2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThom Hartmann - How Stupid Has the Democratic Party Become?
Republicans havent taken over red states; Democrats have lost them by not running as real Democrats.
Thats my big takeaway from Alec MacGillis fascinating look into the biggest political mystery of our time: why poor white people in red states are not bothering to turn out to vote, leaving the field to Republicans elected by more affluent whites in those states.
There a lot of theories as to why this happens.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2015/11/how-stupid-has-democratic-party-become
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)and can listen later. He's always quoting someone from here, names that I see all the time. Apparently he's checking out DU during his show all the time.
I LOVE him!
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)right now. He is so in the tank for Bernie he is even making up shit.
Today he said, "Bernie is leading in several states, New Hampshire for instance."
Then the Bernie supporter phone calls drive me up a wall. They call in with their facebook page names as if facebook will elect Bernie. That's preaching to the choir.
I think like DU things will get back to normal after the primaries.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Problem solved.
Rockyj
(538 posts)doesn't allow any real negative talk about Hillary, and he encourages his audience to vote for her if she becomes our nominee.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)GusBob
(7,286 posts)But you are right, normally he is very careful with his words. He is a stickler for accuracy. Lately he has been bending the truth a bit....
Cleita
(75,480 posts)got it wrong, he has corrected it and loudly. This doesn't happen very often because he has really good fact checkers on his staff. If you think he's bending the truth, it's probably because what you think is the truth hasn't been all that true.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I listened and tried to figure out what all the fuss was about. But it was something that just did not appeal to me.
you are sounding like you are in a cult or something..seriously...get a grip!
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)liberal_patriot_md
(194 posts)Sanders has been a regular on his show almost from the start. Not only a regular, but the segment he did - Brunch with Bernie - was Sanders taking unscreened calls from listeners and responding to any and all topics.
Can you imagine another politician doing that?
Maybe also he simply thinks that Sanders has positions that fall more in line with his beliefs.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)I'd never considered whether any other hopefuls would field unscreeened calls. Hoo Boy! No script - No way!
dsc
(52,160 posts)something that something called research could have ascertained.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)would be almost indiscernible in their replies. But now take a corporate lackey.... I'm not gonna look to see the who and when of Thom's guests unless I wanna make a specific and detailed point. Thanks
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)He knows Bernie is the only, and best Democrat in the race.
He will regularly say Hillary would still be 1000 times better than any Republican.
Let's face it, Sanders is definitely a better Democrat, at least in his appeal to the poorest part of the Democratic voters, who are the base. Of course that isn't Hillary's target demographic, which is upper-middle to middle class, white collar workers.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)It takes some effort to get him over satellite or on stream. btw, he had some really nice things to say about Hillary today.
Rockyj
(538 posts)All I can say is the Hillary Camp must be running afraid and sadly it will get worst.
She's BENT on dividing us...
BTW please contact this station!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You poor thing, you! Thom is right. The third way® experiment is a failure.
Given the choice between a real Republican and a Democrat that acts like a Republican, voters, especially Independents will vote for the REAL Republican every time.
brooklynite
(94,518 posts)BootinUp
(47,143 posts)first off its the same netroots meme thats been going around since heck, more than 12 years. Yet there is not a single example of its successful use in all that time. Never mind that it makes absolutely no sense anyways.
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)Since a real Democrat actually ran, anywhere in the South it is hard to say. We are dealing with trying to break through a bunch of brainwashing that has stained the voting population of "should be democrats," with right-wing ideas, and a nearly masochistic bent, of self-denial. It's a sort of "You must vote for these people, who will f**k you over," vibe. Many masochistic southerners will go right along with it, just like most southerners who didn't even own slaves went and fought for all of the huge, plantation owners, who did.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)and received one quarter of one percent of the vote in the jungle primary.
Maybe not, but there's a ton of Blue Dogs who couldn't even win competitive districts with the full support of Steve Israel and the DCCC.
GusBob
(7,286 posts)Like automatically give people welfare they turn Democrats, or are they already Democrats?
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)Who find themselves temporarily on public assistance, are certainly part of the base of the Democratic Party, or should be. But the Lion's share of the people who should be Democratic voters are the people who work week to week, who barely make enough to survive, perhaps a little more. At least economically, if you're closer to the bottom, if after a few months or less you'd be out of money, perhaps kicked out of your home or apartment if you lost your job, then you should economically be voting for Democrats.
The social issues are great, not that you having power over women you don't know, and their reproductive rights puts any money in your pocket, or if you think you are voting for a black, or gay, or Hispanic hating guy does anything at all for you--or a gun lover, for that matter. All that stuff you can still do, but vote for the Democrat that will steady your life, should you hit bumps along the way, like almost everyone does.
Besides, the only party that ever actually does anything to help people get jobs, and move off of Welfare, food stamps, or other forms of assistance, are Democrats. Clearly tax cuts for the rich have done nothing at all to change any of that. We've been trying it for decades now, and all Rich republicans do it create jobs in third world countries, and deposit money into their accounts.
w0nderer
(1,937 posts)i have run into a fair (if not big) share of 'R' voters
because 'your' ss check..isn't welfare...theirs is!
because 'your' food stamps ..aren't welfare...welfare is them over there..outta my taxes!
and so forth
divide and conquer is running wild in the usa
LiberalArkie
(15,715 posts)They told white workers who were earning pennies an hour, Hey, you think youre in trouble, but youre better off than the blacks,' he said. And they told straight people, Youre better off than those gay people. And they pitted men against women. Its always playing one group against another. Thats how the rich got richer while everybody else was fighting each other. Our job is to build a nation in which we all stand together.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Unless you have an accountant who can help you avoid paying a lot. So the more you make, the more appealing the republican platform of "lower taxes and smaller government" is.
Unfortunately, you lose all your compassion for poor people when you become a republican. It's just the way they are wired.
This country has a problem with taxes. Too many people feel like they are being robbed of their money, and they don't want to pay for social needs. Look at how hard it is to get people to pay more money for local schools...they really have to fight for things they need.
In Norway, they "pay their taxes with joy"...because they appreciate the services they get in exchange. We have bad ass attitudes here.
When people fall on hard times and need assistance, even if they were republican before, they suddenly realize how important those services are, and it probably does swing them to the democratic party. They learn to have a little empathy. The party of ALL the people (even the poor), and the party of compassion.
Thom makes an excellent point here:
Its time for Democrats to embrace and run on their partys core values, the kind of values represented by people like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Bernie Sanders, who up until recently didn't even call himself a Democrat!
Thats the only way Democrats can hope to win elections in red states again.
It really is that simple, because, as Harry Truman once said, Given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican; the voters will pick the Republican every time!
Third way Domocrats are the reason many dems or poor have given up on voting at all. And because of that, they probably don't participate in polls, and they don't watch ads or debates. They need an outreach group to try to encourage them that there is finally a real Democrat running again and it's time to get back in the game. They are so tuned out because they think nobody represents them any more.
And for Hill supporters, if you have trouble listening to Thom, maybe it's because you are so in the bag for Hillary that you no longer care about the people she does not represent. The poor.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Those supporting Sen Sanders recognize the we the people have to take back our Party and then take back our democracy.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)have forgotten about the "Southern Strategy".
And, unfortunately, it may not just exist in
the South anymore.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Obama is hurting Dems in red states because he's center-left. I love Obama, and I'm not saying being center-left is a bad thing, but it does have negative consequences in some instances.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 24, 2015, 10:46 AM - Edit history (2)
The right wingers left the party in the south long ago. Why would we want one to represent us?
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)They'll still probably lose a majority of the time, but it gives us a lot better shot.
The idea that Dems are going to win by running liberal candidates in conservative states is just silly.
dsc
(52,160 posts)she is pro choice, favored marriage equality, voted for the ACA, voted for gun control, and a whole host of other things. Also she very nearly won and likely would have if not for Ebola and ISIS.
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)That you immediately list a rift of social issues, as the only defining characteristics of what comprises a "lefty" democrat. Yet you totally omit all economic issues.
That's a little like eating green beans at a thanksgiving meal, and leaving out the turkey, the mashed potatoes, the deviled eggs, and the pies.
The core things that make you liberal aren't social issues. They're lie garnish, yea, we agree with them. But they don't pay payments on your car, your utility bills, the rent, save money, send you on vacations, keep you alive and steady between jobs. They aren't a $15 minimum wages, being pro-gay doesn't' create good jobs here in America or levy against trade agreements that deliberately ship whole factories away to third world countries, making unemployment higher, and inevitably dragging already low salaries down further, and increasing the disparity of wealth.
You define what is wrong with the modern neoliberal, what is wrong with Hillary, what has been wrong with Bill, and Barack, even Carter to some extent. Since Johnson, there really has been no real Democrat. It's time we got a Democrat back into office, that puts the meal back into thanksgiving. Social issues are great, but they don't pay the bills.
dsc
(52,160 posts)BTW you know all those economic progressives you love from history, a whole fuck lot of them got into office with gay votes who voted for them despite the fact they didn't support us much, if at all. Again, glad to know my rights are so trivial to you. Oh and one other thing, the ACA, on what planet is that merely a social issue? Posters like you are why gay posters here are often disgusted with Sanders supporters.
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)I support all of those social issues.
I'm just saying their importance is minimal in comparison to the economic damage we've had inflicted, by decades of no focus on populism.
And if you didn't know this, other divisions become more minimal, when the economic situation improves for people. Keep people fighting other battles, and maybe they won't feel you picking their pockets.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)The notion that we can't pursue both is often put forward by people unwilling to advocate for both, or sometimes either. It's a false choice.
dsc
(52,160 posts)what is relevant is whether one will. Sanders in his career has shown he won't. Yes he casts good votes but does nothing else at all in regards to these issues. For him it is all economics all the time. This supporter channels him rather well in that regard.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Even when they are made far in advance of public opinion, at great political cost to the politician, because he genuinely wants to help move public opinion in the right direction? That is nothing?
dsc
(52,160 posts)He said nothing, not a god damned thing in favor of marriage equality prior to his state enacting it in 2009. I have asked over and over and over and over again and over and over and over again I got nada, nihil, not a god damned thing.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)I can understand being annoyed that he didn't jump in on gay marriage as early as some, but how many people were earlier supporters on gay issues long before marriage was even on the radar? Genuine question.
dsc
(52,160 posts)for which he was 1 of 5 votes and the letter in the 1970's. Burlilngton didn't have any laws banning discrimination in housing or employment nor did he advocate for such laws to give one example. In comparison Hillary led the effort at State to give as many rights go gay couples as she could given DOMA. Sanders is all economy all the time and no time or care for anything else. That is the man's career.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)In honesty though I don't think its been a huge part of his past career. I think its fair to say though that like many other issues, its one that when it has come up he's pretty much always come down on the side of fairness and equality and tried to provide what support he could. Economy is central to his beliefs, but there's a reason he's always been considered a wide eyed radical by his opponents, he's never been afraid to speak out on social issues.
dsc
(52,160 posts)Frankly he wouldn't lead on this issue at all if he were elected unless he acted differently as President than he has in any other level of government he has been in. I could be wrong, frankly Obama was a pleasant surprise on this issue late in his first term and into his second, so anything is possible.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)before she was for it isn't it INSANE to see supposed democrats arguing that the person who has been consistent about social AND economic issues is somehow lesser than the person who constantly wafffles...on everything?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The problem is that they have gotten us to trade off economic issues for social ones...and insist that if you want one you hate the other...the false dichotomy plan.
And I suspect that those who only care about the social ones don't have economic problems...and as long as they get theirs they don't give a shit about the rest.
dsc
(52,160 posts)all I can say if your attitude and the attitude of others like you are why I wouldn't vote for Sanders in a primary is a million years.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Because economic justice concerns me it means I garnish your rights...and that don't even make sense.
And you cast me and others as the enemy...which makes even less sense.
Unless of course you don't care about anything but yourself and what you want.
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)You quickly stated something I clearly did not mean, and inveighed against it.
It's been pretty common for Hillary "supporters," to accuse Sanders of being gay-bashing, racist, and Misogynist, when in fact he's been supporting all those issues AND POPULISM ever since before he began his political career as a Mayor. And this was way back when Hillary was still a Goldwater girl.
Certainly you guys are being disingenuous.
dsc
(52,160 posts)you own them. you also called them minimal in a later post. Words have meaning even when typed by you.
dsc
(52,160 posts)to a post that explicitly said that gay rights and other social issues are garnish. You typed the words, now own them.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And I am not ashamed to agree with this...
What is shameful to me is that some liberals would shit all over this to continue the status quo on economic issues...which effects 90% of the people gay and strait.
I can only conclude it comes from those in the 10% who like things just the way they are.
dsc
(52,160 posts)those are the words you think are fine. So why again, should I not call you out on them?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)They are garnished. So call me out as if I had committed some unforgivable sin for having an opinion that differs from yours.
If there is a single issue that defines what a Democrat is then we are indeed a week party. And will continue to lose to the GOP as we have in the past decade.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)In the Democratic party...not center left.
But there lies the problem, things have been redefined and by doing it shifts everything to the right.
And the right triangulates by calling Obama a leftist, socialist marxist...and we come to accept a moderate Republican position as the left.
But that's the third way.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Nonsense of this magnitude will not fly with a huge majority of us on DU.
It isn't fresh thinking, it is dishonesty.
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)Where are they? Was that the two guys who tried to run as Democrats last time, and have already withdrawn because we said "we don't need no stinkin' republicans running heah."
Phlem
(6,323 posts)the Democratic version of socialism for the 1%. Always has been, always will be.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Where have you been?
And we lost miserably back then too.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)So I'll answer your question to them for you.
I was on the moon!
(seriously, let's run centrists against pubs in red states - whoa boy)
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)He's center right, firmly in the corporate wing like Hillary.
He's not a real Democrat in the FDR sense. That is why he can't carry red states. Might as well vote for a real Republican over Republic can lite. Bernie represents the real change that Obama spoke of, but never intended to enact. His campaign contributors were the same as Hillary Clinton's. Top 10 Wall Street firms.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)the entire propaganda operation pretending to be news is helping.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/us/examining-who-runs-the-united-states.html?smid=re-share&_r=1&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=U.S.&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article
The part about the Republicans working to erase Trump and the Democratic shoving Bernie Sanders is about two thirds of the way down.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)And I'll be the judge of what constitutes right leaning even when they refer to themselves as centrist.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I stand with you.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I was planning on posting this tonight. Great article.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Let's discuss this.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Republicans havent taken over red states; Democrats have lost them by not running as real Democrats.
And off go the neo-liberal wing losing those states to throw him under the bus.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Amen.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)isn't really much different than battling their rightwing cousins.
You can lead them to facts/the truth, but you can't make them think.
Snow Leopard
(348 posts)Of poor people that lean republican. They view democrats has giving hand outs.
cer7711
(502 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 23, 2015, 09:41 PM - Edit history (1)
. . . "corrupt", "co-opted", "bankster-bought", "FDR amnesiacs", "blue-dog plutocratic pets", and "working-class hostile/middle-class indifferent."
Or as certain members of the Democratic elite (having learned all the wrong lessons from the Reagan era) might tell us with an unctuous smile whilst nervously eyeing their fat, corporate-padded bank accounts: "We're the adults in the room, honey. We're third-way, triangulating, less-is-more, eternally-'evolving' Wall Street toadies who know how to get things done, by god! Don't you know that Wall Street is where the power is? Stop asking for a glitter-farting unicorn (single-payer, affordable college education, a return to 1950s tax rates, re-institution of job-protecting tariffs, enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Act, restoration of Glass-Steagall) and sit the fuck back down, Mr. Whiner, until ordered to vote again."
What contempt they must have for the (according to a recent study) near 50% of US households who can't weather a $400 unexpected expense without it turning into a major crisis! It's our fault, you see, that we work harder and harder while falling farther and farther behind. We're just too f---ing stupid, lazy, unlucky and/or hopelessly under-skilled to thrive in this new down-sized, corporate-welfare-driven, too-big-to-fail, "free trade" (hah!), "right-sized", worker-hostile economy.
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150607/PC05/150609735/1013/could-you-cover-400-expense
It's democratic socialism or mass social upheaval--one way or another, revolution is coming . . .
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)Sometimes I think they don't want to win so they can whine to our faces and laugh at us behind closed doors.
fbc
(1,668 posts)very stupid
KoKo
(84,711 posts)ut oh
(895 posts)why bother to take the time to vote? Especially if that means, leaving work early/showing up late, or having to take time off (no pay) to do it. People, especially the poor, are too swamped in trying to stay afloat to get out and vote.
Besides, when one looks at a system that has been co-opted by the wealthy to favor the wealthy, it further disenfranchises voters...
The fact that the electoral college means that urban residents' votes count less than rural voters also adds to that disenfranchisement.
Leaders who are obviously bought out by the highest bidder and knowing that as an individual your vote means little unless you are in swing state...
To add to that:
Voter ID laws
Removal of weekend voting
Shortening the hours of polling places
Other tactics that make voting more difficult
All this leads to reductions in interest in voting and harms our democracy greatly. Having Dems that are GOP-lite, just adds to the pile.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Is he a real Democrat.
Voting on actual election day in the primary and runoff was basically the same -- around 30 percent. But early voting jumped 36,000 votes from the primary to the runoff, accounting for 92 percent of all increased voting from the primary to the runoff, according to Ed Chervenak, a political scientist at the University of New Orleans that studies election returns.
An interesting take on what it really takes to win as a Democrat. And it is not because we have a stupid party.
What it takes to win is find a Democrat who appeals to the people in a state rather than apply an ideological test on a candidate.
I don't agree with John Bel Edwards Pro-life stand. But I welcome him as a Democrat.
OkSustainAg
(203 posts)The reason people keep voting against there own best interest is the have accepted the crazy talking point that everyone is punching Jesus in the face. They are bigots and haters. They believe they are not successfully rich because they are not doing it right. I go into the doughnut shop or the parts store and hear the crap all the time. Even in the schools. The Democratic party in Oklahoma see themselves as just like republicans. We have Democratic candidates running adds with them at the gun range.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Both are thinly-veiled theocracies.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)to buy the GOLD he's shilling to end of days typeS.
Don't bet on that.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... the "Madison lesbian liberal" won a US Senate seat.
Lesson: Run a corpo-Dem and you lose; run a progressive and you win.