General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSurprise For NYT: BERNIE IS ELECTABLE!
A couple of months ago I might have agreed with the NYT that Bernie Sanders was unelectable. He didn't even have the name recognition that Elizabeth Warren had. However, after listening to his speeches and feeling the energy in the responses of his audience, I've changed my mind. The NYT is underestimating the mushrooming fury that is brewing in the middle class and the poor. If Bernie Sanders can continue to tap into that anger he may very well be a viable candidate. Main stream Americans (Democrats, Independents, and even many moderate Republicans) understand that business as usual with its increasing income inequality is unsustainable in a Democracy (or a Republic). About 8 years ago, when I learned that an African American man had tossed his hat in the ring to run against Hillary, I said hell would freeze over before we elected Barack Hussein Obama. I knew almost nothing about him. This was after 9/11. No way would we elect someone with a Muslim sounding name. Besides, as a feminist, I was very excited about the thought of our first woman POTUS.
Then I just happened to be watching a late night talk show and I heard President Obama speak for the very first time. The next morning I called my sister and said I was going to vote for Obama. His message resonated deep within my soul and that is also how I feel about Bernie Sanders. I would still love to see a woman President before I die, but I'm going on 73 years of age. I wanted Elizabeth to run, but she stayed strong in her resolve not to do so. I can live with the idea of never seeing a female president in my lifetime, but I can't live with the idea that nothing will change for the better for another four years. I can't watch the wealthy continue to corrupt our democratic way of life. Obama excited us, we believed in him, and we all got behind him and gave him our support financially and at the polls. Let's do that for Bernie Sanders. I regret to say that Hillary just doesn't stir up any emotional response for me. She doesn't have the passion or the fire that Bernie has. She has way too much baggage and is too close to Wall Street. She appears to lack commitment on bold progressive ideas. I fear our capitalism on steroids would continue and the evaporation of the middle class would persist during her tenure. Bernie will have an uphill battle. He will have to make people understand that socialism is not a dirty word. The neo-cons will try their best to make him seem like a communist. He'll be fighting the Koch's and the 1%. His lack of experience with foreign affairs may be a problem. However, with a good staff of effective advisers that is not insurmountable.
The Republican clown car (or clown bus) is filling up quickly, but so far there does not seem to be any candidate that can unite the entire party. That is an advantage to the Democrats if only we can stand united behind a single candidate who has an unwavering and unlimited resolve to fix what is broken in our country. Bernie Sanders is calling for a revolution. He is correct - that is what it will take. Think what could be accomplished if every individual who lost a home, a job, or retirement savings when the bubble burst got solidly behind this candidate. What if every family that is struggling to send their kids to college, or to pay down credit card debt supported Bernie? Or every worker who earns minimum wage or every senior struggling to survive on Medicare? Or every person who needs social services, but can't find help because of slashed budgets? Or every person who works in unsafe conditions because there is no union fighting for his rights? Or if everyone who cares about protecting our environment for future generations? This list would be mighty long if I included everyone who would be helped by Bernie Sanders and his progressive views!
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/06/1391000/-Surprise-for-NYT-Bernie-is-Electable
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gman
(24,780 posts)I entirely agree that Sanders is electable. His message is what stirred OWS that was shut down so brutally because of the huge threat it poses to the powers that be.
And I think Sanders has exactly the message to win.
But I support Hillary until the time comes I have to support Sanders. And I will.
Mother Of Four
(1,721 posts)I was just finishing reading before heading to bed and have been getting a little sicker to my stomach with all the bashing than normal. I'm going let this message you wrote be the last one I read so I can hit the sack with a smile instead of a tummy ache.
Luck to your candidate, luck to mine! I can't wait to see them debate the issues!
Gman
(24,780 posts)In coming up on the 11th Democratic primary I've participated in, the candidate I supported never won the nomination. Of course with the exception of incumbent presidents.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,425 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Response to cantbeserious (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)
ananda
(33,240 posts)He's got my vote!
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)They are moving from uneasiness to fear. Wait & see what they day when they're in the grips of full-blown terror.
I believe Bernie is capable of giving them that experience.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)
Thirties Child
(543 posts)I fervently hope that Bernie will be president during my last ten years.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)or getting it cut, ever again, like you would under a republican or centrist Dem admninistration.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Can someone lend me a string of pearls to clutch? Sanders has made me clutch mine so often, the string broke and they scattered everywhere.
Not cutting. Expanding.
I can't deal. 
daleanime
(17,796 posts)except I want you to have a lot more then 10 more years.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Thirties Child
(543 posts)I came over when Wes Clark dropped out of the race. Read every day, seldom posted. Had close to a thousand posts when we moved, changed servers, changed computers, lost DU membership, had to start over.
Awesome stuff!
#GoBernie!
and TWEETED 
edhopper
(36,646 posts)Let's scoff at a sitting US Senator with overwhelming election victories, while taking a failed CEO and a lunatic neural surgeon seriously.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)with bad hair? He'll never get 5% of the vote. Pay no attention to him. Nobody cares.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Don't let them keep framing the debate.
Income and wealth inequality: In the United States today we have the most unequal wealth and income distribution of any major country on earth -- worse than at any time since the 1920s. This is an economy that must be changed in fundamental ways.
Jobs and income: In my view, we need a massive federal jobs program which puts millions of our people back to work. We must end our disastrous trade policies. We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. And we have to fight for pay equity for women.
Campaign finance reform: As a result of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, American democracy is being undermined by the ability of the Koch brothers and other billionaire families. These wealthy contributors can literally buy politicians and elections by spending hundreds of millions of dollars in support of the candidates of their choice. We need to overturn Citizens United and move toward public funding of elections so that all candidates can run for office without being beholden to the wealthy and powerful.
Climate change: Climate change is real, caused by human activity and already devastating our nation and planet. The United States must lead the world in combating climate change and transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainability.
College affordability: Every person in this country who has the desire and ability should be able to get all the education they need regardless of the income of their family. This is not a radical idea. In Germany, Scandinavia and many other countries, higher education is either free or very inexpensive. We must do the same.
Health care: Shamefully, the United States remains the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people. The United States must move toward a Medicare-for-all single-payer system. Health care is a right, not a privilege.
Poverty: The United States has more people living in poverty than at almost any time in the modern history of our country. I believe that in a democratic, civilized society none of our people should be hungry or living in desperation. We need to expand Social Security, not cut it. We need to increase funding for nutrition programs, not cut them.
Tax reform: We need real tax reform which makes the rich and profitable corporations begin to pay their fair share of taxes. We need a tax system which is fair and progressive. Children should not go hungry in this country while profitable corporations and the wealthy avoid their tax responsibilities by stashing their money in the Cayman Islands.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Often enough, Rufus.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)
After enduring decades of dumbed down, trivialized campaigns, I am determined to play a small part in helping to make this one smarter and more substantive. Not only can the American people handle it, I suspect they are actually clamoring for it. You'd never guess this by following the corporate media, which is a very big part of the problem.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)What ways?
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Sanders would raise the top tax rate to what it was during the era of that radical socialist Dwight Eisenhower. Those were boom years, by the way.
Harwood brought up that some have likened efforts to combat income inequality to Nazi Germany. Sanders noted sarcastically, “When radical, socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, I think the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent.”
... Last year, economists found that the point at which the top tax rate is high enough to maximize government revenues but not so high that it discourages the rich from trying to earn more is quite high: about 95 percent for the 1 percent. History bears that out. Economists have pointed out that post-war American growth has been higher during periods with much higher top marginal tax rates and lower when tax rates were substantially lower. When the top rate was more than 90 percent in the 50s, economic growth averaged more than 4 percent a year. But recently when the top rate has been closer to 35 percent, growth has been less than 2 percent a year on average.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/05/26/3662773/sanders-90-percent-tax/
In addition, he would eliminate offshore tax havens and, as my earlier list suggests, would make education free at public colleges and universities, which, if the original Roosevelt era GI Bill is any indication, would be a huge stimulus. If I remember correctly, that original GI Bill cost $1 Billion and was paid back eightfold in the resulting economic growth. More importantly, (along with strong unions, which Sanders also supports) it played a huge role in creating the American middle class, which has steadily been destroyed, beginning with the Reagan era.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I look forward to seeing the details.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Or are you ok with the poverty rate, poor health care, poor educational system, dangerous infrastructure, etc. nm
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Clearly there needs to be changes, but what constitutes a fundamental change? I'd like to hear more about that.
I like all the Democratic candidates in the running so far.
Ron Green
(9,866 posts)For one example.
Stardust
(3,894 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts) 
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Empowerment comes from shared vision. Let's build one!
merrily
(45,251 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Hoping we take the high road and talk actual issues, instead of horse races and media-created controversies. This is our democracy not a reality show.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)are beginning to thin think, 'yes, this man not only can win, he must win'. I am seeing it all over the place, in RL, on Social Media especially where the the enthusiasm of his hundreds of thousands of supporters are helping to get his message out to the people 24 hours a day.
And to say that someone who HAS BEEN ELECTED over and over again is simply ludicrous and always was.
He's not just a brilliant man with incredible insight and foresight, see his votes on the Iraq War and the Patriot Act eg, he is a brilliant politician.
I am super impressed with how quickly his campaign gets back to you when you respond to a request they make eg. I signed the petition for debates I received from his campaign and within minutes received a 'thank you' with more information on what he wants to do.
Bernie is the right person for this country at this point in its history. Every once in a while it happens, just when all hope seems lost, someone steps forward to show us the way.
Bernie is that person right now.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
TBF
(35,195 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)would feel the same - as do I. Go Bernie Go! 
Response to Plucketeer (Reply #38)
Name removed Message auto-removed
The institutional Democratic Party has, in the last twenty-plus years, been sold bit-by-bit to corporate interests by the DLC, the Turd Way types and, more than anyone else, by the Clintons.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,425 posts)Response to TBF (Reply #12)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Thank Dog for social media.
merrily
(45,251 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)
We can't depend on either money or the media to wage this campaign. We need to Think Outside the Bucks and Think Outside the (Idiot) Box.
merrily
(45,251 posts)and do what we can on social media. Then, when his campaign calls on us, we need to serve.
I think he said something about everyone donating even $5. I am not sure how that works since the credit card companies dip into that. Maybe mail a check? Anyway, point is, whatever we can.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)
Paka
(2,760 posts)Living in Thailand I live a cash life and don't use credit cards. I was in the US last month following my sisters death and called the campaign to get the address to mail my check to which is different from the online listing for their offices. By-passing the credit card fees is an added extra.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I always feel so stupid to post this emotion to someone who is grieving, but, online, it's all I've got: 
Paka
(2,760 posts)She died from ALS and I was there to help with her care that last year of her life. It's a very moving experience. 
merrily
(45,251 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)1). You don't need more $ than the opposition, you only need enough;
2). If the media isn't with you, create your own.
The old MSM is dissolving, but the new media is a vehicle no one knows how to drive. Drive that sumbitch and you not only elect Sanders, you have the means to build a truly progressive party.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Money: Some people are saying you need at least a billion to run a Presidential campaign, as if that were carved in stone somewhere. No, Obama spent a billion--hard money alone--but that doesn't mean he would have lost if he spent less. What clinched that election, IMO, was the video the bartender took of Romney at his fundraiser. Of course, Obama's incumbency helped, too. Point, is spending a billion doesn't mean a billion is necessary.
Media: His supporters can really help there. His campaign seems to have started with all the right things. Plus, of course, his Senate website. He can't use that for campaigning, but he can put on it his positions and what he is working on. He seems to be doing pretty well on social media and I think his supporters can take a bit of a bow on that one.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)stands to benefit from that spend. The MSM loves citizens united. Television loves citizens united. These are the clowns who benefit from establishment dems. I say piss on them.
merrily
(45,251 posts).
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)The entire premise of this article is:
* I have emotions and was emotionally moved by Obama
* Bernie emotionally moves me
* Obama was elected
* Therefore Bernie can be
* Just imagine if everyone thought like me! Lots of exclamation marks!!!!!
The holes in this argumentation are so enormous, it's difficult to even satarize them.
I will leave anyone believing this tripe with the thought that we elect Presidents in this country, not dictators. So even if Bernie was inaugurated, which he will never be, he won't be able to do anything more than Obama has been.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
djean111
(14,255 posts)"So even if Bernie was inaugurated, which he will never be, he won't be able to do anything more than Obama has been."
Then - the same thing applies to Hillary. Unless, of course, Hillary just goes ahead and does what the GOP Congress wants. And that is what some of us are afraid of. Look how passionately Obama is working with the GOP for the TPP. That is the kind of thing that I think Hillary would be doing - pushing GOP items and calling only doing some of what the GOP wants to do, some sort of victory. Not buying that any more. I feel she would work with the GOP, achieving GOP objectives. No thanks.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)This is why I argue that Democrats need to focus on the most actually electable candidate, period.
Mind you, even though I'm "ConservativeDemocrat", if I were convinced that Bernie was actually our best chance of retaining the Presidency, I'd be completely on board with him.
I'm not though. Hillary is our gal. And if she pisses off leftists who enjoy being permanently pissed off, more the better.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)If the "most electable" candidate was a winning strategy, I do believe President Kerry would have left office on January 20, 2013.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Dean wouldn't have done any better against Bush. Hell, he was murdered by the media because of a mis-set microphone and a sore throat from attending too many rallies.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)I just noted that John Kerry was explicitly selected as the most electable candidate in 2004. If you can't explain that colossal failure, then your argument of choosing the most electable is worthless.
Kerry ran a pretty dopey campaign. He had a stupid slogan in "hope is on the way!" He refused to call Bush a liar during the debates, when it would have mattered most. He won no points for equivocating when Bush repeatedly, and openly, lied. Bush's strongest point was being seen as a man who spoke plainly and said what he meant (I said being seen, not being). Kerry's failure to attack that point was maybe his greatest failure. Well, maybe except for not being prepared for the Swiftboaters. I'm not sure how that was a surprise, to be honest. The administration had continuously lied regarding Iraq and the entire Axis of Evil. If they were willing to lie us into a war, they would lie all day in a campaign.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)"Dated Dean, Married Kerry."
When you say that Kerry was weak, you are implying some alternate candidate was stronger.
And believe it or not, the constant attack-attack-attack business doesn't play well in Peoria.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)1. Dean was a rival until the scream, which was early. After that, it was Edwards. I don't know if they'd have done better, but could they really have done worse? Failure should be sufficient reason to discard electability as a moronic plan. That doesn't mean pick just anybody, but if you're seriously arguing electability between two or more fully qualified candidates, you're playing to lose.
2. Oh please on the attack bit. There's a difference between running 1.5 years of attack ads to unseat a senator with lukewarm support (Kay Hagan) and calling out George Dumbass Bush on his repeated lies. Millions thought he was an honest man with whom they simply disagreed. They were completely clueless to the fact that he was, and is, a pathological liar. Kerry chose to let him continue to be seen as honest, or honest enough, and it cost us. Bright move that was.
As for whether attacks "play in Peoria," only a fool would claim they don't. Thom Tillis ain't a US senator without 1.5 years of them. Bush doesn't get that second term without the Swiftboaters. His dirtbag father doesn't get elected without Willie Horton. If you're really a member of the "reality based community," that much should be clear as day.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...to candidates, or run yourself. I'm just telling you that the number one thing that uninvolved Americans dislike about politics is the negativity. Basically, if you're on any campaign doing phone banks or knocking, the number one thing they do is to tell you to do is to be positive.
You seem to imagine that yelling "liar" about the President is going to make you believed. But if people believed you, then you wouldn't have to yell "liar", now would you?
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Americans whine about negativity, then vote based on it. If they didn't, nobody would shell out millions on attack ads.
You either missed my point or are deliberately avoiding it regarding Bush's lies. That's cool. I was pretty clear in my earlier posts, so I'm guessing you're avoiding it in order to keep up the illusion of an argument. Have fun with that.
Either way, your electability argument holds as much water as a sieve. If it had the least bit of merit, I'm sure you could trot out an example of its success.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)And certainly not attacks about "character", which are perceived as kindergarten insults. Comparative ads always have an actual policy point they're selling. Hell, even the infamous Willie Horton ad was arguing in favor of public safety.
Again, low information voters aren't necessarily stupid, but they neither know nor care to know about who is lying. "Lying" is such a common charge, it's almost like you're saying nothing, especially when you have large media enterprises on radio and TV whose purpose it is to muddy the truth and bolster such lies.
> If it had the least bit of merit, I'm sure you could trot out an example of its success.
You want positive or negative examples? Never mind, I have both. Clinton was successful. Wildly. And ask the usual DU crowd whether they consider him a true-blue liberal or not. On the other side, in 2010 the Senate would have likely been Republican had the teabaggers not taken over the primary system and put up so many nutcases. Look at the clown car that is the current crop of GOP candidates; it's dooming them. Alan Grayson managing to get a Congressional seat, after winning 49% to 28%, subsequently lost the Democratic leaning district 56% to 38%. He did manage to win again, but only because the guy he was up against was an absolute loon.
And understand, Americans have much more tolerance for this kind of stuff at the Congressional level than they do the Presidency. There is a a certain calm demeanor, a gravitas, that people call "Presidential". Wild charges don't cut it. People don't like it.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)The Clinton team went negative early and often. If Paul Tsongas was alive, you could ask him. I do believe he held a grudge against the Clintons to the day he died for their attacks on his health.
As for Clinton's perceived electability during the primary season, you're wrong. He was seen as a young upstart who needed more seasoning before he made a serious bid. Tsongas, Brown, and Kerrey were seen as the adults in the room. Clinton outworked everybody and his native charisma kept him in play in New Hampshire. After that, he kept outworking everybody and kept charming everybody and managed to get the nomination. It had nothing to do with perceived electability. It had everything to do with work and charm. If you honestly think he was seen as electable before New Hampshire, then maybe you can explain why he labeled himself the Comeback Kid after coming in second. The electable guy wouldn't need to do that.
Willie Horton was arguing in favor of public safety? At the risk of making such a "common" charge, you're lying and you know it.
You shouldn't cite 2010 because it only hurts you. Turnout was far higher in that midterm than is common. Democrats had substantially elevated turnout and Republicans had ridiculous turnout. The GOP voters were most definitely motivated by negative advertising, whether through traditional commercials or Fox News. It's just stupid to argue that somehow their failures in the senate validate your milquetoast idea that negative campaigning doesn't work when their participation rates in that election topped 50%. 50% in a midterm. 82.5 million voted in 2010. Let's not pretend that happened because people caught a sudden case of civic virtue.
If Americans have more tolerance for negative campaigning at the Congressional level than the Presidential level, somebody should tell the Swiftboaters. Or they could tell Lee Atwater, the original Karl Rove. Or maybe they could tell Karl Rove himself, the source of the McCain had a black baby rumor in South Carolina in 2000. Or they could tell Tricky Dick and the boys from CREEP who were busy tearing down Eagleton over mental health issues. Maybe they could tell John Kennedy and Al Smith, who both had to deal with rumormongering that each was going to install the Pope into the White House. Given all that, even with the Kennedy win, it's ridiculously naive at best to claim negative campaigning doesn't work. The trick is plausible deniability, not failing to go negative.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...he'd just prosecuted a successful war, after all. Everyone was absolutely sure that he would sweep back in that many of the actual "adults" in the room stayed out. Brown wasn't seriously considered. At the time he was still dragging around the "Governor Moonbeam" moniker, hung like an albatross around his throat. Kerrey was seen as a wordy northeastern politician, and Tsongas - who was Clinton's most natural rival - didn't have a powerbase within the party. Finally, you talk a lot about Clinton's "charm", but again don't seem to want to recognize the most basic foundation of that charm - he stayed almost completely positive all the time.
In terms of 2010, you're still not getting the basics. Harry Reid hung on by the skin of his teeth in Nevada, but only because Angle was the exact kind of "take no prisoners" screamer that Bernie is for the left. Sure, she got huge numbers in the Republican base to come to her rallies, but the more she exited her base, the more she turned off everyone else that she needed to break for her. This was especially true right at the end, where Reid was down 3% right up until the election, but then won by 5.5%, showing that all the late deciders just didn't like her. That race was the Republicans to lose, and they lost it.
Or look at Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. That seat was an absolutely 100% guaranteed GOP pickup if they'd chosen Michael Castle, the moderate Republican, well liked even in a very Democratic state.
I won't dispute that Republicans primary voters are motivated by negative campaigning. Republicanism seems to be a largely negative mindset. But if you fight fire with fire, people think you're all arsonists.
The opposite of racism isn't reverse racism, it's no racism. The opposite of denigrating the poor, isn't denigrating the rich (1%), it's saying everyone should have opportunity. Democrats are not a radical left wing party, they're a moderate party, a "lets all get along" party. That's their brand. You try to campaign like an angry extremist, you lose as a Democrat - at least at the Presidential level. Why do you think Republicans have been pushing the "angry black man" meme at Obama for the past decade? It would only work for them if that ever became the perception.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)1. Brown wasn't a serious challenger, yet it took months to put him away. Good to know. Kerrey is a Medal of Honor winner from Nebraska, but don't let facts get in the way of your story. Tsongas wasn't a natural rival, he was seen as the most serious, most electable candidate. He also had the personality of a dead fish, which ain't a plus in electoral politics.
2. Clinton's charm works whether it's positive or negative. It was, and is, independent of whatever he's selling on a given day.
3. I understand 2010 quite well. We had much higher than normal turnout because the horns of Gondor got sounded on both right and left via negative campaigning. You can cite all the wingnuts you want, but it's completely irrelevant. You're emphasizing preaching to the choir while I'm talking about preaching fear to the electorate at large. It's not me who doesn't understand how this works.
4. I don't know if conservatism is a negative mindset. I do know conservatives are generally useless in real-world questions because they're always busy spouting off hypotheticals that bear no relation to reality.
5. Bernie is a take-no-prisoners screamer? He's advocating a platform that's fully in line with mid-century Democratic politics. Seriously, do you know anything about Democratic history at all? Damn, man, he's barely to the left of Truman or Johnson on economic policy. If you seriously think that's extreme, you need to rethink your worldview.
6. Campaigning as an angry extremist? I'm sorry, I didn't know that calling out George Bush for lying when he claimed al Qaeda was best buds with Saddam was taking an extreme position. I must have missed that in Suskind's book.
You'd do a lot better if you dealt with actual facts instead of bad reasoning based on make-believe and snide invective.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)1. Campaigns can go for quite some time before they die, so saying that it took months before Brown hung up the towel is not exactly saying much. Most Democrats outside of the west didn't think he would win, while Clinton had already proven that he could win in the south. Kerry? He was the Senator from Massachusetts, and discursive to the point of aggravation.
2. You'll have to give me an example of Clinton's "negative charm". Most of the whining on the DU seems to be aimed at the fact that he rhetorically looks for the best even from Republicans. He never calls them evil - simply misguided, and maybe not fully understanding of the facts.
3. You asked for an example. I gave you two. Both where people with a natural advantage blew it by adopting an angry tone. Now you say it's "irrelevant". I think McConnell not being the Senate Majority leader from 2010 to 2012 was quite relevant.
4. Republicans and teabaggers don't deal in hypotheticals. Like most extremists, they deal in bullshit that they pull straight out of their ass. We don't have many of that kind of extremist on the Democratic side of the fence, thank goodness, though they do seem to congregate in a specific website to throw spitwads.
5. It's not substance for Bernie, it's tone. If you say "tax policy needs to be readjusted to give people on the bottom more chances for success, paid for by the most fortunate. this will help everyone in the long run", you have a chance of getting voter acceptance. If you say "The fact of the matter is that there has been class warfare for the last thirty years. It's a handful of billionaires taking on the entire middle class and working class of this country", you'll lose - because many of those middle and working class voters don't feel like they're being attacked by billionaires - they worry that Democrats are taking money from them. That, in fact, is why they vote for Republicans.
6. George Bush's lies about Iraq was pointed out time and time and time and time again. It didn't matter. Voters don't care. Their vote isn't "is this guy right?" so much as "Do I feel he's on my side?" Again, it's simply not a winning issue.
"You'd do a lot better if you dealt with actual facts instead of bad reasoning based on make-believe and snide invective."
...I was under the impression that this was one of those rare conversations on the DU where there was something actually real getting discussed (the efficacy, and limits thereof, of negative campaigning), with actual references to facts that backed up differences of opinion, rather than the typical screaming tribalism, labeling, and sanctimony.
Just about all the snide invective on this site is done by a handful of hyper-partisans who hate Democrats and Democratic office holders, and then cry about why mainstream Democrats don't pay any attention to them.
Hell, even with Bernie, other than issues with tone for the general, he's certainly better than his supporters here. He and Hillary seem to have agreed to keep it civil, and have an actual debate over substance, which I think will help both their positions.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)1. Brown wasn't beaten til the last round of primaries. Kerrey, as in former Senator Bob Kerrey, is a Medal of Honor winner from Nebraska. This is why I said you rely on make-believe. You don't even have the most basic facts straight.
2. You misunderstood me. I said he's charming whether he's being negative or positive. I'm not going to risk riling up the rabid Clinton partisans again by pointing out extremely well-known instances of his charm being used negatively.
3. Your examples were irrelevant because you picked two senate races while ignoring the complete asskicking in the House, which was due to elevated turnout. I didn't even mention the absolute destruction in the state races. Angle lost because she was seen as a loon and enough Nevadans preferred having a majority leader from their state. The one from Delaware (her name is escaping me) lost because she was also seen as a loon, as well as a joke. Bear in mind, the Democrats in both of those races made sure to highlight their opponents' looniness. I imagine that highlighting was somehow positive in your mind.
4. Conservatives deal in hypotheticals all day long, son. I live in the south, I think I'd know. They babble on about irrelevant things, while getting their facts wrong, and then get hurt feelings when I point out the obvious. It's a curse, I tell you.
5. I'm sorry but that's too funny. I can only imagine the advice you'd have given Roosevelt or Truman. If you don't get the reference, I strongly suggest, again, that you actually bother to learn the history of the party you claim.
Whining about tone is what losers do. If you worry about not offending anyone, you will offend everyone because it's a weak move. The line you reeled off has been tried for decades and it keeps failing miserably. Why bother reinforcing failure? Hell, just cite Warren Buffet's line about class warfare (which is a stupid phrase, it's class struggle) if somebody bitches. Let them take it up with the Oracle.
6. There's a difference between Joe Nobody saying it and John Kerry, especially in primetime. Kerry preferred to play nice and be shocked by the Swiftboaters. I don't have to worry about whether or not it would have worked because I know what he did, which you advocate, failed utterly. My ideas might not work, but they have the virtue of not having already failed.
7. I've pointed out your, politely, incomplete grasp of the actual facts multiple times now. I've shredded your reasoning based on those non-facts. You continue to insist some mealy-mouthed, let's-all-sing-kumbaya thing is the way to go and I've provided repeated examples of how the exact opposite wins time and time again. Hell, I could have provided you with 40 years of Republican victories ENTIRELY based on negative campaigning to prove my point. It's not that I haven't made my case and won the point, it's that you don't want to believe it. That's fine. After all, reality doesn't care if you believe it.
I called you snide because of your constant references to tribalism and extremism. You strongly suggested that Sanders is an extremist, which is a lie and we both know it. The guy is barely to the left of LBJ and Truman. I find it ridiculous that you continue to complain about "hyper-partisans who hate Democrats" when you're busy dumping on people under the Democratic banner, chief. Not only that, but, and this isn't just quibbling, your use of the word partisan is completely wrong. What you see a lot of on DU is people who are disgusted with partisanship for partisanship's sake (as well as a lot of people who just go rah-rah Team Blue). It's one thing to support your team, it's quite another to support them if you think they're playing for the other side.
The primary source of snide invective on this site comes from people who claim to be pragmatic and are anything but that. The rah-rah Team Blue group are snide as hell all day long. Their attitude is no different from a sports superfan. Everything is winning, nothing is substance. It reminds me of the people who are insufferable when their team is winning, then get angry and defensive when their team is caught cheating. They have no interest in how the winning was done, nor to what point, they just want to cheer for a team. This is touted as pragmatism, when it's really nothing but label-based lunacy.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)My bad. I blame a faulty memory on that point. And so you have me on that one point. Good job.
As for the rest, you're now pivoting to dreaming of the halcyon days of Roosevelt and Truman, who were neck-deep with the southern racist Democrats - which if you're from the south, you should know. That coalition of working class whites who hate free trade agreements and hate To Kill a Mockingbird, voted Democratic once upon a time, but they don't anymore, and that's not going to come back, period. Neither is the U.S. economy of the 1950s, which was supported more by the fact that the rest of the world was rebuilding from WW2, and/or under Communist mismanagement. ( If you think *any* economic policy is going to allow a highschool drop-out to have a high-wage blue collar job, you're dreaming. Even protectionism won't bring that back - too many hungry people around the world. )
The "Team Blue group", as you call them, are simply sick and tired of being bashed by assholes. I've yet to see a purely negative anti-Bernie graphic on this site, while there are plenty of "Ready for someone else" banners running around, and that is the absolute least offensive thing they do. They love to scream "Corporatist" (the new synonym for "Capitalist Pig"
, and "Warmonger" at people, pretend as if debating economic theory is a matter of black and white, and generally act as if 80% of the Democrats who don't think exactly as they do are somehow morally deficient. Your accusation of "Everything is winning, nothing is substance", and "when their team is caught cheating" (with no reference to what this so-called "cheating" is), is a perfect example, though I must say that at least you use facts.
Now, I'm sure you disagree, and that's fine. Fortunately, we will see in less than a year exactly which candidate that actual Democratic voters prefer: a woman with huge name recognition and world standing, or a guy who calls himself a "socialist", looks like he should be retired rather than being able to handle the rigors of the office of the Presidency, can't even manage to find a comb, with an angry fan-base of purity-trolls determined to split the Democratic coalition into such tiny pieces it couldn't win dog-catcher. When the actual voters do make their voices heard, I'm sure the same DU screamers will make a bunch of upvoted posts about them leaving the Democratic party, because after a year of her leading by 40% or more, they'll jump on the absurd claim the votes were all "bought", and it's all corruption, etc., etc. I've seen it before. When Kucinich didn't win over Obama, they were screaming about that as well.
But hell, at least we're not the Republicans, where the angry kooks have taken over the party.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)1. "I welcome their hatred." "I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." Those were the Roosevelt and Truman references I meant. As for the Southern Caucus, I imagine I can name more of them off the top of my head than you'd believe. They're not really relevant to this discussion, unless you'd like to discuss their policy preferences in full. They were a microcosm in many ways of the modern Democratic party, though minus the obvious obsession.
2. Your economic analysis is a cliche. Globalization, to use an overused term, really isn't the issue when it comes to underemployment and the underutilization of our productive capacity. The problem is boneheaded fiscal policy that pretends we're still on the gold standard. We pretend as though dollars are a limited resource when in fact they're just a unit of account that allows us to "value", through price, real resources. This confusion leads to the moronic conclusion that federal budget deficits are bad, when, in fact, they are what drives the economy. If you don't believe me, check out Keynes' aggregate demand equation. If you reduce government spending, the private sector, which can't create dollars at will, is forced to deficit spend. Private sector deficit spending, following Minsky, is the key indicator of financial crises.
The perjorative "protectionism" is so tired, it's not even a cliche anymore. After all, what's the opposite? Take the libertarian position of free flow of labor, capital, goods, and services? What about the fundamental issue of democratic governance? Is there no space between these ridiculous rhetorical extremes that recognizes that what is called globalization is simply a set of bad policy choices? Why continue to support a set of policy choices that simply benefit the large against the small? After all, we're supposed to be Democrats. Democrats are the traditional party of small business. Why not pursue trade and industrial policies that benefit them and work to trim down the size of larger organizations, so as to make them less dangerous to our democracy AND our economy?
3. The Team Blue group are boring. They only care about the party label and not the substance. Not only that, but their arguments are remarkably fact free. For example, I still periodically see pleas to support the Blue Dogs in red states. The Blue Dogs are nearly extinct. I don't get why anyone would support a group that has so catastrophically collapsed in such a short time. It seems like the political equivalent of throwing money down a well to me. If the right-wing Democrats can't win in those states, what's the harm of running people actually on the left? It's not like there's anything to lose in that situation.
I'm tired of the word corporatist. I'm not even sure what it means. It's a word like capitalism or socialism. Nobody bothers to define those words, they just impart feelings into it and throw it out there. It bores me. Warmonger is a bit hyperbolic, but it gets hard to fault people for it after the last 15 years. We've seen a lot of people die for no good reason and a lot of resources wasted. There's a debate to be had in this country about the imperial track we've been following for the last century or so. It's done most Americans very little good and provides a great mill for right-wing propaganda. I'm not one of those fools who thinks that empires don't pay because they clearly do, but I'm starting to see that the endless chase after empire combined with criminal neglect at home is a quick recipe to catastrophe.
The cheating bit wasn't well explained. Think of college sports fans who whine that "everybody's doing it" when their team is caught breaking the rules. Listen to them rationalize bad behavior because the team winning matters more than doing it within the rules. That's what I meant. Of course, I both love college sports and view it as a gigantic scam. The money sports are nothing but state-subsidized minor leagues for the pros. If the pros want minor leagues, let them pay for it.
4. The term "purity-troll" is really obnoxious. It's about as useless as corporatist. Additionally, with one or two exceptions, it's traditionally the right of the Democratic Party that splits during elections if anyone does. From the days of the Southern Caucus to the elections of Reagan and the Bushes, the issue was right wing defections not left wing purity. For all the hype of Henry Wallace or Ted Kennedy, they had nothing on Strom Thurmond and the Boll Weevils.
The primary problem of a Sanders presidency would probably be a lack of institutional support. The professional Democratic Party is really set up to support a soft libertarian agenda of economic conservatism and weak-kneed social liberalism. It's more or less neo-liberalism with a human face, if you get the reference. He'd need a lot of outside pressure in order to Congress and the bureaucracy in the right direction. I'm not terribly optimistic about the likelihood of that.
The opposite problem exists for Clinton. She would have all the institutional support. The problem is that she's very much a member of the Rubinite wing of the party. Their policies have failed utterly, but they stay in power because they can call on money. With her, the pressure would need to be brought directly on her to push her in the right direction. There would need to be pressure on the Congress and bureaucracy as well, but Hillary Clinton is far more formidable an opponent in a political street fight than just about anybody. If you get her to move, she can do a hell of a lot of the work on her own. I don't know if it shows, but I admire her tremendously. Unfortunately, I don't much like her.
As for people whining on DU, what else is new? The only thing that ever changes is the particular whine. I'm sure people did complain about Kucinich not winning. That's cool. I've seen a ton of people whine that liberals didn't show up in 2010, when the actual facts destroy that argument. DU is often an emotional, fact-free zone. It's quite American in that way. It's often just a bunch of bullshitting over platitudes, which is just moronic. Discussing issues in the abstract is for college students. In politics, it's just a smokescreen to avoid an actual discussion of policy.
So, there's some on point response for you and some rambling. Enjoy.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...that much is different about you compared to the average DUer. I suppose that is why I'm still discussing this with you, because even with different opinions, we respect that.
1. "I welcome their hatred." ... these sorts of statements only stand when one already has, thanks to the Great Depression and full Southern (racist) Support, a 70 to 30 advantage in the Senate and a 322 to 103 advantage in the House. It doesn't work quite as well in a divided nation, and Truman's bravado left him one of the least popular Presidents when he left office. It was only later that both historians and the public began to significantly reassess just how good he was.
The southern racists are very much an issue simply because one can do much more with massive majorities, which we no longer have. Like it or not, the Democratic party is now the party of non-whites, which poor whites simply don't want to support. And the idea that one only has to adopt some angry "anti-1%" rhetoric for them to all start voting Democratic again, is unrealistic in the extreme. Hell, the PPACA's biggest beneficiaries were the lower-middle-class self-employed, which is basically those exact people, and the vast majority of them chose to listen to Rush over looking at the benefits they got.
2. The opposite of protectionism doesn't have a specific word, although perhaps it should. Maybe something like "International standardization". I am amazed at how many people think they can just shut the door to the world, pretending, for example, that pollution, overpopulation, resource depletion, can be somehow kept at arms length if we refuse to trade with anybody. I'm more than willing to admit that trade agreements can be misused to import economic disparities into the U.S., but still, we are building middle classes around the world, which is, in the end, going to save it. Ignorant desperately poor people breed like crazy, which causes more poverty. If Americans have to sacrifice a bunch of minimum-wage shoe making jobs they don't want to do anyway, so that entire societies are raised up enough to dig themselves out of that, then we're doing the entire world a favor. And by the way - that's just the moral argument. Protectionism also simply doesn't work. If we start raising tariffs on other nations to try to give an unfair employment advantage to our workers, then other nations will do the same. It's happened in the past.
In short, the problem isn't trade agreements, it's income inequality. And if you want to directly attack that problem, I have no issue with it. But the reason why trade agreements are so popular with Democrats is that they represent real "soft" power to help spread first world values into third world countries; they're the incentive that grossly inequitable societies have to reform. You want girls not to be abused? Give them work. Nike has, to maintain their own standing in the first world, pushed many reforms into their third-party suppliers, turning that into the new normal in those countries. That's a good thing.
3. What you call "the label", other Democrats call "maintaining the coalition" and "actually winning elections". And while I will agree with you that some blue dogs make for terrible candidates (that is to say that just because someone is "blue dog" doesn't mean they should automatically be supported), they are often the only kinds of people who have actually been able to win in red leaning districts. The angry liberal stalwarts so popular on the DU for their divisive rhetoric never are able to, for pretty obvious reasons. If you're asking for the vote of a woman whose husband is a moderate Republican, screaming about how Republicans are all evil isn't going to help.
Let me also state that the people most focused on labeling, are those that force such a rigid liberal orthodoxy as a litmus test for all candidates. It's not "cheating" to win a primary or an election, although there are those who appear to say it is.
4. I didn't make up the term "Purity Troll". It was coined by Marcus Moulitsas, of DailyKos fame. Sure, he's also fought with left-leaning libertarians more at home in the Democratic party than the Republican one as well (and who want Democrats to become libertarians), but he's also bedeviled by the rich, uber-liberal, trust-fund kids, who believe that any compromise is an anathema. I'm often quite struck at how similar their views are, compared to the way that Neo-cons views are to nations like Iran. In any deal, you get 100% of what you want and they get nothing.
Sander's problem isn't a lack of institutional support. It's much more fundamental than that. The guy simply doesn't LOOK Presidential. And optics matter. The number of people who vote (or decide not to vote) based not on policy positions, but rather "would I feel proud to see this person as my country's leader?", simply can't be overstated. I distinctly remember when Bill Clinton took up wearing $1000 suits in his campaign, not because he was a clothes horse, but because research showed that 2% of voters take a well done tie as a major consideration in who they're voting for. And when you're in a 49%/49% election, that 2% matters.
Bernie also has a tin political ear. Yes, the word "socialism" is something you can bandy about in European political circles without it being compared to Stalinist tyranny, but Europe isn't the United States. The swastika is considered Buddhist in Japan, and the Japanese well know the symbol was appropriated by the NAZIs, but you don't see them flying that flag around anywhere, for obvious reasons.
Hilary's main problem is that the mainstream media, by which I means publications like the NYT, absolutely hate her - and are willing to push non-scandals well past the breaking point just to smear her in any way imaginable. From where I stand, their anger is transferred from Bill. When they caught him having his midlife-crisis affair, they went into full "hound him until he has to respond" mode, but instead of feeling the pressure, he simply went about his job, and seeing him actually doing his job (which the media tries its best to avoid showing), the public rallied to him. That rubbed the press's nose in the fact that they're really not the spokesmen for the public, and their hatred has burned white-hot for the Clintons ever since.
I'm not exactly sure why you have such an anger towards the "Rubinite wing of the party". Bill Clinton's claim to fame is his rightly deserved mastery of economics, and Obama isn't far behind. There is no indication that, absent Bush's mismanagement, the economic policies that business focused democrats championed are at all bad. In fact, it's a standard theme for the the Kuchnich wing of the party to make common cause with Republicans in blaming Democrats for what Republicans are responsible for. Not just for economics, but just about everything. Hillary's support of "war" wasn't support at all. It was support for the threat of war, as in "let inspectors have free reign, stop shooting at our planes, or we'll take more serious measures". But the Kuchnich wing of the party would rather blame Democrats for "arming the cops" than they would for a corrupt, bloodthirsty way, in which those cops went about the international equivalent of police brutality.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)I'll still give it a go, but if it doesn't make sense, refer to the title.
1. Nice conventional wisdom, if irrelevant. I'm not sure why you bring it up, I haven't really bothered to check the history of this back and forth, but it's the standard line of Democratic weakness. Sure, the institutional party and activists could focus on partisan gerrymandering and the fact it's a clear violation of one person, one vote, but it's easier to not do anything and repeatedly explain how everything is impossible. Harry Reid could have tossed the filibuster on day one, which should have been done 150 years ago, but it's easier to lie back and whine. God forbid anybody use a majority for anything.
2. Too many platitudes, zero policy. The recent flap over "trade" isn't that at all. Very few people actually oppose trade in the abstract. The three treaties which are currently on the board are not trade pacts, they are rules harmonization pacts. In fact, they're exactly what you say you'd like to see. They will set a baseline for regulation across the countries involved. In fact, it's kind of like the EU, but without the overt recognition of sovereignty loss. Given the performance of the EU over the last near decade, I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would want to emulate it. Well, unless you're looking to enshrine your government granted monopoly worldwide, gut financial regulation and necessary capital controls, or sue national governments over prudential regulation.
I'm not sure how you think "trade" is unrelated to income inequality, but them's the brakes. I personally view the economy as a system, with multiple discrete parts that interact in various ways. I think trying to separate out the problem of distribution from the methods employed to produce wealth is just silly. An exact simile is escaping me at the moment, but given the particularities of these current agreements, it seems that the better path is to defeat them so as not to further increase inequality. It's hard for me to understand how further empowering government granted monopolies and hot money flows is going to help anyone who's not already wealthy or in one of those pipelines.
3. More platitudes. What I call the label is people who support dirtbags because of their party affiliation. Your blue dog analysis sucks because it's been overtaken by events. If blue dogs were so viable, they'd still be a force. Instead, there's like 10 of them because they can't beat real wingnuts. That's why I say there's no point in supporting them. They had their chance and they lost. I'll take a gamble over a proven failure any day of the week.
I don't get the bit about screaming about evil Republicans. That strikes me as a non sequitur intended to make your argument magically more convincing.
The cheating argument I also don't get. The only litmus test that has existed in the Democratic Party of my lifetime is the traditional, mealy-mouthed support of Roe. There aren't any others. If there were, there's a long list of people who wouldn't have been in office with that D beside the name.
4. Platitudes and snide insinuations. Rich kids tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Put simply, libertarians. They might want to see gay marriage, but they ain't trying to hurt their own pocketbooks.
Purity troll is an asinine term that's intended to shut down debate. If you're going to say that, people who disagree with you should bring back DINO as a retort. Then you can say I'm rubber, you're glue. Get the idea of why I find it asinine yet?
Everybody mouths compromise, nobody wants it. Compromise for the sake of compromise is moral weakness. It is the desire to be seen doing something rather than to actually do something. You can spout off whatever platitudes you like, but perhaps you could explain why virtually every compromise over the last 40 years has been detrimental to the mass of Americans. You compromise something you want less to get something you want more. That is not the trend of legislative compromise in the Democratic Party. It's more like you compromise something gigantic in order to get something that saves the tiniest bit of face.
5. Optics, yeesh. I didn't know we were playing buzzword bingo.
When I assessed Sanders and Clinton, it wasn't their electoral chances. I was assessing their chances to actually govern as a Democrat.
Mastery of economics? Cool. I didn't know that riding an equity bubble while wantonly deregulating all the way counted as economic mastery, but thanks for the info.
No indication absent Bush's mismanagement. I take it you're not familiar with AIG. If you don't understand exactly why I bring them up in about 5 seconds, you really shouldn't ever talk about Rubinite economic policy. It's not the only example I could use, but it's got a good beat and I can dance to it.
I didn't know there was a Kucinich wing of the party. Good to know. I'm not sure how Clinton's support of an open-ended war resolution wasn't implicitly a vote for war, but I'll take your word for it. Granted, not even lying old William Fulbright tried that excuse back in 1968, but I guess it's worth a shot. That vote really doesn't influence how I feel about her, but that defense is just pathetic. You might do better with claiming that she was deceived than arguing that she's too dumb to read a standard Congressional war resolution of the type that dates back to the Mexican-American War. But hey, maybe showing the candidate is dumb is the way win votes. Maybe it would work.
Anyway, it's been fun but I'm done with this one. I don't really remember it all that well, as my response may show, and it's a bit stale. Feel free to reply. I'll read it, but it's time to visit other pastures.
Response to djean111 (Reply #24)
Name removed Message auto-removed
djean111
(14,255 posts)I never said Hillary on MOST issues is with the GOP. I said the GOP won't work with Hillary any better than they would work with Bernie.
merrily
(45,251 posts)agreed with each of us on every particular. Now the lie is we must be gun enthusiasts if we support one who voted yes on even one gun vote.
The tactics are a bit transparent. Well, much more than a bit.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Some are not only wishing for more repug rule, some are personally invested in it happening.
All one has to do is listen as they fill the air with platitudes about democracy and justice while championing the very people and industries leading us into the new dark ages.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Unfortunately, I believe that this could be he sad truth unless, a big unless, the senate and house are controlled by Democrats. It really bothers me that many in recent months have seemed to cool on Obama forgetting how he was obstructed from the very onset.
Here is an important fact that is I believe often overlooked. The Republican Party's influence is not restricted to national elections but has its main strength in local and state government. They have very effectively made themselves the protector of the religious fundamentalist and evangelical blocks. They have also used wedge issues to capture a significant share of the traditionally Democratic Catholic vote. The fundamental and evangelical voters are virtually controlled by their leadership and actually pledge to vote Republican at church sponsored registration rallies.
They have run a brilliant campaign that began at the very root of local elections including school boards, city government and state government. This how they have taken over school boards and inaugurated programs to replace public education with charter schools that have flaunted laws prohibiting religious indoctrination. Peer pressure can suppress any resistance by students who fear being ostracized. Anyone and anything that challenges their agenda such as comprehensive sex education, history and sexual orientation are suppressed.
As a result of their local control coupled with extremely dominate control of the talk shows and the likes of FOX News, they have been able to control an increasing number of state houses resulting in vote suppression and gerrymandering. The bottom line is that Democrats have been increasingly marginalized and it makes little difference that they prevail in presidential elections.
chev52
(71 posts)Obama was disappointing liberals early on. Appointing wall streeters and corporate types to his administration, deficit reduction committees, appointing a senator, (Baucus), who was known to be in bed with health care companies to be in charge of the health care issue. And then his last insult to his base, the TPP. I believe Bernie wouldn't go against the people who elected him like Obama did.
Cosmocat
(15,282 posts)Baucus was the sitting chair of the committee that health care reform fell under in the senate.
BHO had jack all to do with that.
And, to whever extent BHO "disappointed" whoever, that has nothing to do with congressional republicans being raging jackasses and democrats being raging cowards.
Further, yes, on some matters BHO has not operated as a liberal. On other matters, he very much has.
Purity of of it all is not some magical solution.
He did not run as as a liberal warrior, he ran as the guy who would be the adult in DC and he has made good on that. If you got something else from his campaign you got what you wanted to get from it.
On average he has been a good president that deserves the full support of his party and a whole lot better treatment from the opposition.
Bernie may beat the odds (this country's rampant stupidity) but don't think for one second Rs will be scared of being jackasses to him cause he is more whatever than BHO, and don't think for one second the Ds in congress won't cower in a corner when things get tough, like they did in the 90s, like they did in the 2000s, like they did for the most part with a majority with this president.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)was a welcome change from the democrats, on here and those elected serving in D.C who have "cowered" along with the democratic party officials who have cowered the last 6+ years. Thank you for the reminder(s) of who was truly responsible for the total inaction of our Congress these last six years. Cowardly democrats who called themselves liberals and progressives who as soon as republicans bared their teeth, ran to the corner sniveling and crying and stayed there for 6 long years. The racist arrogant RW jerks who call themselves 'leaders' and only lead people over the cliff edge are just being what they truly are. The racist, arrogant representatives of the people who voted them in.
I truly do hope that Bernie can become a power broker for change to help people like me, retired and struggling, poor and hungry people and just plain decent people. I hope for a sea change, just don't believe it can happen in this corptocracy.
Cosmocat
(15,282 posts)People get myopic, somehow things haven't changed dramactically and it is all one person's fault.
There are 535 congressmen, and BHO is not the Dictator of the United States.
People want to blame him for ACA and not getting universal health care reform.
If he would have universal coverage put on his desk he would have signed it in a heart beat.
The man has been left hanging with republicans chewing his ass off from day one.
There are countless R congressman out there throwing bombs every day, saying the most ridiculous things.
You can count on one hand the D congressmen who have any real fight in them.
I, too would like to see some sea change, but nothing that has occurred in my adult life, starting in the early 90s, gives me any hope of it.
Good luck and regards.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Sander's wouldn't push the TPP at all, let alone as HARD as the president is doing now. He wouldn't have had Larry Summers or Tim Geithner as economic advisors either.
Paka
(2,760 posts)Rahm Emanuel. That sure gave us an early clue. 
And only two days after he was elected.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)to set us dreamers and pony-wanters straight. A real, true, proud conservative.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)If you agree to support the winner of the Democratic nomination, so will I.
Hell, I'll even add in something on top of that. Unlike the standard DU screamers, I won't go bashing any major Democratic candidate. They're all good. In fact, I think Bernie is far better than many of his supporters might lead one to believe, and if he pushes Hillary slightly to the left, I'm okay with that.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)People will notice on their own if you're 'reality based'. If you feel you have to tell them you are, there's a good chance it's just propaganda.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)That should count for something, eh?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Scootaloo and the DU purity trolling crowd admit that Barack Obama and Hillary are what 95% of the public say they are: liberals.
That would really be a "stop the presses" moment.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You just assume we should take your statement as the final word.
And yeah, I'll happily be a "purist" if the other option is 'sellout."
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)You're seriously trying to figure out why an northeasterner born in 1941, who calls himself a socialist and can't use a comb, isn't electable?
To use the phraseology of kids these days, I can't even.
I'm not sure there is anything I could do to convince you. Luckily, I don't have to. It will play out, and all the people who don't obsessively go to websites for extremists and/or political junkies will vote, and then we'll both see.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...before most people even knew his name.
How did the "pre-Bernie Bernie" Kucinich work out for you in 2008?
And then YOU actually come back to make predictions about THIS race?!?
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) Not everyone would pick a previous looser ...congrats. ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)When I pick Obama last time and Hillary this time, and you picked Kucinich, Warren (who is smart enough not to run), and Bernie?
OMG, you're killing me! Keep it up!
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)My candidate (both favored and predicted) won in 2008. And Hillary, who came in a strong second, is even better this time around.
But we weren't talking about me. We were talking about you, and your enormous, constant, FAIL.
Has any candidate you pretend represents 99% of Americans, ever managed to get more than the 5% of the support to make it past January?
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts) Logical
(22,457 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)On the Beltway raising taxes on the rich is heresy to Saint Ronnie and cutting Pentagon waste is "gutting the military".
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)to the real world, which may soon come to chew their asses hollow.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They would ask, "Who would lobby for THAT?"
Then they would suggest a crackdown on The Sierra Club and Greenpeace and wonder why that doesn't make you happy.
LiberalArkie
(18,955 posts)like one of the Castro brothers or someone like him, a real progressive liberal would jump in. Someone who would fire up everyone who would be the embodiment of the occupy movement. I never in my wildest dreams it would be someone older than me. But it only seems correct. Go Bernie Go.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)benefit. He's retirement age liberally, what does he have to gain and more importantly what does he have to lose? Give'em hell, Bernie!
merrily
(45,251 posts)He says he's running because he thinks the middle class may not exist in another generation. And, he waited until there was no hope Warren would run.
I've always said that we should not vote for anyone who wants to be President, but, Catch 22, the only ones who run are those who want to be President. This time just may be different.
Of course, all the crowds, etc., may turn his head. However, I don't believe he got into the race because of he lusted after the title.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and as I replied "a few weeks ago that was true, this week not so much, nest week even less so, Bernie's catching fire"
colsohlibgal
(5,276 posts)A day or so ago I heard Thom Hartmann relate what he heard about both Bill Clinton and Obama. They both sounded almost like Bernie running than went straight neo. Thom said once elected both were sat down and told the new facts of life by Alan Greenspan and others. They both then, as we have seen, toed that third way pro Wall Street line.
I think I know what Bernie would do if that happened to him -he wouldn't yield at all. He believes what he says, it isn't just to help him get elected. He's genuine.
chev52
(71 posts)And he never has to worry about money anymore. So why is he still doing the bidding of the corporations and big money?
I'm referring to the Transpacific treaty.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and I do not think it is possible to be too cynical these days, he has seen how lavishly the Clintons were rewarded for the services they rendered to the tenth-percenters and wants in on that action in his post-presidential years. No donut unless he rams TPP down the throats of the people. It is their highest priority and he is willingly doing their bidding.
Cosmocat
(15,282 posts)Depending on the crowd he might have thrown red meat, but he spent the overwhelming majority of his campaign talking in very GENERAL tones. He was a great politician in that he was able to have a presence and speak in a way that he didn't really commit to a lot policywise, but left room for people's emotions to let them think what they WANTED to think.
He hasn't been a surprise to me. I voted for him knowing he was comfy with big money (he raised more money than any candidate in history, and most if it was big money).
That said, I do believe Bernie is what he says he is.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)have no knowledge of how angry and frustrated the populace is. They will miss it completely until it happens, after which they will declare that the sea change was, in fact, inevitable. As Stephen Stills sang, something's happening here.
Go Bernie!!!
George II
(67,782 posts)
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)As opposed to whom?
...
secondwind
(16,903 posts)
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)and that is all the people who have been hurt by the way things are currently done. It includes all those who know someone who is hurt by the system as well.
clydefrand
(4,325 posts)This is what I've been thinking ever since Bernie started talking about running. I REALLY like what he has to say, and his record, starting with being a Mayor, really sound good to me. I've
donated to him and will continue to do so.
If you haven't been reading his stuff, start googeling now and read ever word, watch ever vid.
SaranchaIsWaiting
(247 posts)I love him in interviews, he is so relaxed and comfortable with himself and I especially like how he doesn't take the media bait for a fist fight with Hillary. He's one cool dude.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)He said he liked HRC but wasn't there to talk about her. Blitzwolf looked like swallowed his tongue after Bernie threw the bait back into his face. That's his style.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Yay, Bernie!
grasswire
(50,130 posts)He really does.
Maineman
(854 posts)an inspiration rather than an empty suit or a scheming politician. I'm in.
Response to Segami (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
arcane1
(38,613 posts) djean111
(14,255 posts)moondust
(21,049 posts)Vermont is a very rural state with what appears to be the lowest gun murder rate in the country.
I suspect when he has supported gun ownership it was a true representation of the will of his largely rural constituents.
Paka
(2,760 posts)Actually representing the people who elected you.
ladyVet
(1,587 posts)I can live with the idea of never seeing a female president in my lifetime, but I can't live with the idea that nothing will change for the better for another four years.
Not only not change for the better, but get worse. I'm tired of the Dems moving to the right and ignoring their own platform.
Also, I'm not planning on dying any time soon, so I still have a chance to see a woman in the White House. Somebody like Elizabeth Warren, perhaps?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)You just completely nailed exactly how I feel to a T. But you said it better than I could have, so thanks!!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) 
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)well technically. ie Betty White proclaiming Obama was one hunk of man :O then there's repubican men and Sarah Palin. saying John mccain would be dead in a year, they were voting for the babe sarah palin.
Hillary Clinton .... well as a male she's a bit of a turn off 
I was never really pro hillary, When she became a senator clearly a Conservadem. ahem Conservative. still to the right of Obama. Pro oil, pro fracking, anti environment , pro 1 %, pro war, clearly UAE fan. Paris Hilton Clone? actually think Paris is to Hillary's left X_X... biggest problem hillary has is independents I have zero trust in hillary. Mittens was a pretending conservative who was more liberal than he pretended to be. but basically if you loved the last decade sure vote for hillary (2001-2009) I would have preferred Warren but Bernie has a heck of a drive. I know he won't do it but if I have to I'll vote for Bernie Sanders praying we have an actual liberal congress.
dpatbrown
(368 posts)Politics got my attention in Ike's second term, and I've been focused ever since. And trust me, I've been disappointed many, many more times than elated. The idea of electing a socialist would be a dream come to. Someone who cares about people. You can feel it.
I'm in the camp of people that haven't give him a chance. I'm still am. I would be overwhelmed if he proved me wrong. This election is going to be extremely exciting, in both parties. It will be amazing.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)
realFedUp
(25,053 posts)Does he have a 50 state election system set up? no, and he didn't get into this race to win, but to promote a more left leaning agenda we all want. Good for him. I agree with his statements but in the end you don't fall in love with the candidate but the future and reality. Change the face of the Supremes who voted nay on Gore.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Party nominees for POTUS don't nominate Supreme Court Justices, only winners of the general MIGHT.
I have less than zero reason to vote LOTE in a Democratic primary.
Also, I am not in love with Bernie. I agree with many of his policies and think he would be good for the country.
All the love and hate talk from some DUers seems bizarre to me.
Don Draper
(187 posts)Hillary would be better than a rethiglican, but she is too much of a corporatist for my taste. For fundamental positive change, we need a true progressive like Bernie that is unsoiled by corporate contributions.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Good to know.....
In case there might any question about that point, would the OP care to opine about which States are likely to go with Bernie over Hillary in the Primary, or the nominated Republican in the General? That's still a little blurry.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
HoosierCowboy
(561 posts)No matter who gets the first headline, it won't be possible to unite the Party unless we have both on the ticket. Sanders will be the guy that makes the contest interesting and grab the MSMs attention.
While the GOP is putting everyone to sleep with their cookie cutter talking points, we Dems will be the real Party Happening.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)After all, all of the Hillary supporters keep telling us they'll vote for whoever becomes the nominee. So there's no need for him to bring her on as VP.
4_TN_TITANS
(2,977 posts)but another Clinton/corporatist is not what this moment requires. Great summary of why I support Sanders.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)They triangulate. It is always about trying to use the system to give themselves the best odds. Where is Hillary on the issues? She is doing everything possible to make this an image campaign completely devoid of facts and issues. That's not because she is a bad person, but because this is a Clinton campaign. It is all about appearing neutral.
Dammit, we have important issues here. I want my candidate to be speaking out vigorously about the main issues society faces.
Is Bernie electable? Hell no. Just like Barack Obama.
Hillary may regret her decision to take the coward's approach to the campaign.
2banon
(7,321 posts)
William769
(59,147 posts)Your odds in New Hampshire aren’t that good.
"Let me tell you a secret," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said over the weekend, foolishly outlining his secret in front of members of the media. "We’re going to win New Hampshire."
That's quite a secret! Bernie Sanders is also keeping that secret from the polls.
The New Hampshire primary is -- say it with me! -- a long time from now, and a lot can happen between now and then. There's only been one poll in the state since Sanders declared his candidacy, according to Real Clear Politics, and it gave Hillary Clinton a narrow 44-point lead over the senator from Vermont.
We'll come back to that. First, let's look at the state of play in New Hampshire back in 2008. Over the course of 2007, Hillary Clinton generally had a decent-sized lead -- as she did nationally. The race in New Hampshire tightened in August, but Clinton started to gain ground late in the year. Then Obama took Iowa and seemed poised to do the same in New Hampshire. That was the first point at which it seemed like Clinton might lose the state.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/09/we-have-a-secret-of-our-own-for-bernie-sanders-your-odds-in-new-hampshire-arent-that-good/
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/walker-bush-rubio-lead-gop-field-clinton-still-dominant.html
Love Ya!