2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSeriously. When did we decide as a Democrat, I should feel shame, wanting a Democratic candidate?
I am not apologizing because I expect, demand, insist..... That the Democratic primary is solely, and ONLY about electing our BEST Democrat. We decide this with our votes. And, that Democrats get to decide who we feel is the best Democrat to put out in the GE.
I am listening to discussions about how anyone should be able to vote in our primary. And that it is stacked in favor of the Democrat. Hey, all, truly, I am good with that. I certainly do not feel I need to apologize or justify that I want a Democrat to win our primary race.
Are we in an alternative universe here?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)Allowing sanders to participate in the process as a democrat was really stretching the case as he has done little for the Democratic Party in getting other democrats elected...Bernie has always been for Bernie...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)opposite. And demanding we change and do it his way. No. Lol. I think it is beyond silly. Collective tantrum and having raised kids for 20 yrs, I know to keep my line.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)We see it in DU every day by the posts....sanders ego is now driving him...I sure hope he has maturity to do what is right for America and the Democratic Party when the time comes....but that ego of his is worrisome
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
elias7
(3,997 posts)And stop insulting the young, who can see through bullshit better than us.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Ageism is much better than racism isn't it?
Thehypocrisy of the Hillary supporters is astounding.
Response to seabeyond (Reply #4)
Post removed
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Watch out Trump AND Clinton.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Representatives! Now THERE'S a solution for the spoilers!!!!!
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)#notthistime
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Third party candidate that he will win the General Election? My God, you people are getting to be truly delusional.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)brush
(53,774 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Gonna charge me. But, I didn't advocate anything just said it could get interesting. Meh.
brush
(53,774 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 25, 2016, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Not.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)You people plaster that kind of label on anyone who doesn't thoroughly embrace your totally extreme outlook.
My ignore list is at an all time high and about to increment by one.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)they meet this groups criteria, thru Sanders platform. They do not get to define, me.
Tip of the hat to Skinner to allow us to push back without getting long vacations.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)-none
(1,884 posts)You'd think everyone would know that is only temporary. I can't see him letting those people slide when they have 6, 8, even 10 plus hides.
So keep on having your fun.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)-none
(1,884 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)1) The trivial nature of the hides, and
2) Those doing the hiding will be in short supply very, very soon.
-none
(1,884 posts)1. Shit stirring and trolling
2. You are half correct.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Have the last word.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)swinging on.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)I think it all started right after Obama got elected. Manny Goldstein, a former now banned poster, started the BS about the 3rd way, and he gathered a following. For years they rented about Obama and the "3rd way" being so terrible. Like you said they have no real definition, except it's everyone who did not agree with Manny and his followers. Those same posters jumped on the Bernie band wagon, and continued their hate fest with Obama, the Democratic party, and then on to Hillary.
They now use the "3rd way" slur on anyone who doesn't "feel the Bern". Honestly I think a huge majority of them were never Democrats, liberals or progressives in their entire lives.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)discussion to be had. Exactly what you are saying. It was seeing the same insults transferred to Clinton back in March, April that had me listening again. It also had me listening to facts about Clinton because i recognized they were the same smears thrown at Obama. I had to educate myself on Clinton which ultimately brought me to her side.
mcar
(42,307 posts)for nearly eight years. SMH.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)stuff about her and it's bad, but I don't really know where it came from. Some of it came from Breitbart. But boy do I hate her. But because I can't give many good reasons for my hatred I'll just throw out this 'third way' phrase. Cause that sounds real bad."
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the very real world. As a matter of fact, having 18 and 21 yr old, I am suggesting that we are the ones mostly paying for this shit so get it better than they do, lol. Sooooo fuckin interesting.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)for a long time.
I voted for Hillary as my Senator, but I didn't like her when I did. I was really, really pleasantly surprised at what she did for New York as a Senator, and she won me over big time. I was surprised at how hard she worked, how humble she was, and how effective she was at getting programs started and funding granted for things that were important to me. I was disappointed in her IWR vote, but I believe the description she has given of what went into her vote. After all, we all voted for Kerry, so it's not like we would NEVER vote for someone who voted yes on the IWR.
(This is a fun thing to do - try it: whenever someone says they could NEVER vote for Hillary because of her IWR vote, ask them if they voted for Kerry. They NEVER answer. It's a riot.)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)made me actually start paying attention to Clinton instead of just relegating her to the caricature.
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)It is a form of poster Tourette's. THIRD WAY! Argle bargle bargle bah!
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Talk about running something in the ground.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)"You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”
“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”
“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’”
"It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party."
"The Democratic and Republican parties are tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, they both adhere to an ideology of greed and vulgarity."
"I am extremely proud to be an independent. The fact that I am not a Democrat gives me the freedom to speak out on the floor of the House, to vote against both the Democratic and Republican proposals.”
LuvLoogie
(6,999 posts)in his rhetoric and in his actions. He identified as Democrat in this Primary to gain access to the Democratic infrastructure, the voter database, the Democratic debate stage and the press. He has no relevence without the Democratic Party. Even as an Independant, he has no relevance without the Democrats.
It's not about whether WE want him in the party. Hillary has been a Democrat her whole adult life, and she has always demonstrated that through word and deed. Bernie has alway been a member of the You're Not Good Enough Party.
He has only identified as Democrat for barely one year. He has a long way to demonstrate that he IS a Democrat. That's on him. It's got nothing to do with Hillary, "Thirdway, DLC, DNC, corporatism," or any other tired excuse that denies hard work and relationship building over decades trumps rallies, "passion," twitter memes and YouTube rants.
Going off in a corner and firing up a bong does not mean you've joined the party.
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)Oh. Wait.
Never mind.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)You are really insulting us and you want our vote. That is not the best position to have. (in so many words). But, he doesn't listen. Just as he continually dismiss blacks, gays, women and Latinos and we tell him what he is doing. He does not listen. Like saying the southern blacks. Or campaigning all Wall street are evil walking into NY wanting Wall street vote of the people who earn their living and business who hire people.... I mean.
He doesn't seem to get how he dismisses our very base, regularly. Democratic corporate whores in Washington? And all we get from Sanders is it is insensitive? Give me a break.
Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #76)
Post removed
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)That includes your Bernie-bashing shit.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)LuvLoogie
(6,999 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Ordinarily I don't bother, but if you're going to call someone "stupid" and all...
LiberalFighter
(50,912 posts)The structure of the Democratic Party provides for participation and representation. They don't think it does because they don't have a clue about the structure and rules. If they don't know the structure and rules it is because they haven't been involved in the Party until recently. And their participation is likely outside the party system. Such as complaining. Some might have been out in the field but it has been limited. They think that they know how it should be done and what should be done and think their way is the only way and right way.
As an example, I help out each election with appointment of election workers for the Democratic side. This election a regular main point person decided not to spend as much time. As a result someone else volunteered without knowing what was involved in the task. The time available by that person was less than what was needed to get the task done and the person was doing other work in addition. The person made demands of how I had to do the work I had done every election since 2008. Did not bother to consult with me about what should be done or how. Even though we had a training session at the beginning, specific protocol was not followed and resulted in more work needing to be done than was necessary. Paperwork remained in the books that should had been tagged with the final appointment that resulted in calls to people that had already been assigned. That person also took messages off the machine without advising the workers of the calls that involved possible election workers. This person supposedly was a professional in office management.
My work consists of managing the data and processing it as they complete each assignment or a worker is unable to work. I unfortunately I have to use a database and a spreadsheet. But, it makes it easier to find errors. The database keeps track of every person that has worked in the past or wants to work. It also includes each election they work and the capacity the served. A hard copy is printed every time a person is assigned that goes into a binder that allows the callers to review when needed without having to ask me. The spreadsheet goes to the election board so they have the details about our assignments. In the beginning we would fax that information to them for each person. That changed when the election board was set up to a spreadsheet. I am sure it allows them the ability of just copying and pasting from the spreadsheet into their database. At one point I was copying each bit of information about a worker to a cell in the spreadsheet separately. That consisted of about 12 different items. Recently, I programmed the database application so it only requires copying two different groups of data and pasting it.
During those years I looked for better and more efficient ways of performing my part as well as doing the same for those helping out. Yet that person thought their ideas would work better. Which weren't.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and voting with them for decades.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)"You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”
“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”
“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’”
"It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party."
"The Democratic and Republican parties are tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, they both adhere to an ideology of greed and vulgarity."
"I am extremely proud to be an independent. The fact that I am not a Democrat gives me the freedom to speak out on the floor of the House, to vote against both the Democratic and Republican proposals.”
griffi94
(3,733 posts)When he first entered the race I was gald he was in.
Now I'm just ready for Tuesday when the final thin ray of hope
fot him is out.
I'm suffering from Bernie fatigue frome him and his supporters.
Like he says in the quotes you posted. He's not a Democrat never wanted to be a Democrat.
Time for Hillary to push him off the stage.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And you also can't seem to grasp the fact that he didn't because he is just as adamant about not wanting the GOP in the WH as any Democrat is.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)
trudyco
(1,258 posts)People really don't remember Nader? Hillary fans really want him to be another Nader?
And when Bernie was asked if there was any instances where Hillary was influenced by her donor class for taking their superpac donations he purposely shut his lips. No sound bites coming from him that the republicans could use against Hillary. Although here at DU a Bernie fan started listing the quid pro quo in seconds. Bernie's also been really careful about the FBI investigation. There is so much shit he could slam at Clinton and he's been very careful, very nice. But Hillary fans here sit and pout and complain that he's a meany and gee he needs to have a different "tone" and god they were so nice to let him run in the Democratic Primary and how dare he get such a big following that he wants to push the party to the left.
If the Democratic party is so hunky-dory that we should all just bow to the current status quo. How come we've lost so may governorships? State houses? Congress? Why did my Democratic senator get voted out!!! Why is the Democratic Party shrinking???
The Clintons started the "Big Tent" idea and started letting disaffected Republicans come in because their party was getting whacky. It sounded like an Okay idea at the time. We are a big tent because we are very tolerant (at least we used to be). Then the Clintons got the idea to take money like the Republicans and the Contract With America did. They thought they could fight fire with fire. But they just became Republican Lite. They will never get as much money. And suddenly they become the donor classes servants too. Bill started "Triangulating" and compromising on all sorts of things, taking on Republicans by being a Republican. He got tough on Crime by imprisoning people - which was really the poor. He got tougher on the war with drugs - which put more poor in jail. He gutted Welfare (not the bigger corporation welfare, just the piddling people welfare). To be fair, Hillary tried initially to pass Hillary care and I was very proud of her. That was being a Democrat. But I started realizing what the Clintons were while we were enduring Shrub. The things Bill Clinton did and the things Bill Clinton could have done. Whether he meant to or not he helped gut our middle class by repealing Glass-Steagal and he was no friend to African Americans. He also changed the way Democrats started funding their campaigns (I believe). They all became Republican lite, fawning over the donor class.
In 2008 I thought Obama would be different. It was so exciting to caucus for him. Historic. And he did some things right, the economy is better although the types of jobs available are scary. But his cabinet choices and then not giving us back our privacy, not closing Gitmo, no Bankster arrests (and the banks consolidated more and got bigger!)... I literally left DU for awhile feeling very disillusioned. I thought about becoming Independent, though I've always been registered a Democrat and still am.
When Bernie chose to run I came back here. Started looking at the Democratic Party. Thought maybe they were taking back in the progressives they had pushed out. Guess I was wrong. Hillfans claim he's not a real democrat because he refuses to raise Donor class money and then give it to people down ticket. I think he supports fellow progressives. They say he's rude for trying to think Big and move the party in the direction it used to represent. To me, he's trying to expand the left side of that so called Big Tent but I guess there's no room at the Inn.
See, the thing is, it's not just your party SeaBeyond. It's my party, too. And Bernie best represents me, a progressive in the Democratic Party. There's cracks in the party and chasms in the middle class and Bernie claims he will fix them. There may be a day when I walk away from the party like others have, and if Bernie is pushed into going independent in the GE that may happen sooner than later, but for now this is MY party and he's MY candidate and I have a right to be at the table and he's gotten plenty of Democratic votes to show he, too, has a right to be at the table so just give it a rest.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)I ask myself once again:
Yes, some of his ideas and goals are laudable, but they could just as well have been put before the public through a third party run.
That's where this untrustworthy traitor should have found a platform, in a third, fringe party that would've lasted about 6 weeks.
But, it's too late now. The Trojan Horse is already within the gates, along with his maniacal minions.
Will he honor the pledges he made to the Dem. Party in order to be granted leave to run under the Dem. banner?
I am not optimistic, based on his recent behaviors.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)I think a third party run by Bernardo would have lasted about 6 weeks, maybe 3 months at the outside.
Starting from scratch is no easy thing, compared to waltzing into an already existing, well-functioning organization, and exploiting it for your own ambitious ends.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I totally agree with this. I think Democrats misstep was thinking Sanders would actually not run negative and have integrity. But, yes. I totally agree.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)at his canonization. San Bernardo.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)If the Democratic Party had said, "sorry bub, you can't join the party just to participate in our nomination process, you have to wait your turn," how would he have gotten exposure? By debating Jill Stein? What mailing lists could he have used to send out flyers, calling etc? I mean, the big rallies he has don't translate into votes at the same rate as smaller venues - we have ample evidence of that.
He is very hypocritical when he goes around saying that he started at 3% and now he's got 42% and at the same time claim that the Democratic party doesn't treat him fairly.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Should you have been allowed in?
TDale313
(7,820 posts)But honestly I think semi-open primaries are closest to the general election and give a better sense of who can actually win over independents. jmo, of course. I don't think people registered to other parties should be involved, but Independents or No Party Preference? I think it's a good idea.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)fucking us. No. Lol.
I mean, states are gonna make their choice. But, I think we have to admit, recognize, understand that these people have no principle.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 24, 2016, 06:02 PM - Edit history (1)
Reregisteting as Dem for the primary if that was their only purpose? I don't. If it's just about fucking us over that's still easy enough to do in most cases in the Primaries. And frankly I think that threat is overstated.
But there are a lot of Independents out there who aren't particularly tied to either party- and they are often the ones who decide the General. Most aren't the enemy- they're disillusioned with party politics and are more about the policies or candidate than party label. I understand the feeling that hey, they shouldn't have a say in the Primaries then- but yes- they are often the ones deciding in November so it makes sense to me to try and get them involved as early as possible. Again, I can see both sides. But what I will say? More people identify as Independent than identify as either Dem or Republican. Whether we involve them in the primaries or not, we should be reaching out to them, not ignoring or demonizing them.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to the race, that is beyond the norm.
brush
(53,774 posts)TDale313
(7,820 posts)More Americans are Independents/No Party Preference than are registered Dem or are registered Republican.
brush
(53,774 posts)Dems get most of the left-leaning and moderate indies and repugs get most of the conservative indies.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)
procon
(15,805 posts)Ron Paul campaign. Ron Paul was a crazy Libertarian, but his perpetually angry followers remained fiercely loyal, and just like Bernie's supporters, they fought viciously until the bitter end. Sanders is essentially at the end of his political career, but the Bernie Bros have a cult, exhibiting the same general symptoms of blind faith that marked the Ron Paul diehards.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)positions in the paper. I asked if he pointed out Sanders Libertarian positions also, mixed with his version of Socialism. Son at first denied those position, but thinking, it was all like.... Ya. That is why Libertarians, teabaggers have been comfortable with Sanders. At first glance, one would thing, .... Socialist? No way. But, there is an element, for sure.
procon
(15,805 posts)His youthful supporters had invested so much time, energy and emotion in backing him, it took them a long time to come to terms with the information that revealed him to be less than advertized and admit that they'd been bamboozled. Bernie Sanders followers will eventually have their own individual moments of harsh revelations and maybe learn something about how large masses of people can be swayed by a charismatic personality.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)happen. Good point. I think, an important point.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)vote, at least now. He's the only successor to Ron Paul now that Rand screwed up so badly.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Yes.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)And breathe. Lol. I appreciate this rant thread. It is doing me good. Thank you. And love you always woman.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)
griffi94
(3,733 posts)The hue & cry from Team Bernie is no reason to
allow our political opponents to pick our nominee.
How would this work out in a year with an uncontested GOP primary.
No Bernie didn't want to join but did so to run for the nomination.
His supporters didn't register so the can't vote in a closed primary.
All they had to do was register. It didn't even cost anything
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)were not willing to put in the effort. Shit, the Sanders campaign, in his huge rallies should have been having conversations about it so those uninterested in taking 5 minutes to educate themselves, had Sanders telling them. Even he did not do his homework. Wtf? Not my problem.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)Too many impulse voters involved with Bernies revolution.
They seem to be challenged when it comes to planning and as you said
why wasn't there a team from Bernies campaign stressing this as soon as
Bernie entered the race.
They brag about the numbers at rallies and how many followers on social media.
How hard is it to register.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If they took all that keyboard bullshitting time, and applied it to going down to town hall and registering to vote, they'd make more of a difference.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)griffi94
(3,733 posts)Florida picked Hillary by close to that same number.
That's why each state gets delegates. Bernie is losing the delegates by a huge margin.
State by state Bernie is losing.
Delegate count Bernie is losing
Popular vote Bernie is losing
The fact that Bernie had some big wins doesn't negate Hillarys big wins.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)the Greens select their candidate, and if someone wants to run independent, then file appropriately.
I don't understand where this sense of entitlement comes from - that independents feel they can jump into any party primary where they feel the urge.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)then re-register as Democrats.
You're right tho no just showing up and impulse swarming our primary.
All in it together
(275 posts)And throw off our Democratic roles anyone we don't want voting. And don't try to attract any similar minded Independents or the unregistered cause we only want Democratic candidates who get the big money from corporations and Billionaires, so they can pass it on around the party. And even if many people get fed up with the system and stop voting, it won't matter cause we don't care, we are Democrats by God and you aren't.
Thanks but I think it's crazy wrong. My poor bought and paid for party.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)have been addressing this for some time. The person not in the mix has been Sanders. he talks about it, but that is as far as he goes.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)Why didn't the Bernie voters find out what they needed to do to vote.
All the Democrats who voted did that.
I feel pretty confident that if this had worked in Bernies favor
there wouldn't be nearly as much outrage from Team Bernie.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the information to ensure I would be in a position to vote for Clinton. I told my son, a first time voter, to do the same. He did. He voted. I voted. Not a tough one. We do have some responsibilities as voters, I believe.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)I moved to a new precint last year after being in my old one for 12 years.
First thing I did after I got unpacked was re-register to vote and
find out where my polling place was.
That was April 2015.
Because I knew there was an election this year and that I wanted to vote in it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Bernie is going to lose and they can't accept it.
So they've been coming up with all manner of rationalizations as to why Bernie actually won.
Southern states don't count. Women and minorities are low info voters. The DNC and state Dem parties set up rules decades ago to ensure Hillary would win in 2016.
And now its ... "well, if we let non-Dems pick the dem nominee, THEN Bernie would win!!!"
Its all silly.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)the whole conversation would be different right now.
He'd still have an uphill battle but if he had kept her lead closer or even won in NY, the whole conversation would be about @Clinton on the ropes@ and Sanders momentum.
And if the party registration date were not so far back that if most people who had never heard of Sanders but have come to support him could have voted in that primary....That would have been possible.
Those are not excuses. Those are the facts.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Here's one ...
IF Bernie supporters got off their assess back in 2011, and spent their time building up a slate of candidates that they found "acceptably liberal", rather than blathering on about how they wanted a primary opponent against Obama, and doing nothing but complaining about him for the next 4 years, their preferred candidate would have been well known long before last October.
The reality is that the "movement" didn't even want Bernie. Around 2014 they started to try and draft Warren. She didn't want the job, so Bernie finally stepped in.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)to demonize Warren...Ironically in their convoluted way, they'd be calling her a Republican and a far left radical at the same time.
And @Warren has a problem with women@ and other choice tidbits.
And how the left doesn't know what it is doing and is so inept, no matter high a percentage of votes she won (similar to the criticisms of Sanders).
Gimme a break.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Strong argument there.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)A few of the people we invited into the tent, along with some who slid in and wave a false flag but in fact support a completely different agenda, are making a lot of noise right now.
If they were serious, they'd have SERIOUSLY started their own party, grown it from the local level, and mounted a realistic challenge. But that takes TIME, that takes EFFORT, and that takes PERSONAL SACRIFICE of PERSONAL CASH.
They like to complain, but they don't want to do the work of firing up their own organization--they'd rather co-opt someone else's, and then get mad, after shitting on our carpet, that we're not more gracious hosts...!
Count the days! Come on, Tuesday!
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Couldn't have said it better...
griffi94
(3,733 posts)Bernie fans are like a hitchhiker who is now pissed
that you won't give him the car keys.
MADem
(135,425 posts)
VROOOOOM!
And buy him lunch.
And then thank him for helping you out lol.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)To suggest otherwise, as Democrats are vastly in agreement the direction of our Democratic party. That is when the sly comment, "We the people" is used. Like all the votes for Clinton are not part of the "We the people".
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Right, you'd be blaming Bernie for Trump's election come November the way you blame Nader for Gore's loss.
You guys are putting a lot of blame on people for thinking ideologically rather than strategically. It looks like over the years a lot of people have left the democratic party because they thought it left them, and don't tell me it doesn't look far different than it did under Carter. The problem is they probably should have stayed and fought for it.
There's just no room for 3 parties in our system. If there were some sort of runoff voting, where people were allowed to vote for their second preference, maybe we could break that stranglehold, but all that 3rd parties do is to ensure that their watered down establishment versions lose in the General. I still respect decisions like Nader's to campaign within a third party on the grounds of principle and the hopes that the national conversation will be pulled in the right direction, but looking at the backlash just here in DU even years later, I can tell that establishment sympathizers are quite happy to ignore the principles and cast him as a demon for his role in the 2000 election. The media, as part of the establishment is happy to cast him as a cranky and esoteric spoiler as well.
So what good did he do really, except to allow you guys to make your case to the American people that third parties are responsible for all the ills in the world. Now you want somebody to run as a third party candidate? Fucking disingenuous bullshit.
So there are all these voters that either never joined the Democratic Party (but would have if it cared about economic and social issues the way it used to), or left it, who can't vote now to propel the candidate they believe in forward, and you're fine with that, and even vindictive about it. Yay democracy right? Its reduced down to strategic calculations rather than idealogical principles. No D on your Jersey? Go fuck yourself! We root for the team we get!!! RA RA RA !!!
MADem
(135,425 posts)When there are Green mayors (that's an S--don't point me to one outlier or two and call it a trend) at the US Mayor's conference, I'll take the Green Party seriously. When there are Green Governors at the National Governor's Conference, I'll take the Green Party seriously.
Until then, they'll be Every-Four-Year Spoilers and scolds. WAAAH. Pay Attention To US! They come out of the woodwork quadrennially and after raising a stink, a few unicorn riders jump on the bandwagon because it sounds "cool" and "different," and then they Q-U-I-T, like they always do, until they resurrect themselves every four years to whine and cry about how no one takes them seriously, because they don't do a doggone thing to grow their party outside of the DRAMA of the national contests. NO ONE is going to do it FOR them. And it--to quote Porgie-- is "Hard WERK." It's not going to come from wishing and hoping....it's going to come from slogging and failure and falling down and getting up again. But VERY FEW people are doing this--they only come to life when it is a national race. No organization, no unity, no purpose, no drive. At the end of the day....? NO RESULTS.
Oh boy, here comes Jill Stein...AGAIN. She's got two races--Governor of MA, and POTUS. Like clockwork. But at least she's held (or tried for) a few local slots, which is more than I can say for most Greens I've met. They want the way cleared for them--what they don't seem to understand is that they have to DO IT THEMSELVES.
No one is going to do it FOR them. But people who say ugly, petulant shit like your words "No D on your Jersey? Go fuck yourself! We root for the team we get!!! RA RA RA !!! " sure expect it to be handed to them on a silver platter.
Get your act together and go GET it if you want it. Lead, follow or step aside--your choice. And, fair warning--it's not going to happen overnight.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)make third parties sound illegitimate. You don't see a problem with party viability being beholden to the most powerful industries? All it is to you is a matter of hard work when you're going up against those kinds of players?
National elections offer exposure. As expensive as they are, they give Sanders and others the biggest microphone ...thus the biggest opportunity to influence the national discourse on the issues these candidates or parties care about. That's why I contributed to the Sanders campaign early on, not because I thought Sanders would ever win the nomination, and I'm hoping it has a lasting effect to push these liberal issues, and speak truth to things that no realistic candidate for President has been willing to touch in a long long time.
I'm expecting Bernie to take his campaign all the way to the end, and I'm expecting him to turn his political capital into a platform for down-ticket candidates, both inside and outside of the Democratic Party. I hope people who want to pull America left do it from within the Democratic Party rather than outside of it, because I think its a more viable strategy, but I'm fine with Bernie giving shout outs to independent candidates as well if they're fighting the right fight.
I love the "unicorn riders" shit coming from democrats like yourself. You're basically saying the stuff we want will never happen because it doesn't and won't have enough public support, and then you and a huge chunk of the party make that a self-fulfilling prophecy by railing against revolutionary changes. It would be nice if you just stuck with "this is why we won't support it" rather than pretending that "it's great and all but...unicorns ...."
MADem
(135,425 posts)You made all that up. I said nothing of the sort.
You can either have a conversation with me, or have one with yourself--but I won't tolerate your fiction being shopped as my POV.
You want it? GO GET IT. It's up to you. Stop blaming others and get to work. There were no "Republicans" once upon a time, either. Nor were there Democrats. Someone got off their ass and went to work.
Give it a try--or keep whining and doing nothing. I really don't care.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)assigned, when there is no such thing. Then a person is expected to argue what wasn't said. How stupid is that and what a waste of time.
I hear you. And good for you saying this out loud. I stop at the so you.... too. I also stop at the first lie. So what you are saying is you are good with killing babies.
What?
Thanks for this post.
MADem
(135,425 posts)losing!
It's a way to cast off those bitter frustrations and angry feelings...set up a victim with a load of invented bullshit, then pummel that bullshit to death like it proves something.
It's really the most uncivil thing a person can do, so I will point it out when I see it.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)in good faith: that is what I think you or some of the loudest Hillary supporters on this board are saying, even if you or they don't mean to be saying it. If I got something wrong more helpful would have been to point out why I'm wrong.
I suggest you stop taking credit then for what's already been built for you, as if you did all that work, and stop pretending that all it takes for something to happen is hard work. It is truly disingenuous or naive to assume that creating a viable party today is the same as creating two of the earliest parties way back near the dawn of the nation.
For the record you're putting words into my mouth. Who am I blaming, and for what precisely? If you're talking about me pointing out problems with our system that make third parties unviable, and money king, I would suggest that recognizing the problem, and getting more people to recognize it, IS the first step to doing something about it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)make third parties sound illegitimate. You don't see a problem with party viability being beholden to the most powerful industries? All it is to you is a matter of hard work when you're going up against those kinds of players?
National elections offer exposure. As expensive as they are, they give Sanders and others the biggest microphone ...thus the biggest opportunity to influence the national discourse on the issues these candidates or parties care about. That's why I contributed to the Sanders campaign early on, not because I thought Sanders would ever win the nomination, and I'm hoping it has a lasting effect to push these liberal issues, and speak truth to things that no realistic candidate for President has been willing to touch in a long long time.
I'm expecting Bernie to take his campaign all the way to the end, and I'm expecting him to turn his political capital into a platform for down-ticket candidates, both inside and outside of the Democratic Party. I hope people who want to pull America left do it from within the Democratic Party rather than outside of it, because I think its a more viable strategy, but I'm fine with Bernie giving shout outs to independent candidates as well if they're fighting the right fight.
I love the "unicorn riders" shit coming from democrats like yourself. You're basically saying the stuff we want will never happen because it doesn't and won't have enough public support, and then you and a huge chunk of the party make that a self-fulfilling prophecy by railing against revolutionary changes. It would be nice if you just stuck with "this is why we won't support it" rather than pretending that "it's great and all but...unicorns ...."
The last paragraph is especially rich because it's the OPPOSITE, completely, of what I was saying.
Parties are PRIVATE CLUBS. Anyone can start one. If you want it--and there are plainly enough devoted Twenty Seven Dollar fans out there--get off your collective asses, stop talking and whining, and DO IT. You say you've got the numbers, the momentum, etc....get going. Otherwise, stop trying to crap on everyone else's parade.
Come Tuesday, you'll have motivation to decide because at that point it will be pretty clear that your candidate's ability to overcome a vast deficit will be pretty much impossible.
Do you want to grow 'your' party? Or do you want to continue to gripe about how the "PTB" prevented you from forming a private organization with a pile of "followers?"
See, that's where the rubber meets the road. It's real easy to go to the rally with your buds and wave a sign--it's harder to do the tiresome old no-glory things like drive people to the polls for a quirky little downticket election, field and fund candidates for those elections, donate time and money to getting them out there and KNOWN. There's no glory in that, and you can come here to DU and boast about your local election success, and no one will really give a shit--they'll say "That's nice" and move on.
But that's how you grow and sustain--by doing that sloggy, unimportant stuff at the LOCAL level.
It's not always about Every Four Years. Parties that are successful KNOW this.
And as for the convention, there will be ONE vote--and Clinton will win it. Then it's on to a November election, and a January inauguration.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Open primaries give a better indication of who wins in the general, since it is closer to the general election electorate.
Closed primaries are fantastic for attempting to build a party machine, since you have to show fealty to the party leadership in order to have a chance in the primary.
merrily
(45,251 posts)You seem like the same Jeff I've known for the last couple of years. Do I seem the same to you?
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Strikes me as the height of victimization but, maybe that is just me 
I suggest if someone feels shame they analyze exactly WHY it is that they feel it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)deliberately? I don't know.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)96. That is, just on you.
if you meant YOU then you would have written it: "maybe that is just me"
but, you didn't.
you are a twisted piece of work, you are.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I am agreeing with you that yes, ..... "maybe that is just me".
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)You then state maybe it is on you.
I agree, your choice interpretation of whatever.... is on you. So, we agree on that, but I am pretty damn sure you were being snarky, when you said.... "maybe on me"
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)TDale313
(7,820 posts)Personally I like how California handles it. Semi-open. You can vote in the Dem primary if you're a registered Dem or No Party Preference. If you're registered to another political party, then no- but the timeframe to reregister is pretty reasonable. It makes sense to me.
All in it together
(275 posts)With the name Independent in it. That's kinda rotten. Must re register or not vote in primary.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)People seeing the "Independent" in the name and thinking they're registering Independent. Not sure there's a good way around that besides banning that word in a party name. Luckily people are getting the word out.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)if it's not your candidate.
Isn't that the same argument the Bernie or Busters make.
Bernies supporters shouldn't get any special waivers on the rules.
The Democratic voters in closed primary states should not have thei choice
of candidate set aside by a swarm of impulse voters.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Not even close, but good job catapulting the propaganda.
So, does Brock pay by the post or is an hourly gig?
griffi94
(3,733 posts)Your response is to accuse me of being a paid poster.
The goal of a party machine is to win elections.
Nobody has a right to vote in a partys primary if they're not a member of that party.
The members of the Democratic Party have the right to choose who they want their candidate to be.
Without being at the mercy of unaffiliated impulse voters or spoiler candidates.
Every registered Democrat in NY was allowed to vote.
The rules have been in place for years. Bernies indie supporters
should have learned the rule if they intended to vote.
Bernie wanted to borrow the Democratic Party machine when it suited him.
The Party leaders allowed him to do thei.
The least Bernie should have done was find out the rules state to state and informed his
potential voters in each state what the rules were.
Bernie doesn't seem to have prepared for this very well.
That doesn't entitle him to special rules or a do over.
What exactly is your argument?
It seems to be Bernie lost. NO fair.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I just wrote a post about this kind of a comment.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)and then seek confirmation that it is your actual position.
Much better to act offended. That way you don't have to accept the results of your position.
Enjoy the results of your machine. And keep in mind, the machine doesn't give a damn whether you like those results.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)no reason for me to participate.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Keep trying to turn it into a personal fight instead of looking at what your policies have wrought over the last 40 years.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Hence, stopping conversation when someone does that to me.
You stated I was offended. Another unknown that you tried to assign to me. I am not offended. I think it is disrespectful you interacting with me in that manner, hence,... me saying what I did.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yay! Now we can both whine about how utterly terrible those evil, awful, disgusting posts.
Again, the policies you espouse above have a result: Machine politics that result in things like the Iraq War, ramping up the war on drugs, gutting welfare, support for free trade deals, and so on.
You will face those consequences, whether or not you want to talk about them.
Disrespect is inherently offensive.
How fine do you want to try to split this hair in order to avoid the real-world consequences of your choices?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)dismiss what I said that had no interesting of what I actually think or believe.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)or anybody else, choosing your candidate in closed "elections."
Just have the common decency to stop pretending it is democratic, and follow the following standards
1.- Since it is a PRIVATE party affair, as established by law, during several lawsuits, YOUR PARTY pays for it. I mean the full thing, No use of state voting machines, No use of state resources in any way shape or form.
2.- Stop telling us these are elections, They are not. They are party functions, If you decide to chose your candidate in a smoke filled room, (like CO did for the Rs actually) have the decency to admit it and own it.
3.- Secretary of state positions should no longer be partisans posts anywhere, but career civil service.
4.- Partisan registrations should be handled by the parties, not the state.
5.- Voter registration should not be partisan, because we the voters, will not have a roll in any way, shape or form, in deciding party standards for anybody. Unless of course you join the club and are invited to participate. That should be fully the party not the state. So you handle THOSE ROLLS, mkay.
If any party decides to have open elections, then and ONLY then can they use government funds or government facilities. Oh and this should be done nationwide, IF a party choses to close elections in one state, all states should follow in the name of transparency.
Deal?
Hey, look on the bright side, less than 10 percent of what in any way, shape or form, would be the voting public will particiapte. No interference in the process as you call it, from any outsiders. But you pay for it. And do stop pretending you want a democratic process with a small D of course, becuase you do not. On the bright side, no votes will have to be rigged. or the impression of such will exist, because the whole process will be internal and should NOT be open to the press. So if you want to chose a candidate by divination, by all means.
Oh and this is NOT a new discussion either, so don't blame Sanders. YOUR PARTY and the Rs go though this cyclicly. But the last time you did this shit, MOST voters in the country were still registered with either major party. These days, it is the Decline to State voters, and I am starting to think we really are not wanted at any stage of the process, that includes the General.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that is the ultimate goal though...and if they follow through, they are sure to anger voters, I personally will start advocating for this with the legislature. My state does have in the constitution provisions about gifts of tax money to private parties.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)not democratic? If everyone who is registered D gets to vote on who the D party wants as its nominee, that is the very essence of democracy. All who are eligible, get to vote. (And that is why caucuses are horribly undemocratic, of course.)
Or do you also want to give Mexicans and Canadians the right to vote in US General Elections?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The fact this has to be explained speaks to the poor civics education. This is a closed affair...not open. It meets in no way international standards of universality or transparency. Parties around the world chose party standards in closed elections. They do have the common decency to admit they are not democratic elections.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)The US has a much more democratic way of choosing their candidates than many democratic nations. In Norway, it is party business, and even if you are a member of the party, you have no direct say in who the party chooses as their party leader, who is also the candidate for prime minister.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that is a reality
You can close them all... but have the common decency to stop calling them democratic. They are not. And as I said, if the democratic party wants to close them, and read entrails for all I care, by all means. Just do not call them democratic.
And by the way, I don't want as a tax payer to pay for your closed private party affair.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)No election that lets everyone vote is closed and by your words, undemocratic. I think that is nonsense, but there you have it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)pretty simple, but I now understand that these pretty simple concepts from political science are too complicated for partisans.
Currently the system is more "open" than it was in 1972, but it is far from democratic
Here, this article from the Christian Science Monitor might help
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0421/Closed-primaries-warped-democracy
Choice words in there "PARTIES ARE NOT DEMOCRATIC."
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)That is the measure by which elections are measured. Can those eligible to vote, vote? Can those who want to be eligible, be eligible? In the Democratic nomination process, the answer is yes. So being closed doesn't make them any less democratic than when the General Election is closed to non-citizens. Yes, the things decided in the nomination election have an effect wider than the constituency, but so does the GE, for example. Many a time I heard Norwegians claim they should have a vote against Bush, "because his decisions affect us too."
Things that makes elections less democratic are poll taxes, or physically restricting voting, like in caucuses. Delineating a constituency does not. Everyone can vote in a primary, after all. That they can't vote in a party in which they are not a member is no different than being unable to vote for a senator in a state in which they do not live.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Keep believing that...sweet propaganda. They are not, by any credible standard of open elections.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Elections are set in political science. If you want to close all of them do so, just don't pretend they are democratic with a small d.
Now I know neither national party runs transparent and open elections. It is the next revelation of how corrupt the system is.
But this fantasy is still useful. So keep the fantasy. I understand the reality. And yes, definitions do matter
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)education.
The point about Mexican's and Canadians voting in our elections is a good one. What the US Government does affects the people of Mexico and Canada to a large extent so why shouldn't they have a voice? I mean, if we are for open elections where everyone who has a stake gets to vote.
While we are at it, why shouldn't people in California vote for each of the NY delegation (or any other states delegation) to the US House of Representatives? Those members of congress vote on laws that directly affect the people in California. But we don't allow that. We don't because those members of congress are supposed to represent the people in those congressional districts.
Party nominees aren't that different. They are supposed to represent the views of the people who are members of that party. And no closed party elections are not non-democratic. Those who are not affiliated with a party are perfectly allowed to try to nominate their own candidates and can allow anyone to vote for them.
The gyrations by some Sanders supporters on a number of topics has reached a level of silliness that had anyone told me a year ago it would reach I would not have believed them.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But thanks for playing Steven
For the record I consider US elections as compromised as Mexican elections.
Look on the bright side, we use the same software packages!!!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Of election, but elections which since 2000 have suffered multiple points of failure, yes I can trust them as far as I can throw central tabulators.
And primaries do not meet any standard of being democratic, so parties should be honest and stop pretending. Ultimate objective though is to suppress the vote with any election. I would say voting rates are going to the drink, so that is successful
So yes, rocks and pinions, thanks for indeed playing
And as far as I am concerned all elections are now suspect. I am back to my cynical attitude of voting...ER "voting" to remain in practice, for the day that maybe they will matter. They are for show.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)None of this would be an issue if Bernie wasn't losing.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Don't stop believing!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)If "our BEST Democrat" has to lie and cheat to win the nomination, then the Democrats DESERVE to lose in the general.
Frankly, I care fuckall if you agree or not.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)has been made by the primary voters.
Hillary has a delegate lead that Bernie can't catch
and 3 million more popular votes.
So there wasn't a single appointer of who the best option was.
It was millions of Democrats who flat out
rejected Bernie.
MADem
(135,425 posts)31. Who the fuck appointed you to decide who is "our BEST Democrat?"
View profile
If "our BEST Democrat" has to lie and cheat to win the nomination, then the Democrats DESERVE to lose in the general.
Frankly, I care fuckall if you agree or not.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)It's antisocial behavior.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)philosophical declarations about 'voter integrity' and 'big tent' drop away and we're left with "Ya yaya ya ya you've got a candidate who lies and cheats'. Yep. Bet she has cooties, too.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Response to seabeyond (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)party. They can call it the "socialist" party or some such. If they think this party is corrupt, why are they here attending? Because they intend to take it over. Something that isn't their's. But taking control of things that do not belong to them is what socialism is all about. "Democratic socialism" is an oxymoron.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)give it time, or if the Rs completely flip, they will replace the Ds as the party of labor. It has happened in the past. Parties do realign every so often. But you still need the pesky left to win THIS YEAR and you are doing a splendid job of really keeping them out.. so if they decide to sit on their hands in November, don't blame them, The realignment is not complete, that is all. And we both know you hate labor and the middle class, really you do... statements like this one prove it.
View profile
party. They can call it the "socialist" party or some such. If they think this party is corrupt, why are they here attending? Because they intend to take it over. Something that isn't their's. But taking control of things that do not belong to them is what socialism is all about. "Democratic socialism" is an oxymoron.
^^^^^
Oh this is really basic political theory and history, This is the 6th time this happens in the US. I predicted this oh over 10 years ago on the old DU. Call it being ahead of the times, or being very good as a political observer.
Though I did post this agreement with your position though.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1817342
Myself I will start addressing my legislature about this. You want to have private party affair, I should not pay for it.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)of the republican party. Thanks for asking.
kpola12
(78 posts)Democratic by definition all inclusive one person one vote. True Democrats will refuse to be Republican Lite.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)so don't even try that one.
And I agree with you, YOIU SHOULD CHOSE YOUR PARTY STANDARD, but you pay for it, and stop pretending it is democratic, with a small d of course. It is not.
For all I care, your party (and anybody else) can use divination.
inchhigh
(384 posts)About misunderstanding the values of your party so badly that you're unable to realize she in't a democrat.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I hear very little about the reasons from Clinton supporters.
But we're going to have a democratic candidate regardless. My strong preference is Sanders.
She's not our BEST democrat, she just has the most influence.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)You signed on, you deserve to feel shamed. No one wants to hear you crying.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Thank God some of them at least FEEL it regardless of HOW they get there.
jmousso75
(71 posts)When? When the democratic party became as morally corrupt as the republican party and when they threw the middle class under the bus starting with Bill Clinton
Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)It's a simple concept and not too much to ask.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts) insta8er
(960 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)insta8er
(960 posts)
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There may well be insightful posts, but my eyes just glaze over at that word. What the hell does it mean?
katsy
(4,246 posts)be exclusive to party members.
But who pays for these elections? Taxpayers? In that case, indys should have a primary also. Maybe have all candidates, all parties on the ballot and let them have their say also.
That would give us a better idea of what the voters are looking for.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but that is not what they want. And by that I mean multiple parties. This is not exclusive to Ds. And as long as I pay for it. If we stop paying for closed elections, By all means, have then completely sealed off.
For some reason they don't like that.
katsy
(4,246 posts)You know it.
The corruption is astounding.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but I do not count on my "vote" counting anymore, so I pretend to "vote."
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This presumption makes me remember you in the old days, bellowing against marriage equality 'cause tradition and the Bible. That sort of mindset never changes here you are still preaching at and trying to order others to obey you. So tied of straight moderates and their arrogant, bigoted worldviews.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)No one expects you to apologize or justify, why would you think that?
No, we're not in "an alternative universe here."
So much drama.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)nope, you explained it perfectly well!
Now, the responder's word salad is a whole 'nuther story. 
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Like in a (gasp!) democracy.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
awake
(3,226 posts)I want our party run by people who are for the working people of this country not sell outs to Wallstreet Bankers. Hillary is a Democrat In Name Only better know as a DINO. So yes let us put up our best candidate this fall not Hillary.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)awake
(3,226 posts)Like the 120,000 in Brooklyn alone not to mention Arazonia ect....
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)all of those were because of lapsed registrations, or not responding to official letters requiring them to verify they were still at that address, etc.
Of the 126,000 Democratic voters taken off from the rolls in Brooklyn, Ryan said 12,000 had moved out of borough, while 44,000 more had been placed in an inactive file after mailings to their homes bounced back. An additional 70,000 were already inactive and, having failed to vote in two successive federal elections or respond to cancel notices, were removed.
No election board, particularly for any area as large as a borough of New York City can afford not to update their rolls. It's inefficient and costs way too much. This was normal verification of voters, not something nefarious. But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)like other places that did it more regularly. Brooklyn did not get the 70k off when they were suppose to leaving that bigger number, doing it now. Not, the fact that it was done.
Correct?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)and over again about "VOTER SUPPESSION" yadda yadda yadda. 
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It can never be SIMPLE! There's always got to be some nefariousness afoot!
Either someone cheated, the "PTB" "rigged the system," or "the poor didn't vote" (don't use that one in SC) or "Bill Clinton gummed up the works!"
It's never "You didn't reach enough people with your message," or "You failed to convince voters that you had a better idea." Gotta pull out that VICTIM card and play it for all it's worth!
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Tuesday. After that, all this conspiracy pushing will not be worth the electrons it's written on.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)KPN
(15,643 posts)Those who respond with flippant answers like "When it is bad for our country" are complicit in a system that works against the common person in favor of corporations and the wealthy. They have a hard time seeing the underlying problem with our current system either because it has worked well for them, they have always followed and believed in the existing institutions (what some refer to as "goodie two shoes types" who never rock the boat), or they are just ignorant of the truth.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Gothmog
(145,168 posts)
Arkana
(24,347 posts)and instead started voting for the guy with the D next to their names, no matter how politically reprehensible they were.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lakeguy
(1,640 posts)some day, maybe, people will vote for ideas and not labels. or not.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)The current Prez even said: Obama says he'd be seen as moderate Republican in 1980s.
Hillary is touting herself as Obama 3.0.
I didn't care for moderate R's then or now.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)We WANT a real Democrat. Hillary's got a D by her name, but she's acts more like the Republicans from the 70s, 80s, and 90s, before they went completely batshit.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)could vote in D party primary against Mrs. Clinton?
Autumn
(45,066 posts)someone who isn't a corporate fan.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)be the anointing.
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)What the Democrats have is like my granddaughter's softball league. Every team has it's own rules and every game is played by the home team's rules.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)mcar
(42,307 posts)
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)patience grasshopper, when we go into GE mode the DU will return to us Democrats.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to comprehend.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Besides I will be happy to pull the lever for either nominee...so all this divisive infighting is really noticeable to me. You should never be shamed for wanting to vote for HRC...some people on this site have sunk way below concern trolling...saying vile and disgusting things about both our candidates!
I like Bernie, he will crush wall street. I like HRC, she is going to destroy what is left of the GOP.
I win either way imo. We all win.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I am glad to hear you can pull the lever regardless. Me, too.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Ted Cruz would start WWIII and Trump would sell what is left of America to the Russians! All my life, I've only seen ONE party push forward progressive legislation. It was OUR party sea! The Democratic Party.
So people trying to shame you for voting for HRC...can go fk themselves. IMNSHO.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
Rex
(65,616 posts) Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Its not over, a lot of people would still like to vote, and we've got a couple months to the convention.
I believe that if HRC is the nominee- and I suspect she will be- Sanders will endorse her.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Nominee.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)certainly wasn't either.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)They are all on the same team in the end. We just have to remain objective enough to remember we are too. Sanders has shaken the foundations of the status quo, the next question is where he and the younger generation go with it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Obama. I learned about PUMA after the fact. Actually, really, when people started calling me it with this campaign, lol. Like... WTF are you talking about. It was used as a jab if any woman talked about Clinton, positively, by just a handful of men. Then I dawned on me. Sanders is the PUMA of 2016. And the polls are proving it out. the vast majority of his supporters, like 80% will vote for Clinton. Just as Clinton supporters voted for Obama.
The PUMA is pretty insignificant and small number, probably would not have voted anyway.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Yeah you are right, the PUMA stuff was just people blowing off steam. It made me rollmyeyes a lot, but hey we ended up with an awesome POTUS and now get a second one...that doesn't happen often in history, back to back same party two termers and I def think HRC will be another 2 termer like Bill and Obama.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I think that the party will come together this year, too.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Ashamed to admit it, though.. I've only been to the Seattle area once.
May sound strange coming from an Oregonian, but I find it a bit too rainy up there 
I guess one thing I would ask myself is, would you rather have no state income tax or no sales tax? Then there are the people who live close to the WA/OR border who take advantange of both, the fiends.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)there. Appreciate it. Port Angeles is a little small for me, but right on the ocean, a clean tourist town and I always feel good in those places. (Carmel). Olympia is larger and by Seattle and Tacoma.
I have time.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)There is something really calming - for me, at least - about being near it, i have found. 
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)are small and do not seems really nifty well put together towns. Eugene would be an easy two or three hour drive to the ocean, which isn't bad. Living in Texas, we are use to driving distance to go anywhere. So Eugene is an equal consideration for Oregon.
Thank you for chatting about this. Lol.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And with it, of course, a lot more hippies.
http://www.oregoncountryfair.org
I try to go some years but havent made it in a while. Its fun, though, if one likes that sort of scene. 
Anyway, yeah, im pretty burned out on the primary stuff, myself. Its like listening to my kids fight in the back seat.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)My people. Not who I am, but real comfortable with them. Entertaining, anyway, lol. And harmless.
Oh.... I miss it so. Sigh.
Soon.
My oldest loves Eugene because of the running tracks, ... EVERYWHERE. He is a distance runner. The runner dude that use to live there and nikies and all. A very fit people, even old. Body weight way down in that area. That would be the area I choose if I want summer, more like the area I live in, climate wise.
But, three good choices. Port Angeles, Olympia or Eugene.
beedle
(1,235 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beedle
(1,235 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)LAS14
(13,783 posts)Sanders is reaping the benefits without having helped build the support structure. Yeah, I'm OK with Democrats choosing the Democratic nominee.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Sanders has made a huge impact on the party, however young folks got to get energized and out to vote since they are the least likely group to do so. Millennial voters could change the outcome of this election.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)I hope they'll stay around and work.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Showing them we are for their betterment. For their future.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)in this time. The difference is the contaminating of the Democratic Party in the process. In the past, our youth were always revved. I am bothered that Sanders may of turned this cycle of our first time voters off. I think he had a greater responsibility and failed in this. I say this with a lot of first time voters in my life. First time voters, that I want to continue to participate thru out their life.
Rex
(65,616 posts)for HRC. They are excited and seem to cancel out this vile meme I keep hearing in Internetland about HRC turning off young voters. I have nieces that cannot WAIT to vote...they are ecstatic and love HRC.
A lot of people say HRC will take the south...yeah that also means GOP women that are fed up with that party and voting for HRC, know a lot of them too. South Texas still remembers Ann Richards and sees a lot of her in HRC!
That gives me hope for my state and all the Red states out there under the occupation of GOP wackadoodles.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I am glad to hear this Rex. This is what I get excited about too.
Rex
(65,616 posts)She really thinks HRC has a chance, she sees the finish line. The meme about Bernie pulling in all the young votes...nope, HRC has the young and old excited to vote for her. Both candidates have energized their base and we will need it going up against the Slime Machine Cruz-Trump monster.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)three months. Much more doable.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I don't think there are enough racists and/or fundamentalist-fascists that will vote. They don't have the numbers.
Yes, in 3 months we will be hard to stop. I cannot see the GOP winning the WH for a few generations. Bush-Cheney did that good of a negative PR for their party.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Cept I've been saying the only person that can beat HRC, is herself. After watching the 11 hour witch hunt and HRC brushing that off and making GOP Congress look like pigs...I don't think she will beat herself I think she sees the Oval office already.
Finally a women will sit in the Oval office.
basselope
(2,565 posts)So yes, you are in alternate universe.
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)been a democrat all her adult life. Bernie has been a DINO for a year or two.
basselope
(2,565 posts)LMAO
Riiiight.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)Which only shows how far off the rails the democratic party has gone.
Sanders is considered the MOST LIBERAL member and even he is just moderate compared to where the democratic party once was.
Clinton is no democrat. She is a republican. Just like her husband, just like Obama.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)I know it hurts, but it does explain why the size of the democratic party has shrank so much over the last 20 years.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)The democratic party has shrunk in size, by a sizable number.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)This is the yada yada. This is what I addressed. This is merely no more than YOUR opinion.
basselope
(2,565 posts)This isn't even a debatable point. You just need to look at their records.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)It't not even debatable.
No democrat declared "The era of big government is over"
No democrat got rid of Glass Steagal protections.
No democrat voter for the Iraq war.
No democrat gave us the telecommunications act of 1996 allowing corporate control of media.
No democrat passed the heritage foundations health care plan.
Only a republican could do these things.
JumpinJehosaphat
(22 posts)They do not care about the issues. Just stick a D long enough next to some Pol and that is enough for them.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)as part of the problem. No need to feel shame, but people will disagree with you.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)
--imm
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)But an excellent point, nevertheless.
They call it the Democratic primary for a reason. Established and run by the party which of course sets the rules. If independents want to vote in the primary, get registered!
Bernie did!
vintx
(1,748 posts)Fucking hell. 
