2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFlorida Squeeze: A serious view of what Democrats face in 2016. Won't be easy.
We are seeing a different kind of progressive movement that's not easy to define. It's about Bernie Sanders, but that's only a part.
We're not going to be seeing much (or any) of Bernie in Florida. Can't blame him for that. All the state Democratic leadership appears to be on board with Hillary.
I am noticing though that there have been some well attended local events for Bernie.
Other than that he's hardly mentioned in our local media.
Democrats facing a potentially difficult 2016 with movement progressives
The data breach was by most standards a relatively minor happening that would have simply had a reaction limited to political insiders, data nerds and political press had the DNC not bungled it so badly from a public relations standpoint. The DNCs action inflamed non-political people who are backing Bernie Sanders and tend to see political parties as cartels that do not believe in the normal processes of Democracy.
Whether or not this is fair, a large segment of voters the party depends on feels the deck is stacked against the candidates they favor like Senator Sanders who articulate the views they live by. These are what I call movement progressives. They are motivated by issues particularly economic ones and are not comfortable with the Wall Street ties of the Obama Administration and the Clinton campaign.
Those connected closely to politics support Secretary Clinton, like they did her husband because of the political benefit Democratic administration and the potential for patronage jobs or consulting contracts.
....Political types like to use fear to motivate the Democratic base. Paraphrasing here but basically they say If you dont support this Democrat, youll get a much worse Republican who is a racist that will destroy reproductive rights, push religion, hand everyone guns and ban minorities from advancing in our society before deporting anyone with a foreign sounding name. These fear tactics have long worked as movement progressives felt they needed to play defense and support the lesser of two evils. Closing ranks eventually happens as a worse alternative looms, and the Democratic establishment knows that. However now many progressives are reaching a wits end, meaning the trick may not work this year for the party.
There is a truly good comment in the comments section of the article. It was written by a Florida Democrat I learned to respect very much during the 2004 campaign.
From the comments
(The link to the comment doesn't seem to go straight to the comment I mentioned. I am speaking of the one by David Jones.)
As a lifelong Democrat, I find it appalling that the DNC and the FDP could not find it within themselves to facilitate an even playing field during this election cycle. The chosen line-up of speakers at Leadership Blue and the FDP convention, the limited debate schedule, and both the FDP Chair and Vice Chair signing on as official members of Hillary Clintons Florida Campaign Team has sent a loud and clear message that those candidates who subscribe to the traditional progressive policies that provided social mobility during our nations hey day, are no longer worthy of having their voices heard through official channels of the Democratic party. In doing so, the party leadership has slammed the door in the face of countless young idealists and very well may have mortgaged the future of our party in favor of a less than honorable process designed to advance a watered down political agenda that helps far fewer people than is needed at this juncture in our history.
Way to go, David. A big hand of
abakan
(1,819 posts)MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)Do you consider encouraging others to vote for the Democratic nominee a "trick"?
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)You're comments were rather thin.
MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)Not surprised.
randys1
(16,286 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)the HIllary group for doing it after being blocked by the Bernie group for INSISTING on NOT using DemocRAT...
What she did harmed both candidates.
Not unlike what folks here at DU do all day long.
Way more from Bernie supporters, but the never ending bashing of Hillary has turned some Hillary supporters into equal opportunity bashers.
It was inevitable.
The harm we are doing to ourselves is childish.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)It's politics as usual. Only this time the left is getting louder.
randys1
(16,286 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Surely...
randys1
(16,286 posts)MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)Amazing movie.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Yet, still as much a powerless minority as ever.
So, unbelievably, loud.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Cool, that means my conscious is free no matter what I decide. Thanks I appreciate that.
MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)Guess they're not sure yet.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)the "countless young idealists" and anti-
Third Wayers left the party over the way the DNC and DWS have conducted themselves? It is worth some serious thought as to the damage this country would experience.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)People like you may be the cause of it if it happens.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Most people will happily continue on with their lives after Hillary is elected, and does everything in her power to promote her progressive agenda.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Yes - they are VERY unhappy and so are their parents.
They spend thousands to attend college, go in debt and can't find a decent paying job in their chosen profession. Their parents can't retire and are usually stuck with having to help their adult children.
Yes. We're VERY unhappy.
Also, if she's elected there will be very little "progressive" in her agenda. On social issues, I guess, provided she's evolved enough, but her foreign policy is that of a neocon and her economic policy is status quo for millionaires and billionaires.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Aren't you listing your scapegoats a little early this campaign?
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)That's really big confidence.
tazkcmo
(7,306 posts)And the young folks aren't joining. Neither "major" party is really major. Both have 30% each of registered voters while registered independents are 40% of the registered public.
Judging by some of the responses to your OP, that's fine with some here.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)If the far-left, socialist, anti-capitalists would get out of my party, do you understand what could happen for America?
Do you know how many young republicans hate the way their party treats homosexuals, immigrants, refugees, and the poor - but cannot fathom becoming Democrats because of these same leftists?
If you are a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, there is no place for you in the Bernie Sanders version of the Democratic Party. Even if you support many social programs and have liberal values, if you don't want to burn capitalism to the ground, the Bernouts are going to crucify you and call you a republican.
Trust me. I know.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)contradicts itself and makes no sense.
the spin is incomprehensible - almost like rovian smoke and mirrors. no, i take that back. it is exactly a rovian smoke and mirrors statement.
the wiley coyote is out wiley-ing it's own self.
Kermitt Gribble
(1,855 posts)If it walks like a duck...
You basically admit that you're a republican that supports social equality. And the Democratic Party certainly is not "your party". For 80 years the Democratic Party has stood on the successes of the New Deal and The Great Society, along with Union representation - if you don't support these things, maybe you should concentrate on fixing the republican party.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)I support the New Deal as implemented. I don't support the NIRA, but the NLRA replaced it and was superior. But I don't think the New Deal is what you think it is. It is not fiscally liberal. It is not socialism. It is not left-wing. What is contained in the New Deal are social compacts, not Socialism.
I support the Great Society plan, as it was enacted. The first part of the GS was a major tax cut on the top bracket and business - something no one would considered fiscally liberal. As for the additional social compacts introduced in the GS, while they provide assistance in many different ways, they are funded through flat payroll taxes paid for by all Americans who work, not through a progressive income tax, which is a redistribution system.
As for private sector Unions, you will not find a stronger supporter than myself. I have, and always will, attempt to purchase Union made goods whenever possible. Unlike many on the DU, I have always driven domestic made, union automobiles and advocated that others do the same. The right to organize through a secret ballot election is a fundamental human right. Even FDR (that guy everyone wants to say they love, but turn around and hate on his actual policies) did not believe in union organizations for public sector employees.
So this is, my party. I believe in the thing that the party has long held true. I do not believe in redistribution, punishing high wage earners with a 90+% tax, or blaming every societal ill on those who make more than $380,000 a year.
You who do, have hijacked my party and driven it hard to the left, and used republican talking points (THE NEW DEAL IS SOCIALISM!!!) to make your socialistic positions seem in the vein of FDR.
I suggest you really examine what the New Deal and Great Society plans were about and ask yourself whether what Bernard Sanders has proposed falls into line with those programs, or something else entirely.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...Karl Rove.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Here's something for the DNC to chew on:
"The DNCs action inflamed non-political people who are backing Bernie Sanders and tend to see political parties as cartels that do not believe in the normal processes of Democracy."
It inflamed everybody who realizes the game is being rigged for HRC, Her Royal Clintoness.
randys1
(16,286 posts)farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Oh, that's right, I didn't.
However, the fear card isn't working like it used to. Young people are not going to stay in the very small, shrunken tent the DNC has created.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)Just curious.
randys1
(16,286 posts)teaparty takes over the WH
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)I stand up for women, minorities, and the LGBT community as well.
However, that didn't address the question.
What is it with you wanting loyalty oaths from DUers?
randys1
(16,286 posts)going to vote for the Democrat in the election.
It is a simple question.
Do you understand the psychology of why my asking the question bothers you so much, you and others?
It is a basic question. you can ask me if you want, if I dont want to answer, I wont.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I won't vote for Hillary for anything. I simply don't trust her and can't bring myself to do that. I've held my nose for the last time, which is the point of the OP.
That said, I also live in a solidly red state, so my voting for Jill Stein should Bernie not be the nominee isn't earth shattering and won't change anything.
However, if you're willing to risk an unenthusiastic Democratic base and a very motivated (to vote against her) Republican base in the general election, be my guest, but that opinion doesn't exactly jive with your declaration that you support minorities who could die should a Republican be president.
randys1
(16,286 posts)and my sole issue is NOT voting for ANY dem, let alone prez, is allowing one more vote to count for people who will do such great harm to life on this planet that I cant believe we are having this discussion, again.
Sad
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)as well as immigrants, the discarded working class men, homeless veterans, prisoners in under-staffed facilities without the funding for proper staffing & medical services, the mentally ill who cannot get care - I could probably think of more if I tried.
And both Clintons and (alas) Obama have a responsibility for this legacy. They are not the only parties responsible, but they have supported and enacted policies that contribute to these deaths.
Clinton's much-vaunted "concern" or whatever for children does not extend to the children blown to bloody bits by cluster bombs or drone strikes; her much-vaunted "advocacy" or whatever for women does not even extend to supporting a living-wage.
I fail to see just how a Clinton presidency changes any of that, as she exemplifies the "Third Way" or NeoLib or whatever you want to call the policies that have consistently left ordinary people struggling just to survive and allow the Banksters and our Corporate Overlords suck up the wealth of the world.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)this time in the primary. An actual liberal who wants to fight for the things that dems should fight for, and will win the ge if nominated, and will BTW have a lot of coattails in the down ticket races.
Mrs Clinton's repulsive fans in the press and at du have made it a point to declare daily that they detest Bernie and liberals, and don't want to hear about her conservative politics or her constant pandering. The abuse of liberals by the New Democrats and their sycophants may be reaching critical mass. It needs to happen soon anyway.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)And yes, I think Bernie would fit that role.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)if your candidate can not stand on his/her own record, then use fear, suppress the vote, and use other tactics to try to ensure the win. In this case, it WILL ensure the win...but for the Republican nominee.
If they thought HRC was such a great candidate, they would not assume Republican tactics!
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)Do many of the PTB in the democratic party really
care about the possibility of her losing?
For me the answer has been NO for a long time.
tazkcmo
(7,306 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Those connected closely to politics support Secretary Clinton, like they did her husband because of the political benefit Democratic administration and the potential for patronage jobs or consulting contracts."
Could not have said it better myself, and perfectly explains the split on DU.
I am a Movement Progressive
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Me, too.
FloriTexan
(838 posts)sonofspy777
(360 posts)myself.
gordyfl
(598 posts)mountain grammy
(26,676 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Gloria
(17,663 posts)the GOP has rolled back many progessive things that we need to reclaim and then we need to stabilize.
So, weep about how impure HRC is, let the GOP totally control the Supreme Court and then...screw you.
Grow up. Get a sense of history. Realize that you will help screw us for decades...
This is not a time to go back 40 years in hope of a huge revolution...
We need to save what we have which has been decimated by the GOP....
Please, is there anybody who thinks beyond the siren song of bullshit??
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)You said:
This is not a time to go back 40 years in hope of a huge revolution...
We need to save what we have which has been decimated by the GOP....
It isn't the GOP that has diminished our party. Our party leaders listened to an elite group of thinkers...and they kept on listening and following and listening and following...
They are still doing it today.
I am proud to be an idealist.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)YES!!!! Many Thousands of us who have actually examined the ISSUES, and don't belong to a fan club.
Here is why:
15 Fundamental Differences Between Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and The Republicans:
1. Sanders has served as an elected official for over 34 years. Clinton & most Republicans have not.
2. Sanders has supported gay rights since 40 years ago. Clinton and Republicans have not.
3. Sanders wants to end the prohibition of marijuana. Clinton & The Republicans do not.
4. Sanders wants to end the death penalty. Clinton and Th Republicans do not.
5. Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Clinton and the Republicans do not.
6. Sanders wants to break up the biggest banks. Clinton and The Republicans do not.
7. Sanders voted against the Wall Street bailout. Clinton and the Republicans (and too many "Democrats) did not.
8. Sanders introduced legislation to overturn Citizens United. Clinton and The Republicans did not.
9. Sanders refuses to accept money from super PACs. Clinton and the Republicans do not.
10. Sanders supports a single-payer healthcare system. Clinton and The Republicans do not.
11. Sanders refrains from waging personal attacks for political gains. Clinton and The Republicans do not.
12. Sanders considers climate change our nation's biggest threat. Clinton and The Republicans do not.
13. Sanders opposed the Keystone XL Pipeline since day one. Clinton and the Republicans do not.
14. Sanders voted against the Patriot Act. Clinton and the Republicans did not.
15. Sanders voted against the war in Iraq. Clinton and The Republicans did not.
Hillary sure seems to agree with Republicans a lot.
I don't,
that is why I am a Democrat, and voting for a Democrat....Bernie!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,565 posts)Thanks for the thread, madfloridian.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)just thought that bears repeating.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)If we are thought of at all, it's an after thought.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)They certainly have.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I'm not privileged, either.
I know how I'm voting if Sanders isn't the nominee because I can't see much of a difference anymore except on some social issues. I'll grant that Clinton is to the left on social policy, but her foreign and economic policies are far too "right" for me.