Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

CajunBlazer

CajunBlazer's Journal
CajunBlazer's Journal
January 19, 2016

Do aspects of this remind you of some Du'ers?

From a Wikipedia discussion of Eric Hoffer's book, The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements

"Hoffer states that mass movements begin with a widespread "desire for change" from discontented people who place their locus of control outside their power and who also have no confidence in existing culture or traditions.Feeling their lives are "irredeemably spoiled" and believing there is no hope for advancement or satisfaction as an individual, true believers seek "self-renunciation".Thus, such people are ripe to participate in a movement that offers the option of subsuming their individual lives in a larger collective. Leaders are vital in the growth of a mass movement, as outlined below, but for the leader to find any success the seeds of the mass movement must already exist in people's hearts."

January 19, 2016

Maybe I will post here because I done with the DU Primaries forum

I will continue to post the results of polls, but am not going to try to engage Bernie supporters any more because it it exhausting and a big waste of time.

Just when I think I have seen it all on from the Bernie bunch, something new make my jaw drop. What a bunch of totally unrealistic fanatics.

In some some ways I am reminded of the people described in book which was required reading in one of my college classes many years ago. (I am not talking about all Bernie supporters here, just those who are really out there.) The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements" was written back in 1951 by a social psychologist Eric Hoffer. The book discusses the psychological aspects of the fanaticism of "true believer" movements down through history.

While the most fervent Bernie Supporters may not be a one to one matches for the typical true believers described by Hoffer, the similarities of their attitudes is unmistakable.

If you ever have a chance to read the book, do so. It is a bit dry, but truly eye opening. And maybe it will help you understand the most fanatical Bernie supporters on DU

January 18, 2016

(Updated 1/18/16) Latest Democratic nomination poll results - courtesy of RealClearPolitics.com

Monday, 1/18/16

(No new Democratic primary polls)

Sunday, 1/17/16

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (NBC News/Wall St. Jrl) Clinton 59, Sanders 34, O'Malley 2
Clinton +25

Utah Democratic Presidential Caucus (Salt Lake Tribune/SurveyUSA) Clinton 50, Sanders 40, O'Malley 2
Clinton +10

(No new Democratic primary polls Saturday, 1/16/16 or Friday 1/15/16)

Thursday, 1/14/16:

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (DM Register/Bloomberg) Clinton 42, Sanders 40, O'Malley 4
Clinton +2

Wednesday, 1/13/16


Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (Gravis) Clinton 57, Sanders 36, O'Malley 7
Clinton +21

Tuesday, 1/12/16

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (Quinnipiac) Clinton 44, Sanders 49, O'Malley 4
Sanders +5

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (PPP) Clinton 46, Sanders 40, O'Malley 8
Clinton +6

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (Monmouth) Sanders 53, Clinton 39, O'Malley 5
Sanders +14

Monday, 1/11/16

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (IBD/TIPP) Clinton 43, Sanders 39, O'Malley 2
Clinton +4

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (ARG) Clinton 44, Sanders 47, O'Malley 3
Sanders +3

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (ARG) Sanders 47, Clinton 44, O'Malley 3
Sanders +3

Sunday, 1/10/16

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (NBC/WSJ/Marist) Clinton 48, Sanders 45, O'Malley 5
Clinton +3

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (NBC/WSJ/Marist) Sanders 50, Clinton 46, O'Malley 1
Sanders +4

Saturday, 1/9/16


(No new Democratic primary polls)

Friday, 1/8/16

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (FOX News) Clinton 54, Sanders 39, O'Malley 3
Clinton +15

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (FOX News) Sanders 50, Clinton 37, O'Malley 3
Sanders +13

Thursday, 1/7/16

(No new Democratic primary polls)

Wednesday, 1/6/16

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (PPP) Sanders 44, Clinton 47, O'Malley 3
Clinton +3

California Democratic Presidential Primary (Field) Clinton 46, Sanders 35, O'Malley 1
Clinton +11

(No new Democratic primary polls on 12/31/15 through 1/5/16)

Wednesday, 12/30

Nevada Democratic Presidential Caucus (Gravis) Clinton 50, Sanders 27, O'Malley 1
Clinton +23

(Note: No new Democratic primary polls between 12/23 and 12/30

Wednesday, 12/23

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (CNN/ORC) Clinton 50, Sanders 34, O'Malley 3
Clinton +16

Tuesday, 12/22


2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (Quinnipiac) Clinton 61, Sanders 30, O'Malley 2
Clinton +31

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (Rasmussen Reports) Clinton 46, Sanders 30, O'Malley 7
Clinton +16

Monday, 12/21/15

(No new Democratic primary polls)

Sunday, 12/20/15

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (CBS News/YouGov) Clinton 50, Sanders 45, O'Malley 4
Clinton +5

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (CBS News/YouGov) Sanders 56, Clinton 42, O'Malley 1
Sanders +14

South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary (CBS News/YouGov) Clinton 67, Sanders 31, O'Malley 2
Clinton +36
January 17, 2016

Ideas are not enough

I cannot visualize Bernie Sanders as President, and really believe that a majority of American voters will feel as I do. I like Bernie and his idea and goals have merit, but ideas and goals are not enough.

If you are real progressive, Bernie has wonderful ideas, but many of those supporting Sanders on this board are far to the left of the vast majority of those who will be casting votes next November. (I don't believe that point is up for debate.) Whether we like it or not, those who will decide this election are in the political center or even center right and they are very suspicious of politicians they view as being too far to the right or the left. They are not people given to extremes of any sort.

The primary goal of any political party entering a national election is winning. All else has to take a back seat to that goal because the platforms and ideology of a party not in power will not see the light of day. The Republicans seem destined to nominate either a reality show star who has managed to insult every political group necessary to win the general election or disruptive politician who is far too conservative to suit those who decide which candidate will occupy the White House. The best hope of Trump or Cruz is for us to nominate someone who will disturb that critical faction of the American electorate as much as the Republican candidate.

In addition, I fear for the future of our Party if Bernie Sanders were to win the nomination and the general election. As other have pointed out, the Republicans are certain to maintain their domination of the House and will be able to prevent votes on any legislation in the Senate regardless of which party wins control of that body. If Republican Congressmen currently view President Obama as the enemy, they would view Bernie as the Satan incarnate and make damn sure he accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Bernie is a crusty old politician not known for his stellar relations with his colleagues and he is certainly not one to compromise - his most ardent supporters view compromise as a repudiation of their values. Therefore Bernie's best proposals would go absolutely nowhere. The American people already sick and tired of a government which is not able to address the country's problems. Not only would Bernie's term a President be wasted, the county's anger with dysfunctional government would reach a boiling point. Bernie would almost certainly would not be reelected and his tenure would probably pave the way for the next President to be a Republican.

In the real world of deeply partisan politics, having good ideas and convictions are not enough to be successful politician on the national stage. A successful President must also be a superb politician crafty enough to turn good ideas into reality despite formidable opposition. If you want an example of such a politician, think of Bill Clinton who is currently still the most popular former President of the modern era despite his sorted affairs. You may not agree with positions, but no one can doubt his political skills. I'm sorry, I like Bernie Sanders, but he is certainly not that kind of politician.

January 15, 2016

Message from James Carville

Received the following emailed message from James Careville

I spend a lot of time with Republicans -- heck, I'm married to one! -- and I've noticed something. Lately, their favorite politician is Bernie Sanders!

They tweet every poll that shows he's close and they talk up every fundraising record he breaks. Karl Rove’s super PAC defended him the other day, and Donald Trump has been talking about how much he’d love to square off against Bernie in the fall.

Now let’s think about this for a second: Why would Trump be excited to face Bernie Sanders in a general election?

Simple: The Republicans know that Hillary Clinton is their worst nightmare in November, and they'd give their left arms to see her get knocked off in the primary.

January 14, 2016

Wrapping Bad Legislation in Pretty Packages

Recently I was asked to sign a petition advocating the defeat of House Rule 1644 – the so called STREAM act – which was up for approval in the US House of Representatives. After some study I signed the petition because the bill appeared to support the coal companies in the rape of the environment which they call open pit mining.

(snip)

......evidently a copy of the petition which I signed was presented to my US Congressman, Gary Palmer. Palmer represents Alabama’s 6th Congressional district which Cook’s Partisan Voting Index rates as the district tied with Texas’ 13th Congressional district as being the most Republican districts in the United States. Congressman Palmer then sent me a form email which attempted to explain the reasons for his support of the bill. I viewed his email as very disingenuous. The following are copies of his email to me and then my reply to him.

Dear (Cajun), January 13, 2016

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1644, the Supporting Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining (STREAM) Act. I appreciate your input on this issue.

The STREAM Act would require the Secretary of the Interior to make publicly available all scientific products used by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to develop any rule, environmental analysis, economic assessment, policy, or guidance at least 90 days prior to its publication. The bill would also require the disclosure of raw data used if the scientific product was federally-funded and would delay publication of any rule until such information is made available.

It is incumbent upon federal agencies to be transparent at every step in the process when issuing rules and regulations, which have the potential to impact millions of Americans. I supported the STREAM Act, which passed the House on January 12, 2016.
Thank you again for taking the time to share your views. Please don’t hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of any assistance.

Sincerely,
Gary Palmer
Member of Congress


The following is the text of my emailed reply to Gary Palmer:

Congressman Palmer,

I am going to be as nice as I manage here - why don't you quit shoveling BS to your constituents Congressman. You know as well as I do that H.R. 1644, the Supporting Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining (STREAM) Act, has only one major purpose, and isn't to provide transparency in government rule making. The real purpose of the bill is to drastically slow and hopefully halt ongoing rule making by the Department of Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) in their efforts to protect streams from the adverse impacts of surface mining.

Among other things would also revise existing regulations that have been in force since 1983 regarding the interaction between surface coal mining operations and streams. Specifically it would alter the rule that land within 100 feet of a steam cannot be disturbed by coal mining activity. It is of little wonder that major environmental organizations oppose this bill.

It is also not surprising that two of your five top contributors to your campaign were the Drummond Company, one of Alabama's top producers of coal, and a steel company which is a big consumer of coal.

I am tired of Congressmen like you dressing up bills with fancy, misleading titles and then flaunting disingenuous reasons for supporting them. Your support of this bill reveals that you are a pawn of the big coal companies which want to be able to continue to pad their profit margins while polluting our clean running streams without the interference of government regulation.

Anyone who has spent any time studying the subject knows that the manner in which some coal companies go about conducting open pit mining too often results in streams and ground water being polluted with dangerous chemicals, many of which are carcinogens. They then too often use any legal tactic available to avoid reimbursing those that they have harmed with their negligence.

I too am a big advocate of transparency in government so I am going to do my best to publicize the manner is which you and your colleagues are trying to deceive the public about the true purpose of this bill.

(Cajun)


Entire piece on my blog here: Congressman, Gary Palmer: Wrapping Bad Legislation in Pretty Packages

January 12, 2016

(Updated 1/12/16) Latest Democratic nomination poll results - courtesy of RealClearPolitics.com

Tuesday, 1/12/16

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (Quinnipiac) Clinton 44, Sanders 49, O'Malley 4
Sanders +5

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (PPP) Clinton 46, Sanders 40, O'Malley 8
Clinton +6

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (Monmouth) Sanders 53, Clinton 39, O'Malley 5
Sanders +14

Monday, 1/11/16

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (IBD/TIPP) Clinton 43, Sanders 39, O'Malley 2
Clinton +4

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (ARG) Clinton 44, Sanders 47, O'Malley 3
Sanders +3

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (ARG) Sanders 47, Clinton 44, O'Malley 3
Sanders +3

Sunday, 1/10/16


Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (NBC/WSJ/Marist) Clinton 48, Sanders 45, O'Malley 5
Clinton +3

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (NBC/WSJ/Marist) Sanders 50, Clinton 46, O'Malley 1
Sanders +4

Saturday, 1/9/16

(No new Democratic primary polls)

Friday, 1/8/16

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (FOX News) Clinton 54, Sanders 39, O'Malley 3
Clinton +15

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (FOX News) Sanders 50, Clinton 37, O'Malley 3
Sanders +13

Thursday, 1/7/16

(No new Democratic primary polls)

Wednesday, 1/6/16

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (PPP) Sanders 44, Clinton 47, O'Malley 3
Clinton +3

California Democratic Presidential Primary (Field) Clinton 46, Sanders 35, O'Malley 1
Clinton +11

(No new Democratic primary polls on 12/31/15 through 1/5/16)

Wednesday, 12/30

Nevada Democratic Presidential Caucus (Gravis) Clinton 50, Sanders 27, O'Malley 1
Clinton +23

(Note: No new Democratic primary polls between 12/23 and 12/30

Wednesday, 12/23

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (CNN/ORC) Clinton 50, Sanders 34, O'Malley 3
Clinton +16

Tuesday, 12/22

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (Quinnipiac) Clinton 61, Sanders 30, O'Malley 2
Clinton +31

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (Rasmussen Reports) Clinton 46, Sanders 30, O'Malley 7
Clinton +16

Monday, 12/21/15

(No new Democratic primary polls)

Sunday, 12/20/15

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (CBS News/YouGov) Clinton 50, Sanders 45, O'Malley 4
Clinton +5

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (CBS News/YouGov) Sanders 56, Clinton 42, O'Malley 1
Sanders +14

South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary (CBS News/YouGov) Clinton 67, Sanders 31, O'Malley 2
Clinton +36
January 11, 2016

(Updated 1/10/16) Latest Democratic nomination poll results - courtesy of RealClearPolitics.com

Sunday, 1/10/1

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (NBC/WSJ/Marist) Clinton 48, Sanders 45, O'Malley 5
Clinton +3

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (NBC/WSJ/Marist) Sanders 50, Clinton 46, O'Malley 1
Sanders +4

Saturday, 1/9/16

(No new Democratic primary polls)

Friday, 1/8/16

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (FOX News) Clinton 54, Sanders 39, O'Malley 3
Clinton +15

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (FOX News) Sanders 50, Clinton 37, O'Malley 3
Sanders +13

Thursday, 1/7/16


(No new Democratic primary polls)

Wednesday, 1/6/16

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (PPP) Sanders 44, Clinton 47, O'Malley 3
Clinton +3

California Democratic Presidential Primary (Field) Clinton 46, Sanders 35, O'Malley 1
Clinton +11

(No new Democratic primary polls on 12/31/15 through 1/5/16)

Wednesday, 12/30

Nevada Democratic Presidential Caucus (Gravis) Clinton 50, Sanders 27, O'Malley 1
Clinton +23

(Note: No new Democratic primary polls between 12/23 and 12/30

Wednesday, 12/23


2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (CNN/ORC) Clinton 50, Sanders 34, O'Malley 3
Clinton +16

Tuesday, 12/22

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (Quinnipiac) Clinton 61, Sanders 30, O'Malley 2
Clinton +31

2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination (Rasmussen Reports) Clinton 46, Sanders 30, O'Malley 7
Clinton +16

Monday, 12/21


(No new Democratic primary polls)

Sunday, 12/20

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (CBS News/YouGov) Clinton 50, Sanders 45, O'Malley 4
Clinton +5

New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary (CBS News/YouGov) Sanders 56, Clinton 42, O'Malley 1
Sanders +14

South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary (CBS News/YouGov) Clinton 67, Sanders 31, O'Malley 2
Clinton +36


January 10, 2016

For Republicans, Mounting Fears of Lasting Split

I found this article interesting; RealClearPolitics.com had a link to the original NY Times article:

The Republican Party is facing a historic split over its fundamental principles and identity, as its once powerful establishment grapples with an eruption of class tensions, ethnic resentments and mistrust among working-class conservatives who are demanding a presidential nominee who represents their interests.

At family dinners and New Year’s parties, in conference calls and at private lunches, longtime Republicans are expressing a growing fear that the coming election could be shattering for the party, or reshape it in ways that leave it unrecognizable.

While warring party factions usually reconcile after brutal nomination fights, this race feels different, according to interviews with more than 50 Republican leaders, activists, donors and voters, from both elite circles and the grass roots.

Never have so many voters been attracted to Republican candidates like Donald J. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who are challenging core party beliefs on the economy and national security and new goals like winning over Hispanics through immigration reform.


Article: For Republicans, Mounting Fears of Lasting Split

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Alabama
Home country: USA
Member since: Sat Jun 13, 2015, 05:35 PM
Number of posts: 5,648
Latest Discussions»CajunBlazer's Journal