Period.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Will be the suggestion she only I take 27.00 donations. I guess because some people cannot stand the idea of her winning with her own strategy.... To the extent they keep suggesting she follow the losing strategy. Nope.
JustAnotherGen
(31,780 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)for being a phony. the haters going to hate.
this is a ridiculous ego-driven rehashing of the primary fight. So over it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He didn't get nominated, but that's not the measure to judge his campaign by.
The campaign changed the discussion for the better, gave millions of the voiceless a voice(it was the only campaign that really addressed poverty as well as corporate power)and helped give us a much better platform and higher ratings in the polls than we would have if it had never happened.
Why is it so important for you to disparage the Sanders campaign? We did nothing but good. And because we were there, there are a lot of people who are supporting this party at this point who otherwise never would have done so.
You hurt the Democratic nominee's chances when you trash talk that effort. We have joined you now-you have no reason to treat us as the enemy.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And I could, because I had some issues despite their good intentions. But I won't be baited into it.
Please stop. She won, he lost. It's been over since March, and it's still over. Enough.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie isn't a candidate now. The issues you mainly had(the perception-partially caused by poor communications choices at the start of the campaign-that he didn't care about fighting institutional bigotry) are now moot., because Bernie isn't the nominee and you have no reason to still be holding those issues against Sanders supporters(a group who, ourselves, ARE committed to doing whatever is needed to defeat institutional bigotry).
I'm on your side. We all are. And we're trying to help. We don't have to disband as a movement and give up what we care about to prove that.
Everything I post here is about winning, and winning in a way that matters.
People power matters just as much as money in doing that.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I'd love to answer and set you straight- but it's against the rules. So stop refighting the damn primary, and stop
Making dumb assumptions about Hillary supporters.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And your repeated claim that I am is becoming harassment.
I'm on your side and want Trump and the right beaten as much as you do.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)He's parroting negative memes and suggesting it's actually bad that she raised a lot of money for doe ticket races in the last big fundraising period, before he race stars in earnest. That's an issue that was aired a lot in the primary, and he is raising it- and many others- over and over again. I'm tired of being baited with this shit.
Enough already. We need that money this campaign season. There is no excuse for trying to hobble efforts to raise money for all the races.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I just dropped a jelly bean on my Samsung galaxy 6
applegrove
(118,462 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Ugh. 
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)There is a saturation point at which more money, especially to buy more ads, really won't do very much. I think the bad press of spending so much time with rich donors at fundraisers just isn't worth it at this point. It plays right into Trump's narrative and it makes people like me who supported Bernie in part because of the importance he placed on overturning Citizens United and getting big money out of politics less excited about voting for her. I also think it is sapping the motivation of smaller donors to give to her. I gave her a little bit last week, but it was hard to motivate myself to do it because my small contribution feels like such a drop in the bucket when such a large portion of her money is coming from people who spend more for a couple minutes with her than it would take to pay off my entire law school debt.
riversedge
(70,049 posts)
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)advise her on her campaign. Perhaps you should address your concerns directly to the campaign. Perhaps that would work better. Nobody on DU is on her staff, as far as I know. Someone else here was making suggestions about her hair styles. Your comments seem about on the same order.
Send an email to the campaign. That's my suggestion.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)MineralMan
(146,248 posts)this Kindle Fire. I'll edit this with the thread title in a moment.
"Taboo Subject" is the thread title.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nothing I posted here is harmful to HRC's chances. And we have enough money for the rest of the campaign now.
What matters is actually getting out there with the people.
MineralMan
(146,248 posts)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We simply don't NEED any more big donations between now and November.
And Democrats aren't supposed to say "shut up and leave it to the pros". In our party, the pros are usually the ones who lose the elections for us.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)MineralMan
(146,248 posts)
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The fundraising was dealt with, now what is needed is campaigning and GOTV.
For the rest of the way in, it's about keeping people focused on the race and the stakes.
It's rallies and canvassing and being visible that will do that. It's passion that will do that.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)this. It happens every four years like this- I guess you explained the same to Obama late Aug '12- right? The time between the convention and Labor Day is always quieter w public speaking and bigger on fund raising.
You thought they are winging it? Awww! That's so cute!
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Ever hear of a couple of guys who go by the name of Koch?
okasha
(11,573 posts)We need a ton of advertising buys down here, more campaign stops, field offices. That means more $$$$.
Hekate
(90,538 posts)...because we are Pure.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I want the party to win...AND to be able to act with as few constraints as possible after having won. I believe that key part of achieving that is to keep the party as grassroots-based as possible and to keep activists involved AFTER the election(as the party refused to allow following the 2008 election).
None of this is about refighting the primary, attacking the nominee or harming anything.
What is so terrible about believing that, in politics, people should matter as much as money?
Why does that idea scare some folks?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)For President and the down ticket races she is helping to fund?
Before making a suggestion like that you should find away to get things for free for the campaigns that currently cost money.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)The concern threads are full of panic which demoralizes Democrats and useless advice. Advice that if followeed would cause our nominee to lose. I don't understand that.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You're better than this.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)many states. Hillary just doesn't use the money for her own campaign but shares with other candidates at local levels. I hope that is escaping you in your concern. She will need Democratic Party majorities to get her ideas passed. Until Citizens United is overturned, we have the rules we have, and one thing you don't do in a fight for you life is unilaterally disarm. I contribute monthly and I know others who do too. I hope you do as well.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)hobbling them.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I support the party and want it to win big.
You have no reason to question my motivations or intent.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But money can't buy Democratic majorities. In the Nineties we had TONS of money and we never got a majority in either chamber after 1994 during that decade.
What we really need now is passion and mass enthusiasm. That's what the ticket needs to start inspiring. Without that, we could have every penny in the world and still not win anything.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)There is no Santa Clause you know.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We can't treat the grassroots as if it no longer matters.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)If you mean we need to appeal to those who think Democrats can get elected without money by being pure...ah no. We would lose for sure.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)People working for trade justice, LGBTQ rights, single-payer healthcare the labor movement and workers' rights, the defeat of institutional racism, climate justice, immigration justice, indigenous rights-to name just a few.
There are millions, maybe tens of millions of such people.
And if there truly wasn't a grassroots anymore, nothing progressive at all could ever happen in this country again. Change can only truly be made if there is mass pressure from below.
And I didn't say we don't need money at all...just that money isn't the ONLY thing that matters.
What we do as ordinary people matters too.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)are not turning out for Hillary in a big way...they won't contribute time or money...maybe they vote for her , maybe they don't...no need to cater to this group because you will not generate enthusiasm period.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)God help us if the grassroots didn't turn out, because there's no one else who WOULD vote Democratic.
People who hate activists and activism aren't going to care enough about politics to bother voting.
And the truth is, most people DON'T hate activists.
I think that most people who aren't active themselves understand that activism and activists are always going to be needed, because change never really comes from above, and never without a demand for change.
And the best thing to get them to turn out would be to have her specifically say "No TPP" in her stump speeches. The deal is basically dead now anyway.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)There are a few new faces but mostly the same group...the kids in college don't have time and in many cases the interest to help. What is so funny is that I am grass roots. I work in every election to elect Democrats.
TheKentuckian
(25,018 posts)then it says more about you than anything and what it says isn't positive and is essentially cheerleading for democracy to be overrun by cash.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)And the fact she is speaking to all different groups. Her team has proven they can walk and chew gum.
Supporters of Sanders don't all fit the profile you have put forward in your op. I hope you see the train of thought you have created.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512398045
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Most of whom are alienated by the status quo and all of whom we need to try and turn into Democratic voters.
We've done enough with the 1% already.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"We simply don't NEED any more big donations between now and November." Ken
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Besides which, there's nothing the group I listed in that thread wants that is in any way in conflict with what you want.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Your last sentences is inaccurate. It's also one hundred percent you speaking on my behalf.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There never was any less actual commitment to the issues you prioritize from us than from you. And you got what you wanted(the candidate you opposed was stopped) so why even keep that line going? What's the point?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Primaries are long gone. We unified very well.
Additionally, this is how you would structure a sentence if you wanted to completely speak for someone else when not asked to do so.
"Besides which, there's nothing the group I listed in that thread wants that is in any way in conflict with what you want. "
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)then fuck them.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Pay any attention to anything?
And the undecided?
But we all know that you believe the only way Hillary can win is to attract the dumbasses who are going to vote green or sit it out because thy are in a snit that Hillary is the nominee.
How many of these are you going to post?
But we all know that of course you are supporting Hillary.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)All I've said(and I've been proven right)is that there are no more votes to be gained by tacking "to the center" on anything major. This is not a year in which anyone would be impressed by a "Sistah Souljah" moment.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)I think it's safe to say that the people working on the Clinton campaign beat you heavily in that department and probably know more than any of us on this message board. Airtime doesn't pay for itself. Neither does having over 100 offices in Swing states with paid staffers.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)I worked on Obama's campaign...and his was the only winning presidential campaign since Bill Clinton.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)By your standard, few Democrats at all have worked on winning presidential campaigns.
I've also observed or participated in most of the LOSING fall campaigns we've run...seeing firsthand what DIDN'T work...and the reason we usually lost was that the candidates didn't inspire sustained enthusiasm, didn't offer compelling ideas, and didn't fight back against smears. Carter(in 1980), Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry all had MASSIVE corporate support, bland "mainstream" platforms, and an attitude of deference to their Republican opponents and to the 1%-NONE of those campaigns(and all of those candidates were exemplary people) lost because there weren't enough fundraisers involving the ultra-rich.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If they want to help, they'll help without us laying out the caviar.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It's incredibly out of touch, too. Some people never learn.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We had tons of big donors in the Nineties and lost Congress over and over.
People power is needed as much as donors, if not more so.
And the largest donors mostly want the party to be as non-progressive as possible(not all, but most, clearly).
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Are treated to post after post from you advising her to adopt a losers strategy. Let it go. She can't morph into someone else at this point- and she should not. She won. She won Dems big.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why, after all this time, are you still angry that the other primary candidate even ran? Everything would be worse right now if the nomination had been virtually uncontested like in 2000 and 2004.
JI7
(89,239 posts)doesn't mean it wasn't contested.
maybe you should consider listening to why others vote the way they do instead of these type of threads you always make and are offensive to those of us who worked hard for candidates who won.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Yes, there was nominal "opposition", but everyone knew who the nominees would be before anyone voted at all in the primaries. Both predesignated nominees were simply not ready for a tough fall campaign because the skids had been greased for them in the primaries. Either would have been an ok president, but the ease of the nomination process
Clearly, part of the reason neither of those nominees ended up being sworn in was the fact that there was no real contest, no real debate, in either 2000 or 2004. By contrast, in 2008 there was a real contest, the nomination race went down to the wire and we won solidly. It sharpened our campaign and our candidate. The same thing is true this year. We are clearly stronger and more popular because there was a real debate and because the views of both major primary candidates are reflected in the platform.
There's no way we'd be doing as well as we are now if the nomination had been wrapped up on Super Tuesday.
What is so offensive here?
I'm not attacking anyone.
JI7
(89,239 posts)you ignore many things in the country outside of primary politics which have a lot more to do with who wins than the primary itself.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It helped her a lot that she went embraced some Sanders values(a lot of HRC people on this very board said they preferred Bernie's actual platform. It held down the Stein vote dramatically.
Outside of primary politics, there is a general public wish for a less bland, less "safe" approach to politics, one that speaks truth to power. We do better as a party this year the more we connect with that.
JI7
(89,239 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The need to significantly increase wages for the economic majority.
She was progressive on a number of things before that, too. I never argued that her candidacy and her original proposals were worthless. And there were issues I wasn't satisfied with Bernie about(he should have been stronger, earlier in PUBLIC support of the antiracist movement and should have made a more explicit challenge to the foreign policy and "defense" policy status quo).
And if the nomination had gone the other way, Sanders as nominee and, those of us who supported him, would gladly have included platform language drafted by your side on the issues people found him lacking on(chiefly on the perception that he wasn't sufficiently committed to fighting institutional bigotry, on education priorities to some degree, and on some aspects of immigration policy). That's what a nominee SHOULD do...reach out to the other candidates to address the issues those candidates raised. It's simply the practice of inclusion and internal democracy, and I can't imagine why the idea of that would bother anyone in this party. There simply isn't any huge bloc of voters who would vote for a Democratic presidential nominee but ONLY if that nominee didn't make any major concessions to the views of the other primary candidates and their supporters.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)The primary drove her approval numbers down.
synergie
(1,901 posts)your own biases, are not entitled to participate in the election and who must be barred from the candidate, as if they had nothing to contribute as well? After all, it's just about factory workers and whom you define as "poor", none of those "rich" folks right?
It's cute how you guys seem to insist that certain groups of people need to be excluded from participation in an election. But that's not unpopular with you and yourself, or anything right?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)BTW, I'm not sure who you mean by "you guys", but I don't want anyone excluded from political participation...and I never did.
synergie
(1,901 posts)this "class" of people you've created with views. You don't seem to wish to invite all to participate.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I don't hate rich people...it's just that I reject the idea that they should matter more than the rest of us, that they should have more of a say than the rest.
You can also look at that, in a more positive light, as the idea that everyone else should be as revered and influential as Bill Gates or Paul McCartney or Oprah.
The minority of rich people that want something done about extreme income disparity and excessive concentration of wealth, who oppose war and injustice are ok by me.
I'd like nothing better than to see MOST of them develop Bobby Kennedy's post-1964 values. Or at least to be like George Romney rather than Mitt. But can you really tell me you think something like that is possible?
You are undoubtedly a good person, and I have nothing against you.
It's just that I value the majority of the human race as well.
synergie
(1,901 posts)as the class you belong to. You seem to hate what you consider to be "rich" people.
So people who are revered for their accomplishments, like the 3 you mention, are only "revered" because of their bank accounts?
I'm sorry, but your classist attacks on entire groups of people who you've defined, are ridiculous. The "minority" you've made up of a class you've defined are "okay by" you, when they agree with you huh? Guess they're the "good ones".
Why would you have anything against me? Have you decided I am rich? Could you call my bank and let them know?
It's kind of sad that you don't realize that what you're saying kinda shows that you don't value humans you've decided are different from you, and that even when it's pointed out you still don't get it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You don't have to think the wealthy need to matter MORE than the rest of us to think they should matter at all.
I don't have anything against you...And I only made reference to you because you keep accusing me of animosity.
synergie
(1,901 posts)or the campaign. You seem to think that the wealthy matter LESS than the rest of us, and have defined this group by your own standards and ascribed many things to them, most of which you've made up.
Yes, I pointed out your animosity, you sound like Trump with Mexican people, whom he also attacks, while making the same allowance you do, that "SOME" you assume are good people, if they agree with you.
Seems like you're having some trouble understanding what animosity is, and why you're very much guilty of engaging in it.
I think you need to stop attacking people and ascribing political beliefs and motivations based on your personal animosity.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Please stop attacking me and accusing me of holding views I don't hold.
BTW, It's totally inappropriate to compare the rich to other groups. Nobody in this country has ever been oppressed for BEING wealthy.
I think the wealthy are ONE part of society. Isn't that enough? What's wrong with being of equal value with the rest of us?
synergie
(1,901 posts)Please stop harassing me and sending me private messages in which you attack me for daring to call out what you're doing accurately, as you accuse others of holding views you've made up to vilify them in your quest to deny them equal access to participating in the election.
Yes, it's totally inappropriate to do what you're doing, which is attacking groups you've defined and vilified. Apparently you think certain groups are a part of society that should not be a part of the process the rest of your chosen people are allowed to be. I have no idea why you feel that all people regardless of class, creed, skin color or gender should not be equal, yet here you are using every trope used by those who seek to deny a group of people fair participation in society and politics.
What is wrong with everyone being equal, why do you seek to oppress people based on things you've made up, which reflect your animosity and why are you so dedicated to using the language of hate, from Donald's hate speech to the neo-nazis to do so?
Equality shouldn't be limited to just those people you've decided are "probably decent people, you assume' and yes, everyone should matter, but some, insist that doesn't apply to everyone, I happen to think those who say these things need to be called out on their animosity, and I've done so.
Please stop attacking me and accusing me of holding you accountable for what you said, repeatedly and do not PM me again.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)you are shutting them out of the process, and you have no right to dictate to others how they should or should not help Democrats during an election.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)you don;t seem to know that she won big. being herself.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie never expected to get anywhere close to making the showing he made when he got into the race. He wasn;t nominated, but his campaign changed the party for the better and brought nothing but good to the party and the country.
Yes, HRC won and I support her. But she won by embracing a lot of things the Sanders campaign brought up. She was adjustable in a good way on that. And I want her to win in the fall just as much as you do. That's why I started this thread.
And essentially, I'm calling on her to BE herself. She was herself when she stood with the poor and the powerless in the Sixties and Seventies. She was less herself when she made the choices she made in the Eighties and Nineties.
That's why it worries me for the party to think it's no big deal to be paying court to the 1%-It raises questions in a lot of voters' minds about whose side we're on and it makes us look like the one thing we should NEVER look like-the establishment, the existing order.
We're better than that.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)She doesn't need you or Bernie giving her any unsolicited advice.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)i know you love posted your hatred for the DNC and have to guess that's a big reason she is anti fundraising. The rest of us want a better congress and senate ASAP. We are here to support Dems and their much favored candidate. We love her because she is more about action than empty symbolism and impossible promises. I'm not endangering our chances of one senate seat to appease people who want to toss their vote in the garbage. Nope.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not "refighting the primary" to point out that Bernie came closer than anyone expected. And I wasn't even talking about the primary. Nor do I hate the DNC.
I want HRC to win just as much as you do and want to retake Congress as much as you do.
Please stop making false accusations about me.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)But it is indeed relighting the primary. If I answered your questions I'd be doing it too. Not going there but damn this is getting tired. She is not him. Cope with it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But he is not the enemy. Nor am I.
I'm just trying to help make sure we win.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)in a way that we never suggested any man ever win?
puhlease.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And I've ALWAYS argued, no matter who we nominated, that our fall campaigns need to be about enthusiasm and mobilization. Other than the Obama campaigns, I haven't seen anyone we nominated run a fall campaign that tried to inspire people, that tried to say "we will work had to transform life for the better.
I want Hillary to win. If I didn't want that, I wouldn't be posting here.
And if my candidate had been nominated, I'd be HOPING that people who had supported your candidate would offer suggestions on how to win. That's what I see as part of democracy-openness to ideas from below as much as above.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Making it appear close.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It doesn't harm HRC to acknowledge that he had a lot of support and that hid ideas are popular.
This would have been a much worse election without that campaign.
It would have served no one but the 1% if Bernie had withdrawn after Super Tuesday.
There was nothing but good in his staying in.
And how do you think it helps the cause of party unity to act as if the Sanders campaign was a failure and a waste of time?
It wouldn't be better for POC or the LGBTQ community if the party were further right than it is now.
We're on the same side. Please just accept that.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)is not just skating by?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Your candidate won. We accept that as a group. How do you think it helps anything to treat Bernie's campaign as a pointless failure? What do you think that achieves?
Nothing bad came of Bernie running, or of his staying in as long as he did. It made the platform better and that made unity easier to achieve.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It doesn't make her look bad to accept that the Sanders campaign did better than anyone expected at a start, that it influenced the platform for the better, and that nothing bad came of Bernie being in the race.
I accept that HRC won. I'm supporting her. Virtually all of us are. Why do you still feel the need to attack us and to dis the candidate we supported? Can't you just accept that the war is over and we're on the same side now?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Primaries, and baiting others to refight them with you is getting tiresome. That and making daily suggestions that Hillary is wrong to do - well most things she is doing - is getting pretty transparent. Saying you support her while undercutting her on a daily basis is absolute bullshit.
Actions speak louder than words.
You have not shown any support, and you constantly denigrate her win, her campaign and her supporters here as well. We are over it. Stop PMing me crap that this hurts your feelings to hear. It is what it is. It's manipulative nonsense to claim a supportive stance while
tearing someone down constantly. No reason we should be nicer about it. This eleftion about a whole lot more than your ego and hurt feelings. Good grief, let it go.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The honest fact is that Hillary was nominated and by a clear margin.
And the other honest fact is that Bernie did much better than anyone thought he would do.
It shows no disrespect to Hillary to point out that Bernie got a lot of support and that his campaign helped make the platform better.
To win in November, we need the young people who worked in his campaign to stay involved in Democratic, and to do that we need to acknowledge that they made a big difference for the good. If we make them unwelcome and cause them to slink away feeling like failures, that only helps Trump.
Hillary has nothing to gain from any of her supporters treating Bernie's supporters as if they did nothing that mattered. We need everyone to feel welcome and respected. There aren't any large blocs of votes to be gained from dissing Sanders supporters and belittling their efforts.
I endorsed HRC in a thread posted before the convention, and continue to strongly support her.
If I wanted her to lose, I wouldn't post at this site.
We all know HRC won, and we all accept that and are working for her.
It doesn't undercut Hillary to offer suggestions on strategy.
If Bernie was the nominee, I'd personally be ENCOURAGING HRC supporters to do so and treating them as allies.
We need votes as much as money, and we need supporters from BOTH primary campaigns working together.
Hillary would be a fine president.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)What is the deal here? You keep saying I attacked Bernie and/or his supporters. I did no such thing. We are in the general. I don't even think about primary stuff anymore. Anyone attacking Bernie,other Democrats, or DU folks will get in trouble here and rightfully so. We are all in this together. Perhaps you have me confused with another poster.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)However, Hillary is the nominee, and I am damned if I understand how holding a fundraiser is disrespectful towards Sen. Sanders or his supporters most who now support Sec. Clinton.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)stonecutter357
(12,693 posts)And Why are you attacking DU members?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I have nothing against you...I just don't think people in your class (most of whom, yourself accepted are well to the right of the party) should be given more deference and influence than the rest of us.
synergie
(1,901 posts)are to the "right" of the party, and thus must sit down and shut up, because Ken Burch has decided that they have no right to participate in the democratic process because he hates that class and has ascribed to them political beliefs that he has decided they have?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Do you really believe they can ONLY participate by writing big checks?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... be relegated to participating on the same level as everyone else?
Those who can afford to contribute a LOT should do so, just as those who can't afford much should contribute what they can.
And who said that "writing a big check" is the only way a wealthy person can participate?
Political campaigns cost money to run - and LOTS of it. Asking those who can afford to do so for LARGE donations is no different than asking those less well-off for $27. Each should contribute according to their means - and I'm not sure I understand why you have a problem with that concept.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If rich people want to donate because they're actually supportive of change, I'm ok with them doing that.
But THAT sort of rich person would donate without champagne and caviar being laid out for them. They'd do it because they thought it was the right thing to do.
It's the paying court thing that's offensive. When we bend the knee, it gives people who oppose us chances to attack us and call us hypocrites...chances they shouldn't get.
We need to avoid ever looking like part of the damn status quo, Nance. Appearances matter.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Exactly who is asking that question, Ken? Do you think there are those who don’t or won’t vote Dem because they’ve seen rich people contributing? Do you think everyone judges a party and the worth of its candidates on the basis of how much champagne and caviar is consumed at a fundraiser?
Contrary to what is promoted as popular belief on political boards, we are not a nation divided into the extremely wealthy and the poverty-stricken. There’s a LOT of us who exist between those two extremes. You seem to be advancing the idea of “us” versus “them” – “us” being the perpetually downtrodden, and “them” being people we should not be seen associating with.
“It's the paying court thing that's offensive. When we bend the knee, it gives people who oppose us chances to attack us and call us hypocrites...chances they shouldn't get.”
What you see as “paying court” and “bending the knee” is seen by the vast majority of people as simply a big bash for those with big bank accounts – people who can afford large contributions having a good time while whipping out their checkbooks. Would you see a fundraising barbecue in a working-class neighbourhood as “paying court” to the working class? Would you see a fundraising fish-fry in a small coastal town as “bending the knee” to those who attend? And if so, why? Is the money contributed by the wealthy somehow tainted, while dollars contributed by the middle-class is somehow more worthy?
“We need to avoid ever looking like part of the damn status quo, Nance. Appearances matter.”
Well, here’s something you obviously don’t want to hear: The majority of Americans are not unhappy with the “status quo” since Obama was elected. If anything, they want to improve on what he, and the Democrats, have set in motion. They do not want to “burn it all to the ground” and start over from scratch. They do not see people partying in the Hamptons as the enemy, any more than they see the guy up the street who just got a promotion and a raise as their enemy.
I don’t want to “fight the primaries” all over again. But the truth is that this “us v them” mentality is a holdover from Bernie Sanders’ campaign, this fool-headed idea that $27 donations are somehow sacrosanct, while $270,000 donations – and those who can afford to make such contributions – are something all Democrats should be ashamed of, and should keep on the down-low lest we be seen as kowtowing to “them”.
Political campaigns need money – and whether it comes a dollar at a time or tens of thousands at a time is of little consequence when it all winds up in the same pot, available to be spent on promoting our candidate over theirs.
“Appearances matter” is a meaningless phrase, and conjures up the hypocrisy that Republicans have relied on for decades; i.e. being “seen” as doing what’s right instead of actually doing the right thing.
“Appearances matter” is the domain of the party that has nothing else to offer other than photos of candidates scrubbing already-cleaned pots in a soup kitchen. It does not pertain to voters who don’t believe that “appearance” is a goal to be aimed at; those who think ideas and ideals are far more important.
I, for one, find the “appearances matter” meme to be abhorrent. It promotes the idea that Democrats should be “seen” as being the party that is on-side with the citizenry instead of actually being on their side.
THAT is, and always has been, the GOP’s marketing strategy. I do not want to see my Party following that lead. I don’t give a flying fuck whether ANY Democratic fundraiser is approved of by those who think “appearances matter”. I care about my Party’s coffers being full enough to win the White House in November – and whether that money comes from “soirees in the Hamptons” or a bake sale in Bumfuck, Middle America, is of no consequence.
Those who think “appearances matter” are those who don’t bother to look beyond appearances. It’s as simple as that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I'm simply saying we need to be the people's party...I'm not trying to reverse the results of the roll-call vote.
Constructive suggestions are not disloyalty.
The only thing I would say about the primaries is that we proved you can fully fund a strong campaign without large donors. That should be something every Democrat should hail. Why would anyone other than Republicans belittle it?
Yes, political campaigns need money. But they equally need passion and a way to sustain enthusiasm.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)I instead suggested that I might be seen as doing so, by bringing up Bernie's campaign meme of "us v them", i.e. the wealthy versus the non-wealthy.
"We proved you can fully fund a strong campaign without large donors."
And what does that mean in the end? Bernie didn't win the nomination of the party he was running for. Do you honestly believe that he could have won the GE based on $27 donations? The GE is reality, Ken, not a game where the guy with no money somehow wins the WH despite the odds. The GE is serious business, not a made-for-TV movie.
"Yes, political campaigns need money. But they equally need passion and a way to sustain enthusiasm."
You know, I'm sick and tired of being told that there is no enthusiasm for HRC. Primary voters were enthused enough to elect her as their nominee. Apparently, Bernie was the one who didn't inspire enough "enthusiasm" to beat her - a fact many simply refuse to face.
"Constructive suggestions are not disloyalty."
No, they're not. But I fail to see the "constructive" side of saying that wealthy Democrats who are willing to contribute what they can afford are somehow different from $27 donors - who also gave what they could afford.
I find the "we should disassociate ourselves from wealthy donors for appearance's sake" as abhorrent as saying we should disassociate ourselves from black donors, Asian donors, Latino donors, women donors, veteran donors, disabled donors, etc., because of "appearances'.
Fuck that. If you are more concerned about "appearances" than the substance of a presidential candidate and the Party and policies she represents, perhaps you would be more comfortable being part of the party whose ONLY concern is "appearances".
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(or as you didn't say but might just as well have said, LGBTQ donors, Muslim or Jewish donors, or immigrant donors as well) would only be appropriate if we lived in a country where people were evicted, fired, deported, beaten or killed simply for being rich. As it happens, no one anywhere lives in a country like that. Most people aren't rich, but that fact doesn't mean the minority of folks who are are an oppressed group.
And this IS becoming a country of the few vs. the many. There has been a massive increase in economic inequality since 1981, with no real interruption in its progress. Yes, there are a fair amount of people between the very rich and the very poor, but there are many more people IN that middle section doing worse and worse overall, facing long-term wage stagnation. A major part of the reason the white backlash has endured has been economic insecurity and the fear of falling from the middle-class into poverty, a fear right-wing politicians have associated in a lot of white minds with the mistaken belief that gains for anyone other than whites in any area of life somehow HAS to mean losses for whites. This is addressing economic inequality and fear of want have to be part(but not all)of the antioppression project.
In addition, the people losing ground economically since 1981 (with minor respites in the Clinton and Obama years'0 have disproportionately been the groups who make up the Democratic base-the remaining working class of all races, people of color of most classes, and women and LGBTQ community(which contributes, in addition to homophobia, to the massive and growing incidence of homelessness among LGBTQ youth) . Part of our project in this party needs to be addressing that...and doing so doesn't conflict in the slightest with addressing institutional bigotry, or grassroots bigotry or racist police violence.
Hekate
(90,538 posts)
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)Thank you Nance! Wonderful rebuttal!
Hekate
(90,538 posts)...carrying their begging bowls. Purity, Nance, purity.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)They were fascinated by fashion and home design magazines. When I was in a Masai hut the women just wanted to play with my IPhone and recognized my pet cats but could not understand my tiny living room was where I actually lived. I guess the Christmas tree threw them off. Compared to them, I was living the high life, bit mostly appreciated not having my I genitals mutilated or having horseflies indoors. These things can be relative.
People like bright shiny things sometimes- fundraising is also about volunteering and getting your own community involved. No one would find it tasteful if they vacated their homes to pretend to like a shitty local place. I just can't hate wealthy people for donating money to Dems. If they were real shit heads they'd be doing it for the GOP.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)How about we take the money and win the majorities and don't be reverse snobs who hate successful people... many who are great Democrats. I want every single person who wants to participate to participate...not racists of course...after all, we are not the GOP.
synergie
(1,901 posts)somehow don't participate at the same level as anyone else, you seem to believe that certain people, due to their class, should not be allowed to participate, and should move aside to allow those you deem worthy to take over.
Why do you have such odd views of people you seem to resent so much? Why do you not wish them to participate, why do you feel the need to attack and exclude them, while also being dishonest about the views you claim they have?
mopinko
(69,983 posts)i like being able to see the candidates up close and personal. it has been very interesting for me, and has informed the message i take with me when knocking doors.
do i wish all voters had that opportunity? well sure. down ticket this happens. top of the ticket, pretty sure there are not enough hours in the year for that to happen.
i am totally proud that several of those opportunities included a skinny kid w big ears that everyone was talking about. i got to hear from some of those downticket people who had worked with him in springfield. i also found out how he treated some of those people AFTER that election. some telling incidents.
i donated early and often to both his presidential campaigns. i have shaken his hand. and michelle's, too.
politics, in the end, is very much about relationships. that sorta requires some face time.
it is a whole lot more than just votes. you need fuel for the campaign machine. until that changes, unilateral disarmament is a stupid idea.
FSogol
(45,435 posts)
So transparent,
William769
(55,142 posts)Rich people vote too!
As far as I've seen from Hillary, she has done great representing all at her engagements.
Oh pardon me, now I get what this OP is really about. My bad.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)How many campaigns have you directed?
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)But thanks for playing.
JI7
(89,239 posts)Hekate
(90,538 posts)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We have to be a grassroots party to BE progressive.
Hekate
(90,538 posts)They looked into their souls and said, "Nope, the poor and downtrodden and struggling middle class can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. It will be good for them. They would be offended if we stretched out our well-manicured hands to them."
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That was then. There were people of wealth in those days who took the larger view of life.
If there are any rich people anywhere anymore with a Bobby Kennedy outlook on life, they wouldn't need us to lay our spreads of caviar and champagne in order to donate to us.
They wouldn't expect us to defer or genuflect to them.
They would just donate because it was the right thing to do.
Hekate
(90,538 posts)...for various fundraising events, even the ones that are way down at my level. You do know what an in-kind donation is, don't you?
And if you weren't so far gone in your snobbery, you'd be able to see who out there is willing to partner in the here and now with like-minded progressives/liberals/Democrats.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)She is working on the progressive agenda, and it takes money...if Democrats listened to you and others with similar ideas, we would lose every time.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We can only win as a grassroots party.
Rich people generally don't want us to be grassroots.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Put another way: If you want to be taken seriously, it helps to prove your bona-fides.
To be clear: I'm not speaking as a DU Administrator here. My purpose is merely to offer some helpful insight to those of you who don't seem to understand why you are not showered with rose petals when you offer your special brand of constructive criticism here on DU. Allow me to explain.
If you have spent the last six-to-twelve months trashing Senator Obama here on DU, and since the primaries ended you have not given any credible indication that you are now a supporter of his campaign, then if you post a thread about how you are incredibly disappointed in him because {insert reason here}, people are likely to wonder about your motivations and conclude that you are still trying to derail his campaign.
I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying it's fair. What I am saying is that it is virtually inevitable.
So, if you want to be taken seriously -- if you want your constructive criticism to be accepted as constructive -- I humbly suggest that you put some effort into demonstrating that you actually want our guy to win this thing.
I don't think saying you will vote for her after trashing her forever and then flooding the forum with "concern" after "concern" makes for very good bona-fides. But maybe that's just me.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I posted an OP endorsing her before the convention. That's proof enough.
Brother Buzz
(36,364 posts)from the Democratic Blue Machine ATM. That is, as long as she doesn't blow any dough on television commercials in my fine state.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)It pisses me off how Democratic politicians come here for cash but never for the voters. I would not expect them to spend money on ads here but it would be nice if they would also do a rally or a tour of a factory in a disadvantaged area when they come for cash
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Brother Buzz
(36,364 posts)and that was good enough for me. I say bring on the general election, like, tomorrow.
Hekate
(90,538 posts)It is a huge -- and hugely populated -- area. Californians are lucky if a presidential politician gives a public speech in Los Angeles, which has almost 4 million people, but good luck getting there, for most of us.
Bill Clinton gave a speech to the public at Santa Barbara Community College once (where I got to see him), but it was in conjunction with a fundraising effort the night before in the wealthy enclave.
I long ago realized that if I wanted to see presidential candidates in person I had two choices: go live in New Hampshire, a very small state where they all get their training wheels; or work my way up the volunteer chain locally and serve/get in for free at the aforementioned fundraisers for wealthy Democrats. That's how I got to shake Howard Dean's hand.
Candidates simply don't have enough time to try criss-crossing California, unless they are running for US Senator. I'm grateful so many of our wealthy are Democrats -- it sure helps out the millions who don't have that kind of money.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)On occasion Clinton has flown in for a fundraiser and headed right out.
That said, I do disagree that the cash withdrawal isn't for the voters. I want Clinton to win. It's going to take large sums of money. Therefore, these stops are for me. Directly and as a voter.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)But it would be nice if she could find the time to show some attention to those of us in non-swing states who cannot afford to spend thousands to attend a fundraiser.
Pretty much the only thing positive I will say about Trump is that he often does a rally or other public event when he goes to a non-swing state to raise money. It would be nice to see Hillary do the same thing. But this is not a knock on Hillary - it is a knock on almost every politician, and the antiquated system of choosing presidents by state rather than by votes.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)by Thomas Frank
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)
Divine Discontent
(21,056 posts)But I'm sure that's been discussed a lot. Anyhow, no worries.
Drumf is a horrible candidate, so ultimately he'll screw up and none of this will matter. 😂
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)And a bitter primary drove up her unfavorables...it will take time.
LAS14
(13,769 posts)... politically sophisticated leftists (redundant?), Americans LIKE rich people. At some level they/we all buy into the notion that anyone can become rich. It's the basis of Trump's appeal starting back before The Apprentice. I don't think Hillary's hobnobbing with recognizable rich people hurts her at all.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Obama, Biden, Warren, Sanders and many more all backing the next President of the United States!
zappaman
(20,606 posts) 
romana
(765 posts)I'm sure Clinton's campaign will be in touch shortly, since I'm sure they're sitting around just waiting for you to tell them what to do.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)
radical noodle
(7,997 posts)for knowing how to run a campaign. Her down time was not only fund raising, it was also debate prep which must be a nightmare with an opponent like Trump.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)I have never seen a positive post from the 'concerned' among us.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Please stop with the suspicion already.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)I don't say you are secretly working against her...what I think is you simply don't like her (it is a free country, I was a Deaniac and never really like Kerry but I supported and voted for him) and everything she does is wrong in you eyes, but the end result of these 'concern' posts (yours and others) is to demoralize Democrats.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I've disagreed with her on some things( it's impossible for me to believe that war can ever have progressive or even mundanely positive effects and I think we should treat business as simply one part of life and this country, rather than put its wishes above everyone and everything else), but I respect her as a qualified person. And it would be a good thing to have a woman as president(though not, in and of itself, transformational).
And my intent is to galvanize my fellow Democrats to action, to mobilize the grassroots to work continuously with the party for real change(and despite what someone else in this thread posted, there is a HUGE grassroots...the trade with justice movement-no one is against "trade", just against a race to the bottom in the name of "trade"-the antiracist and LGBTQ rights movements, Latino and iindigenous rights activism, labor, the continuing peace and criminal justice reform movements, all still active and with millions, possibly tens of millions of supporters), and to make sure the party, when elected, is able to act with as few impediments as possible.
To do what you want me to do, to just say "I will unquestioningly defend and support whatever the party's strategists say they have to do to get us elected" means giving up all of my principles, all of my values and all of my hopes. But I want to win just as much as you do.
betsuni
(25,374 posts)and should go talk to voters. Sounds like the same advice: NO MORE EVENTS WITH RICH PEOPLE!
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)betsuni
(25,374 posts)Seems like they borrowed it from somewhere...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It doesn't help HRC to pretend her campaign is infallible.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)I suppose you think the donation fairy will come, and we don't have to fundraise to our people elected.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)The primary is over.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nor am I refighting the primary.
Nothing I've said here is harmful.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)to morph into a different candidate. All your posts are about how she should do this or that...this one is the worst because no Democrat can afford not to fund-raise. And we need down ticket money. I can't believe that either you or someone else said ...oh we reached our fund-raising goal...what??? We have more states in play than usual. You don't like United and I don't like United but it is here, and Democrats must raise money...you go where the money is. And the idea that there should be rules about how the well to do support Democrats is just wrong...who would make up these rules? Sorry, we are a diverse party in all ways and we welcome all here...not just the 'pure' left. Why should we twist ourselves in knots trying to please the voters who are not on board with Hillary? It seems to me Gore did this and lost. There is no pleasing Green types...who by the way gave us United when they helped elect George Bush. If you are not with Hillary now then you never will be. No need to cater to such clueless voters who are not Democrats and not progressive in my opinion. We need to win and you need money to do that. She should fund raise where the money is ...and by the way caviar and Pate de fois gras are delicious!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I've never been disrespectful to you.
And you know perfectly well I'm with Hillary. Don't question my party loyalty again.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Fundraising is critical right now for Democrats across the board.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)1st grade class helper campaigns are brutal in certain locales it would seem 
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But why assume that the only way to raise funds is from the 1%?
We showed you an alternative fundraising strategy in the primaries that worked just as well.
And why the complete dismissal of people power?
Not everything is about ad buys.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Donating to her?
also, you taught me nothing and neither did the sanders campaign. Nothing worthwhile at least.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Even if you didn't support the guy, how is THAT a bad lesson?
Why are you still angry that the guy ran? There wasn't anything bad that came of that.
And almost all of those who backed him strongly back HRC now...so what reason do you have to be holding a grudge against us?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Not sanders or his campaign.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)All I've done or at least tried to do is stand up for grassroots politics and real small-d democratic change.
And now I want our nominee to win, and to be as free from constraint when she does win.
I don't hate her(never did), I don't hate you(or believe myself to be superior to you or anyone else), and it's unlikely that we actually disagree on much in terms of ideals and objectives.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)and maybe you'll sound less condescending. i don't what is in your intention, i can only read what you type. and what you wrote sounds condescending.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)All I meant to say is that the campaign I was in offered an effective approach to fundraising, one the party should use in the future.
For the record, you have taught me a lot of things and I'm deeply thankful for that.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)hence, i do not want HRC to do anything that remotely hinders her chances of winning just because it is the more 'pure' approach.
i literally think we are only arguing because of this fundamentally misunderstand what this election means for some of us and why we are so jumpy about it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Especially LGBTQ people and POC
And believe me, if Bernie had been nominated, I'd be glad to see you or any other HRC supporter post any suggestions you thought would help.
BTW, I'm not a BoB...I've never thought there was no difference between Hillary and Trump, OR that this election didn't matter.
I'm on your side. I stand with you in any way I can.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Till this election is over
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And trust is always hard to give and to earn-especially if most of your life has been a story of betrayed trust.
Have a good weekend.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)enough money for the general using this method. And why are the 1% many who are Democrats excluded? Sounds fake.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)People power can win.
Bernie mainly lost because the impression was created(in significant measure due to poor communication from his own campaign, as I've said many times)that he was less antiracist than HRC. This was never actually the case, but it's largely what made the difference(and Sanders supporters acknowledge that the campaign could have made its antiracist message clearer) in the nomination battle.
The fact that he wasn't nominated doesn't mean that his campaign was a failure or a joke, that the party must never use any of the tactics his campaign used at all, OR that it is necessary to constantly disparage that campaign and deny that it had any effect or influence on the party or the political discussion this year.
None of us, when that campaign started, thought it would ever make the showing it did. It was a very strong showing, strong beyond Bernie's expectations or, I think, beyond the expectations of anyone else.
And while that campaign brought independents into the process, that was purely to the good, and our future lies in getting as many of those independents as possible to join us. They were people who should always have been made welcome, never benefited from the times it drove such people away in the past, and nothing they support is in fundamental conflict with the needs or interests of long-term party loyalists.
I join you in standing for unity...and unity means accepting that both primary campaigns were legitimate, positive in result and of value to this party. The vast majority of Sanders people are enthusiastically backing the Clinton-Kaine ticket. This means we've earned your respect and should not be treated as outsiders who must be silenced and can never be trusted.
Recognizing all of that takes nothing away from anyone, including our nominee and those who supported her first.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)I have a picture of him on my computer to show unity. My point is that you can not run a general without fundraising and what you and other suggest would handicap our candidates. Bernie had a largely economic message which is important...but social justice is important to me as well.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I accept that you have the right to support the person you supported, but what you just said about the person I supported is factually wrong and was always factually wrong. There is no reason to keep repeating it. Please stop perpetuating the myth that Bernie and his supporters don't care about "social justice"
by which you mean institutional bigotry). We DO care about it, we always did, and we care about it as deeply as you do. There was never an actual deficiency in our commitment on that and now that we're working for the ticket you have no good reason to keep throwing repeating primary talking points.
If you support economic justice, you are also going to support social justice. We all support justice FOR all. Can you please just accept that already and be a good enough winner to move on? It's not going to harm the nominee to admit Bernie is just as antiracist as anyone else.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)I also see nothing wrong with fancy fundraisers or even parties...You are the one that keeps refighting the primary by trying to turn Hillary into Bernie. It won't happen. She has her own strengths and weaknesses, but she must be herself. And I do not understand this antipathy towards wealthy Democrats or why you repeat what is essentially a right wing talking point concerning the fundraisers. We live in the world of United...that is our reality and we need down ticket and presidential campaign money. As for the social justice thing, I accept whatever you say on this issue. The primary is over. The reality is we must win this election to get anything done...and we are not talking about the next four years either...but a generation since the courts are involved. This a lingering bitterness over a tough primary.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If I didn't agree with that, I wouldn't post on DU anymore.
And it's not possible to turn Hillary into Bernie...I wouldn't ever try to do that. Mainly I want her to be as close as possible to the Hillary of 1972(as I wanted John Kerry to be the John Kerry of 1972).
I can tell you this, though...you really don't help the cause of party unity by insisting that Bernie lost badly and that his campaign achieved nothing at all.
Hillary, to her credit, knows that, and has been nothing but positive about the Sanders movement since the nomination.
There's simply no good reason for you to keep trashing Bernie(if anyone is refighting the primary here, it's you) especially when you know you need former Sanders supporters(especially the young) to show up at the polls If we're to elect Hillary and flip Congress. People like me(I'm 55) will canvass and phonebank and vote no matter what, but dissing Bernie and treating his candidacy as nothing but a pathetic joke will alienate the young, drive them away when we desperately need them.
That's why it is so destructive to Hillary for you to keep treating the Sanders campaign and movement.
The Sanders campaign was the first time these young people had someone the believed in and felt they could trust. The Sanders movement needs to go to keep the young involved. If we are to win, it's crucial to respect what those kids did and continue to do, to make sure they walk away from this year believing that they made a difference and have a reason to stay involved. As a party we need them to stay involved and to see the party as a place where they can work for their dreams. If we make them unwelcome, if we treat them like we don't need them or want them or give a damn about what they care about, no one will come in to replace them and we will end up in the political boneyard(as we came close to doing in the Eighties and on every level other than the presidency in the Nineties.
We need the young. Without them, we die out.
We can't win by being the party that says "you kids keep off my lawn!"
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)the 1% fundraiser thing is primary related, and that somehow we show disrespect for Bernie and his young followers by holding fundraisers and 'courting' as you call it wealthy donors. I did not trash Bernie on this thread or any other. And holding fundraisers to help elect Democrats is not trashing Bernie or his young supporters. It is a political reality. We need money to run campaigns in order to get elected and implement a progressive agenda. Right now it looks like we won't take the House...maybe a little extra money in key campaigns might pay off...who knows. It is worth a shot...and the optics of it should not matter. The primary is over and we must do what is best for the many Democrats running for office. Bernie understands this, and politics must be based in reality or you end up with the Green delusion which helped elect Bush. I dream of having a safe majority on the courts for our LGBTQ friends, protection for women's rights, income equality, to stop kids from going to bed hungry, money to improve our infrastructure, stopping all wars, immigration reform with a path to citizenship, affordable college, and to have single payer healthcare. But none of that will happen without being practical and doing what you must in order to win. And this is a crucial election for the courts. Sec. Clinton showed no disrespect towards anyone by holding a fundraiser in order to help stop the GOP menace. We must never handicap our candidates by forcing them to live by some 'pure' standard that could cause them to lose. Our values -wonderful as they may be - will not stop the righ'ts obscene agenda...we must win elections.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not refighting the primary to make a legitimate point about tactics.
I want Hillary to win as much as you do...don't accuse me of having a hidden agenda or of dishonesty or of not wanting victory or of violating forum rules in this thread again.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)Well, clearly I am missing the point. I want Hillary to win too. If I thought you violated the rules, I would have messaged you or alerted...so I have no idea what you mean. You are not refighting the primary...but the primary has an influence on what you expect from Sen. Clinton in that you want her to embrace certain ideas that were Bernies...I think she has mostly. She has to be herself and we need money for the election...I have no issue with fundraisers. In any case, have a nice day.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I prefer honesty just as much as you do.
And I don't want Hillary to BECOME Bernie.
It's not "wanting Hillary to become Bernie" simply to make a few suggestions. If Bernie had been nominated, HRC supporters would be making all sorts of suggestions for things that might help his campaign, and Bernie and those of us who backed him would have been glad to hear them.
Keeping Hillary Hillary doesn't mean treating everything the Sanders campaign did or stood for as a total failure.
It's better for the party and our chances that the ideas of BOTH campaigns were reflected in the platform.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)somehow...others will dance around that. I appreciate the forthright nature of the statement. You were looking for some hidden meaning yourself...there was none.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And I'll add some myself-it's not so much about a slap in the face to Bernie(from what I can see, he's a tough old bird and can take care of himself) as to many of his supporters, especially to the young among them. We need to avoid treating them as if they achieved nothing and the effort they made was a waste of time. It's in our interest as a party to keep them involved and to make this party a place where they can keep fighting for what they care about.
That, more than anything else, is why I will always react strongly when people insist on saying Bernie got creamed and that his campaign had no positive influence on the platform and on our chances in November. How will we possibly get their volunteer efforts and their votes(neither of which we can do without if we want to win)if people here(and this isn't aimed at you personally) keep sending these kids the message "you got stomped, you ain't worth shit, and you'll never be welcome or trusted in THIS party"? How does treating these kids as hostile outsiders or in some cases as the enemy help us win?
And how does continuing to act as if what the Sanders campaign stood for was somehow a threat to the interests of core constituencies of this party help anything?
My purpose here is not to undermine Hillary Clinton-it's to help her get elected by keeping as many people from BOTH sides in the primaries feeling welcome and staying involved. Part of that is honoring the BEST in both campaigns.
That's all I'm about here. Honestly.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)But we are in a general now and it is a bit different. We both want a Democrat in the White House...so we are in agreement.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)'We showed you an alternative fundraising strategy'
We? You? Since you feel the need to separate yourself from the Hillary supports here I must correct you that your fundraising strategy did not work just as well. You lost. Badly.
I cannot stop you from posting these sour-grape posts. Just cut out the 'yeah, yeah' Hillary stuff. You do not like her. You have made that clear.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)By "we", I simply meant that the Sanders campaign did some things very well, and provided models that the party could use to great advantage.
I support Hillary fully...doing so does not oblige me to regard everything the Sanders campaign did as utterly worthless. There is no longer a competition between the two. You need to accept that we are all on the same side now, no matter who we backed in the primary.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)and how much influence they have.
Obviously most of us would like to see it be like Bernie where small donors raised big money.
However just because she raises money off rich people does not for sure mean she will favor policies that help the rich, and one could argue that addressing inequality will boost the economy and help the rich more than allowing them to keep even more money and taxing them at a lower rate than workers.
Did you see this article? Makes me feel pretty good about Clinton:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/elizabeth-warren-clinton-administration-appointments-227699
To me sounds like Clinton is listening to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.
brooklynite
(94,302 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)There is a saturation point at which more money and especially more ads won't have much effect. It's not worth the political cost of spending time she could be spending connecting with voters, and it plays right into the GOP talking points. It probably also deters small donors who feel like their contribution is a tiny drop in the bucket. If she really needs to raise more money from wealthy donors let her husband or the president do it for her.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)The 1% are also American citizens and care about many of the same things you do - telling them to stand aside because you hate rich people says far more about you than about them.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 9, 2016, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)
It makes it much harder to be a party of change if you're making a big show of deference to those on top.
If there are progressive rich people, they will donate without being served champagne and caviar.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)is beyond your scope of understanding. Every single charity or entity trying to raise money throws galas, has dinners, throws parties - raising money costs money. This is not a complicated idea. It also isn't showing "deference" - remember these same rich people are voting to not have their taxes lowered and because they believe in Democratic ideals - how about we not crap all over them while they're supporting our candidate?
betsuni
(25,374 posts)The arts have always depended on this money. Is this "deference"? No, it's paying the bills. Champagne and caviar, it's fizzy wine and fish eggs.
Efilroft Sul
(3,578 posts)
stranger81
(2,345 posts)It's a whole new DU.
Efilroft Sul
(3,578 posts)Official motto: Grassroots who?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Whether you think that involves carrying water for the 1% really doesn't matter.
You want to work to change money having the impact it does in elections? Fantastic. Many of us are already doing that. Working to make that change is separate from throwing the election 60 days from election day because you don't like the reality of the way things work now.
Efilroft Sul
(3,578 posts)What I don't like seeing in this thread is the abject scorn toward small donors while many sing hosannas of high praise for Clinton's uber-wealthy backers. (Chorus: "You're still fighting the primaries! You're still fighting the primaries!"
I expect better from Democrats.
Clinton's rich donors are going to want something for their investment. That something is called More. After all, they all aren't pledging considerable financial support for her out of what passes for the goodness of their hearts, and many things they will want from Clinton is probably against the interests of 99% of all Americans. So color me skeptical about the civic intentions of Johnny and Janie Deep-Pockets and everyone's eagerness here to accept their money.
Honestly, Steven, I also doubt the sincerity of some on this board who would claim they want to change the impact of money in elections when I see threads on DU at the end of the month/start of the month excitedly discussing how much money Clinton raised vs. Trump. So long as Clinton has the fundraising advantage is all that matters. And if Clinton wins in November, my bet is that any talk of Citizens United will go away on DU until the Kochs and their ilk start money-bombing Republicans before midterms.
The only way this unpleasant reality, as you put it, could change is with a Supreme Court ruling. To do that, Clinton must win this election, nominate the right kind of Supreme Court judges, and have them confirmed so we have a chance that big money can't keep buying our government.
None of this is guaranteed.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Honestly this is a message forum where most folks are anonymous. What guarantees are posters supposed to give you as to their sincerity? What guarantee can you offer as to your sincerity? Words from a handled poster?
You offer supposition and suspicion for every one of your concerns. We're 60 days from possibly electing a Republican nominee with a lack of knowledge of domestic and foreign affairs that makes George W. Bush look like a genius combined with the vindictiveness of Nixon, the egotistical arrogance of Napoleon and the recklessness of your average two year old. That's the guy to whom we're potentially about to hand the nuclear codes and control of the US military.
That's before we get into his support from the most fascist elements in the right wing, the alt-right. These folks are so fascist they were shunned as too right wing by people like the Bushes and the Reagans.
Trump is completely ethnocentric and bigoted and a pathological liar.
And you throw this garbage at us as stuff we need to be concerned about now?
Efilroft Sul
(3,578 posts)It tells more about you than it does about me. Likewise, those dumping on Ken Burch here are telling more about themselves as well.
See, I remember when this following quote rubbed many people the wrong way:
"This is an impressive crowd. The haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."
That political gem was from George W. Bush when he spoke at the Al Smith Memorial Dinner in New York City on October 19, 2000. Oh, sure, it was a joke; Al Gore was also at the dinner and made his funny ha-ha's as well. The Clintons were there, too. But in comedy, there is truth, and truth is that the financial elite have always laughed at the concerns of ordinary Americans. However, until videotape of Bush's joke was released, nobody really knew just how much the financial elite were really laughing in contempt at the rest of us.
Now I sniff that same wee whiff of contempt for ordinary Americans on this site, in this thread. When Ken Burch basically said, "Whoa! Please remember those donors who are less fortunate," the water-carriers for the 1% jumped on him as a "concern troll" and had the audacity to call him a "classist." Well, bless your little hearts!
Once upon a time, Democratic Underground also found fault with the Bush "haves and have mores" quote:
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1892042
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1995057
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1876547
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2024922
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1711622
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2981722
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5522604
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2059847
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2041855
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3833262
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002253653
Most of the people objecting to the Bush quote in the above threads haven't been seen here in a long while, and a new breed of posters has taken up residence in their place. Only in the last link does one poster on this current thread make an appearance, and she doesn't exactly object to the Bush quote like other posters did in all the links before her.
We've come a long way, baby.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)60 days before Election Day, silly pontification about a few fundraisers isn't "caring about ordinary Americans".
"Caring about ordinary Americans" at this point would involve wanting to make sure that ordinary Americans aren't subjected to four or eight years of Trump along with a Republican congress. That would be extremely bad for a lot of ordinary Americans.
Efilroft Sul
(3,578 posts)"We've got checkbooks to open!"
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)ordinary people.
Efilroft Sul
(3,578 posts)Sad thing is that you can't get any of your shit to stick to me.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Response to stevenleser (Reply #239)
Efilroft Sul This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I started this OP out of fear that the election might be slipping away from us.
That's why I posted what I posted.
It's not about "purity"...it's about generating the passion and enthusiasm needed to win.
If I didn't want us to win and win decisively, I wouldn't even post on this board.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Suddenly rich folk are the absolute salt of the earth.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)going to churches, union meeting halls and the like, small town parades, that's hobnobbing with rich people and ignoring the grass roots?
She is winning. We went through this months ago, and she won the primaries resoundingly. Of course, there are some who think it was "close" but it never really was. That was the MSM wanting a damn horse race for ratings.
I refuse to subscribe to this continued concern troll bullshit I keep seeing posted on this board.
Demsrule86
(68,455 posts)agreement.
betsuni
(25,374 posts)BlueInPhilly
(870 posts)It has become hostile and very unproductive.
Divine Discontent
(21,056 posts)sh** and arguing with the OP to get their thread locked. I found nothing wrong with the slightly histrionic request to stop fund raising with rich people, even though this is the time candidates usually pivot to outreach. I do find it ridiculous some of the responses that assail the OP.
Thank God the election is under 2 Mo away. Lol
betsuni
(25,374 posts)JimMcAllister
(4 posts)I thought she had enough money in the coffers.
The election is only 8 weeks away. Is she focused on spending the money she raised?
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)She helps support them as well.
JimMcAllister
(4 posts)But do u think she is right if she makes fundraising of these events a priority now?
Well, I dont know, perhaps she sees the fundraising events as campaigning. The media covers them a bit.
DFW
(54,269 posts)Until we manage to change that, have publicly financed elections and repeal Citizens United, we have to play by the existing rules or else throw in the towel. The more cash she can help bring to down-ticket races, the better chance we have to solidify a lead in the Senate and make headway in the House. The Kochs will toss more money to Republican races out of petty cash than Hillary could raise if she had nothing but appearances with high rollers from now til election day.
JimMcAllister
(4 posts)If she at this point, with only 8 weeks left til the election, is putting significant time and energy into raising money for down-ticket races, it must mean that she is fairly certain shell beat The Donald, right?
DFW
(54,269 posts)The numbers are looking very favorable in the states where it matters.
Making arrogant, smug assumptions would be stupid, of course, and her campaign is not taking the election for granted, which is why we can permit ourselves to look forward to victory, at least in the White House. It would be the first time since FDR that a Democrat has won the White House three elections in a row, so it is more than a footnote of history if she wins, gender issue aside. As long as she does not let down her guard, a sensible allocation of resources is called for. Don't forget that Howard Dean, the architect of the 50 State Strategy, is advising her, and Howard hasn't forgotten for a second how it stood him/us in good stead in 2006 and 2008. A friendly Supreme Court, something we haven't had in decades, is crucial to social progress, so the Senate is the prize that should be in our sights, as long as the White House campaign doesn't let down their guard until the polls close in California.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)DFW
(54,269 posts)If all you have to your name is $100, then someone with $500 is rich.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Firefighters, take heed!
x infinity
jalan48
(13,839 posts)
