HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Here's Why Progressives S...

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:12 PM

 

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

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

29 replies, 4778 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Here's Why Progressives Shouldn't Get Too Excited About Hillary Clinton's Nomination (Original post)
tabasco Jun 2016 OP
msongs Jun 2016 #1
GaYellowDawg Jun 2016 #7
RichGirl Jun 2016 #21
villager Jun 2016 #26
enough Jun 2016 #2
Jennylynn Jun 2016 #5
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #8
Chan790 Jun 2016 #22
leftofcool Jun 2016 #3
mindwalker_i Jun 2016 #6
ciaobaby Jun 2016 #11
Post removed Jun 2016 #23
tabasco Jun 2016 #17
davidn3600 Jun 2016 #20
AgadorSparticus Jun 2016 #27
apcalc Jun 2016 #4
Hekate Jun 2016 #9
ciaobaby Jun 2016 #15
annavictorious Jun 2016 #10
winstars Jun 2016 #12
Trust Buster Jun 2016 #13
Beowulf Jun 2016 #18
Trust Buster Jun 2016 #19
Beowulf Jun 2016 #24
tabasco Jun 2016 #25
Hestia Jun 2016 #14
tonyt53 Jun 2016 #16
underthematrix Jun 2016 #28
one_voice Jun 2016 #29

Response to tabasco (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:14 PM

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

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:17 PM

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.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:57 PM

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!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:08 PM

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

 

...at least!

Oh...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:14 PM

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

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enough (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:16 PM

5. ...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enough (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:18 PM

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

 

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

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:01 PM

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.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:14 PM

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

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:17 PM

6. You don't have to read it now

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:24 PM

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

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ciaobaby (Reply #11)


Response to leftofcool (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:11 PM

17. Really?

 

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


or more like this ....

or perhaps like this....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:54 PM

20. You've always had an ignore list

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:10 PM

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

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:15 PM

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.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:18 PM

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.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:28 PM

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.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:23 PM

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

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:25 PM

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

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:26 PM

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.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:51 PM

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.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beowulf (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:54 PM

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

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trust Buster (Reply #19)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:14 PM

24. My god, you believe that!

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

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beowulf (Reply #24)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:04 PM

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

 

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

Recipe for disaster.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:27 PM

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.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 08:46 PM

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.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:40 PM

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

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:41 PM

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

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink