Here's Why Progressives Shouldn't Get Too Excited About Hillary Clinton's Nomination

[tabasco]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by one_voice (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Once in office, Obama failed to live up to the "hope" and "change" rhetoric that so galvanized his supporters. The movement that sprung up around his candidacy evaporated.

Over the next eight years, the black-white wealth gap reached a 24-year high. A Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances revealed that the median wealth of of white households was 13 times that of black households in 2013. From 2010 to 2013, the median wealth of white households increased from $138,600 to $141,900. For black households, it fell from rom $16,600 to $11,000.

And African-American women earned just 60 cents for every dollar paid to white men; by way of comparison, white women make 79 cents for every dollar white men earn, according to a 2015 National Partnership for Women and Families fact sheet.

The Obama administration introduced My Brother's Keeper: its racial justice initiative in February 2014. The initiative, which included mentoring programs and grant opportunities for community-based organizations working with boys of color, was critiqued by women of color. Its singular focus on black and brown boys suggested that girls of color need less help navigating institutional bias.

https://mic.com/articles/145856/here-s-why-feminists-shouldn-t-get-too-excited-about-hillary-clinton-s-nomination

[msongs]

1. a lot depends on what kind of congress she gets nt

[GaYellowDawg]

7. Yes!

Sanders supporters can still get much of what they want if they turn their energy to downticket votes. Make it clear that liberals are the difference in getting elected, and a congresscritter will get awfully blue awfully quickly.

[RichGirl]

21. That's exactly right!

Don't blame Obama! We democrats love presidential elections. But mid-terms we can't be bothered. Very low turnout among dems. We elect Obama and then leave him with a republican congress that fights him on everything. Currently, he can't even appoint a judge. THAT'S OUR FAULT...NOT HIS!

[villager]

26. Yes! Imagine how unfettered she'd be with strong Democratic majorities for the first two years...

...at least!

Oh...

[enough]

2. One danger we are not in is that progressives would get too excited about HRC's nomination. (nt)

[Jennylynn]

5. ...

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. I know a lot of progressives who are excited by her nomination.

"Pissed off' is a kind of excitement, right?

[Chan790]

22. In the same sense that blind rage is a kind of passion.

Yes.

By the same token...spitting, fulminating invective is a form of communication.

I'm not sure that any of these are what Hillary hoped for from progressives.

[leftofcool]

3. Hurry June 16th so we don't have to read this trash!

[mindwalker_i]

6. You don't have to read it now

[ciaobaby]

11. and who will you then direct your snarky posts at ?

[tabasco]

17. Really?

[font size=4]Will it be like this.....


or more like this ....

or perhaps like this....

[davidn3600]

20. You've always had an ignore list

[AgadorSparticus]

27. Amen! This stinks of sour grapes. Ready for it to disappear already...

[apcalc]

4. We have to get control of the legislative branches

A complete overhaul would help, but barring that just majorities.
We need president, Senate and house majorities to begin to change things.

[Hekate]

9. Obama's presidency would have made 100% more progress without GOP obstruction

Send Mme President a Democratic House and Senate, and make sure Dems don't sit on their asses during midterm elections, and see what happens.

If Dem voters fail in their part of the bargain -- again -- I'm not going to be too sympathetic to any complaints about the results.

[ciaobaby]

15. This is the hypocrisy that drives me crazy

One argument against Bernie was that he could not get anything done. Yet your post pretty much admits that Hillary will have the same result unless we get a Democratic congress. Why does this scenario apply to Sanders?
I know why - because you didn't want it to.

[annavictorious]

10. Who's to say that the same thing would not have happened with Sanders?

After all, he became a major champion of the military-industrial complex when he was looking to bring home some pork.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/bernie-sanders-loves-this-1-trillion-war-machine.html

[winstars]

12. OK, thanks for this vital information...

[Trust Buster]

13. This is what escapes many Sanders supporters. The President is not a king. President Obama

did not have the political power in Congress necessary to legislate "hope and change". I ask, how many of you who hold this position voted in the 2014 midterms ? Democrats cannot continue to sit on their collective butts and expect that a man or woman in an oval shaped office can wave a magic wand and make your dreams come true. This thread is an utter cop out IMO.

[Beowulf]

18. Selective amnesia

PBO took office with a mandate. He had won the election decisively. He had a large majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Senate. He didn't need Congress to prosecute the Banks. He didn't need Congress to put together an economic team comprised of the same folks who wrecked the economy. He's a terrific speaker, but he rarely used the bully pulpit. What did he have to show for his first two years? A mediocre and overly complicated ACA, a stimulus package rendered much less effective by including large tax cuts, banks getting bigger and no bankers in chains. As Thomas Frank notes, after you think it through we got in PBO's first two years exactly what PBO wanted. If that's all he could manage with Democrats controlling Congress, why would electing more Democrats make a difference? No one went out on the campaign trail in 2010 stating we need more Democrats so we can do X, Y, and Z. Instead we got the all too familiar, we need more Democrats to keep the Republicans from doing terrible things.

People will come out to vote when there are good reasons to vote, when there are expected benefits to come if they vote.

[Trust Buster]

19. That's a cop out. Democratic turnout is atrocious and that's on the voters and no one else IMO.

[Beowulf]

24. My god, you believe that!

No wonder we've lost so many Representatives, Senators, Governors, and Statehouses.

[tabasco]

25. Yah, the brilliant "it's the voters' fault" theory.

"It can't be us because we're sooooo perfect!"

Recipe for disaster.

[Hestia]

14. Because hope and change weren't clearly defined. There is power in words and we did not

sit down and clarify what the change should look like.

On the other hand, we did get change - the teabaggers and that ilk.

It's one of the those be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.

[tonyt53]

16. Per Mitch McConnell after Obama was sworn in - We will whatever it takes to make him a one term Prez

And they have. Being President of the US isn't nearly as easy as some make it out to be. A President can't get most things done without the help of Congress. So, if you want to discredit Obama for his accomplishments, you will have a very small group standing with you.

[underthematrix]

28. Childish

I thank God my mother transferred her love of learning and education to me and my two sisters. Thank God we're college educated

[one_voice]

29. Locking...

Discussions about Democratic presidential primaries and their candidates belong in GDP. Please repost there. thanks.

Skinner (61,888 posts)
1. If it mentions one of the primary candidates then it still belongs in GDP.

You are welcome to post about the general election in GD without reference to the primary candidates

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12599837#post1