HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » intheflow » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Springfield
Home country: Planet Earth
Member since: Mon Aug 9, 2004, 12:39 PM
Number of posts: 25,370

Journal Archives

You can be both woke and want to win.

He didn't say to not be/become woke, nor did he say people publicly criticizing the political system on Twitter don't want the left to win. He said to take a nuanced approach to politics. Absolutes like "Woke OR Winning" are not in the spirit of what he was saying. At all.

You do know they can tweak their online content to most appeal to individual readers, right?

It's a marketing tool that's been used for decades, and online perhaps most notably by Google tailoring the results you get for any given search based on past algorithms. It's also what contributed to (and continues) the development of red and blue Facebook feeds.

But don't take my word for it. Here's what they have to say about it:

Just in case you don't know about Facebook's red and blue feeds, here's a tool from the WSJ that allows us to compare trending posts on some political topics: http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/

*Edited for bad sentence construction.

The fact that most people on DU agree or disagree with you is not relevant.

DU is a bubble, like all social media sites. I've lived all over the country since 2001, doing grassroots organizing. I have seen firsthand that millennials don't want to vote for Democrats because of centrist policies. This age cohort wants to have input into their own future, which our age cohorts have pretty much screwed up for them, between dysfunctional, money-infused politics and ignoring global climate change. I'm 55 and not a spoiled child. I will vote Dem but I'd rather vote FOR the party than just vote AGAINST the Republicans.

The lesson that the DNC should have learned with Nader and the 2000 election

is that they need to court the progressive left to win. Obama did court us, and he won. Clinton does what she can to shun us. Good luck with that general election strategy.

Reminds me of a juxtaposition I heard on NPR's Marketplace a few years ago.

They did an in-depth story about an impoverished neighborhood, complete with homeless and hungry children, and followed it up with a stock market report that started off with their cheery, upbeat rendition of "We're In The Money." I felt physically ill listening to that.

This is why I tell people that voting fraud doesn't have to come from the Clinton side.

There are plenty of people in the world who would love to disrupt a US presidential race. Terrorists, Trump, hell, even the GOP might think hacking the Democratic vote is the only way they'll win against either Democratic primary contender. Hacking is real, vote switching is real, and election integrity and voter confidence must be maintained for ALL citizens, not just the ones whose platforms we agree with.

K&R in spite of the snarky tone of the OP towards Sanders supporters. This Sanders supporter supports election integrity.

The kicker is, voter fraud doesn't have to have come from the Clinton campaign.

There are plenty of terrorists out there who might have their reasons for disrupting a US political campaign. The Trump people could be fiddling with the system, preferring a match-up with Clinton. Hacking is real, cyber-terrorism is real. Clinton should be just as vested in ensuring election integrity, but she and her supporters are more interested in winning that voter confidence in the electoral process. If she's on such solid ground, she should be championing investigations in why there are exit poll discrepancies that vastly favor her in all contested states.

But I'm delusional. Me and Bloomberg, we're all just left-wing paranoid nutjobs.


Ted Rall pegs the origin of the DNC in his graphic biography of Bernie.

The whole book is a great bio, and solid history of the rise of the current populist movement from the left, but this page explains so much, so succinctly.

I really recommend reading the whole book, available through your local library, independent bookstore, or amazon.com.


The Democratic party as represented by the DNC aren't Democrats - or more precisely, they've hijacked the party of Roosevelt to turn it into Republican-lite, where they are more into pandering to corporate interests to get money than they are to addressing MY needs as a liberal citizen-voter.

I always identified as Democratic growing up, the party of Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson. I registered independent for many years feeling that the Democratic party leadership didn't represent my interests as a progressive voter, but I still voted straight Democratic party ticket for decades. I switched registration status to vote for Obama in 2008, but you can't tell me I wasn't a good and faithful Democrat all those years I voted straight-ticket. And FINALLY there's someone running as a Democrat who I really feels represents the Democratic "me" all those years I registered Independent. I'll bet you 90% of those Independents are other iterations of me, of the progressive wing of the party that the DNC has worked for decades to shut down, shut up, and destroy. Sorry! We're not going away! And I will shed tears for my progressive brothers and sisters who are denied voting for Sanders because of some bullshit assumption you and the rest of the DNC-Democrats make about the purity of Democratic Party.

I feel sorry for the Boomers who've become bitter and cynical.

I straddle Gen X and Boomers, and I think it's so sad how so many in my cohort have given up on their dreams.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »