Mr. Political Revolution MEET Mr. Gerrymandering

[FrenchieCat]

Political Revolution:
My understanding is that the Bernie political revolution starts by getting people who might normally NOT vote
go to the polls.

This would be the disaffected, the disenchanted, the 3rd party folks, and the first time voting youth.

The point made is that there are millions who don't vote every election, and these are the votes which will make the
difference in the election outcome, and only Bernie can get those votes.

I'll give you that in a national election, this could possibly happen....
It would mean that as many or more who came out to vote for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012
would come out and vote for Bernie in 2016 from all of the key states needed.

FYI: We know that Republican Voting is up thus far....
but that is only after one primary, so these numbers are not written in stone.
Some Voting information by party affiliation in Iowa: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1146153

So say the Revolution happens, and now we have a President Bernie.

One of the criticism against Sen. Bernie Sanders is that he is promising a lot of big massive changes, but he won't be able to keep these promises, and that he is aware of that; and in so doing is being misleading and disingenuous, while being called honest by his supporters. On the other hand, his opponent is being called dishonest and calculating, and is only asking for incremental change. Sanders Supporter call her the the "no I can't" candidate.

Those skeptical of HOW Pres. Sanders could actual pass into law, legislation needed to have his promises fulfilled want to know how it will be done. They are called incrimentalist, conservatives, status quo foks, etc, et, etc.

Still the question remains: HOW will Single Payer health care, the raising of taxes that would be needed, the breaking up of banks, the getting big money out of politics, and the making of all public colleges free be passed into law?


And then same Sanders critics bring up

Gerrymandering:

What is it?
Its like this map of each district in the US, redrawn in weird ass ways to guarantee that there are enough district drawn to insure a Republican majority in the house. Many laughed at some of the mapping as it was like a tiny square at the top narrowly winding its way to the left only to zigzag back into a little circle.

The mapping drawn by Republicans make sure that various neighborhood that are overwhelming Republican
have nearly no democratic voters in them, or at the very least, not enough,
i.e., the additional democratic votes to turn that district from red to blue do not exist in said district.
Of course, now we all know better than ever before why election 2010 was so important.

ger·ry·man·der
[ˈjerēˌmandər]
VERB
manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.
achieve (a result) by manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency:
"a total freedom to gerrymander the results they want"

Gerrymandering,
“The Gerry-mander,” political cartoon [Credit: © North Wind Picture Archives]in U.S. politics, drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one party an unfair advantage over its rivals. The term is derived from the name of Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, whose administration enacted a law in 1812 defining new state senatorial districts. The law consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans. The outline of one of these districts was thought to resemble a salamander. A satirical cartoon by Elkanah Tisdale appeared in the Boston Gazette; it graphically transformed the districts into a fabulous animal, “The Gerry-mander,” fixing the term in the popular imagination.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/gerrymandering

its use achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class group, such as in U.S. federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities, known as "majority-minority districts."

The 2012 election provides a number of examples as to how partisan gerrymandering can adversely affect the descriptive function of states' congressional delegations. In Pennsylvania, for example, Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives received 83,000 more votes than Republican candidates, yet the Republican-controlled redistricting process in 2010 resulted in Democrats losing to their Republican counterparts in 13 out of Pennsylvania’s 18 districts.[20]

In the seven states where Republicans had complete control over the redistricting process, Republican House candidates received 16.7 million votes and Democratic House candidates received 16.4 million votes. The redistricting resulted in Republican victories in 73 out of the 107 affected seats; in those 7 states, Republicans received 50.4% of the votes but won in over 68% of the congressional districts.[21] While it is but one example of how gerrymandering can have a significant impact on election outcomes, this kind of disproportional representation of the public will seems to be problematic for the legitimacy of democratic systems, regardless of one's political affiliation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS:
We get a Pres. Bernie, but we don't get Pres. Bernie's promises,
because the gerrymandered Congress won't pass the many laws required
to enact any of what he's proposing.

Means that Pres. Bernie most likely can't get much of the promises accomplished
in his first term. Instead he would be forced to either compromise to get anything done
or hangs tough to his principles and therefore causes a stalemate. Congress passes bills, and he
vetoes them.

The Republicans decide the day of his election, that Bernie Sanders will get NADA, ZERO, ZILCH, Nothing from them,
because they know that Bernie cannot really compromise too much with Republicans,
in fear that he will be letting go of his principles and possibly getting worse treatment than other Presidents (Clinton & Obama who didn't overpromise) have, especially from his own Liberal Wing of the Democratic party and 3rd party voters.

You see, these are the folks that say it can't wait, and that progress doesn't have to take long.
So President Bernie will have to opt more often on not budging than giving Republicans even an inch.
so instead, nothing at all gets done.....

Basic result = Status Quo

MEANWHILE....
The disaffected, the disenchanted, and the first time voting youth have long become impatient, not only because
now its been 4 years into a Sanders term, and none of what they were promised has happened.

They resent that no one laid out what was really going to happen, because they didn't want to doom Sanders chance
of winning the election, except for those awful Hillirians (that's the term, no?)

And sadder still, they start to realize that they were lied to ,
cause no one in 2016, including Bernie Sanders actually told them that they weren't gonna get what they wanted,
even if they marched, and twitted, and voted in polls for 4 years.

Then here comes the 2020 elections, which is the next Census election.
It is also a presidential election year (good for us),
but unfortunately, the disappointed folks aren't buying the promises anymore,
cause thus far President has done very little other than to talk on what we need done.
They decide not to vote, since their last vote didn't get them all of the goodies the Revolution
has promised.....

We lose said 2020 Census election, and Mr. Gerrymandered doesn't get to move on....

And the next book that will be written will be titled,

How President Bernie Sanders let progressives down.

THE END

[beam me up scottie]

1. Oh brother.

We're all doomed! Let's just stay home, why bother voting at all?

Note to jury because yes someone alerted on another sarcastic post of mine:

[AtomicKitten]

2. Great story! Tells us the one about how Hillary gets elected in the GE with her huge unfavorables.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Ok....

I Told the story here..... http://www.democraticunderground.com/110741944

[AtomicKitten]

17. A big chunk of Bernie's support is from people who have never voted before

... and have been inspired by Bernie. Those votes will not translate to her. People just don't like her, don't trust her, and will not vote for her. Those include a boatload of votes.

Reportedly some of Hillary's wealthy contributors have declared they would vote for Bloomberg over Bernie if Hillary loses the nomination. Those include a handful of votes.

Bernie has the enthusiasm, he has the momentum, and he has the money to win.

She can't win, Frenchie Cat. She just can't win. (OK, I stole that from Hillary who said that to Bill Richardson about Obama).

[FrenchieCat]

24. Bernie needs to own up to these folks,

so they are prepared when nothing happens.

That's all.

[rainy]

38. So what you are saying is that only republicans

should run now because of gerrymandering they are the really true ones that can get any thing done. Otherwise all democrats should just go out there and run on: hey here are my beliefs and desires and hopes for the country but I can't get any of it done and neither can any democrat because of gerrymandering but hey vote for me anyway. Is that what Bernie is suppose to say?

[FrenchieCat]

129. What I'm saying is that not only is Bernie

Deceptive, but he is running a negative campaign!

[mikehiggins]

109. We know it won't be easy, FrenchieCat. We don't believe it is impossible.

And if he does make it to the Oval Office Sanders will not hesitate to hang every recalcitrant piece of opposition around the necks of Ryan and McConnell and the rest of the GOPukes.

But the point being missed is that this surge among the voters really is not about Battling Bernie. It is about the reality of what business as usual has done to the American families, the working class, the veterans, the children living in poverty, the disdain for human life that makes things like Flint possible.

Better to roll the dice and take a shot at making things better than to sit back and watch things get worse and worse and worse.

[artislife]

115. Are you saying that h supporters need no such warning

since h ins't promising anything and they also ask for nothing?

[Dawson Leery]

3. kick

[TCJ70]

4. OK, this keeps coming up...

...and I'm getting very tired of it. He's been clear, in every speech that nothing happens before congress changes. He's not promised anything until our political make up is altered. That is honest. That is what he's all about. Hillary has given up before she even tries, and would face the same issues a Sanders presidency would. Given her defeatist attitude, she is not the right person to be at the top as she doesn't seem interested in changing this situation.

[FrenchieCat]

30. "That is honest" ?

I think he's being vague on purpose....

He is a politician,
so he doesn't want to have to say...

"Look, I'm promising this stuff, if you vote for me,
but it won't happen in my first term for sure.....
cause there's this thing called gerrymandering that happened in 2010,
and so, I will have Republicans that won't vote for any legislation that
I am telling you I'm gonna get done"

Now, yes...that would be honest!

[Kentonio]

122. Why do you keep insisting he's being vague?

He's directly addressed this exact issue on multiple occasions.

[TCJ70]

125. It's certainly not vague...

...you tell me, though, is it true? Do we need to change the makeup of congress before much meaningful change can happen?

[Fawke Em]

5. You were much nicer when you supported Gen. Clark.

Guess you really were what the Dean fans thought of us: a stalking horse to defeat Dean.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Sorry you feel compelled to make it personal....

but I guess if that helps you, go for it!

[Live and Learn]

6. Oh yes, better to just sell out and give up like Hillary.

[MissDeeds]

26. Yep

Abandon all hope and believe in a place called nope.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Make sure voters are voting with their eyes open....

and not with their wanting heart alone is all I'm saying.

Bernie Sanders kinda of skirts the issue when asked HOW he will do it....
as his normal answer is "A Political Revolution"....

That's deceptive and not the real truth.

[Live and Learn]

43. I like that. Should be her campaign slogan. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

9. Hillary's favorability is negative 17 (at best). She would not get reelected.

We won't get Hillary promises either, because of the same reason we would not get Bernie ones.


Her favorability after one term would be far worse than it is now. Constant (R) attacks (even when they are baseless) will take their toll.


She has almost no chance at a second term. The (R)s would have a huge 2020 because the Hillary Haters would turn out to vote her out. Then we get another wave election in a census year and another decade of districts drawn by (R)s.

[FrenchieCat]

12. At least the so called dishonest Hillary Clinton is not overpromising....

getting people's to hope for things she knows dog-on-well she cannot, even on her best day,
deliver.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. Yes she is. Look at her answer about the Death Penalty.

That was all unicorns and rainbows.

No way you will get that type of application of capital punishment that she was talking about last night.

[FrenchieCat]

37. But you are ok with Sanders doing it on every issue.....

You Gotta love that Bernie!

[Ed Suspicious]

101. He is only - ONLY promising that if people get engaged we can make a change. Are you so fucking

cynical you would shit on that simple message? Disgusting.

[FlatBaroque]

10. NO WE CAN'T

It's too hard

[FrenchieCat]

27. Nothing is too hard...

sometime it just takes time and determination...

I believe that at some point we will have Single payer....
although I'm certain it won't be in Bernie's 1st term,
and most likely not his 2nd. May not be in his lifetime.

I'm talking about selling folks on a policy knowing that you can't do it,
and forgetting to tell folks that. Its deceptive.

[Matariki]

11. Why do you think Clinton will be able to deal with a Republican congress any better than Sanders?

My only guess would be that her positions are closer to theirs? What does that get us?

And what do you suggest we do about the gerrymandering? It almost sounds like you are saying 'give up'.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Because she isn't saying that she gonna change the world if she's elected President.....

She is a proposing Do-able change,
not promising to fulfill every policy
in the Liberal policy dream book.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. But neither is he, that's just your hyperbolic characterization and it's not grounded in the facts.

He's not saying he's going to fulfill every policy in some dream book, that's just you making frames. You don't quote him because his actual words do not support the fiction you present. That sort of tawdry tactic needs to be left to the Republicans.

[FrenchieCat]

40. I disagree with you take on what he says.....

because I have heard him speak...
and I'm always asking HOW are you going to get this done to my television screen?

His best answer is the same one; a Political Revolution...
which really doesn't answer the real question,
HOW are you going to pass the legislation needed to enact these policies?

He talked about better policing of inner city neighborhood,
and then lists all of the things he is going to do...
things that he has no jurisdiction over...because they are local, county and state control.

He makes it sound like he's going to be the King able to make all kinds of proclamations
and that's how things are going to get done.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. It's not my take on what he says, you are not quoting him you are characerterizing what he said.

My take is that you are not quoting his words because he does not in fact say what you are claiming he says. So my entire comment is about what you have said. It's not Bernie's words, it's words about Bernie and that's not the same thing.

[Beacool]

96. Frenchie is correct.

He brings up the need for a political revolution in almost every speech and it's his answer for getting his agenda through Congress. It's his pat response every time someone questions the feasibility of his policies.

[Ed Suspicious]

102. Right. And that is the only fucking prescription for change. Now that that is established, you show

me his timetable.

[Matariki]

79. What is she planning on doing that a Republican Congress won't block?

[Ed Suspicious]

103. She'll be wildly successful. She'll promise nothing. She'll achieve nothing. Success!

[Matariki]

81. Sanders has referred to going back to a 50 state strategy

and will certainly get rid of do-nothing Debbie Wasserman Shultz. Both of which will be more likely to get Democratic majorities back in the House & Senate than the current status quo.

[madokie]

116. That is exactly the message in the OP

I detest this kind of thinking as most Sanders supporters do.
We can do all this if we'll get off our asses and vote in a majority in the house and senate. We can do this and my feel is we will exactly this

I'm getting so I don't even have to do a search to see where the authors of some of these screeds stand on our candidates.
Bernie Sanders will be our next President and if we don't get a majority in the congress in this election we will in the mid terms. People are fed up with the way things are and are going to get out and vote, this time and the next time you can bet on that.
Enough is enough.

[Hekate]

13. Kick and Rec, FrenchieCat

[last1standing]

14. Democrats can't win so why bother, huh? Great strategy you've got there.

It looks like the only way NoHope Hillary can win is by depressing the vote through fear and malaise.

Is that what you really want in a president? I don't.

[Matariki]

16. No really -

why and how do you think Clinton would do any better with a Republican House and Senate?

[FrenchieCat]

42. Don't y'all call her a Republican

at least 12 times a day?

[Art_from_Ark]

89. Maybe you can explain the difference, then

What information in this chart is incorrect?

[Betty Karlson]

120. That lists BERNS. I almost feel sorry for Clinton. eom

[basselope]

18. Even in Gerrymandered districts Democratic victories are quite possible

2010 had little to do with Gerrymandering and more to do with turnout.

13 million less people voted in 2012 than in 2008 (10 million of those from Obama's total).

You bring those people back in.... you win enough seats to turn both houses of congress.

[FrenchieCat]

21. 2010 is why the districts are NOW gerrymandered....

2010 was a Census year.....

[basselope]

57. So.. according to you Gerrymandering caused 10 million less people to vote for Obama in 2012?

If those 10 million people show up, democrats win back the house in 2012.. but Obama lost his coalition.

[John Poet]

19. So, I guess this means it would be better to have a Republican

fucking things up for four years, so people get really pissed and come out strong for the Democrats in 2020, just in time for reapportionment?

Yeah, that seems to be what it means.

Hillary won't be able to get things done either, if she's elected--
unless she plans to give the GOP a bunch of crap they want, which I don't want to see happen, and that still wouldn't win her GOP votes--
but she would sure turn out the GOP vote after four years in office...

and then the GOP would be sure to have the congress for another 10 years,
as well as the White House.

[FrenchieCat]

22. No it doesn't mean that....

we have made excellent progress thus far.....
but progress takes time.

You can't promise the world knowing you couldn't deliver.

Sure, some people know that Sanders won't be delivering....
but most don't.

Those who support him are simply glad to hear what he is saying on a national stage....
but there are many who actually believe him.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Support your assertion that he's promising the world. He's speaking in very clear and honest terms

Your characterizations are not legitimate testimony. When you write up some words and ascribe them to a person then attack that person for the words you wrote that's pretty much Hannityland.
You also negatively characterize his supporters because that's the whole trip, word attacks on those you don't agree with.

And that's pretty close to the heart of why I don't support Hillary, she spent years characterizing same sex families as some offense to her God and some frightening thing, characterizing us in public, to the press, endless characterizations of herself as very devout and representing God and others as being very much not in God's favor. I'm tired of that tactic, the culture that creates it and the division it encourages.

[sheshe2]

23. Thank you FrenchieCat.

Well said.

[ucrdem]

25. Yep. Bernie is basically a throwback to before there was ACA, the recovery, end of Iraq war, etc.

To before Barack Obama in other words. As for Barack, Bernie likes to refer to him as an ineffectual, out-of-touch elitist. Which is rich.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

29. I dare you to document your smear.

I double dare you. Because it is pure bullshit.

[ucrdem]

36. Where to begin. Well, this makes the point as clearly as anyone could wish for:

It's a demonstrably false statement about the TPP:

Letter from Bernard Sanders to USTR Michael Froman, Jan. 5, 2015:



Full text: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/sandersustrletter.pdf

In fact, the TPP was not negotiated in secret, and US lawmakers had full access the drafts-in-progress, and were given manifold opportunities to voice concerns, including Senator Sanders, "whose input USTR has received on a dozen occasions on issues ranging from clean energy manufacturing to cheese." Context: HuffPost, Jan. 6, 2015:

USTR told HuffPost it had ramped up congressional outreach, and has held nearly 1,600 meetings on Capitol Hill over the trade pact. “Senator Sanders, like all Members of Congress, has full access to the draft TPP negotiating text and we look forward to working with him to review it," USTR spokesman Trevor Kincaid said. "Members of Congress, labor unions, non-profits, and environmentalists have all played an important role in shaping our approach to our trade policy. This includes Senator Sanders, whose input USTR has received on a dozen occasions on issues ranging from clean energy manufacturing to cheese."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/bernie-sanders-michael-froman-tpp_n_6419874.html

[Admiral Loinpresser]

39. Nonresponsive.

Here is your smear:

As for Barack, Bernie likes to refer to him as an ineffectual, out-of-touch elitist.

I triple dare you to document that smear, because it is pure bullshit.

Either document it or admit you misspoke.

[ucrdem]

46. Fine, we'll say you weren't aware of it, but his entire anti-TPP campaign was one big dog-whistle.

Bernie supporters are shocked to find politics going on in the Sanders campaign but the target of all the righteous outrage that got posted here hourly is the President who happens to be Barack Obama. Gee, it's all so complicated! Not really. It's all over his website and it's been all over the net for years. Anyway here's Bernie railing against, you got it, Barack Obama, from Sanders' government webpage:

If TPP was such a good deal for America, the administration should have the courage to show the American people exactly what is in this deal, instead of keeping the content of the TPP a secret.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/stop-the-tpp

[Admiral Loinpresser]

49. The TPP is really effed up.

So what's your point? When I feel President Obama is right, I praise him. But I don't support everything he does because he is a Democrat. The ACA is good for a lot of people. I'm glad about that. But it screwed me. My taxes are going up this year because I am a member of the poor working class and ACA is taxing me as a penalty for not being able to afford health insurance. I live in a red state, so I am fucked. How in the hell is that progressive and why should I praise him for it?

BTW, this is your second attempt and it is STILL nonresponsive. I challenged you to document that Bernie refers to the president as an out-of-touch elitist. Your response is to show a legitimate, respectful political criticism from Bernie on behalf of the American people. You got nothin'.

[artislife]

117. The h people love the TPP and they hate single payer.

It is the following the leader kind of thing.

The way they follow every shift of the wind makes me think: Cult of personality.

[beam me up scottie]

55. Opposing the TPP is a racist dog whistle???

Are you fucking kidding me?

[ucrdem]

56. Accusing Barack Obama of cowardice and deceit is dog whistling, yes. Read what I posted. nt

[beam me up scottie]

58. No it's not, Jesus Christ. He's criticizing Obama's handling of the TPP.

If that's a racist dog whistle then everyone who criticises Bernie here is an anti-Semite, including you.

So if you want to use that broad of a brush then you just got tarred with it.

[ucrdem]

59. It is what it is and it goes far beyond criticism.

And his promise to abolish the TPP if he wins the WH is pure demagoguery. This is not someone that can be taken seriously.

[beam me up scottie]

60. How does it go "far beyond criticism"? Where's the racist dog whistle?

Spell it out and explain why it's racist.

[ucrdem]

61. "should have the courage" and "keeping the content ... a secret" = dog whistles.

And racist is your word, not mine. From Sanders' US Senate webpage:

If TPP was such a good deal for America, the administration should have the courage to show the American people exactly what is in this deal, instead of keeping the content of the TPP a secret.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/stop-the-tpp

[beam me up scottie]

63. What other kind of dog whistle is there? What do you think "dog whistle" means?

Dog-whistle politics

Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup. The phrase is often used as a pejorative, because of the inherently deceptive nature of the practice and because the dog-whistle messages are frequently distasteful to the general populace. The analogy is to a dog whistle, whose high-frequency whistle is heard by dogs but inaudible to humans.

The term can be distinguished from "code words" used in some specialist professions, in that dog-whistling is specific to the political realm. The messaging referred to as the dog-whistle has an understandable meaning for a general audience, rather than being incomprehensible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

What are "should have the courage" and "instead of keeping ... a secret" code for?

[ucrdem]

64. Read what you posted. Your answers are all there. nt

[beam me up scottie]

65. No, they're not. You made a claim and you need to back it up because there's nothing there.

What are those words code for?

[ucrdem]

66. Calling the President cowardly and deceptive goes far beyond policy criticism.

It's distasteful, inappropriate, and disrespectful. But the target audience hears something perfectly reasonable. It isn't. Now you know. And you can keep asking the question but the answer won't change.

[beam me up scottie]

67. What is it CODE for??? Your repeating it over and over doesn't prove anything.

[ucrdem]

69. I didn't call it code. Now I've answered your question several times already so please

have the courtesy of reading the answers before asking it again, thanks.

[beam me up scottie]

70. Dog whistle = coded language, you said it was a dog whistle, what is is CODE for?

What definition of 'dog whistle' are you using?

Here's another:

dog-whistle politics
noun [uncountable]

expressing political ideas in such a way that only a specific group of voters properly understand what is being said, especially in order to conceal a controversial message

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/buzzword/entries/dog-whistle-politics.html

What controversial message was concealed in those words?

[ucrdem]

71. It's grossly inappropriate but the target audience likes what it hears and doesn't find

it objectionable. It is. And that is how a dog whistle works.

[beam me up scottie]

72. No that's NOT how a dog whistle works. A third definition:

dog whistle

1. Politics. a political strategy, statement, slogan, etc., that conveys a controversial, secondary message understood only by those who support the message:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dog-whistle

What did the target audience hear?

[ucrdem]

73. The target audience heard a lie wrapped in an insult and didn't notice anything wrong. nt

[beam me up scottie]

75. That's not a dog whistle. Educate yourself, these are dog whistles:

Top five racist Republican dog-whistles

After an excruciating few days, the Romneyshambles is finally coming to an end as Mitt departs Britain, tail between his legs. It really has been gaffe-ridden, as he's insulted Britain, he's failed to sell tickets to his fundraiser, and he's suggested we aren't doing the Olympics very well (even a stopped clock...). But one of his "gaffes" has a decidedly darker undertone, when an unnamed aide was reported by the Telegraph to have commented that Romney would be a better President than Obama because only he understood the "shared Anglo-Saxon heritage" that Britain and America have.

This sort of statement is known in politics as a "dog whistle". To most people, it looks innocuous, if a bit weird, but to its target audience – in this case, racists – it reads as a perfectly clear statement that Romney is better than Obama because he is white. It's noticeable, for example, that Romney did not bring up the fact that Ed Miliband, the son of Polish Jewish migrants, also does not share an Anglo-Saxon heritage.

Not that this is anything new in the Republican party. Consider Romney's "gaffe" just number 5 in the Top Five Racist Republican Dog-Whistles of all time:

4. Barack Hussein Obama

Quick pop quiz: What's Barack Obama's middle name? Even if you haven't read it from the line above, it seems pretty likely that you know it's Hussein. Now, do you know John McCain's? (It's Sidney) What about Mitt Romney's? (Trick question. Mitt is his middle name, and his real first name is Willard. But even he forgets that sometimes)

There is a reason you know the former's but not the last two. It's because reminding everyone that Barack Obama has, not just a scary foreign-sounding name, but a scary, foreign and Islamic sounding name which is the same as that nasty dictator plays really well with a Republican audience.

To his credit, John McCain never got on board with that angle of attack, even going so far as to apologise for a radio commentator who did. But that doesn't mean the Republican base has forgotten their President's middle name.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2012/07/top-five-racist-republican-dog-whistles

When you accuse Bernie of using dog whistles against Obama you're calling him a racist and/or accusing him of using coded language to appeal to racists.

[ucrdem]

76. Those are dog whistles that you noticed. nt

[beam me up scottie]

78. What does that even mean?

[artislife]

118. I don't think you understand what dog whistle means. nt

[Iggy Knorr]

68. If you had one shred of integrity you would delete this post

Last edited Sat Feb 6, 2016, 01:34 AM - Edit history (1)

[Ed Suspicious]

104. Put up or shut up.

"ineffectual, out-of-touch elitist."

[Odin2005]

100. That is a baldfaced lie.

Shame on you.

[highprincipleswork]

28. Oh no, let's give up all efforts, perhaps sacrifice all our values & principles! That's the ticket.

[FrenchieCat]

35. There is a very big difference

between telling people what you want them to believe,

and telling them the straight up truth.

To imply that these are the policies that are going to get passed,
if there is a political revolution, VOTE FOR ME....
is a deception....

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Obama 'any bill I sign must contain a strong public option'. Also all that stuff about how mandates

to buy insurance was a stupid idea designed to pick your pocket 'like trying to solve homelessness by passing a law that everyone has to buy insurance'.

Then what did he pursue and actually make into law?

[highprincipleswork]

133. I never heard Bernie once promise that any of this will get passed, did you?

[Dems to Win]

33. Presidents Clinton and Obama have already let us down

During both presidencies, the number of Democratic federal legislators, state legislators, and governors, went way down.

How'd those gerrymandering maps get drawn that you're rightfully upset about? Because Dems lost statehouse after statehouse while following a moderate, pragmatic, incrementalist Democratic President.

Meet Bernie's Army. They are throwing their hats into the ring to run for office alongside Bernie, with Bernie's message. Far better to try for a political revolution than give up because you believe we've already lost.
https://newrepublic.com/article/129047/bernies-army-running-congress

[Jarqui]

47. Obama and Clinton bear some responsibility but I don't see that as all their fault

Obama spent a bunch of his political capital getting the ACA and the other things he did in those first two years.

Obama had said from the outset "we are the change we are looking for" Obama could not do it by himself. He told us about needing our help before he was elected. He asked for our support after he was elected.

Bernie has said the same thing. He cannot do this by himself.

I happen to think we blew some opportunity with Obama.

A Hillary presidency will face similar obstruction. The difference is she's given up trying to overcome to get the things we'd like.

The answer is to not only elect Sanders. He's going to need some Senators and a House.

Nearly any popular policy this forum approves of requires more Senators and a Dem house.

That's not all Bernie's problem. It was our problem during the Obama years and we came up short. It's our problem now. This is a part of the political revolution.

Bernie's more inspirational. He gives us a better chance of taking back the House and Senate with his message. He can help us.

Let's get DWS out of the way, find a good leader for the DNC and get cracking!

[Dems to Win]

85. Obama installed DWS as chair of the DNC

As soon as he was elected, he got rid of Dean and his 50 state strategy.

I don't say the Dems loss of statehouse after statehouse is solely Clinton and Obama's fault. The grassroots needs to work on these races and voters need to turn out. But Presidents are the leaders of their political parties. And we've had lousy results during our last 2 Democratic administrations.

[CBGLuthier]

34. Whew, good thing this wasn't going on 8 years ago or President Obama would have achieved nothing

I like being lectured about gerrymandering like I am some ignorant sap.

I would still rather read ths "book" than the one called How Hillary Clinton did Everything Her Corporate Masters Asked Her To: and got richer in the process.

[uponit7771]

84. Obama had a controlling dem congress for 59 days, Sanders will have the exact opposite and the

... reason why someone has to lecture the Sanders camp on gerrymandering is either they're not understanding its effects or they're selling used cars right along with Sanders.

[SusanCalvin]

44. At least Bernie would use the bully pulpit. nt

[redstateblues]

62. The bully pit is vastly overrated

Bernie shouting and waving his arms is not going to effect change. He needs allies in Congress and has done nothing so far to raise money to help down ballot Democrats. Bernie would be cut to pieces in the GE

[SusanCalvin]

126. I'm talking about using it when one is President. nt

[Trajan]

45. Hopeless pessimism ...

That's what you get with Hillary and her bunch here at DU ...

If Ghandi looked around and decided "nah ... too hard ... how can we EVER change this? ... I say forget it !"

Yeah ... Like that ....

You've given in to this lazy idea that change cannot happen, so why try ?

I cannot abide this ... The poor and middle class deserve better than 'NO WE CANT' ... If a candidate isn't willing to TRY and help those citizens who need it most, then why the hell should anybody support that candidate ? ...

We don't care if it's TOO HARD ... It's the RIGHT thing to do ... Only the laziest politician would proclaim it's "too hard" .... It's a lack of drive ... It's a lack of concern ... It's pure laziness ...

What exactly does a candidate who has no hope of success plan on doing for her fellow citizens, anyways ?

No ... that whole stance is unacceptable ... You should be ashamed you posted this.

This intentional, politically expedient pessimism will not exist in my life ... It is unacceptable. It is unacceptable as a political philosophy .... "NO WE CANT" is a loser ....

Gone

[Admiral Loinpresser]

51. I hope they keep employing that pessimism.

It's good for Bernie winning the nomination.

[uponit7771]

82. The opposite is still not a practicle plan

[mhatrw]

52. Great argument for more of the same.

"All We Are Saying Is Don't Give Hope or Change a Chance."

[AOR]

53. Nothing will get done and no concessions are made...

until there are movements on the ground to force it to get done. FDR wasn't responsible for the New Deal. Radical organized labor and leftist movements forced concessions (no matter how short lived) from the capitalist system or else. Civil rights...Women's rights...LBGT rights...ditto for all. No change without struggle and organization around demands.

Sanders while no leftist at least somewhat gets it. The bottom line is not about personalities, elections, or saviors. From Sanders last night in a mild tone...

"No, you just can’t negotiate with Mitch McConnell. Mitch is gonna have to look out the window and see a whole lot of people saying, “Mitch, stop representing the billionaire class."

[silvershadow]

54. That crazy old man will serve 2 terms- the first with modest coattails, the second with

enough help to redistrict our own congressional maps, more fairly.

[uponit7771]

83. No it wont, another indicactor that Sanders is selling used cars is few if any of his camp understan

... understand the effects of gerrymandering.

If they did they'd know his rhetoric sounds petulant seeing there's not a ton of choices that our current dem "establishment" has

[Dem2]

74. I've been thinking about this recently as well

We haven't had to seriously consider Bernie's election prospects and whether he will be able to accomplish his agenda once in office until recently whereas it seems he might be moving into a position as the favorite for the nomination.

I have a lot of thoughts and questions and certainly a lot of fears.

[californiabernin]

93. What do you fear?

If it's his general election prospects the evidence he will do better than Clinton is that he attracts a lot of independents and even Republicans because of his integrity. That's what a lot of people are looking for. They know the system is rigged, and Sanders says what people already have suspected (or know) about the magnitude of the corruption. That is what there is to fear...will we ever get our Democracy back from the people who have bought it?

I just posted a thread today from PBS Newshour about a voter in NH torn between voting for Sanders or Rubio. They would never consider Clinton in a million years. They don't trust her. Fairly or not the American people do not trust her.

They do trust Sanders and respect him, even if some disagree with his policies. But that's how you change minds. Integrity and respect.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Sanders is our best chance against any Republican nominee. I fear if Clinton is nominated we will lose. People don't want a continuation. The want something better.

[Dem2]

95. Democrat's past attempts at electing a more liberal/progressive have been fraught with failure

There's nothing wrong with your arguments, it's why I like Bernie and would like to see him elected. But the arguments I hear about his integrity and all the other good aspects will not be in question during the GE, and Republicans will do everything they can to knock him off his game. Whatever we guess will be their line of attack will likely not be what actually happens since we just don't know Bernie that well yet. We'll see. At least with Hillary we know what we're getting. Higher risk, higher reward I guess, but also significantly higher prospects for failure in spite of the optimism being presented by his more enthusiastic supporters.

[californiabernin]

97. I hear what you are saying, I really do.

But here's the deal...

I think Clinton's chances in the general (honest opinion) are pretty slim. It's an issue of trust. Fairly or not, most of the American people do not trust her. And people don't want a continuation...a large majority is unhappy with the direction the country is going. With Clinton/Rubio (or whoever the nominee is) it's just politics as usual. Which means an uninspired electorate and low turnout. Not good for Democrats.

Now, imagine a Sanders/Rubio debate. Imagine the contrast between the campaign run with $27 donations vs. Rubio's SuperPacs. Rubio will get torn apart as the bought, corporate, wall street, monied establishment candidate pretty boy they have propped up and groomed to continue with their deception of the American people.

If it's Trump, then he'll tear him apart, too. Sanders has too much integrity to beat!

[FrenchieCat]

113. The nominee will not be Trump

And the GOP will slice and dice Sanders , as soon as they get Clinton out of the way....

I discuss exactly how Sanders will get more Republicans to come out to vote against him then we've ever seen before!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511152030

[californiabernin]

131. Yes, I read that yesterday.

Perhaps I will post a more lengthy response when I have time. Thanks for the thoughtful post expressing your views.

[FrenchieCat]

132. You are welcome....

[Dem2]

128. I hope your arguments are correct

My only hope is that youth enthusiasm for Bernie rubs off on us over 50 types.

"Rubio will get torn apart as the bought, corporate, wall street, monied establishment candidate" Ultimately, Republicans will get out to the polls - they honestly don't care about those issues as much as they care about "he's handsome". So, Democrats need to feel enthusiastic and confident that they can win - this remains to be seen as Bernie may have inadvertently pulled us out of the happy place where we can still attract middle-of-the-road voters. I may be wrong, but my spidey-sense is really on alert.

[retrowire]

77. ...I'm still voting Bernie....? lol nt

[Ed Suspicious]

105. I'm with this guy.

[uponit7771]

80. Sanders things trillions of people outside of Mitch's window will persuade him

[californiabernin]

86. Gerrymandering is a real problem.

But that has noting to do with electing a President. Sanders has been honest that he can't get the things done he is talking about without a political revolution. That is exactly what has to happen.

Your argument is the definition of weak. It's really not even an argument against electing Sanders at all, just a lame excuse. Now is not the time to lower expectations.

I'm tired of Americans being weak. I'm tired of our so called political "leaders" being weak. This is the time to SCREAM AGAINST THE THE CORRUPTION THE HAS HIJACKED OUR DEMOCRACY AND SHOW THEM ITS WE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RUNNING THIS COUNTRY AGAIN!

FUCK THEM!

As for the gerrymandering...that's a whole other discussion ways to address that. Let's not conflate issues.

[Beacool]

87. This about sums it up.

"One of the criticism against Sen. Bernie Sanders is that he is promising a lot of big massive changes, but he won't be able to keep these promises, and that he is aware of that; and in so doing is being misleading and disingenuous, while being called honest by his supporters. On the other hand, his opponent is being called dishonest and calculating, and is only asking for incremental change. Sanders Supporter call her the "no I can't" candidate."

[californiabernin]

88. He's not being misleading at all.

It takes a political revolution; it depends on the people.

It's not about him, it's about us. I get that some people don't get that.

This election isn't about Sanders or Clinton.

[Glamrock]

90. Sander's is giving people a choice.

I'm going to choose to stand up and tell my govt & the Democratic party:
I want money out of politics!
I want single payer health care!
I want free education for all!
I want my govt. To work for me!

Hopefully, there will be millions and millions choosing to make this statement. At least then we can be on the path to these things. Doesn't matter if he can get it done in his first term or not. We'll at least be on the fucking path.

Just my opinion...

[november3rd]

91. Political

A political revolution is one type: peaceful, democratic.

We have a chance for that with Bernie, if we are willing to do the work now and take it.

Otherwise, there are other types of revolutions...

[AzDar]

92. This shit is getting surreal.

[californiabernin]

94. Agreed. n/t

[AgingAmerican]

98. And both of you meet ms. Defeatism

ANYTHING but the issues....

[Matariki]

106. lol

very right on.

[Odin2005]

99. This is some pathetic nonsense.

[BlueCaliDem]

107. Well written analysis, Frenchie...and terrifying. But it's what I have been saying, crying out

like Cassandra.

We can't give up this presidential election to some liberal experiment, not now that there are four maybe five seats ready to open up in SCOTUS. We'll be royally f*cked should a Republican be president and Bader-Ginsberg, Breyer, Scalia, Kennedy, and even maybe Thomas decide they can no longer hold their seats.

We can't afford more Roberts and Alitos.

Also, with Republicans having to defend 24 Senate seats this cycle - with 18 of them vulnerable - we need a Democrat with strong coattails; someon4e who can get more Democrats elected. Hillary Clinton fits that bill.

[mikehiggins]

111. Hillary Clinton fits that bill? Why, exactly?

How is she going to rally the troops to come out and vote for a program that says "lets just keep on slow and steady and someday we'll find the Promised Land (maybe)"?

This has been coming for a long time, and its here now. The people will let the nation know what they want. If its cuts in the VA and Medicare and Social Security and Give-away-trade-policies and War with Iran, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Lots of us don't feel that's reality, but also see no reason to suspect that HRC will go to the wall to prevent that.

We don't see any reason to think she is the one who fits that bill.

Let the voters decide AND keep posting on the Internet. It is increasingly clear that nothing on the MSM can be believed or trusted.

[BlueCaliDem]

114. $18 million > $0. That's why.

She's raised $18 million for down-ticket Democrats. Bernie's raised $33 million for himself.

Hillary is already rallying the troops, or didn't you notice that in Iowa? Despite the fact that Iowa is pretty much 98% White, she won over Bernie. I don't know if New Hampshire will be the same. Could be. Could not be. But from what I've been hearing, just don't count her out.

Battles are won in the middle, not the extreme Left or the extreme Right. That's been proven - hence the need for a political revolution. But it's just not going to happen. We've seen that time and time again. Even Liberal Obama had to tack to the middle in order to get elected and then get things done. Bernie is too far Left for the majority of Americans who cower from the "socialist" label, especially Blacks and Latinos who aren't as liberal as you'd like them to be.

So yes, Hillary Clinton is a progressive, but she's NO liberal, and for her chances to win the White House, that's a good thing because that's what the vast majority of Americans are looking for - a progressive, not a liberal.

[Dems to Win]

108. Meet the voice of Despair in America, 7 years into the Obama Administration

Last edited Sat Feb 6, 2016, 06:23 AM - Edit history (1)

This heartfelt and heartbreaking article sums up why we need far, far more than small incremental change.

https://medium.com/@Lookingforrobyn/when-you-ask-me-to-vote-for-hillary-174becdb5ccc#.z2r77fo5s

When you ask me to vote for Hillary

I do not think it means what you think it means.
I’m going to set aside all of the standard issues I might have with Hillary Clinton. This isn’t about policies with which I disagree, or the fact that she’s never met a war she didn’t like, or that she has turned her back on her own policy goals for the sake of political expediency, or that I have the real sense she sold me out three times today before I even got out of bed. Push all of those issues off to the side, and focus on the ask — what are you asking me to do when you ask me to vote for her in the primaries over Bernie Sanders?

You are asking me to consciously give up on any hope I may have of living a sane life in our country. To vote for her in the primaries, I would need to believe that the establishment on both the right and the left have so thoroughly strangled the political system that it is no longer “reasonable” to even try for reform. I have to be so scared of political opponents gaining power that it is worth it to sacrifice even the hope of being able to get ahead, have a savings cushion, access healthcare, send our kids to college, retire, or just not feel like we’re constantly living on a knife’s edge, all because of fear of a potential future.

If this doesn’t make sense to you — if you think it is reasonable to fear the opposition more than to hope for having a better life — then I’m guessing you live a fairly comfortable life and don’t feel strong motivation to change it. Perhaps it’s been a long time since you had to decide not to take your spouse to the emergency room because you were worried it would wipe out what little savings you have. Maybe you don’t have full-blown anxiety attacks every time you see that your medical insurance company has sent you something in the mail. Do you remember the last time you cried thinking about how you can’t afford to get a job, because it will knock you off of the meager insurance assistance you have and put you even further behind than you started? Would your place of employment and the welfare of hundreds of employees be ensured if only we could sort out the insanity that is private insurance? Has there been a time in your life when nearly all of the stress you experience in life comes, one way or another, from trying to navigate the private medical-industrial complex?

If these don’t sound familiar to you, then maybe you don’t really understand what you’re asking of me when you advise me to make decisions based on “practicality.” And notice, I’m not even saying you’re wrong. What I am saying is that for me to choose Hillary over Bernie right now is to literally choose to give up on the best chance we have ever had to finally become a reasonable, civilized nation, and say instead “No, we can’t do it, I am too scared of what might happen.” If we don’t elect Bernie, but at least we try, then maybe someday — four years from now, eight, maybe when my kids are grown, who knows — we will make forward progress again. But to lay down now and accept the position that our political system is so thoroughly bankrupt that I should drop any expectation of living beyond paycheck to paycheck in order to prevent something even worse from happening… well, that’s it. It’s over. The powerful can sit back and relax, knowing that if we didn’t stand up now, we never will — they know their manipulations work, their place (and ours) is set. We shut the door and I embrace the hand-to-mouth class status we’ve tried to move out of for so long.

(Cut and paste the address into your browser and you can see the whole letter, the @ in the address messes up the link)

[Betty Karlson]

121. Thanks for that link. It's a letter straight fromn the heart. eom

[betsuni]

110. K&R

[artislife]

112. He won't let us down nearly as much as this OP has. nt

[Betty Karlson]

119. "The status quo is here to stay, so vote for the status quo lady" - is that the new meme?

Disingenuous.

Sanders would put Louisiana in play - we'd bury the GOP and move the country to the left. Don't worry, millennials are clever enough to understand that all wrong of the status quo can't be righted in 4 years - and there will be more and more of us understanding and constructive critics by 2018 and 2020. Meanwhile, there will be less and less status quo to hang on to by then.

[Cha]

123. Thank you, Frenchie.

[Hortensis]

134. Very good post. Thank you, FrenchieCat.

I've lately come to realize that when Bernie's left wingers say "revolution," though, they really do imagine a far-left revolution. This'll almost certainly peter out as it always does in America, but they want to overthrow our evil corrupt system, not fix it. They don't worry about gerrymandered districts. That'll all just disappear in the "revolution." And then all will be fine...

[bklyncowgirl]

124. If that is the case then no Democratic President will be able to deliver on anything.

The solution if for the Democrats to do what the Republicans did years ago. Take these down ballot races seriously. That was the genius of Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy and frankly if the party had stuck with it a new Democratic president would be in a better shape today.

Get rid of the party hacks. Get rid of the the one's who the party runs because "It's his turn". Fight every fight. Recruit compelling candidates with a compelling message. Get exciting leaders in place. Have a freaking farm team for god's sake.

I trust Sanders to shake up the party a whole hell of a lot more than I do Clinton.

[FrenchieCat]

130. The difference is in what each promises....

Bernie is promising much more, and all of his policies are DOA, and he knows it. You may think that is integrity that you trust, but is isn't, IMO!

[Gothmog]

127. Where is this revolution?

Turnout was lower in Iowa in 2016 compared to 2008