2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe exodus of Bernie supporters from JJ did not go over well among Iowa Ds.
-snip-
But Democrats got a reminder that Mr. Sanders, an independent and self-described democratic socialist, is not a member of their party. As Mrs. Clinton began her remarks well into the evening, hundreds of his supporters left the building to catch waiting buses or attend parties. It offended the polite sensibilities of some Iowans, and was a reminder of why he may find it difficult to appeal to the sort of mainline party activists who have backed the eventual Democratic nominee in all the contested caucuses here since 2000.
“Are the Sanders folks going to walk out on the Democrats if he’s not the nominee?” John Deeth, a liberal blogger from Iowa City, pointedly asked on his way out of the dinner.
Unlike Mrs. Clinton and Martin O’Malley, the other Democratic presidential candidate at the dinner, Mr. Sanders offered no homage, or mention at all, of Mr. Biden, a well-liked figure in the party. And he delivered a speech that he could have given in any state, making little attempt to highlight Iowa issues. Mrs. Clinton, conversely, paid homage to Iowa Democrats by name and attacked Iowa Republicans on health care.
Link: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/us/politics/democratic-dinner-drives-home-hillary-clintons-focus-on-iowa.html?_r=0&referer=https://t.co/VFAhF8OKTZ
Millenials 
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Yeah, that's a good message.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Extremely.
66 dmhlt
(1,941 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Ya it worked out great considering Gore couldn't even win his home state. A shitty candidate is shitty, that's how things worked out. Cause and effect. Nader didn't cost Dems the elections. That is hyperbole http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/06/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth
brush
(53,743 posts)But tell me, what's your theory on what would've have happened had Nader not taken funding from repugs to siphon off votes?
And don't give me the standard stump speech that Gore didn't win his own state and that many dems voted for Bush because many Republicans most likely also voted for Gore, and Tennessee is a "southern" state and most "southern" states, duh, vote for Republicans — that's without dispute.
Just tell me what most likely would've happened if Nader hadn't taken repug money to make the vote count close enough for the "Brooks Brothers" rioters to sway the election counters and ultimately get SCOTUS involved to "select" Bush to the presidency, even though he had far fewer votes than Gore (See "Brooks Brothers" riot below):
Hundreds of "paid GOP crusaders" descended upon South Florida to protest the state's recounts,[1] with at least half a dozen of the demonstrators at Miami-Dade paid by George W. Bush's recount committee.[2] Several of these protesters were identified as Republican staffers and a number later went on to jobs in the Bush administration.[3]
The "Brooks Brothers" name reinforces the allegation that the protesters, in corporate attire, sporting "Hermès ties"[4] were astroturfing, as opposed to local citizens concerned about counting practices.
The demonstration was organized by Republican operatives, sometimes referred to as the "Brooks Brothers Brigade",[5] to oppose the recount of 10,750 ballots during the Florida recount.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Voted for bush
À shitty candidate lost Florida but it wasn't Nader
brush
(53,743 posts)Response to brush (Reply #130)
SwampG8r This message was self-deleted by its author.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)It was a perfect storm. Nader the clown did his share.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Debunked and a long read.
http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/
brush
(53,743 posts)Katherine Harris's scrubbing of AAs from the voter roles was also part of their multi-pronged plan as well.
She was ordered to do that by Jeb Bush who also executed other pieces of the repug strategy;
Under orders from Governor Jeb Bush (Bush Jr.’s brother), state troopers near polling sites delayed people for hours while searching their cars. Some precincts required two photo IDs which many citizens do not have. The requirement under Florida law was only one photo ID. Passed just before the election, this law itself posed a special difficulty for low-income or elderly voters who did not have drivers licenses or other photo IDs. Uncounted ballot boxes went missing or were found in unexplained places or were never collected from certain African-American precincts. During the recount, GOP agitators shipped in from Washington D.C. by the Republican national leadership stormed the Dale County Canvassing Board, punched and kicked one of the officials, shouted and banged on their office doors, and generally created a climate of intimidation that caused the board to abandon its recount and accept the dubious pro-Bush tally.
All of that, including Nader's votes and the eventual entering of SCOTUS that they knew would rule in their favor selection was part of their plan. It worked and you can deny it all you want but they counted on Nader to do his part — maybe unwittingly, but the votes he siphoned off did his part for them.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)I've said this here before. LOTS of people my age, who otherwise don't pay attention to politics at all, said, wait a minute, the guy who came after my record collection back in the 80s?? FUCK that, I'm voting for the other guy!
brush
(53,743 posts)ArcticFox
(1,249 posts)Gore was an underwhelming choice, as was Kerry, as is Hillary. Obama was exciting and delivered some changes. We need someone who will keep it up, only this time bring change to the financial and employment sectors.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)It's amazing how the Nader voters cling to that meme instead of owning and defending their vote for the narcissist Nader.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)I didn't vote that election because I lived in Germany at the time.
Nice assumption though 
Have fun with projection much? XD
Maybe you should try tackling the question of why so many are disenfranchised with both parties and why the largest voting group in America is indy voters. That would be a good start.
Have a nice day <3
bvar22
(39,909 posts)It is so much easier to blame other people for your own failures.
Blaming "stupid voters" has never been productive.
That is the whiny, baby response.
When an election is lost,
it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the candidate....never the voters.
I have always had nothing but contempt for an "officer" who blames the troops ("stupid voters"
for failure. If you want their vote, work for it.
Don't expect it for free.
It is Leadership's Job to win elections.
When elections are lost...it is ALWAYS the responsibility of leadership.
murielm99
(30,717 posts)She votes.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... as you all try to push the blame onto him for a problem with our system itself which looks to blame those that don't vote for one of the two parties for the candidate in a way that they can't vote for someone who represents them, but just vote against the candidate who's the worst.
If you really want to push to give people choices to have an election where how they vote really speaks to who they support (and the positions they have) but in such a way that it doesn't take away votes from those of the two largest party that represent them better, then you and all of those that "hate Nader", should be pushing hard for IRV to be passed nationally, so that you remove that from being a problem later. If you don't, than I call foul on you for wanting to institutionalize a system that rewards the two main parties being the only choices for people and a system that allows special interest money to "buy the field" by buying candidates from these two parties.
It's time to stop blaming those who supported Nader because he was a voice against such corporate corruption of our system that they wanted to be heard supporting by voting for him, and push for a solution that would empower him, but at the same time ensure that the better of choices at the top get elected, and to perhaps pave the way to at some point have a government run more by the will of the majority of American voters.
Blaming Nader is like the xenophobic Republicans blaming "illegal immigrants" when they should be blaming our system for putting in place ag subsidies that pushed them out of work and forced to come up here for jobs, and our exploitive system that looks the other way for those who hire them cheaply, whether it is institutionalized through "guest labor" programs such as H-1B or H-2B, or lack of enforcement on these employers when they break the law and hire them. Better solutions would be to stop subsidizing big ag companies to help them dump underpriced exports in those countries at taxpayer expense to let those down there keep their farms and stay there with their families happily providing for their own country's food needs, and to encourage those that really do want to move up here to become naturalized citizens instead of working up here temporarily in an exploited fashion.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts) cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Many of the rest of us are fed up with it. But why don't YOU answer the question instead of just trying to feel they are able to rate popularity of posts...
WHY would you not want this in place to prevent someone like Nader being a spoiler in a future election? Huh? WHY? Perhaps the reason there are a lot of crickets here is that so many that hate Nader CAN'T answer this question without looking like they want to just want us to have choices between candidates where oligarchs like the Koch brothers are laughing at us because they've "bought the field". Instant runoff voting would make it that much harder if not expensive for them to do this, and would give more of a measure of what people really want as a representative based on their stances, and not feeling like they are paying the penalty if they don't vote for the "lesser of two evils" of corporate crony-infested candidates.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)....I've been a HUGE supporter of instant runoff voting since I first heard of it in the 1990s.
Hell, i could even vote for Hillary as a third choice, after Bernie and O'Malley.
In fact, I'll add that I voted for Nader twice (and have no regrets), but would have felt better about it if I could have had the Democrat as a second choice in both cases (even though the outcome was preordained in both states--first Texas, then California).
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)You have it exactly right, and probably the way I would have voted too.
I think that every time people try to demonize Ralph Nader for his attempts to run as a third party candidate, we should challenge those that do so with asking for a way to make it so that third parties don't serve as spoilers in a constructive way. We need to remind people that even if Ralph Nader isn't their first choice of someone to run for president, he deserves a lot more respect than he gets places like here for his continual efforts to help keep our corporate sector properly regulated and actually saving so many lives in the process through his efforts. He shouldn't be chastised for still trying to be a part of the political process to try and have our government serve its people instead of a wealthy orthodoxy.
Hopefully more of us can not get "crickets" by saying this more often. If we get them on record to support this, then we can push for this to get legislated which will help progressive candidates in the future get office, or we can at least expose those that don't really want choices representing people but those who control the two major parties that they are posting here in their service to them.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)And as I get tired of reminding people (but I'm sure you remember), Gore in 2000 was a lousy candidate. Today, I would probably vote for 2015 Gore, but 2000 Gore, not so much. But that's really beside the point. I've been shit on by the Democratic party my entire voting life, because they've taken the tack that they can move as far to the right as they want, since lefties like me have nowhere else to go. The spite I then feel when I vote for a third party makes voting for a non-Democrat twice as satisfying, to be sure; in fact, I had been registered as an independent, but in 2004, after what the Democrats did to Howard Dean, I switched and registered as a Democrat so that when I voted for Nader, "it would sting more". (Obviously, no one but me was ever going to know, but GOD, did it feel good.)
IRV or RCV (which is what they prefer to call it in San Francisco, where my experience with it comes from) is actually a CONSTRUCTIVE solution to the problem. You get to have it both ways, and people like me aren't reduced to lashing out petulantly in the privacy of the voting booth (and admittedly, bragging about it to a few friends); you can support the party you lean towards generally without sacrificing your principles, and how could that POSSIBLY be anything but positive for voter turn-out?
Of course, Hillary wouldn't have a fucking PRAYER if we had national RCV.
George II
(67,782 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)and vote Dem down ticket.
No big deal. The party doesn't need new or long time gone blood infused into it.
Oh in case:
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Or are they SANDERS OR BUST! Big difference. We need to expand the voter rolls, not just the Bernie rolls. Down ticket races are very important. They may not even be registered Democrats.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)it's no good?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Then what's the point?
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Or is that just a distraction?
At what point do we stop blaming the customers for not buying the product that's being sold to them?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)robbob
(3,522 posts)Democracy is great: we should try it sometime...
brush
(53,743 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts) brush
(53,743 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)People can vote for whomever they wish to. I won't support Hillary if she's the candidate and many won't. I'll pencil in Bernie.
BlueMTexpat
(15,365 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)That vote = integrity.
I won't support her. I refuse. Sorry, not happening. She doesn't represent me. Period.
randys1
(16,286 posts)NO
doubt
about
it
pinebox
(5,761 posts)kill women? WHAT? lol
randys1
(16,286 posts)action, will lead, if the con is ultimately elected, to DEAD WOMEN
yes
dead WOMEN
I should NOT have to explain this on a liberal message board....
but i have had to, hundreds of times
weird that
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)tally that I have ever become aware of outside of possible electronic machine shenanigans and that can happen if you vote Democratic as well.
You only can get to your assertion if you first believe that a party owns votes and secondly have some serious arguments with addition. One plus zero won't get you to two no matter how many zeroes you add.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)supporting and facilitating a Republican into the Whitehouse is some pretty nasty shit, here on a Dem site.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)"Get off my lawn and get in line" much?
And you wonder why so many are disenfranchised with "the party". You illustrated it perfectly.
Ya I support a Republican lol Sure. Bush logic much?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)rapid, posting anti Dem and anti Hill rhetoric and now moving onto the next phase of announcing a no vote. You support whom you want but don't tell me not to hate your message and to find it an utter waste of bandwith.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
pinebox
(5,761 posts)I've said all along that I wouldn't support her. Please quit the BS, it's a free country and I'm free to support whomever I wish to. I'll pencil Bernie in. Does that upset you? If you find it it an utter waste of bandwdth then perhaps you should quit whining and take some personal responsibility and ignore me. That would cure all your ills. #HardNotHard #SorryNotSorry
shenmue
(38,506 posts)used to be cause for dismissal.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)this kind of diocy won't be tolerated.
There is a huge push right now for many here to discourage voting and to press an apathetic meme. It's annoying (like a gnat) sucks (like a circling drain) and it is not working very well.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)This board and Twitter, FB, and the media are FULL of rightwingers paid to spread disinformation and cause voter apathy.
They know if they can stop millions of Black people from voting, and students, and convince others not to vote who can, well they win
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)that was enforced.
Its open season on the democratic party now for some reason.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Not interested in supporting a candidate who has more faces than Mount Rushmore.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Don't be mad and angry when someone tells the truth about your candidate.
We understand.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Do you have permission to post those images? It seems a bit perverted, if you don't.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
better?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)How about "convince," "sell" "work with"..........................and maybe even "listen to"
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....register new voters at their rallies, like campaigns generally do.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Are talking points all you know about him?
George II
(67,782 posts)....the DNC didn't set up registration tables at his or other candidates' events. I wish I knew how to seach for that.
That prompted a big discussion about who registers new voters at rallies. Generally candidates set up registration tables.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That was the point of the article. I am sorry it flew over your head.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If we waited for everything to be done the way Democratic constituencies wanted for the DNC to bless it with DWS in charge of it, we'd be a dead party!!!!
Look at this post... Am I not trying to help get more new registered DEMOCRATS in the state of Oregon (not just NAV voters without this coaxing happening)? So quit starting with the false slandering of Bernie supporters in not trying to encourage voters to register as Democrats.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10731368
If it weren't for Bernie, there probably would be a lot less registered Democrats in this coming election, at least in those states with closed primaries!
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)sneakin in to his cult of personality party.
They are just there to use democratic party assets.
(suckers!)
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Because it sure sounds like it when you dismiss Bernie doing the SAME THING this time around! It's really too bad that the party has become corrupted with the influence of the Koch Brothers and their DLC/Third Way constituencies over the years to get it to move away from the identity that FDR had set for it for so many successful years that Bernie embraces, but so many here don't any more in their wish to embrace the "economic royalists" ownership of the party instead of dismissing them.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)He did it as a democrat in the democratic party.
He did not cynically use the party for his own ends like St Bernie is doing.
He didn't talk out of both sides of his mouth like Bernie is.
Bernie sanders ain't fit to tie FDR's shoelaces and should not be mentioned in the same sentence even IMO.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)And if FDR were alive today, he would be taking issue with that cancer in the party today! I have NO doubt on that!
The SYSTEM is forcing someone like Bernie to run as a Democrat in the primary to be able to have a chance at helping the people's voice he represent to win and be represented instead of only having corporate donors being heard which DWS actually loves to help cater to with the current "mission" of the DNC now.
So, now how is Bernie talking more "two sides of his mouth" more than Hillary? That characterization of him is just plain BULLSHIT!
Hillary talked one side of her mouth when she was a Republican supporting Goldwater who stood AGAINST the Civil Rights act of the sixties. She's spoken out on both sides of her mouth on issues like gay marriage, free trade, etc. where Bernie has been honest and damn consistent in his message on those issues primarily because he isn't obligated to the wealthy's position on those issues by not taking their money, etc. the way Hillary has.
Let me know when Hillary honestly comes out and verbally takes on the "economic royalists" the way BOTH FDR and Bernie have in their careers, and when she wants to put in place tax policies that tax the wealthy the way they have too, and then you can talk about who could tie FDR's shoelaces!
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)How can a person with these views:
“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”
“I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat,” he said in a profile in New England Monthly.
In an op-ed in the New York Times in January 1989, he called the Democratic and Republican parties “tweedle-dee” and “tweedle-dum,” both adhering in his estimation to an “ideology of greed and vulgarity.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/15/1412317/-Guess-who-said-this-the-Democratic-Party-is-ideologically-bankrupt
Cynically run for the nomination of the democratic party without being a MASSIVE hypocrite talkin out of both sides of his mouth?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... for him to run within the Democratic Party for president, because the SYSTEM is f'd up for him to be able to run realistically that he is FORCED to run for one of the two parties in order to have any kind of realistic chance of winning the election. Don't blame him, but blame the two party system, and as I said in other posts, push for the Democratic Party to endorse putting in place instant runoff voting, to avoid third party spoilers that will happen more and more as the Democratic Party ALIENATES its true and traditional Democratic constituencies of PEOPLE rather than corporate donors!!!!
Yes, he's justified in that first quote, when someone like Barack Obama as a member of this party pushes more heavily than he even did for single payer or a public option for us in the ACA to put in place TPA and TPP earlier. THAT is an *ideologically bankrupt* position. Explain to us why it isn't!!!
I think on the second quote, taken out of context by the way and not attributing it to the original Politico article that had more information on his earlier political career, the operative word in this is "Democrat" not "liberal". Bernie has ALWAYS been progressive and liberal, and never a Republican the way Hillary was when she supported a candidate in Goldwater that was AGAINST the Civil Rights act then, amongst many other inconsistencies in her so-called "progressive" career.
When both parties take so much from corporate cronies, and work against their people constituents with crap like the TPP, etc., then YES, many of them are tweedle dee and tweedle dum on more issues over time that affect their corporate cronies. The corporate cronies through their ownership of the corporate media just have them take support on social issues that are liberal to keep us divided while both parties are paid to support government that allows the 1% to get more and more control over it.
The real hypocrites here are those that claim to be progressive with BS names for institutions like the "Progressive Policy Institute" and "Progressive Coalition for Jobs" that do things like push corporate friendly policies like the TPP instead of what real progressive stances would be on issues that they try to hijack and mislead people on.
The massive hypocrite is the one that tries to say she's been a progressive on so many issue that she's changed her tune on over the years, where on ISSUES, Bernie has been consistent in supporting stances on issues that work for the benefit of the REAL people, not the CORPORATE people of this country.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)And to protect big gun manufacturers from lawsuits.
Explain those please.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I guess you hated Howard Dean's stances on gun rights too when he had a history of being that way being from the same state too. Or didn't you hate Howard Dean and why?
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and don't look at the details surrounding it. The NRA isn't stupid when they give him a D- rating. They study him as a complete candidate when they did that. WHY would they give him that kind of rating if he was such a shill for the gun industry as you are trying to project on to him?
It was just like one other debate question that tried to make him seem anti-immigration in that debate too, when he voted against another immigration bill. The devil was in the details as he noted back when it had real crappy "guest labor" program provision riders in it that made it unsupportable for him. That shows how many are trying to pigeonhole him without explaining the details and context of what his record is.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)...to make excuses for her Iraq War vote.
okasha
(11,573 posts)for what--a semester? her freshman year?--when she was too young to vote.
Elizabeth Warren was a Reagan Republican for decades as an adult.
You're talking out of both sides of your own mouth.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If you want to play the card of him having to be a Democrat to be someone you can support, then accept that Hillary is not PURE herself and is more of a Republican from her past history than Bernie was, no matter how much you want to try to dismiss it!k
And Reagan was a Democrat at a later age than Elizabeth Warren was in her life! And Michele Bachmann probably campaigned harder for Jimmy Carter than most of us here did when she was a Democrat too.
Let's get off the labels for everyone that doesn't serve us at all. We should be looking at issues and where candidates have stood and stand on issues and how firm and timeless their commitments are to their stances on these issues. That gets my vote for Bernie!
okasha
(11,573 posts)over Hillary's single season as a Republican. It's just a bit of a desperate argument, don't you think?
Come to think of it, Sanders might do better running for the R nom, given that he's obviously intelligent and not visibly insane.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)You smear him, then don't expect us to not respond with the critiques we can easily make against her, not only for her party allegiance but the money allegiance she has to Wall Street and other corporate sources.
I think Bernie fits better in to what the traditional Democratic Party was before the DLC CANCER infected it! The DLC corporate Democrats are the ones that will be more at home in the traditional Republican party. If you can't get support in that party, then perhaps the corporatists that can't find a home and support in either will realize that this is a democracy, where number of people voting for politicians should count more than money spent on them should. Corporate oligarchs might try to change that occasion, bu9t over time both parties are going to throw corporate BS out on the street where it belongs in this system of government that our founders gave us.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Dude, you need a time-out. Your mama's children isn't learning.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Maybe they came to see Katy Perry.
6. The media had their narrative already set before the night even unfolded. It was all about Hillary's triumph and Bernie's criticism of Hillary. O'Malley ignored. I think the people in Iowa aren't going to follow that line.
George II
(67,782 posts)"Bernie's crowd stuck around for O'Malley's but cleared out en masse as Hillary started".
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)and I don't give a shit about the party.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)
LettuceSea
(337 posts)
Baitball Blogger
(46,684 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)I'm not here for the coronation, just the nation. [img]
[/img]
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)1. The limited debates.
2. Neoliberal candidates who represent the 1 percent over the rest of us.
3. Support of trade agreements that hurt the middle class.
4. Support of the MIC over money for the people.
5. Bailing out Wall Street while ignoring Main Street.
(and that's just to name a few)
I'm a reliable voter, too, but I'm sick and tired of being told to vote for the lesser of two evils.
How are young people supposed to care about a party they've NEVER seen really work for them. To them, the Democrats are the "not Republican" party on social issues and that's about it. They probably never knew what Democrats were like before the DLC infiltrated them.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... to only allow those to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of trying to have their voice heard in showing support for a candidate NOT bought out by corporate money!
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)But he pretends to.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)no matter how unworthy of consideration you may be, or consider yourself to be, given your nom de guerre, workingclasszero.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Like you know, the people who helped elect Obama?
You're right they don't give a shit about the party, many of us don't. See DNC and it's bullshit. Many of us are completely fed up!
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Great way to smear a whole lot of Dem voters.... and independent voters!.
Another good day's work for the "Hillary has got this in the bag" folks! (just like last time!....when she lost)
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)They're supposed to care about the issues, and the party is supposed to care about the same issues creating a match.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)And most people feel that way. See Al Gore and Donkey face's failed bid for the presidency. If people aren't inspired to vote why should they vote for the nominee at all? Cuz the alternative is bad?
Puh-leeze!!!
If both R's and D's favor TPP, favor tax cuts to the wealthy, favor cuts to Medicare and S.S., do people expect the average voter to give a shit about the party? Absolutely not! They'll simply say "Both parties are the same" and stay at home during election time. Its common sense! This whole notion about party loyalty died out when the oligarchs took over both our parties.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)We need more than school colors, etc. to cheer for a "team" when people are running to represent us in government. We need to see how they will represent us and choose those who will do that job better, not just cheer someone because they have the "school colors" of being "Democrats" (which has been stolen by the DLC minions and the Koch brothers that helped start that cancerous tumor in this party).
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Sounds pretty authoritarian to me
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...with their own personal political standards, never.
So you decide which party (because for goor or bad, we are in a 2 party system) aligns closest to your personal ideals. Is that the Republicans or is that the Democrats?
Which party will rule our future when there is not a better, stronger party of cooperation to counter a petulant, lying, mysoginistics, heartless, cruel party. The Republicans can count on any win they get, because they are able to pull together....regardless of the inferiority of the candidate or the pestilence that is their platforms...they win because they know how to get people to the polls.
And here we are,,,Dems claiming that their perfect candidate may not be in the GE, so they will vote in essence to put a Republican in the WH.
Some statements here on DU make me want to heave.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)You are saying that the only candidate that we should vote for in either the primaries or the GE is the one that isn't "our perfect candidate" as you position our choice of Bernie, but one that the corporate media says has a chance to win.
People went against that notion when they voted in for Obama, even though he wasn't their optimal choice for being nominated then too, when he didn't deliver on a lot of the "change" that people had "hoped" for in voting for him over Hillary then.
Instant runoff voting would allow us to see initial vote totals to have candidates have a measuring stick as to who is speaking what the voters want to hear, and the issues that voters want to hear decided, even if some of those third party candidates don't win. And the one that wins will have more of those third party voters' support than the other of the two major candidates that don't win.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and you are arguing for something that cannot be in place for the 2016 votes.
My personal fav would be one person/one vote. But that isn't happening any time soon either.
I don't like the multi, multi party system. So there is that.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)A big part of the rest of the world is evolving our original democratic system to try to help minorities get better representation with parliamentary representation, and in the case of Australia and some other areas, instant runoff voting.
Most other countries that have set up their governments after we set up ours recognized that the winner take all system that we have in place isn't the best solution for having real small d democracy set up in government. Thom Hartmann, probably the best voice from the progressives in this country (even if those that hijacked a progressive party like Rahm Emanuel did with the Democrats when he called us "f-ing retarded" might choose to dismiss him), has a good word about our two party system and how to deal with its flaws.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)clearly you are passionate....looks like you have your own work cut out for you. It really doesn't serve you to run around telling everyone else to implement your wishes and desires. Go for it.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I've said a number of different things here, but I can't have a discussion with you if you are just going to characterize my way of discussing and not discuss the real topics I'm bringing up. Hillary has you trained well to avoid the meat of a discussion.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)
polichick
(37,152 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)Do I always vote democrat on my ticket all the way down? Of course I do. This is about the top of the ticket. Of course I would never vote for a republican because they don't share my values in any way shape or form. The same way that conservative democrats, or people from "the party" don't share my values. I put Hillary in this group as do many Bernie supporters. Her Iraq war vote for political expediency stands out as the most prominent flaw to her career, but there are several other things and I think a lot of us liberals feel that way. This is primary season where a lot of us liberal minded progressives want the candidate that represents and speaks to our values. Many of us are the working poor. We've heard Bernie for years and we're so glad that his words are resonating with so many new people.
George II
(67,782 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)when it comes to voters who don't always go to the polls.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)And apparently, Sanders has pissed off about two-thirds of them in Iowa.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)What did he do?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)He left.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Iowa is strictly retail politics and Sanders insulted them by leaving early rather than staying to mix with the crowd after.
Stupid, stupid move.
The stupid, it Berns.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Amazing how many hillarites are just like their annointed, Inevitable one.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)That you refuse to admit it says much.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)When she lies, "mis-remembers" or changes positions without ever admitting it, she does the opposite.
That you refuse to admit that says much more.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)most thin skinned, crybaby 'issue' I have ever heard pushed on DU.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: *Sigh*. I'm a Sanders supporter, but I don't think this post is directed at people on DU so I'm voting to leave it. That said, we could do better at being civil during the primaries. One of these folks will end up being our candidate.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Characterizing one candidate's supporters as "stupid" is inappropriate. Keep it civil, folks.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is nothing but insult, but about par for the course in the GD forum. So, even though I think it's rude and over-the-top, I'm leaving it. Poster should try harder to make substantive contributions, though.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster is referring to followers AT THE DINNER, are we not allowed to criticize people who are NOT on DU? If so, this place will get boring really fast. There is an extreme amount of alerting by certain folks, very sad.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: That's posters perception. It's a valid point worth debating.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I guess being critical of anything Sanders is now considered hide able in some circles.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I only vote for Democrats.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)There will be a Democratic-Socialist nominee, thus I sit that race out.
Of course, I really do not believe for an instant I have anything to worry about because no way in hell does the Democratic Party nominate a non-Democrat for the presidency.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)you will be the one walking out.......
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Thus I sit out that election.
But this is all conjecture in the highest degree. There is precisely ZERO chance of Sanders being the nominee.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)which of his views are not in line with the views of Democrats?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)No way in Hell does a non-Democrat become the nominee for the presidency.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)and Bernie will be a Democrat.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)As a fellow Hillary supporter, please reconsider your statement.
I disagree with Senator Sanders on a number of issues. I have do doubt that he would be utterly ineffective as President.
That said, if he's chosen by the majority of Democrats to be our presidential nominee, then as a Democrat we should respect the will of the majority.
Let's not be like the dozens of Sanders supporters on the DU, who are more like Clinton haters. Petulance should be beneath us.
(Also, no way in hell is Sanders going to win, so there is that as well. But still.)
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I call foul and strike out on you sir!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)I am not one bit surprised. Having said that, you have no right to complain about Bernie supporters not supporting the nominee if it is Hillary now, and you are just trolling.
Elections are always addition not subtraction, and democrats do have to attract a winning coalition of voters including those who don't always vote democrat. Bernie chooses to attract progressive independents,, who are marginalized in our system where as Hillary chooses people who traditionally voted republican, and who's interests have always been pandered to.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)There is precisely ZERO chance of a Sanders nomination, so I expect the radical leftist extremists will sit out 2016 like they did 2010 or else they will go Green like they did in 2000.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)Gosh that makes so much sense. Yeah, 50% of the population that doesn't vote are radical extremists too, but at least you admit you don't expect Hillary to win, so it is a mea culpa she can't attract voters outside the democratic party, in which case you also have no right to complain that Sanders is not building the party since you have no intention of building a winning coalition by default. You would rather lose than appeal to the non-voters. Fess up.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)If Bernie voters didn't vote for Obama they couldn't not sit out. You are logically challanged, and a namecaller. I can see why you are are 1 post from a vacation.
Aunt Bold Ire8
(7 posts)of others and, thus, apparently, as entitled ignorance - tend to annoy other people.
Proves it isn't a revolution at all, just shifting labels around, which would be okay if ALL of us could admit that fact and TRY to do something authentically different.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Americans. Listen and you will know.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)zalinda
(5,621 posts)that was about to leave them stranded.
Damn, you guys will jump on anything won't you? The event started an hour late. The buses were scheduled to leave at 10:30, after the event. It just so happened that Hillary was scheduled last. But don't let facts get in your way.
Z
brooklynite
(94,376 posts)...it could pay for charter buses to wait an hour. Political events are ALWAYS late.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)There has been many accusations of Hillary paying for our posts, well, telling the attendees your by is leaving (though the real reason was not to allow these people to hear Hillary), good story.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)to shuttle people from the stadium to the outlying parking lots and train stations. Do you think they leave at 9:00 pm sharp or wait for the game to be over? The chartered bus leaving-crappola, is exactly that. The bus would not be leaving until the event is done. There'd be no point in leaving without their passengers.
The arguement that the Bernie supporters had to leave because of the bus is inane and not supported by any actual facts whatsoever. They were rude, and they know exactly why they are constantly pissing off other Democrats.
mcar
(42,278 posts)The buses would not have left without their passengers. The speeches were 15 minutes long? The buses would have waited. Period.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)that was done by a supporter. But then you knew that.
As for the buses, who knows who paid for them. I certainly don't, and neither do you. Was the person responsible for the transportation there? Did he/she know that political events always run late? Did he/she have a locked in contract with the bus company?
But, to tell you the truth, I certainly wouldn't want to sit there and listen to Hillary talk about herself. When is she going to talk about the issues and what she is going to do for the country?
Z
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)
Baitball Blogger
(46,684 posts)What kind of reflection does this have on the Democratic party when you have people flubbing up these events? I will tell you, I went to one Democratic cattle call to help out and I was disgusted. No one was in charge. We stood around waiting for assignments and the best they could do was point to tables with boxes and told us to fill out the goody-bags. There was no rhyme or reason to the things that had to be placed in the bags. Not enough of anything to fill up one bag, but too much to put into any one bag.
I was left with the impression that it was a test of management as one or two of us stood up to decide what went in where.
It was so stupid, I left after the task was concluded because it didn't look like anyone knew what they were doing.
George II
(67,782 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)By the way, Clinton finished speaking a little after 10:00 PM local time, well before 10:30.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)This is hardly surprising given the crap we read here on a daily basis.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Yes, those awful Bernie supporters have damaged his support... among Hillary supporters. 
DCBob
(24,689 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)and admonishing the need to win converts. Winning strategy.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Bernie can not win the primary without converting lots and lots of people who would happily vote for Clinton already.
So attacking those Clinton supporters (and Prez Obama and his supporters) in no way helps Bernie.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)then expect us to merrily join them.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... the minute a President Sanders compromised on some policy point, they'd trash him too.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)is so disgusting!!1!
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Hypocrisy, it's what's for dinner.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... converting lots and lots of Bernie supporters. Bernie has to convert lots of folks who would HAPPILY vote for Hillary.
Its a numbers thing.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)the numbers power your double standard. 
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... I'm pointing out that Sanders supporters do him no favors by attacking people who like and would happily vote for Clinton.
Those people have watched her get trashed for about 2 decades, and when you do it, you come across just as unhinged as when the RW does it. A great way to get tuned out.
But hey, what do I know ... I only started telling you guys who think Obama is so bad that you needed to get busy positioning an alternative 2016 candidate back in 2011 and that if you did not do so, you'd be spending 2015 complaining about Clinton.
And here we are.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)but nobody in the real world is going to be influenced by what is said on DU. 
Also, if a candidate has trash positions and does or says trashy things, they deserve to be trashed. That's the nature of politics and life.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You are cracking me up with all the drama in your posts.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)"You horrible homogeneous Berniebros are destroying your candidate's chances (with people would never vote for him anyway)!!1!" Yeah tell me about drama...
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I said that to win the primary, Bernie needs to convert lots and lots of folks who would already happily vote for Hillary.
That is simply a fact.
And then I added my opinion that those people will not be converted by angry Bernie supporters, who are attacking them.
I think my theory on that point is well on its way to becoming fact.
And I did that without lots of exclamation points.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)not smear Bernie supporters with impunity because you currently have an advantage. Practice what you preach, before you go preaching.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I stated a fact, and an opinion that is on its way to becoming fact.
I'm fairly confident that doing so does not constitute a "smear".
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)garden variety They're so < insert broad-brush negative Bernie supporter characterization > posts. Your Saint JoePhilly act fools no one.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... lowering or raising the level of my response to match the OP or post I respond to. In this sub-thread, I decided to remain up a few levels, as you have descended.
In this thread, I have stated facts ... facts that you do not like ... and now you would like to change the topic from those fact, to complain about other responses in other threads hurt your feelings.
You'll get over it.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)and now you seem to be babbling. Good luck man.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)So is the thin skin.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And shed more tears over mundane non issues, you will woo more converts!
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I shit you not! 
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Angry? Were they cussing as they left?
Maybe they just didn't want to hear her versions of Sanders' positions she's finally sorta come around to.
Maybe they heard all the rest in 2008?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Is that better?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)How so?
Maybe, they just wanted to catch the bus!
See post 33.
And what constitutes an "exodus"? How many?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...a cardinal sin! How dare they! They should have hitchhiked home! They are evil, evil people!!
tblue37
(65,227 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I'll just repost what I said upthread:
to shuttle people from the stadium to the outlying parking lots and train stations. Do you think they leave at 9:00 pm sharp, or wait for the game to be over? The chartered bus leaving-crappola, is exactly that. The bus would not be leaving until the event is done. There'd be no point in leaving without their passengers.
The argument that the Bernie supporters had to leave because of the bus is inane and not supported by any actual facts whatsoever. They were rude, and they know exactly why they are constantly pissing off other Democrats.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)"to catch a bus"?? I doubt it!
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I'm a 63 year old "old fart" (in a Baby Boomer way), and I'm fustrated at having seen us degenerate over the last 30 years. I'm frustrated that economic values and behavior and conditions that would have been considered unthinkable and immoral when I was young have become "mainstream" today. I'm angry that I'm at heart a moderate liberal, but am considered "fringe angry left" by the current conservative Democratic political compass.
And all of us Bernsters are monolithic. Yeah, I'm exactly like the 23 year old kid who's angry and frustrated because he or she is straddled with college debt and cant find a job that isn't in India, and who Bernie's message also resonates with.
Jeeze this broad brush painting is really getting old. There are REASONS people are angry, and think the status quo isn't working and needs fundamental reform.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Im concerned the anger with many Bernie supporters is misplaced and will do more harm than good.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Personally, I'm long term angry after seeing mergers and acquisitions that have reduced what was once a plethora of large, mid-sized and small businesses morph into an oligarchy in which every industry has been narrowed down to a handful of massive empires that have eliminated true competition, reduced opportunities, gouged consumers and buy government.
I'm angry that at no point during this long process (with a couple of worthy exceptions by President Obama's administration recently) did the Democratic Establishment raise a peep of opposition to it, or side with those who argues that monopolies were not a good idea. Worse yet, the faction represented by the Clonton's encouraged it through deregulation.
One example of a burr under my particular saddle.
That's not the same anger as a young adult who is totally qualified but gets no chance at the kind of middle class.working class career path previous generations had.
It take as many forms as there are people. But it has a common cause, in a stagnant system that has become closed off to all but a minority of the privileged, well-connected and lucky.
We can't just continue to dismiss it as an amorphous angry faction. Got to open up the system to address the causes of the anger without the same old dismissiveness and the rationalizations and justifications for this status quo.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I cant respond in kind since Im at work now but I think I do understand what you are saying here and agree with it for the most part. Peace.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)We often disagree, but I appreciate that you discuss in reasonable ways on substance.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)
SharonAnn
(13,771 posts)I was so aghast at what happened to a couple of companies that I sold to in the Midwest, that I enrolled in graduate school and got my MBA to figure this all out. What I learned was jaw-dropping. It's old news now, but it was new to me in the late 70's and early 80's.
Companies that built good products and provided decent jobs, had well-funded pension plans for their workers and adequate cash reserves to see them through a downturn, and had little or no debt, were the targets of the Wall Street buyout crowd.
Wall Street one percenters performed a leveraged buyout, made the company they bought pay back the debt that was acquired to buy themselves, products were cheapened, workers' eliminated or outsourced, pay cut, assets sold whenever possible and usually the whole operation was moved off-shore.
Result? Wealthy one percenters who got huge fees for the buyout, huge management contracts for at least several years, and huge profits for the assets they sold. Communities were devastated by the layoffs and closures, employees were bankrupted, pension plans gutted or eliminated, customers got poorly made products, but customer prices never really went down to reflect the lack of quality. And resulting "companies" were merged into monopolies to ensure continuation of all this.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)People complained (still complain as it continues) about what happened to their company or employer or a favorite business like their newspaper, when the sharks too over. This happened like dominoes tobecome a systemic problem.
But, a political framework to address it was never provided And thus, people felt collectively helpless to do anything about it. That is a huge reason I am personally angry at the corproatist/Wall St. wing of the Democratic Party.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You just lack the self awareness necessary to realize it.
MuseRider
(34,095 posts)are smart enough to not hold candidates responsible for bad behavior of some of their supporters. I am pretty confident all the hand wringing over this is fueled on the net and probably looked over by all but the most partisan.
LettuceSea
(337 posts)The "GET IN LINE" stuff is for older generations.
The establishment should come to the people, not the other way around.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)LettuceSea
(337 posts)Wow.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)for the person to represent the party,you know that right?
zalinda
(5,621 posts)someone down your throat that you don't want. The party has done everything it could to sideline Bernie, and promote Hillary. The party bosses are running the show, not the people in the party.
Z
brush
(53,743 posts)I feel the same way, but once we get to the general election, when it counts against the repugs, will you help defeat them even if Bernie doesn't get the dem nomination?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That will attract more Sanders voters to Hillary!
brush
(53,743 posts)we're done here.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Repugs vote en mass.... in a block.... as they are told to do. Not "for the person".
Kinda like Hillary supporters want all Dems to do. And Independents.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)A person who supports a candidate who
...approved the Iraq War
...supported Three Strikes
...receives the majority of her financial support from Wall Street and big Pharma
...Sat on the WalMart Board of Directors
...Approved the PATRIOT Act
Is an unethical and/or uninformed person.
Hillary Clinton is a candidate who
...approved the Iraq War
...supported Three Strikes
...receives the majority of her financial support from Wall Street and big Pharma
...Sat on the WalMart Board of Directors
...Approved the PATRIOT Act
Therefore a person who supports Hillary is unethical and/or uninformed.
The logic is inescapable.
You either argue against the premise or you argue over the definitions.
All the glop upthread is you being either unethical, uninformed, or both.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)from which to mount his campaign. And that this was a Democratic Party of Iowa event.
You can't use them for your purposes and then openly disrespect them. It's like accepting an invitation to somebody's house for dinner and then when something is served that is not your favorite, you get up from the table and walk away, saying "I'm going out to get some food that I like."
You can't win a nomination on a party's ticket by standing outside or in opposition to the party. It can't happen. Bernie Sanders has known this from the beginning.
Besides, and I want to be as clear as I can on this point. "The People" does not just mean the people supporting Sanders. "The People" is every American--those supporting Clinton and O'Malley, and yes, even the people supporting the various crackpot Republican nominees. The People does not refer only to the people who think exactly as you do.
I am sick of this myopic view of The People.
Finis.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I agree but...
"You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”
“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”
“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251727316
Bernie is okay with it.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)That is a big part of it. As someone hear said the other day. "Nothing anyone says will ever change my views so stop trying." Many truly don't even hide it. They have no need to listen to progressives. They are already the shit. lol. There are some on all sides, one side clearly walking away with it in this area.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)views, I bet.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)How fucked up is he? And, what is your point? Just because you don't listen to what the party holding a majority in congress in saying doesn't mean the rest of us don't. Truly, what in the world is your point? The word progressive in my post seems to have really thrown you for a loop. I find there is often a similar trend behind those who stay on the floor laughing by way of emoticon. lol.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Keep going. Where have you seen it that I don't like my worldview challenged. Some posters here have actually changed my views on a couple of topics. You are straight up making shit up now. Where in the world to you get your absolute statements from? Not my posting history or anything that is actually reflective of me. You are going more along the lines of "We Report, You Decide."
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)
thucythucy
(8,039 posts)Really?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)talking with someone about different points of view and pointed out that their writing indicate that they are not as open as they say.
On the other hand, you may want to rethink -your- comparison. It seems disrespectful to Ms. Clinton, but I guess only you know.
thucythucy
(8,039 posts)Although your post certainly makes it sound as though that's just what you were doing.
The topic was people walking out on Clinton. And a Clinton supporter (my take) responding to that alleged walk-out saying we should be open to differing points of view. And you bringing up Carson in this context, asking if she'd been to any of his events.
So the implied analogy seemed pretty clear. But if that's not at all what you meant, I'll accept your "no" and chalk it up to the usual internet hyperbole.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Between having to catch a bus and already knowing what she's going to say because she's been in their lives their ENTIRE lives, I don't think it was personal.
But, it wasn't challenging their worldview. They have already rejected hers.
Peacetrain
(22,872 posts)We just don't walk into a voting booth and walk out.. we have to stand up and physically move around a room.. and this kind of nonsense makes no friends and certainly does not influence people.. the revolution thing is going over like a lead balloon in some areas of the uncommitted..Just can't keep spitting in the faces of those you do not agree with..
Cosmocat
(14,559 posts)I am voting Bernie, because he is really right on the issues and I like that he is out and speaking directly to them, not dancing around them.
But, I like Hill and LONG ago, I mean in the fricken 90s, got tired of the bullshit republicans threw at her.
I can't stand 50% of the Bernistas here - the condescending you aren't really a democrat stuff, them gleefully advancing republican memes about Hill ...
He just has so much of long shot to beat Hill despite the bravado of his supporters, and it won't be "their fault" if he can't.
But, they don't get how off putting them are, and how being off putting like that keeps from developing the full support needed to win a national election.
Peacetrain
(22,872 posts)in my opinion.. But I listen to them all for a very important reason..It is going to be interesting.. We have to get at least 15% of caucus goers at each caucus to be viable.. or move on.. if 15% of the people who show up at caucus do not back a particular candidate.. it is all over for them at that caucus.. and their supporters have the option of joining another candidates group or going home.. and people need to listen to everyone because you may not have the chance to back your choice.. and being dismissive of another candidates supporters can really backfire in Iowa.. Just ask Hillary's people what happened last time.. or Edwards.. Its a whole different game here...
Cosmocat
(14,559 posts)I would like to experience it in person.
O'Malley is a really great candidate, but its funny with politics, you guy people who you would think has a lot going for them, but they just don't catch any air.
Peacetrain
(22,872 posts)If you do not have a fully rounded view of the different positions a candidate has.. you can get a lot of great information from his or her supporters..You would love it.. but you are right.. we (the O'Malley people) have not been getting the attention of the press for our candidate.. but caucus night could be very interesting .. it will be two or three hours of exchanging ideas.. (at least that is how ours works) .. and people come in ready to stand for one person, and then move to another.. Edwards was supposed to walk off with it.. and Kerrys people were loaded for bear with good information and Kerry took our caucus.. it was amazing.. so we are not giving up on O'Malley here for sure..
Response to JaneyVee (Original post)
polichick This message was self-deleted by its author.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)
chillfactor
(7,573 posts)who will destroy his chance for the presidency. 
LettuceSea
(337 posts)There are only so many trial lawyers and HS educated voters who will vote for her come General.
The condescending attitude they take from their candidate does not play well with real folk.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)But it there to be licked up.
Renew Deal
(81,847 posts)All they're missing is the orange hats.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The stupid, it Berns.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Why would people stay to listen to someone they have heard for years and that they know might change her mind tomorrow anyway?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)making up stuff like they are bored, or the bus was leaving, or they were too stupid to realize it was a DEM event and they just showed why so many don't think of them as Dems.
The bottom line is that they showed really bad form and could have helped out their candidate and sat through a 15 speech to show they were better than what they just showed themselves to be.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Which is why some here are so upset.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)the whole fiasco was a poor reflection on Bernie. His followers did him absolutley no service...as usual.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)but we'll have the last laugh. literally!
also
..
we don't care much for your establishment candidate. tough! :/
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)What are you talking about?
MineralMan
(146,262 posts)"#Feeling the Bern." That's what I've been told, anyhow. So, you clearly do not know when you were born. That's obvious.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)it was early. I don't load images when browsing the web on my phone. it's faster, saves data.
so when I saw your post ended with "Millennials" and had an unloaded image next to it, I had assumed the worst of you and for that I apologize.
my assumption is that the picture was an emoticon or image mocking "millenials" for leaving in the mass exodus you stated.
so the first part of my message about the last laugh thing, disregard, though it is true, we will.
the second part however about how there is a "we" that doesn't care for the establishment candidate is however, true. so that can still stand.
my apologies for the rude assumption. carry on.
TBF
(32,017 posts)deal with it.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Labor killing trade agreements, Wall Street deregulation, endless war, administrations of both parties a revolving door for corporate and Wall Street insiders has created a mass exodus of American citizens from both parties..
Why would anyone expect this trend not to continue without the major changes Sanders' has based his campaign on? Unless the Democratic party can find it's way back to it foundational roots a dying party will become a dead party.
Tired of a political party that waves the progressive flag, asks for my money and allegiance when there's an election but forgets allegiance is a two way street once in office.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)The political dynamic that has elevated Iowa, the state that haunted Mrs. Clinton’s White House ambitions eight years ago, could now pave her way to the nomination. The difference now, say Mrs. Clinton’s supporters, is that “she’s not running against Obama,” as Iowa’s attorney general, Tom Miller, put it. “That was a magical campaign eight years ago.”
That's how I see it as well.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)After a week or so of being back, it's still the same o same o. Hillary supporters have still not voiced a lot of concerns about Bernie's stand on the issues, it's all about attacking his supporters. Carry on then.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Funny pic.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)All dressed alike and using practiced chants.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)"You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”
“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”
“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251727316
Its very clear. He holds the party in contempt but cynically is willing to use it for his own purposes.
Saint Bernie's halo is a little crooked IMO.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)If you think you can continually attack his supporters with this type of manufactured crap and they will vote for Clinton, good luck with that.
The dinner started late. They had buses to catch and parties to go to where they could probably get something to eat.
About Biden - it wasn't the Sanders machine smearing the guy when he was deciding whether to enter the race. It kind of makes sense that his wife left the 60 minutes interview before he was asked about Clinton.
Saying someone's behavior "doesn't sit well" doesn't sit well. Like something Lady Violet would say. 
AzDar
(14,023 posts) Fearless
(18,421 posts) Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...to the dinner needed to catch their buses to get home.
There is no deep significance to someone leaving to catch a bus.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Also,paid for chartered busses leave when the person or persons who rented the busses want them to leave.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)..."We'll meet at the bus at 10PM" or whenever.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)over at 10:00.
Autumn
(44,986 posts)
mmonk
(52,589 posts)with multiple jobs, declining incomes, privatization and a safety net continually under attack, I'm afraid you should worry about a different type of exodus.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)its was like they couldn't care less.
tblue
(16,350 posts)I wouldn't count that as anything but trying to fan the flames of intra-party friction to keep those TV viewer ratings up.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)108vcd
(91 posts)Instead of trying to tell us why she makes a great candidate that represents us liberals, it's all about trying to forcefeed us Hillary if Bernie loses the primary...
I see no arguments for why she makes a great candidate other than her electibility...
Demeter
(85,373 posts)as her disapproval rating is quite high, especially compared to Bernie and most of the GOP.
The candidate with no party loyalty is counting on party loyalty to bring her a crown.
Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)Isn't the issue here about how the NYT covered the ARTICLE, starting with the headline?
Demeter
(85,373 posts)“Are the Sanders folks going to walk out on the Democrats if he’s not the nominee?”
The real question is: are enough people going to register and vote in the primaries to get Bernie a mandate?
I hope and pray and work to make it so.
oasis
(49,338 posts)
True Democrats, women and people of color in record numbers will more than make up for the loss of a small cadre of malcontents. 
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Do you have the slightest evidence to suggest huge turnout and a landslide win in 2016?
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)May the irrelevance of both be cemented by this utter gossipy tripe masquerading as "political journalism."
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)It's a distinct possibility - but that's the wrong question.
This blogger should be asking WHY they would.
jalan48
(13,842 posts)It's like we have teams and it's always about our team winning. So infantile. We should be deciding on the issues not on which team a person plays for. After the election and all the rah! rah! stuff is over we will actually be stuck with the winner and their ideas and policies.
silenttigersong
(957 posts)is very funny.Thanks for the laff
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)That's what supports her too.
silenttigersong
(957 posts) Ned Flanders
(233 posts)Complete with the American flag underwear. The members of this board used to mock Republicans for disrespect for wearing the flag inappropriately. I guess IOKIYAAHRC supporter.
silenttigersong
(957 posts)Monty Python characters in it.......
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Ya, ya...keep posting at every opportunity, your usual Bernie bashing...you have set a very predictable track record.
If he's not a racist, he's a sexist or gun nut or something else, like this.
All bullshit.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)So what if hundreds walked out on HC. And so what if Bernie didn't mention Joe. Boo Hoo (And I love Joe). And so what that HC added some names. This article(link) was all about HC and then the slamming the of Bernie and his supporters. There's really no reason for all of the posters in here to get your panties in a bunch. It's friggin politics. Deal with it.
Bernie was there to get HIS message across. He has a campaign to run, and he wants to win. I personally am sick and tired of the same old destructive politicians. And now with CU in place, if Bernie does not win, the end result will be an oligarchy. You can mark my word on that. I fear that many of the HC fans either do not understand the term, or simply do not give a shit. The risks are way too high to elect any store bought politician. With Bernie's agenda, we must rebuild the middle class, and no one else can hold a candle to him and his agenda.
Look at the past 30 years. Do you see a trend here regarding the middle class? It's all but gone. If we put a politician, bought and paid for, in the white house again, where do you think the future of the middle class will go? America flourishes when the middle class does well.
I'm sorry, but I still want to hold onto democracy, while it still exists. Oligarchy is not an option for me, which makes it quite simple for me to decide who can represent you, me, and our children and grandchildren.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Bernie had given his speech.
She was giving his last week's speech.
She will give this one in the next few days
Autumn
(44,986 posts)with or without them.
artislife
(9,497 posts)but this OP isn't interested. I liked underlining her shapeshifting.
Autumn
(44,986 posts)the NH Dem conference a month or so ago. So this is just the outrage du jour about those nasty Bernie supporters.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Autumn
(44,986 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)buses don't leave without their paying customers,it was a weak lie as an afterthought.
Autumn
(44,986 posts)Aunt Bold Ire8
(7 posts)others of being: privileged to ignore other people's different truths.
----
FOUR fingers!!!!
polichick
(37,152 posts)
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)Another hypocritical attack.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Sanders people left the Iowa JJ early,do you have a link for this claim?
Hillary Clinton spoke to a packed, boisterous hall – bolstered by a sea of supporters waving noisemakers and signs. Those supporters boomed as Clinton commended Market Basket for embracing profit-sharing, promised to help “build our party” up and down the ballot, and champion women’s rights, among other issues. The room fell silent when Clinton relayed stories she heard in New Hampshire about the effects of the opiate epidemic, cheering once again when she outlined plans to tackle the nation’s drug epidemic.
The crowd thinned out a bit by the time Martin O’Malley, who took the stage about 40 minutes later, started his remarks. While many of his supporters had rallied around the call for more debates earlier in the event, O’Malley did not make this issue a focal point of his speech – as he had done at the national party convention a few weeks prior. Instead, he echoed the script he’s stressed on the trail in New Hampshire: articulating a vision for “new leadership” and emphasizing the “executive experience” he would bring to the presidency.
https://politics.concordmonitor.com/2015/09/politics-election/democrats-convention-features-big-names-big-plans-and-big-drama/
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)
TurboKitty
(7 posts)Most likely they will walk out. I know I will. No more establishment, Corporate owned candidates.
Response to JaneyVee (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I've had no need to listen to HRC for a couple of decades now. I already know what she's all about. I know her style and her patterns. I know how much weight to give her words. I know she doesn't represent me. I could sit and listen, but that wouldn't engender an emotional "team spirit" response. She simply doesn't have what it takes to do that; not for me.
That's not to say that I haven't paid attention; I have. I'd rather read a transcript of her speech later. It's faster.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)and to answer the question posed ...yes, I am not going to be casting a vote for president if hillary is the nominee....
merrily
(45,251 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)also some pot calling the kettle black, since it was Obama voters that failed to turn out in 2010 and 2014.
Cha
(296,875 posts)Wow.. good grief! Be in the moment, dude.
Thanks Janey