HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » This is a very important ...

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 03:46 AM

 

This is a very important and historical Democratic primary.

While they have all been historic in their own way, this one is unique. Not because a woman may become President. Not because we may have our first Jewish President, nor because we may have someone nominated who wasn’t a party member. This primary is historic because there are two very different paths taken to get the nomination. On the surface Secretary Clinton’s campaign looks very traditional, and Senator Sanders’ looks radically new. To me, it’s actually the opposite.

Secretary Clinton is succeeding where Jeb? failed. She amassed an incredible monetary war chest before anyone else even announced they were going to run. She has successfully sought out support among key leaders among labor unions, current and former elected officials in the party and other social organizations. All of this support should have intimidated anyone from having any support for their own run at the nomination. John-Ellis-Bush-Bush tried to do this, IMO Secretary Clinton has largely accomplished this.

Senator Sanders on the other hand has a lifetime record of strong liberal principles which used to attract the most voters to the Democratic Party. He has attacked republicans for their version of “family values” and “strong foreign policy” with positions that “New Democrats” were taught to fear. Senator Sanders campaign has been focused on small donations, rather than bundling parties and <wink> unaffiliated super PACs.

So what IMO makes Secretary Clinton's campaign radically new? The elimination of voter input into the nomination process. If Secretary Clinton succeeds, why will any future Democratic nominee attempt to get to know the average voter? Why listen to ordinary Democrats (or Americans for that matter) when you only have to amass money (enough to outspend your opponents) use the momentum of monetary success to get support of leaders before the primary even starts, and reduce the average voter to easily stereotyped blocks (Women, Blacks, LGBT, Latinos, blue collar, “hard working rural Whites”, etc.) with leaders that can be impressed by your cash raising acumen.

What makes Senator Sanders campaign traditional? Rather than running away from traditional liberal values, he embraces them, and has all his life. Senator Sanders listens to average voters, even when the cameras are off, and even when he’s not running for office (Brunch with Bernie is a call-in segment on the Thom Hartmann radio show and has been for years). Because of his real commitment to his values, Senator Sanders doesn’t have to worry about contradicting himself in videos. In short, working to earn your votes matters more than cash.

I see it this way: if Senator Sanders wins the nomination, we can see a return to what used to be core Democratic Party principles. Helping the people in our country who need it most yet receive the least. A realization that our justice system is biased and dangerous unless you’re economically insulated. The acceptance that our wars damage average Americans who see no benefit from that “racket”(hats off to General Butler).

If Secretary Clinton wins, then we ordinary voters are further marginalized. In future primaries we can cast our vote for the sole remaining candidate who has successfully out-raised their competition. After all, you wouldn’t want to throw your vote away, right?

If you’ve read through this, thanks.


TLDR? The short version: Senator Sanders is trying to earn our votes, Secretary Clinton is trying to win the primary regardless of how we individual voters may feel about her candidacy.

22 replies, 1723 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply This is a very important and historical Democratic primary. (Original post)
That Guy 888 Nov 2015 OP
72DejaVu Nov 2015 #1
firebrand80 Nov 2015 #5
Betty Karlson Nov 2015 #2
That Guy 888 Nov 2015 #17
DanTex Nov 2015 #3
Punkingal Nov 2015 #9
NCTraveler Nov 2015 #4
nashville_brook Nov 2015 #6
JaneyVee Nov 2015 #8
Hepburn Nov 2015 #10
NCTraveler Nov 2015 #11
That Guy 888 Nov 2015 #13
JaneyVee Nov 2015 #7
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2015 #12
Romulox Nov 2015 #15
That Guy 888 Nov 2015 #18
beam me up scottie Nov 2015 #19
That Guy 888 Nov 2015 #14
book_worm Nov 2015 #16
That Guy 888 Nov 2015 #22
That Guy 888 Nov 2015 #20
That Guy 888 Nov 2015 #21

Response to That Guy 888 (Original post)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 05:13 AM

1. So, only Sanders voters are "ordinary Democrats"

The 80+% of Democrats who are perfectly happy to have Hilary be the nominee are not.

OK, got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 72DejaVu (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 07:14 AM

5. LOL

Hillary's votes don't count

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to That Guy 888 (Original post)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 06:39 AM

2. This is a remarkable and very perceptive analysis.

 

I hope you will post more good reads like this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 07:20 PM

17. Thanks, I really appreciate the compliment. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to That Guy 888 (Original post)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 06:46 AM

3. Maybe it looks that way to people who hate Hillary.

But the rest of us don't feel that Hillary is ignoring us while Bernie is listening. We also don't feel that leaders of unions and other progressive groups have been bought off by Hillary's money. In fact, we agree with them that Hillary is the best candidate.

And "the rest of us" is most of the Democratic party.

I get that some people prefer Bernie over Hillary. What I don't get is why Bernie supporters insist that Hillary isn't listening or concerned about "average voters", simply because they happen to disagree with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 10:00 AM

9. Are you a union member?

Have you been involved in how the leaders decide?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to That Guy 888 (Original post)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 07:14 AM

4. We might actually get our first woman President.

 

Still can't believe the signs of oppression are this blatant and some act as if it isn't real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 09:26 AM

6. okay, I'll play -- what do you think will magically happen

when we have the "first woman president."

do you expect that we'll suddenly have paid sick days for all workers so working mothers can care for a sick child? b/c she no longer supports that position.

do you expect that we'll suddenly all have access to affordable reproductive health services?
do you expect that we'll suddenly all have equal pay with men in the workplace?
do you expect that we'll suddenly all be able to prosecute men for sexual harassment and gender discrimination?

look at how the first African American president has his hands tied with issues of racial oppression. sure, there's the "gee, ma one day maybe I could be president" gewgaw factor -- but that doesn't amount to much for kids from poor or middle class families. it's all still going to be a rich person's game rigged for rich people.

so, do tell me -- what real change do you expect women can expect from the first woman president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 09:35 AM

8. She sure does support paid sick leave.

 

And the election of our first black president, besides being very successful, also served a societal good. Just like Hillary will be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 10:09 AM

10. I don't vote by gender.

If you do, my condolences.

IMO, it is sexist to vote for or against someone based on his/her sex. It goes both ways -- not just voting against someone because she is female. Being sexist, IMO, is also voting for someone because she is female.

I do not like Hillary's policies -- what her plumbing is happens to be irrelevant. Her hawkish stances and her loyalties to Wall Street and the 1% and the fact that she has been less than truthful -- that is what I consider to be a basis for my decision to not support her in the primaries. She is way too far right for me and is not strong enough on the financial, domestic and foreign policies which are the framework of a liberal agenda. In other words, she is much too close to the Republican platform for me to feel any comfort with her. And, again, I could not care less what her gender is.

JMHO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hepburn (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 10:11 AM

11. Your third sentence is flat out amazing.

 

Sexism against the wealthy white man. This shit just isn't real anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 03:41 PM

13. Slow walk me through it then. Explain my blatant sexism.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to That Guy 888 (Original post)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 09:33 AM

7. Then why has Hillary been holding listening tours with the people while...

 

Bernie has been holding rallies only listening to himself speak?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to That Guy 888 (Original post)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 11:03 AM

12. Some would prefer to shut you up rather than hear an argument:

On Wed Nov 25, 2015, 02:30 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

This is a very important and historical Democratic primary.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251847604

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This Clinton = Bush crap has got to stop. Nothing but hyperbole and bashing.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Nov 25, 2015, 02:39 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: All it says, amongst much other stuff, is that Hillary and Jeb! are their parties' establishment candidates, That in no way deserves a hide. This is all fair comment. This is GDP, not the Hillary Clinton group, if you hadn't noticed.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agreed. There are several inaccurate statements regarding Hillary and Bernie, but equating Hillary to a Bush is offensive.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a well-thought out post. It's not offensive unless you completely disagree with the topic. The individual reporting this post should be disallowed from reporting posts if these are the kind of posts they are reporting.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Pathetic alerts such as this one must stop.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 04:38 PM

15. Those who voted to hide should be ashamed of themselves. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 07:26 PM

18. Wow! Thanks for letting me know.

 

Weird I thought I might have been alerted on for “not showing HRC sufficient respect” (LEAVE Hillary alone, you’re lucky she even wants to rule you bastards ) but not for comparing her directly (hell even indirectly) to john-ellis-bush-bush. Thanks to everyone who voted not to hide my post.

For clarity, it’s the goals of the campaigns I’m comparing, not the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 07:28 PM

19. Disgusting. 3 people voted to hide a well thought out, reasoned op.

Cowards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to That Guy 888 (Original post)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 04:32 PM

14. "Only Sanders voters are ordinary voters" Votes have been cast already? 80+% of them?

 

Polls especially this far out are meaningless. In the intervening time between now and the primary anything can happen. If you listen to Stephanie Miller (who last I heard was a HRC supporter) you will be familiar with the following:

"Well if the election were held today..."

"Yeah, but the election isn't being held today!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to That Guy 888 (Original post)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 04:59 PM

16. Yes, it is we may nominate our first woman nominee or a democratic socialist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to book_worm (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 07:43 PM

22. I'm thinking more will this end voting primaries and start campaign war chest primaries.

 

Which is probably what I should have used for a title.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to That Guy 888 (Original post)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 07:29 PM

20. Yes, Hillary Clinton DOES listen to voters!

 

Carefully screened voters. Voters who won’t mind waiting to hear her position on controversial issues until after she’s elected.

Hillary's low-risk listening tour
Clinton’s foray into Iowa was an exercise in preaching to the choir, executed in the safety of controlled environments.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clintons-low-risk-listening-tour-117025#ixzz3sXgKGEDw

Another Democrat considering a Clinton challenge, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, challenged Clinton's reliance on a “financial leviathan machine” aiming to raise millions of dollars or a campaign aide “whispering what I should say or how I should dress or whether I ought to go to Walmart or not,” he said on CNN’s State of the Union.
As Webb’s comments suggest, Clinton’s travels through Iowa were meticulously staged, with most of the people she met in front of the media pre-screened. Media access to the candidate during on-the-road stops was pre-planned and limited to a small group of journalists. Republicans cast the Iowa trip as a sign that Clinton is so risk-averse and so out of touch that even the “everyday people” with whom she interacts must be carefully chosen.
—David Weigel contributed to this report from Nashua.

http://bloom.bg/dg-ws-core-bcom-a1


So I decided to do what Hillary didn’t — stop along the way, get off I-80 here and there, and listen. I wanted to learn what she would have if her first effort to connect with voters had not been first vetted by her staff, not pre-screened, not a stage prop for the massive billion-dollar electoral apparatus that formally whirred to life this week.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/17/the-voices-hillary-rodham-clinton-didn-hear/gGhQmBvQygiiYJAnWUdIOJ/story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to That Guy 888 (Original post)

Wed Nov 25, 2015, 07:34 PM

21. “We also don't feel that leaders of unions and other progressive groups have been bought off..."

 

If you can stop mercilessly pummeling that strawman, I’ll clarify my post.

All the "Very Serious People Who Understand How Politics Really Works" will tell you it’s all about your "campaign war chest" (because saying money makes it sound like you’re talking about bribery). The conventional inside-the-beltway thinking is that if you have more money than your opponent, your message will prevail. No matter how great he or she is, can your opponents survive the moneybomb advertising from your official campaign, “the pro you but not affiliated” <wink> super-pac (not an attack on Hillary, it’s going to be the post-Citizen’s United norm) and the “the other candidates really suck” super-pac that will run negative ads (hey look, my hands are clean!) ?

Sewing up endorsements comes next. If you can monetarily crush all opposition, doesn’t it make it easier to get that support? Who’s going to say no when conventional beltway thinking says cash is king, or “queen/kingmaker”? If your endorsements are going to mean anything in this scenario, it’s going to have to be early. Before-a-vote-is-even-cast early.

So she’s not bribing anyone. She is trying to subvert the primary process in the same way that John-Ellis-bush-bush did, raising so much money that being effectively challenged is unlikely if not impossible. However if a Clinton supporter has an alternate take on how it’s completely different when Hillary does it, I’d like to hear it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread