General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAs Tensions Simmer, Poll Shows Majority of Democrats Want Bold Leftward Shift
From the article:
The survey found that 52 percent of registered Democratic voters want "movements within the Democratic Party to take it even further to the left and oppose the current Democratic leaders."
To read more of this opinion piece:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/25/tensions-simmer-poll-shows-majority-democrats-want-bold-leftward-shift?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And obviously many at DU agree.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)aren't they?
Sheesh.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)Good on ya, mate! 
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I see this discussion as a very necessary precursor to building a platform for 2020.
jalan48
(13,865 posts)Sports arena's filled to the brim with American citizens looking for a more liberal/progressive message. I believe we will win if we move left.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Part of the problem, as many have noted, is that the corporate media focuses on the personalities in any election rather than the issues.
Trump was allowed to dominate the debate because the corporate media saw a financial advantage to his so doing.
But we must also remember that it was the built in structural obstacles that allowed Trump to win the Electoral College.
jalan48
(13,865 posts)
Different Drummer
(7,615 posts)
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)give slave states a voting advantage. Obama and Holder nay be our best hope here.
jalan48
(13,865 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)jalan48
(13,865 posts)Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Why didn't those big numbers of attendees win the primary for him?
There's mpre to that than anyone cares to hear about.
All I'm saying on this obviously volatile matter.
On the matter of Entertainment & Politics: "watch what they do, not what they say"
Thanks
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Yes, that campaign didn't prevail, but isn't it a bit late to be trying to argue that it wasn't anything real at all? What good comes of that when, to win, we're going to have to incorporate a large part(not all, but a significant chunk)of what that campaign was about, no matter who we nominate in 2020?
We have little chance to win in 2020 if our approach to the next election is "the Sanders movement was nothing, and left nothing of value. Let's act as if it never happened". Some people had issues with the messenger, fully legitimate issues, but the message itself is not unpopular and can only help us.
Bernie should not run again...but the way forward involves blending the best of his campaign's message with the strongest part of the message of the other campaigns.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)This:
Believe what you need to.
That one is incorrect, however
There was no 'business as usual' in electing a president in 2016.
I'm still waiting for the mysterious $10 million funding dump into the Sanders campaign.
When there is no answer to an honest question, we'll just be left with our assumptions.
And that's where the problem with suspicion lies yet today.
Much is still covered & unexplained today, and this slight dishonesty is why we are still at odds with each other.
It is truly unfortunate.
Most do see clearly what is taking place in our democracy.
2016 proved much.
That election from day one was a ruse.
And until answers are given in honesty, the assumption becomes one that aligns itself with the coup.
My opinion, my theory.
No one has to like nor accept it.
Many however, do agree.
The thousands of voices that changed the course of the Women's Convention also do agree.
Enough about this subject. Unless there isna court requiring the answer we seek, the truth will never be offered.
I was a Progressive Wellstone loyalist, & an had early Bernie lean, until I began studying how his sudden rise came about & how his past just didn't follow the basic Progressive beliefs.
That's when he lost me.
Just saying, sir, its not what a person says, watch what they do.
You may disagree and are certainly entitled to your own beliefs & opinions. That is the privilege of living in a democracy with all the rights of our great Constitution.
I hope we can hold on to that.
Thank you & enjoy your evening.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If you're going to argue that the Sanders movement wasn't real, that it was (as you appear to be implying) some sort of a plot to sabotage the party, you have to offer actual evidence that supports your claim.
If nothing else, you have to at least elaborate on what you mean when you imply that the crowds at those rallies were created by some conspiratorial means.
Yates Amatitio
(13 posts)I've been voting for Democrats since the first year I could vote (1976) and have never voted for a Republican...I was a strong Bernie supporter in the primaries/caucuses because I felt he represented the Progressive values of FDR, Johnson, McGovern, Jackson, Mondale much better than the alternatives...no conspiracy or Russian bots influenced my decision. That being said I was also a solid supporter of HRC for President. The Sanders movement captured a frustration held by a sizable portion of Democrats that a move to the left was in order and the time was now...to Clinton's credit she recognized this and embraced her true Progressive when she won the nomination.
HAB911
(8,892 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)that some are fond of spreading.
Me.
(35,454 posts)just as opinion pieces are posted, and expected to be taken, as the all-out truth
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They were simply ideas I was presenting.
What I was responding to there was not simply an opinion; it was someone lodging harsh and totally unsupported allegations about a particular campaign.
Me.
(35,454 posts)They're allowed.
In response to your post #161 Many people wonder where 10 mil that went into the Sanders coffers came from and the fact that he still hasn't released his tax returns adds to the suspicion that something isn't quite as it should be. I tell you, if this was HRC, he would call her on it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)At least I assume the guy did.
What I don't get is why anybody, at this late date, would be trying to de-legitimize Bernie's presence in the LAST primary cycle? What's the point of asserting that his campaign essentially shouldn't have been allowed to happen(it goes without saying that he would never have run against the Dem nominee as a third-party candidate; he proved that by turning down Stein's offer of the Green ballot line)when the nominating process that campaign was part of has been over for more than a year now?
What matters is the future. And in that future, if we don't want Bernie to run again-and I join you in agreeing that a second Sanders campaign would be a horrible idea and doubt that Bernie actually wants to go there-then we need to accept the legitimacy of the continued existence of his movement and of the presence of its supporters and the ideas they champion as part(not all, but part)of our future political direction. We need those voters, just as we need people who were 2016 non-voters and we need the restored votes of those whose votes were suppressed in 2016.
How does it help us as a party for people to be saying things that can only have the effect of driving 2016 Sanders voters away from the party and out of politics? How does it help us for there to be a large-scale effort not only to pressure Bernie not to run again, but to essentially demand that the entire Sanders movement disband, leaving those who were part of it as nothing but disconnected individuals with no meaningful way available to them to help? We can't demand that they cease to exist as a group and then, in the next breath, demand that they just fall in as Democratic footsoldiers and work for whatever the rest of the party imposes while having essentially no say in the party's direction.
In short, we can't win these people over by demanding that they repent before joining us. The campaign they were involved in in the 2016 primaries was not evil, and neither is the movement they are building today.
As to people of color, what I saw POC voters objecting to about Bernie-and these objections were absolutely valid-was a sense that he was personally insensitive, a belief that he didn't try hard enough to win POC votes and the fact that he didn't speak to issues of racial justice anywhere near often enough. Those were the issues. POC aren't against the social democratic part of his program and are often(not always, but often) to the left of other Democrats on economic issues.
It seems logical, then, to conclude that the Democratic party needs to embrace some social democratic measures or, at least, openly get back to the idea that there are times when we have to put justice and human need ahead of short term gain for the few, and to do so while acknowledging the effects of historic and continuing oppression and openly defending reproductive choice, and without falling into the error of believing that the establishment of economic justice would end any and all other injustices in American society.
Me.
(35,454 posts)That there is a difference on where the emphasis should be as we do go forward. Should it be on white men and their money or inclusive to those who actually vote for the Dems and their concerns. It wasn't in certain quarters and recently Tom Perez apologized for it not being so and for a unity tour that was basically 3 men. Many people consider themselves progressive but not white men money only progressive and don't like the purity tests that involved with that type of thinking. So when a post from common dreams or as someone called it, a new version of H.A. Goodman, touts how far left the party supposedly wants to go that seems to be shorthand for what didn't win the DEm primary or 3 mil more votes than Trump.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The poll that link cited can also be taken as a sign the MOST of the party wants a more progressive direction-they don't want any of the antiracist/antioppression commitment abandoned-Sanders supporters were and are just as antiracist and antioppression as HRC supporters-but with a commitment to some form of economic democracy and a rollback of corporate control over politics and life as PART of where we go from here.
My last paragraph was about finding a more inclusive direction-a direction that includes the Democratic base-most of whom agree with Bernie on economic issues, objecting to him on other grounds-as well as the people who have stayed loyal to Bernie personally and are looking for some future way to stay involved and keep working for the issues they champion. We need both. My objective has been to try to bring both groups, to get those groups talking and listening to each other on a respectful level- and is not tied to any candidate.
I agree with you that Bernie shouldn't run again. A lot of his 2016 supporters do, btw.
And frankly, I don't think the guy WANTS to run-my interpretation is that he's trying to keep his supporters together on some kind of organizational level-I assume you wouldn't have an issue with that.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(as you appear to)that everybody who agrees with anything Bernie's campaign was about is with her on that, or even that most of them are.
And the post you linked to there actually tends to support the argument I'm making, which is that the party should take Bernie personally out of the presidential equation by taking up a large chunk of his economic agenda and his campaign's critique of corporate power. Doing so wouldn't compromise anything else that we stand for, and would significantly reduce the chances that Bernie would run again.
Me.
(35,454 posts)The poll is fake, common dreams is not a reliable source and the SEnator's economic strategy is flawed as it leaves out reproductive rights and social justice.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016195446#post1
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There is no difference in the views of people who preferred Sanders in 2016 and people who preferred HRC in 2016 in terms of attitudes on reproductive rights and social justice. Rank and file supporters of both candidates have the same views on those issues, whatever any candidate was saying-and a lot of polls have born that out.
And this poll aside, the Democratic base isn't to the right of Sanders supporters on economic issues and the role of corporate power in politics and life. It's just that the base centers what you refer to as "social justice", wants the definition of that expanded to include a real effort to eradicate poverty, with economic justice added to that.
The base isn't to the right of Sanders-type economic ideas, it just states that economic justice isn't enough-and nobody was actually saying that economic justice would solve all problems, so there is no great divide.
To prevent a second Sanders campaign-which is something you and I agree should be prevented-we just need to add those economic democracy positions to the social justice positions we already hold. That isn't a difficult thing to do, and if we can do that, we can get out of this useless polarity. Circle squared. Problem solved.
Are you open to where I'm going with this?
Me.
(35,454 posts)And until 'some' progressives stop dinging the Dem party the schism and push back against those insist it's time to get rid of the Dem party (as was the headline in a recent article)
lapucelle
(18,258 posts)due to the problems in its design and methodology; in addition there are potential ethical questions raised by The Harris Poll's failure to disclose sponsorship and the original source of funding to both respondents and readers.
Why The Harris Poll would conduct this survey at its own expense on a monthly basis and then provide the results exclusively to The Hill is bewildering at best.
The poll seems to have been designed to manufacture "news" for the exclusive use by one outlet. The Hill is mining the data for click bait headlines and "inspired" news stories. (That's the term The Hill uses.)
"Data" from this poll has been used by right wing outlets like Breitbart, Conservative Review, and The Tower in order to support and advance their narratives.
Caveat lector.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If you didn't support the guy, fine, that is absolutely your right(I myself don't think he should run again).
He ran because there was a deeply felt need in the Democratic electorate for what he was talking about.
At this late date, what purpose is served by trying to retroactively de-legitimize his campaign?
Are you prepared to assert that Paul Wellstone would have argued that HRC should face no primary challenge?
Remember, you're talking about the guy who backed Bill Bradley against Gore in the 2000 primaries.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)So far, I have seen no links or evidence presented by you.
Was this an oversight?
whathehell
(29,067 posts)"acquired". 
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)No that isn't how he quickly acquired tens of thousands of follwers.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There was a need for what his campaign was talking about.
If Paul Wellstone had lived, there's a good chance HE would have run in 2016-and his message would have been almost identical to what Bernie proposed.
Bernie's campaign was not a plot. It wasn't devised by anyone to sabotage the Democratic Party.
And there is no evidence that we'd have done better in the fall if Bernie hadn't been in the race. A bland formality of a primary wouldn't have helped us. And the fall HRC campaign was exactly the same as it would have been had the primaries effectively ended on Super Tuesday.
Here's the most salient point: None of the attack ads the Clinton/Kaine campaign aimed at Trump made any difference at all. None of them shifted any votes or way. Therefore, it wouldn't have made any difference for HRC's campaign to focus on attacking Trump any earlier. If attacks ads fail at one point, that proves they would have failed at any point.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Except you?
This is classic straw man....
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Because he was a loyal member of the Democratic Party with a history of building the party and legislative accomplishments.
I certainly would have supported him.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I wasn't even the one who brought Wellstone into this. It's this new poster Wwcd who did that.
All I was doing was rejecting the bizarre claims that Bernie's campaign was artificially bolstered by some mysterious outside source or that he "acquired" crowds at his rally by some suspect means.
And I don't want Bernie to run again, but it's too late to argue that he shouldn't have been allowed to run in our primaries. Nothing would have been better if he'd been barred from running. Nothing would have been better if the nomination had been settled in March and the rest of the run-up to the convention had been a meaningless formality.
All that would have happened was that we'd have focused on attacking Trump earlier, and as the fall proved, a campaign based on attacking Trump was not going to elect us.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Have a nice evening
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)you were disagreeing with?
If it's about starting the attacks on Trump earlier, I'd be interested to know why you think that would have made a difference when none of the attacks ever gained us any votes in the fall.
I respect what you have to say and want to understand your precise point here.
Good night.
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)
Scruffy1
(3,256 posts)My precinct was over 80% for Sanders. Where I live we would love to see and end to the bankers controlling the government.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)
The Polack MSgt
(13,188 posts)Just because he lost the Democrats by several million, doesn't mean he wouldn't draw in a few dozen million of our opponents
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)Alice11111
(5,730 posts)Be sensible and take all the ammunition
we can get.
We have to get the Supreme Court, at least, before we can get Citizens United overturned & get the big momey
out of politics.
Otherwise, we are handicapping ourselves 
for a principle that is going the make the principle/law we want only an idealist belief,
rather than a legal reality.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)In the same way that 10 people screaming at the top of their lungs actually add up to more than 100 people who are just smiling.
Internet polls are totally accurate and reliable for the same reason.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)couple days ago...the country is center left...and there is no progressive wing...we are all progressive and Sen. Sanders works with us but is not a Democrat...thus can not be any such 'wing'.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The one who gets a majority of the votes wins.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Okay.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)Just ask Hillary Clinton. The only true measure of political popularity are votes, and we made it clear how we felt last year.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Women's Convention, hosted by Sen Sanders' 'Our Revolution'.
That was the reality & they all have heard what he says, but they also responded to what he does now as well as in the past.
Were those thousands of voices polled by Harvard-Harris.?
Just asking, because I don't think they actually stated the specific demographics they polled.
To say, "among women, among minorities means little without stating who & where.
It lends the element of suspicion when the data is vague.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)Especially your point about minorities. We saw how badly he failed among African Americans after votes were tallied. Again, that is the TRUE test of popularity, but they keep trotting out these suspect and useless poles.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write:
Just asking, because I don't think they actually stated the specific demographics they polled.
To say, "among women, among minorities means little without stating who & where.
It lends the element of suspicion when the data is vague.
Well, obviously they didn't set out to poll everyone who complained about the Women's Convention. But they do state the specific demographics of whom they polled.
The data are vague in a secondary source like the Common Dreams article linked in the OP, because such articles summarize the poll for the general reader. Nevertheless, if you click on the link in the first sentence of the Common Dreams article, it takes you to this primary source -- the original report from Harvard-Harris, with 271 pages of mind-numbing detail. You can find out, for example, how many women age 65 and over were in their sample (240, if you care). And that's just from Table 1. You've got 262 more tables to wade through to dispel any idea that the data are vague.
As for the specific finding referenced by the OP, the exact question asked was: "Do you support or oppose movements within the Democratic Party to take it even further to the left and oppose the current Democratic leaders?" Women supported such movements, 55% to 45%, according to Table 65. Whites were also fairly evenly divided but in opposition (Support: 46%; Oppose: 54%). Blacks were in favor, 55%-45%; Hispanics more strongly in favor, 65%-35%; and "Other" (I assume Asians plus Native Americans plus Pacific Islanders plus any other minorities who didn't fit neatly in another category), close to the Hispanics at 63%-37%.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)An online poll directed at whom? Where did they run the poll?
Was is on sites that have a majority of Sander's readers?
Is that where they found the women/minorities to poll?
Your answer tells nothing new.
That is exactly why Harvard-Harris is discredited.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I've seen the occasional post here asking "DU this poll." AOL or some newspaper or some other website posts a question and anyone who wants to can respond, there may or may not be a safeguard against people voting twice and it may or may not be effective, and the raw numbers are just posted. Of course, such polls are virtually meaningless. I don't think I've ever complied with a request to "DU this poll" and, now that I think about it, I seem to see those requests much less often than I used to.
Obviously (well, it's obvious to me, anyway), a poll conducted by Harvard’s Center for American Political Studies and a market research firm of more than half a century's standing (Harris Insights and Analytics) is not just putting some questions out there and reporting the responses of anyone and everyone who self-selects as a respondent. It's the other kind of online poll, where the pollster tries to get a representative sample. No method of polling is perfect. Phone polls have the landline - cell phone issue and the robocall - live caller issue. Online sampling has its own problems. In this interview from 2012, Nate Silver touches on some of the problems. Nevertheless, he doesn't consider all online polls to be ipso facto "discredited." I also wonder if this nascent area of polling has made improvements in the five years since that interview.
It's worth noting that, according to the Harvard-Harris website, one of the Co-Directors of the poll is Mark Penn. He served as Bill Clinton's pollster for the last six years of his administration. He also advised Hillary Clinton in both of her Senate campaigns and was her chief strategist during the first part of her 2008 campaign for President. If he wanted to skew the poll, he'd try to understate the desire of the rank and file to move further left.
Let's consider this poll in context. It shows the "further to the left" course supported by 52% of Democrats and opposed by 48%. If we were electing someone to office, 52-48 is very different from 48-52. But we're not voting on candidates. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the correct ratio were 52-48 against moving to the left. What matters is that, among Democrats, there is clearly a significant division of opinion. A large number support moving to the left, and a large number oppose that idea. Consider this poll, consider that Bernie Sanders got more than 40% of the votes in the primaries, consider the anecdotal evidence -- if anyone is contending that the "move further left" faction is a noisy minority of 10% or the like, I just can't consider that a credible position. If you think that a poll conducted according to your technical specifications would show such a radically different result, well, we'll just have to disagree.
delisen
(6,043 posts)There seem to be red flags around the "Harvard-Harris" poll which should be further investigated.
For now I would like to add something on Mark Penn-who work with Clinton ended in, I believe, 2008 for good reason.
Penn works for himself and for both Democratic and Republican clients. The Intercept-not a right wing publication-had a recent article.
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/06/mark-penn-centrist-neoliberal-democrats-profits-donald-trump-republicans/
DEMOCRATS WOULD DO best if they abandon broad economic reforms and a more leftward political program, argued Mark Penn, a strategist known best for advising Bill and Hillary Clinton, in the pages of the New York Times Opinion section. Penn wrote that the Democratic Party must “move to the center and reject the siren calls of the left.”
Progressives have long viewed Penn with deep skepticism, noting that he has repeatedly used his close ties to Democratic officials as a vehicle for promoting his corporate clients. But there’s another wrinkle to Penn’s advice: He now invests in Republican advocacy firms — and profits from the electoral defeat of Democrats.
In March, Penn’s investment firm Stagwell Media LLC announced that it had acquired a minority stake in Targeted Victory, a major Republican digital consulting company. Targeted Victory, founded by personnel from Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, provided consulting services for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. More recently, following Penn’s investment in the firm, Targeted Victory assisted Republican Karen Handel in her successful campaign against Democrat Jon Ossoff in the Georgia special election last month.
delisen
(6,043 posts)Possible explanation for newly controversial online Harris Poll-its under new ownership
From Wikipedia:
The Stagwell Group[edit]
After leaving Microsoft, Penn created his own company called The Stagwell Group dealing with advertising and public relations.[45]
In October 2015, Stagwell Group struck a deal worth up to $75 Million to buy SKD Knickerbocker.[46] In January 2017, the Stagwell Group acquired the Harris Poll from Nielsen Holdings and renamed it Harris Insights & Analytics.[47]
The Harvard Connection?:
Mark Penn is currently a visiting lecturer at Harvard (based on corporate business and political experience, not academics).
There is a 501c3 corporation at Harvard: The Center for American Politics (CAPS) headed by Stephen Ansolabehere, professor of government.
The Harvard-Harris Poll "donates" its poll results to CAPS
Question: Is that how it is dubbed the Harvard-Harris Poll? (which is a classier name than just Harris Poll.
So Mark Penn, former controversial Democratic pollster and marketer, campaign adviser, buys the online Harris Poll from Nielsen, through his business venture, The Stagwell Group.
We don't know who commissioned this poll or the previous poll which gave rise to misleading articles about Bernie being the most popular politician in America.
The polls findings are "donated" to the CAPS, 501c3 non-profit center at Harvard. (Is this how it comes to be called the Harvard-Harris Poll)? Does it get disseminated from there to The Hill and other publications in marketing form of money laundering?
I don't know -but there are lots of red flags here.
Mark Penn also has a big stake in Targeted Victory hired by the Karen Handel campaign to defeat Jon Ossoff in Georgia 6th district this year.
2017 seems to be a big year for Mark Penn and his varied client list.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts) lapucelle
(18,258 posts)as its sample. The Harris Panel consists of internet users who have enrolled in a program that allows them to accumulate points towards rewards in exchange for taking polls.
This is neither a random nor representative sample.
The "Harvard" in the name is the result of an agreement through which The Harris Poll allows the data to be compiled by Harvard CAPS program students as field work in exchange for the use of Harvard's name in this particular survey when results are reported. (Harvard neither designs nor conducts the actual poll.) The results are available exclusively to The Hill which raises ethical questions of undisclosed sponsorship and funding.
You too can be a Harris Panel member, collect points towards rewards and win monthly prizes by participating using their app!
https://onemorecupof-coffee.com/can-you-really-make-money-with-the-harris-panel-app/
Response to lapucelle (Reply #231)
Name removed Message auto-removed
lapucelle
(18,258 posts)Respondent base: Democrats
CE13 Do you feel that Democratic leaders in Congress represent your views, are farther to the left than your views, or are farther to the right than your views?
Democratic leaders are farther to the left than my views 17%
Democratic leaders represent my views 70%
Democratic leaders are farther to the right than my views 13%
CE14 Do you feel that Democratic leaders in Congress are working to unite the party or are they dividing the party?
Democratic leaders are working to unite the party 78%
Democratic leaders are dividing the party 22%
CE16 Do you think these left-leaning movements will help, hurt, or have no effect on the chances of Democrats to win the next elections?
Help 29%
Hurt 40%
Have no effect 31%
CE22 Do you think the Democrat leaders in Congress are in touch or out of touch with Democrat voters?
In touch 60%
Out of touch 40%
Your link only contains 130 pages. Do you have a link to the other 141 pages?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I was going by the internal numbering. Per the page numbers in the upper-right-hand corners, the last page is numbered 271. I saw that there were 130 pages in the PDF but I assumed that the discrepancy was because some PDF pages held two or three pages of the original.
Upon closer examination, I see that the online report at http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/HCAPS-October_Topline-Memo_with-banners_Registered-Voters_Current-Events.pdf goes directly from Table 89 on page 93 to Table 230 on page 236. An intern screwed up the posting? There's a big chunk in the middle that's available only to paying subscribers? I don't know. We'll have to be content with a mere 130 pages of data.
It's also unclear how to reconcile the results. Per CE13, as you point out, only 13% of the respondents consider themselves to be to the left of the Democratic leadership, but (per CE15) fully 52% of them support movements to take the party further to the left. Here's one explanation, pure speculation on my part: The poll is of registered Democrats, but many of them recognize that a move to the left will inspire registration and voting by people currently unregistered, who tend disproportionately to be those who would benefit from more progressive policies.
This has some logic to it. If all adult citizens were compelled by law to vote, as is done in some countries, it would probably help the Democratic Party. Per Wikipedia:
Research suggests that higher rates of voter turnout lead to higher top tax rates.[36] [emphasis added]
So, obviously, at least 39% of the Democrats in this country have read that Wikipedia article.
lapucelle
(18,258 posts)as an objective measure of public opinion. It doesn't appear to have been crafted to yield valid and reliable quality data; it appears to be tailored to meet the purposes of its sponsor and to "inspire" headlines and stories.
The company that conducts the poll (The Harris Poll) is identified on the first page of the questionnaire, but there is no mention of funding by any sponsor. According to the AAPOR Code of Professional Ethics and Practice, the original source of funding must be disclosed if it differs from the company conducting the survey. Who funds this poll, and why is it exclusive to The Hill?
Here's what The Hill has to say about the experimental design of the poll:
The Harvard–Harris Poll survey is an online sample drawn from the Harris Panel and weighted to reflect known demographics. As a representative online sample, it does not report a probability confidence interval.
Basically, in terms of data collection, the bolded sentence means that "because some entity is assuming that The Harris Panel is a representative sample, the pollster is not required employ the standard internal checks that measure a margin of error".
There's a reason why H.L. Mencken said, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics".
http://www.theharrispoll.com/in-the-news/harris-polls/Inaugural-HarvardHarris-Poll-.html
https://caps.gov.harvard.edu/news/caps-harris-poll-current-events-and-supreme-court
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/356743-poll-trump-job-approval-dips-to-new-low (see the last paragraph)
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/339146-poll-voters-grow-weary-of-russia-probes (see the last paragraph)
still_one
(92,190 posts)endorsed lost.
What begs the question is if his message was so popular then why did his endorsements go down?
However, what really is the question is the misrepresentation and falsehoods that are thrown about what some self-identified progressives like to throw around regarding these "establishment Democrats". It is the false equivalency myth that they seem to throw around regarding the "establishment" Democrats tat not only aren't they progressive, but how it is also difficult to distinguish the difference between them and the republicans.
Funny though that they seem to complete ignore that it was an establishment Democrat who pushed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act. It was an establishment Democrat who pushed Medicare and Medicaid. It was establishment Democrats who appointed Justice Ginsberg to the Supreme Court. It was establishment Democrats who gave us the Lilly Ledbetter Act, fought for workers rights, women's rights, the environment, negotiated the Iran nuclear agreement, etc. etc. etc.
In other words, the same tactic the republicans did through the years to make the word progressive or liberal have a negative connotation, that is the same thing this article and some self-identified progressives with the word "establishment"
It is a complete setup to get the results desired, and even with that, the poll found that the support was predominately in one group only, and that was within millennials.
It is the old Goebbels strategy, if you say something enough times that is false, some people will believe it. That is what is being done with the word "establishment", and why I don't hold much relevance in these polls. In fact I suggest they bear a close resemblance to push polling
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write, "An interesting observation is that every issue and candidate in the 2016 election that Sanders endorsed lost."
It took me under one minute of searching to find this article: "Sanders asks supporters to back 4 Democratic candidates". The key passage:
Sanders, through his Friends of Bernie Sanders email list, asked supporters to donate $2.70 to help Katie McGinty in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan, former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and former Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto.
Of those four, two won and two lost.
A further observation: The two who lost (McGinty and Strickland) became Democratic nominees by virtue of having defeated more progressive opponents in the primary. We can never know what would have happened in the general election with different candidates, but when the actual candidate was the more conservative alternative, it's not fair to blame the defeat on Bernie.
As for that word "establishment", I frankly think you're too hung up on it. What the Harvard-Harris poll and the results of the 2016 primaries clearly show is that there is an ideological division within the Democratic Party. It's not nearly as great as the division between the two major parties, but it's real nonetheless. As a practical matter, we need a handy way to refer to the viewpoints. Yes, it's an oversimplification to say that there are only two viewpoints, and yes, the terms "progressive" and "establishment" aren't perfect, but that's what happens with shorthand terms. "Bernie supporters" and "Hillary supporters"? "People who backed Ellison" and "people who backed Perez"? I'm open to suggestions about how to describe the differences. I'm not open to the suggestion that we pretend the differences don't exist.
still_one
(92,190 posts)you mentioned Katie McGinty, and Ted Strickland, Colorado's Universal Care Amendment 69, which lost by almost 80%, Proposition 61 here in California, Sue Minter for Vermont Governor, and others.
Sanders was largely visible in the general election for various candidates and initiatives, and the results were not very good at all, especially among the white working class. They sure didn't turnout for Feingold in Wisconsin and Universal Healthcare in Colorado, and unfortunately voted for big business republicans.
The candidates and initiatives he supported in the 2016 general election under-performed
The claim that some make that Sanders would have won the GE does not hold true. If Sanders' platform and candidates had lost, but performed better than Clinton, that would be an indicator that perhaps there was something going on, and if they had actually won, then he could definitely claim the momentum, but instead the results were just the opposite, and Sanders' platform, based on the issues and candidates he actively supported, lost for the most part by much bigger margin than Clinton did.
You indicate that I am hung up on the word "establishment", and I beg to differ. It was Senator Sanders who has been going around embracing the word with a negative connotation. I already provided in my previous comments plenty of examples where these so-called "establishment" Democrats were responsible for the most progressive moves forward in the last 70 years, including the Civil Rights and Voters Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, women's rights, Supreme Court Appointments, workers rights, the environment, etc.
You make the point that it is just a short hand to describe the Sanders' wing verses the Clinton wing of the Democratic party, and I would argue that it is a gross generalization that not only serves to divide, but leaves out a large number that wouldn't fit in either category.
It implies that an establishment candidate is a conservative, and a non-establishment candidate is a liberal, and that is simply false.
It can be said that every Democrat running for Senate in the critical swing states in the 2016 election, lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican, however, an establishment republican, is not the same as an establishment Democrat, and that is just one reason why it is not a very good word to use.
Better ways to describe differences among Democrats within the Democratic party should be based on issues. Using terms such as progressive, liberal, moderate, conservative positions are far better ways to describe the divisions.
Establishment is a not so subtle way by some to setup a false equivalency between Democrats and republicans.
Hell, the Bill of Rights is an establishment document.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)👍
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You initially asserted (without any support) that “every issue and candidate in the 2016 election that Sanders endorsed lost” (emphasis added). I proved that your statement was false. Now, without acknowledging any error, you fluidly switch to asserting (again without any support) that his endorsees “under-performed.”
I have no idea what the criteria are for this purported assessment. Did they win at a lower rate than Clinton’s endorsees? If so, is that because Bernie’s ideas are unpopular, or because he concentrated on endorsing in tough races and didn’t bother endorsing shoo-ins? A lot of Democrats lost, up and down the ticket, with or without Bernie’s endorsement.
On the question of terminology, I wrote:
You respond with the discovery that such a shorthand "is a gross generalization that ... leaves out a large number that wouldn't fit in either category."
Well, yes, you’re right, and I agree with every word I said.
You also write:
I appreciate your making an effort to suggest alternatives. Nevertheless, the set of words you list will also tick some people off. I would say that Bernie was more liberal than Hillary. It follows (if you agree with me) that Hillary was more conservative than Bernie, just as Bernie was more conservative than Jill Stein. The problem is that the Hillary supporters would be outraged at calling her “conservative” regardless of how many modifiers and explanations you put on it. By way of analogy, I’d say that Ted Cruz is more conservative than John McCain, which means that McCain is more liberal than Cruz, but just putting “McCain” and “liberal” in the same sentence would trigger some people to start foaming at the mouth and denouncing me for calling McCain a liberal. (Side note to the reading-impaired: I am not calling McCain a liberal. But he’s more liberal than Cruz.)
As to the word “establishment”, I don’t agree with your tactic of lumping together a whole bunch of disparate leaders as “establishment Democrats” and then implying that all their accomplishments can be credited to Tom Perez. By your definition, the “establishment Democrats” of the last 70 years include LBJ, whose Great Society included Medicare, Medicaid, the various “War on Poverty” programs, federal aid to education, and much else; but the record of “establishment Democrats” also includes Bill Clinton, who famously declared that “the era of big government is over….”
So, no, I wasn’t using the term “establishment” to refer to policy, let alone to equate Democrats with Republicans. I meant only to refer to the people who hold most of the power in the Democratic Party. LBJ is not currently an establishment Democrat, but Tom Perez is.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)This subthread arose when still_one asserted in #64: "An interesting observation is that every issue and candidate in the 2016 election that Sanders endorsed lost." (emphasis added) I responded in #75 that the statement was false, because some Sanders endorsees had won while others lost.
You now provide a link documenting the "Mixed Results For Sanders-Backed Democrats". Your link adds more mixed results to the examples I gave. Thank you for the additional support.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts) Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You manage to imply that I'm seeing things that aren't there, just to shore up my preconceived beliefs.
Of course, I go beyond mere fantasizing. I've managed to convince several major news organizations that Maggie Hassan and Catherine Cortez Masto are actually United States Senators. You have to give me some credit for that.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
lapucelle
(18,258 posts)from the Harvard Harris poll as reliable and valid. This only begins to describe its problems as an accurate measure of public opinion:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029751135#post220
I worked for Katie McGinty in PA. Because we can never know what would have happened in apocryphal elections, speculation concerning who would have won the election had the Democratic nominee been someone more to the left or more conservative than the person who actually won the primary is more a function of personal bias than anything else. Since the Sanders' endorsement did not secure a victory, I don't see why having a candidate farther to the left of a hard-core liberal like Katie would have resulted in victory.
As for any claims that Kate McGinty is "conservative", On The Issues.org rated her a "hard-core liberal" based on her policy positions.
Here is an explanation of the metrics for On The Issues.org's political philosophy determination standards.
http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=1&a2=1&a3=1&a4=3&a9=1&a16=5&a10=5&a5=5&a7=4&a8=2&a14=1&a15=2&a17=4&a19=4&a18=1&a6=1&a20=1&a11=2&a12=4&a13=2&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=78&e=18&t=21
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Here's part of what I wrote in #56:
That's the forest -- that, among Democrats, there is clearly a significant division of opinion.
On DU, sniping at the Harvard-Harris Poll has often deflected attention from the important point. There are many Americans who are opposed to Trump and the GOP agenda. Among those Americans, however, their agreement on broad principles doesn't negate the existence of significant disagreements. For example, we all reject the Republican vision of a complete free market in health care, embodied in the "Repeal and go fuck yourselves" attacks on the ACA. Of the people who reject that vision, though, some favor single payer and some don't.
Of course, it's not two clearly defined factions. If we could interview every registered Democrat in the country about single payer and about raising the federal minimum wage to $15, the results would be strongly correlated but they wouldn't be perfect. Add in more issues and there'd be more untidiness.
As for McGinty, I didn't say that she was conservative in any absolute sense. I said that she's one of the candidates who "defeated more progressive opponents in their primary." That means that, in Pennsylvania, she was "the more conservative alternative" among the Democrats (emphasis added). Even among people who are to the left of Pat Toomey, there's room for some left-right variation.
lapucelle
(18,258 posts)some people should be concerned about missing the forest for the trees.
Citing specific data points from one question in a lengthy questionnaire is akin to counting trees.
Evaluating the value and usefulness of a body of data based on the validity and reliability of its methodology...that is the forest.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)lapucelle
(18,258 posts)is only as valuable as its methodology is rigorous.
Polls designed and conducted with a purpose other than the collection of valid and reliable data are the equivalent of Fox News. The goal is not to to discover facts or trends; the goal is to serve an agenda.
The Hill mines the data brilliantly in order to "inspire" stories with the purpose of generating traffic and revenue, even while tacitly admitting a major problem with the reliability of the data. From a story in The Hill this week, using data culled from the Harvard Harris Poll:
"A majority of voters believe the Russia investigations are damaging to the country and are eager to see Congress shift its focus to healthcare, terrorism, national security, the economy and jobs.
Those are the findings of the latest Harvard-Harris Poll survey, provided exclusively to The Hill, which paints a complicated picture of voters’ opinions about the numerous probes that have engulfed the White House.
Sixty-four percent of voters said the investigations into President Trump and Russia are hurting the country. Fifty-six percent of voters said it’s time for Congress and the media to move on to other issues, compared to 44 percent who said the focus should stay on Russia.
But other surveys have found strong support for the special counsel investigating the Russia probe. A Harvard-Harris survey released last month found 75 percent support for former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s investigation."
That bolded admission is a red flag to data analysts.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/339146-poll-voters-grow-weary-of-russia-probes
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)lapucelle
(18,258 posts)The troubling problems with the methodology of the cited poll as a valid and reliable measure of public opinion is a matter of fact, not belief. This fact has been the topic of my posts.
What is truly revealing is the characterization of an unsuccessful attempt to change the subject as a "failure" on someone else's part.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)
Thanks for your informative and factual posts that completely dismantle the manipulative notions that this is anything more than a farcical internet poll. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees — the continued insistence on Bernie Math principles that just distort reality and then trying to browbeat people who point out the fallacies of it all.
Brilliant!
lapucelle
(18,258 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Most people of what he said was popular and remains pertinent.
And there is no such thing as a center anymore-the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative 'pro-business'" voter doesn't exist in any significant numbers.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Its not what a politician or figurehead says. It is what he does.
Study Sen Paul Wellstone for a history of Progressivism.
He walked the walk.
Not simply talked the talk.
It crosses every voting party & demographic.
Look at Trump.
He is corrupt, anti American, anti democracy, yet with enough polish & push his sudden image makeover was hidden to many who heard only the words he knew they wanted to hear.
Watch what they do, not what they say.
The truest of Progressives, Sen Wellstone lived by this creed.
Today is the anniversary of his death.
America and the Progressive Party's loss.
All people of govt, servants to its citizens should follow his path.
A remarkable man.
In all the rah rah I saw today from those proudly proclaiming their progressiveness, I doubt many of them even know what he stood for or who he was to this Nation.
His name was rarely mentioned in the newly formed Progressive Party of this day.
Did Senator Sanders mention him? Honor his once-fellow Senator from the great State of Minnesota?
Did he even remember to say his name today?
How could he not honor the leader of the Progressive Party, Sen Wellstone.
RIP Senator, you are a hero to those you stood up for, "your entire life."
https://www.wellstone.org/legacy/bios
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And to the best of my knowledge, Wellstone and Sanders were allies in the Senate.
If Bernie didn't mention Wellstone during the campaign(I actually don't know whether he did or not), it was probably that he thought it might be presumptuous to imply that a man who had died in 2006 would have a preference in a presidential primary ten years later.
Paul Wellstone was a hero-don't use his memory to divide progressives in the present.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Why would a Party not Honor their finest representative?
Bernie Sanders wants the Party followers but can't remember to honor their leader's name?
WOW!
You seriously just said,
"Paul Wellstone was a hero-don't use his memory to divide progressives in the present."
Excuse me? Who is it that is dividing the Party?
Wellstone Progressives are pretty clear on what that party stands for.
I'll be sure to mention that statement to the Wellstone family next time I visit.
Man, that is a cold statement. And from those who use the name of his great Progressive Party.
Paul Wellstone's memory IS the Progeessive Party.
Its not just a trendy new label used to divide people into warring factions in a reality TV conducted election.
No wonder Trump is President .
Welcome to 2016 & beyond
Dems are now establishment,
And Progessives are not to speak of nor mention the man that gave honor to that Party.
Its pretty clear to many what took place in 2015/16.
I can't even believe you actually said that. Wow!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nobody here is attacking Paul Wellstone or minimizing his memory.
Paul Wellstone was a great guy...but I think he would be deeply uncomfortable with that kind of excessive personal veneration you are insisting on here. He would want us to focus on fighting for the issues he centered, not treating him as some sort of Minnesota Kennedy brother.
I can't speak for Bernie Sanders-pretty sure nobody would ever try that, actually-but here is my conjecture)
Bernie probably figured that, if he mentioned him more(obviously he'd have mentioned him in Minnesota)that people would accuse him of riding on the coattails of a dead man-and that the HRC campaign would find Wellstone supporters to denounce him for tying his campaign to Wellstone's memory. And Wellstone's family would have to ok it and they may simply have wanted to stay out of the primary contest(a lot of people did want to stay out of it, for various reasons).
Now, if you're going to claim that Bernie's campaign was financed from some illegitimate source, you have an obligation to at least say WHO you think was doing that. With an allegation like that, it's put up or shut up.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)other than you?
"Put up or shut up."
Big sale on strawmen?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I was meaning to respond to that poster and that poster alone. I totally agree with you that no candidate should have implied that they were the sole heir to the Wellstone tradition.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)This is the definition of strawman....
Or are you going to claim that this is "actually a response to someone else."
Mysterious doesn't = "illegitimate." Just like when a candidate refuses to be transparent with their personal finances.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The person posting as "WwcD" asked how Bernie "acquired" the crowds at his rallies...as if those crowds were not there because they connected with the ideas the Sanders campaign presented. And talked of a mysterious dump of money that somehow artificially inflated the support Bernie received.
In reality, the support that campaign ended up receiving was on the merits of the ideas it presented.
What is the point in trying to make a retroactive case that the support that campaign gained was somehow not real and that that campaign should not have been allowed to happen? The ideas were nothing but positive and clearly they needed to be part of the discussion.
Bernie should not run again. But there's no point in trying to retroactively delegitimize his presence in the '16 primaries. HRC won those and her showing in the fall wouldn't have been any different had Bernie been kept out of the primaries. We didn't end up with Trump because our nominating process wasn't a debate-free formality that ended in March. Trump would've stolen it anyway.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 27, 2017, 03:03 PM - Edit history (1)
It was never intended as a response to you. I've totally re-edited it to clarify. I posted it as a response to your post purely by accident. Can you accept that explanation? I have no reason to lie with you, and I would never post something intended as a response to you and then deny it.
There was this entirely different person-not you, I've given you the other poster's name-making weird and totally unfounded accusations about the '16 Sanders campaign, the thing about acquiring the crowds-it's not possible to "acquire" massive crowds, crowds of that size are only going to turn up if they actually connect with a candidate's message-and the thing about the "mysterious" campaign funds, which is bogus because the Sanders campaign, as far as I know, was just as detailed in its FEC filings as anyone else.
This person was also the one complaining that Bernie didn't mention Wellstone, and I was arguing that there was no reason Bernie should have done so, because people who backed both major Dem primary candidates revere Wellstone's memory and it would have been arrogant for any candidate to claim to be the sole inheritor of Wellstone's legacy.
Look, I absolutely agree that Bernie should not run again...but that doesn't mean I have to say nothing
when posters make false accusations about his primary campaign and try to discredit it after the fact. Hillary was nominated, and it was legitimate for Bernie to be on the primary ballots. Its refighting the primaries to argue against either of those assertions, and its a waste of time.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I edited it to make it clearer that I wasn't responding to anything you said. I can edit it further to clarify it more...but it was never INTENDED as a response to anything you said. It was meant as a response to an entirely different poster.
I'll edit it further to clarify that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And was posted in response to you strictly by mistake.
I would never respond to something you said and then deny I'd responded to it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Google "Paul Wellstone" "environmental racism."
Also, Paul Wellstone was THERE with Senator HRC, and Congressman Barney Frank (who had NO skin in that game) for reproductive rights when others were not - especially in the early days of the GWB attacks on choice. I was there, and met with him several times.
You certainly can't exclude HRC supporters from being Wellstone fans, and whatever that says about HRC and Paul Wellstone.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)In fact, I suspect part of the reason Bernie didn't invoke Wellstone was that he had a lot of fans in both campaigns.
What I've been saying in this exchange was that there was good reason that Bernie didn't reference Wellstone, in response to a poster who claims that he'd started out supporting Bernie but then stopped BECAUSE Bernie didn't mention Wellstone enough in his campaign.
I wasn't CLAIMING Wellstone's legacy for Bernie, or for anyone in particular in the current political situation. I'm saying the proper thing to do was to leave Wellstone OUT of the primaries.
Please stop assuming the worst motivations on my part. OK?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)true champion of the poorest, the voiceless, the most vulnerable. A champion for minorities.
Like the PP said, Senator Wellstone was not all talk, he was all action.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I wasn't comparing Bernie to him or making an equivalence between the two, and would never do that. OK?
Paul Wellstone was a champion of the poor.
My posts were actually an argument for why it wasn't a good idea for Bernie(or any other candidate in 2016) to claim to be the political heir of Paul Wellstone.
They were in response to another poster who was saying the he turned against Bernie because Bernie didn't reference Wellstone.
The day that Paul Wellstone died, with his family, we got the call in the pro-choice org where I worked, and he had supported with his whole heart and soul.
Along with Hillary.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) 
retread
(3,762 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You're referring to Clinton's winning the popular vote by millions?
Poles may or may not be irrelevant; polls however are wonderful measurements and indicators...
treestar
(82,383 posts)they are ineligible to vote in our elections.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)I have yet to see any proof.
Just saying.
Nite
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)So so popular.
shanny
(6,709 posts)who started what, 60? points behind the best-qualified ever candidate with universal name recognition and a huge war chest lost.
so so surprising
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)A mediocre tv personality beats out even the best of the repubs on the Primary stage & goes on to win the prize.
Amazing how that happened huh.
Pretty amazing, that rapid ascent to stardom. Yup
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That indicates that his influence may not be as strong as polls indicate.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)so it really is immaterial. He won't run anyway hopefully in 20. We need new candidates.
treestar
(82,383 posts)voted for his opponent. So it was not a majority as the headline states.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Yates Amatitio
(13 posts)there is no far left in the USA that has any influence...and Bernie Sanders is not "far left"
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Even Sanders is comparable to a social democrat.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Corbyn in Britain is a left social democrat. Sanders is, AT BEST, center social democrat and with his support of US imperialism, I would argue he's a "right" social democrat.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Sanders ran as a Democrat.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)on a national level anyway, that can be described as "far left". Except in the most relativistic of terms, being compared to US far right politicians.
Among the people now, I think that the "far left" is making a little bit of a comeback. We'll see how far it goes.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)Bernie is NOT the only person capable of leading the party further left. Why did it take two seconds for this thread to turn into yet another Bernie or Bust ramble?
If you want to discuss moving left, discuss moving left intelligently and stop grabbing at Bernie as if he's a messiah.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)My reason for posting was that I believe that voters are more progressive than politicians.
My main quarrel with Sanders would be that, in emphasizing class-based analysis, he should have given more emphasis to the barely hidden racism and sexism that underlies many conservative positions and tactics.
HRC could also have led the Party farther left. But Sanders articulated what many voters feel. Even some Trump voters agreed with Sanders on some issues.
As to a messiah, there is no messiah in politics. Sanders is no messiah, nor was Obama. There are energized and committed voters.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)Actually, I'm fine holding this type of discussion because it seems inevitable that there be a leftward movement in response to the Rs rightward movement. I'm just tired of people bringing up Bernie whenever anyone tries to start a discussion about moving left. It's like the idea of other candidates being more progressive is inconceivable.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)that my personal views are one thing, but what I post represents what I find interesting and perhaps helpful.
And I agree with you that because the GOP has moved so far to the right, this center is actually in many cases center right. One proof of that is that national health care is supported also by the right in most other countries.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But, while he is not the only person capable of moving us in a better direction, we're not going to get there if everything associated with his campaign, ever idea remotely similar to his message, is anathemized.
If Bernie doesn't run again(and he shouldn't)there does need to be somebody who runs whose campaign incorporates a strong economic justice program a PART of her or his message.
If the decision is to act as if the Sanders movement never happened and left nothing of value behind, what chance is there of anything happening to change the status quo in this party at all?
And if we stay where we are right now on anything, what chance do we have of ever moving above 49% in presidential elections and ever getting out of the minority in congress and the state legislatures?
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)I was more aligned with Bernie than HRC, but even I get sick of his name or "Our Revolution" being proffered as the solution to everything that ails the party. And I am well aware that you have been pushing the social and economic justice issues for months now. I agree, there is progress to be made in these areas. I don't think that many Dems would argue we've gone as far as possible. All I'm saying is that this constant bickering about how right Bernie is versus what legislation Bernie did not support when he should have is becoming really old. We don't have to go to a third party to find new ideas. I'm completely confident that our own party is quite capable of producing some decent ideas of our own.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)2)I don't advocate a third party and have no idea why you think I do.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)I was agreeing with you and restating your point that we should talk about the issues. I'm well aware of all your threads about the issues, and I know you don't try to link issues with specific candidates. My point about Bernie and third party candidates was meant to be taken in general by all DUers.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And thank you for the good will.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)Fool us once and all that. We don't need another year and a half division tour.
And we really don't need to incorporate "his ideas" since the majority of them are and have been part of the Democratic platform anyway. And we sure as hell don't need anyone attempting his failed strategy of screaming about economic justice being more important than social justice. Just take his support of anti-choice candidates as one example of Bernie fail.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Me.
(35,454 posts)THey're fine and have better candidates than the ones he was supporting because he didn't do his home work. And his group, Our Revolution, is not supporting Northam for Gov. in Va. So why should we trust his/their choices, few of them do well.
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)She is the real deal.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Our Revolution in refusing to endorse or support Northam.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)There seems to be this idea on DU that the DNC can just pass a resolution and bar him from all the primaries for the sin of not being a registered Democrat -- or maybe even that the reason he could run last time is that the DNC magnanimously passed a resolution granting him permission to run.
If your statement is based on a belief that the DNC can and will take some action to bar him, I'd be interested in knowing more detail about what you expect.
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)There is something wrong with your character if “opportunity” controls your loyalty.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)at all from that post.
Why do you? Sounds like a strawman to me.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I wrote, "There seems to be this idea on DU...." (emphasis added) because I've certainly seen it in other threads. There've been posts along the lines of "I doubt that the DNC will make that mistake again," the alleged mistake being "allowing" Sanders to run.
You're right that this particular post (#26) didn't expressly say that, but it kind of hinted at it. I was left uncertain about what the poster meant. Instead of picking one interpretation and responding to it, I asked.
Protip: Asking for clarification is precisely how to avoid attacking a strawman.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)a lot of credibility.
"but it kind of hinted at" doesn't either.
I suggest truly reading with the goal of understanding, rather than portraying as unreasonable, the person who has disagreed with you.
It is sometimes difficult to avoid the strawman fallacy. After all, since one is disagreeing with the objection in question, it can be difficult to give due credit to an opposing point of view. It is essential to do this, however, for it will bolster the strength of one's argument. In order to avoid this fallacy, one should be careful to:
1. Ensure that one understands the objection in question; and
2. Take deliberate care in articulating that position and its flaws to the paper’s audience.
Interestingly enough, an argument that makes concessions to opponents or at least carefully examines them is often more persuasive because it appears more reasonable to the audience.
http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/reason2d.html#strawman
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And his campaign wasn't predicated on any deception.
The guy campaigned for the ticket all across the country in the fall. It's just that he didn't tell his followers to disband as a group or that they should forever stop working for what they care about.
And there was no reason he should have told them to disband and give up. What they were working for isn't unpopular and helped influence the platform. They didn't fail, and they shouldn't have been treated as a vanquished group.
Nominating your candidate is not the only measure of success.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Another straw man.
No one said that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)not only to block him from running in the Democratic primaries again-and if people wish to push for that, that is their right if that is how they feel, and I personally believe he should NOT run again, which is also what I think Bernie privately believes itself-but to make sure that no ideas even remotely connected to the message of his campaign, or nothing connected to the idea of democratizing this party that that campaign promoted, should be part of our future at all? That our message for 2020 should just be what it would be if the Sanders campaign had never even happened?
We stand for some good things, but if we did make the decision to act as though the Sanders movement wasn't real, never happened, and said noting worth repeating, we will look out of touch. Our message can't just be "Trump is walking sewage!". We can only win if we lead by saying "We have far better ideas and HERE IS WHAT THEY ARE".
I'm making the argument I've been making since at least the mid-Seventies, when I got involved in Democratic and progressive politics-we need to run by actually trying to win the argument, and by conveying the idea that it's not shameful to be progressive rather than centrist or conservative. That was what Barack Obama, at his best, presented. It worked when pretty much nothing else we'd tried since 1980 had worked in electoral terms-it was the only approach since 1964 that won us a majority of the popular vote.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Like you would if someone said, "Do we have to deify Bernie in order to prove ourselves as progressives?"
Is that clearer?
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #19)
lunamagica This message was self-deleted by its author.
treestar
(82,383 posts)
sheshe2
(83,770 posts)
538 rates them at C-
Have you ever responded to an internet poll? I have for a laugh. All the ones I voted on let you vote multiple times.
Me.
(35,454 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Utterly reliable....
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)they totally screwed up the sample in order to determine this...couldn't be done with that sample.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)If nothing changes, nothing changes.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)scientific. Just ask Nate Silver.
Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #28)
BainsBane This message was self-deleted by its author.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)delisen
(6,043 posts)Mark Penn's Harris poll gives rewards for participating -just like my credit card company!
However, lots of participants are whining about being cheated out of their Harris Poll rewards.
aeromanKC
(3,322 posts)I'd rather back a winner.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Not a time for trying out a newbie. The country is going to long for someone they trust and know. That is Joe.
Flame suit on so fire away...
rainin
(3,011 posts)and the ticket I want is Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Warren.
SeattlePop
(256 posts)It's sad so many here don't even understand why. Even sadder for our reddening country.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)
We were all duped by Vladimer Putin & the Republican Party.
Every one of us.
SeattlePop
(256 posts)Like the bankers who got the handout yesterday.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 26, 2017, 04:27 AM - Edit history (1)
and thereby chose to promote a transfer of wealth to the rich, who chose White Supremacy, and who chose to deport DACA recipients, who chose to throw Americans off healthcare, and who chose to give an unstable narcissist the nuclear weapons. If Trump launches those weapons, they can be content knowing that Trump couldn't have done it without them.
Edit: The point below is wrong. My link below is to the Sept poll, when the one featured in the article is from Oct.
By the way, the article in Common Dreams is a complete fabrication. There is no such question about moving left in the Harris-Harvard poll. See for yourself. http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/HHP-September-Wave_Topline-Memo_Custom-Banners_Registered-Voters.pdf
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You charge that "the article in Common Dreams is a complete fabrication." Your statement is demonstrably false.
You attempt to back it up with a link to the Harvard-Harris Poll result from September 2017. If you had looked at the actual Common Dreams article before launching your wild charge, you would have seen that, in the very first sentence, Common Dreams linked to the Harvard-Harris poll report from October 2017.
If you follow the actual link cited by Common Dreams, which I've copied above, you'll find the question discussed by Common Dreams, just as the author stated. It's right there in Table 65 on page 69.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
JHan
(10,173 posts)I have an issue with the lashing out at "centrists" and the use of the meme "establishment" as if Democrats have not been caring all along.
I posed this question in a post before: Sherrod Brown introduced a Medicare Buy in Bill in August, he did not co-sponsor Medicare for All - is Sherrod Brown now "establishment"? Is Tammy Duckworth?
can someone please define what a "bold leftward shift" means?
Democrats already want Universal Healthcare, Democrats have talked about issues affecting the grassroots - even while lacking the majorities required to make a "bold leftward shift" and paying a price for taking risks.
As usual, the framing by Common Dreams is antagonistic and reeks of purity politics. This is why I consider them the fox news of the left.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Of course the goal is to make the Democratic Party less electable to keep Trump in office.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)edit: Correction. I looked at the wrong poll, the most recent one I saw listed on the Harris site. I was wrong. The question was asked and 52% of Democrats say they want the party to move to the left. I'm leaving the post up because of the discussion surrounding it. Even though I clearly am wrong.
That article is a complete and deliberate fabrication. I just did a search under left and the references were:
"Do you think the U.S. healthcare system needs further reform or should it be left as-is?"
"Would you like to see more deals like this even if it means that Republicans in Congress are left out?"
There is zero use of the term progressive.
http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/HHP-September-Wave_Topline-Memo_Custom-Banners_Registered-Voters.pdf
You posted a fucking Kremlin rag that just plain makes shit up.
jalan48
(13,865 posts)Government? Here are just a few of the article titles on their main page.
"Climate Threat Erased, Big Oil Bonanza Embraced in Leaked Draft of Interior Dept. 5-Year Plan"
"Forget What Corker and Flake Say. Look at Their 90% Pro-Trump Voting Records"
"Poll Shows Majority of Americans Agree Trump 'Reckless,' 'Dishonest,' and 'Unstable"
"JusticeforJane Step Closer as Full Appeals Court Affirms Teen's Body Is "Her Own"
"Pence Swings into Senate to Deliver 'Wet-Kiss-to-Wall-Street' Tie Breaker"
'"Can You Say Corruption?' Puerto Rico Contract for Trump-Connected Raises Concerns"
"'Bush No Better' Than Trump: Gold Star Mom Decries Whitewashing of Warmonger"
Response to jalan48 (Reply #52)
BainsBane This message was self-deleted by its author.
jalan48
(13,865 posts)Sorry, that seems a bit hyperbolic to me.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 26, 2017, 12:18 AM - Edit history (1)
and the denial of Russian interference.
Here are some other examples of their shit: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/06/27/russiagate-collapsing-political-strategy
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/12/10/cia-concludes-russia-meddled-us-election-provides-no-evidence
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/12/13/hypocrisy-behind-russian-election-frenzy
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/05/01/how-russia-spin-got-so-much-torque
Oh, I almost forgot. Common Dreams has been listed on Hamilton 68, Clint Watt's site charting Russian propaganda activity, as among the most touted sites by Russian trolls and bots. But just pretend that doesn't matter.
Response to BainsBane (Reply #59)
jalan48 This message was self-deleted by its author.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)I looked at the wrong month. There is an Oct poll I didn't see. I apologize for my error. Of course it's good to look at actual polls, but it has to be the right one. 
Clint Watt was a senior intelligence official under Obama and for decades. He testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee a few months ago. He gave a detailed and hair raising account of Russian troll and bot activity in the election. The Hamilton 68 tracks Russian troll activity: http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/
What it shows are the top sites, articles, and topics being disseminated by Russian operatives in any given period. It doesn't mean all of those sites are Kremlin outfits. It means there is something there the Russians want to push on a given day. Some of the sites appear very frequently, though the topics and sites vary day to day.
Response to BainsBane (Reply #69)
jalan48 This message was self-deleted by its author.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)somewhat complimentary posts, but not these.
jalan48
(13,865 posts)I didn't mean it to be unfriendly I just thought it too confusing. We all make mistakes, I've made my share that is for sure. I still appreciate your responses and they did make me think. I look forward to more exchanges in the future.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and have a great day.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Be careful about tossing around terms like "just plain makes shit up" when you're living in such a glass house.
I answered this above before I noticed that you'd really gone to town with your falsehood in this subthread, so I'll just repeat my entire post here.
You charge that "the article in Common Dreams is a complete fabrication." Your statement is demonstrably false.
You attempt to back it up with a link to the Harvard-Harris Poll result from September 2017. If you had looked at the actual Common Dreams article before launching your wild charge, you would have seen that, in the very first sentence, Common Dreams linked to the Harvard-Harris poll report from October 2017.
If you follow the actual link cited by Common Dreams, which I've copied above, you'll find the question discussed by Common Dreams, just as the author stated. It's right there in Table 65 on page 69.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)You are correct that I looked at the wrong poll and therefore am wrong. I see the question quoted. 52% support moving to the left. That doesn't make me a fabricator or a liar. It makes me wrong.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You thought Common Dreams was in error and you called it a fabrication, but when it turns out that you're in error, you're just wrong.
Anyway, I didn't say that you were a fabricator or a liar. My guess was that you weren't deliberately misleading people about an easily verifiable fact, but that you were instead remarkably careless by not following the link in the Common Dreams article.
You might think about that issue of "deliberately misleading people about an easily verifiable fact," because that's what you accused Common Dreams of doing. It's one thing to disagree with their politics. Your posts, however, went far beyond that. You wrote about a fairly well-known website, one generally considered progressive (yes, I realize some here probably disagree), one that has been around for years and has featured original articles by a galaxy of left-wing stars. You asserted that this site had simply outright fabricated a completely bogus story, and had done so about a report that was publicly available and that anyone could check online. You were calling them both immoral and stupid. I mean, come on, there are disagreements on the left, but it's not as if Common Dreams is Fox News.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)You said I engaged in "falsehoods," which is a euphemism for a lie. You accused me of not even reading the article, which I did. I also clicked on a link in that article, but it didn't take me to the poll. After another poster commented that the link he tried didn't work, I looked again and found a different one at the top of the article.
And yes, I've seen enough Putin apology and denial of Russian interference to be highly skeptical of anything Common Dreams posts. There are some fine writers on that list you linked to. There are also some notorious ratfuckers. If apology for a RW murderer and an accompanying contempt for electoral democracy now counts as left wing, that is a truly sad state of affairs. That is in keeping other unconscionable arguments I've seen in recent months: we see voter disenfranchisement and efforts to undermine civil rights and reproductive rights, as well as outrage toward government resources being directed at the poor rather than the upper-middle class, all promoted under the pretext of leftism. The basic concept of EQUALITY for ALL, not greater comfort and prosperity for those who already earn more than 99.7% of the planet, which is what an annual household income of $100k amounts to. This version of leftism bears far more in common with Ayn Rand than Karl Marx or Immanuel Wallerstein and Andre Gunder Frank.
Common Dreams has also appeared on Hamilton 68 as one of the top sites touted by Russian trolls and bots. If it has not been funded by the Kremlin, it certainly has been used by them.
Your admonition is non responsive. I didn't disagree with it. I checked the Sept. poll and there was no such question. The question about popular support for an ideological label is not something I agree or disagree with. It's a question of whether it is verifiable. You should also realize that the question (at least the one that came up in my search) was for Democrats only, not independents or Republicans. Given the constant clamor to open the nomination process up to independents, focusing exclusively on Democrats seems inconsistent. Then of course the question remains as to what constitutes left. They likely polled on a number of issues, but after spending significant time on the Sept poll, I don't have time now to look at the Oct one. In Sept, support for single payer among all respondents was precisely 50/50.
I have seen plenty of fabricated and dubious polls promoted on websites. It is all too common.
We see claims about racial breakdowns of support on polls that don't even contain any information on race. We see sweeping proclamations based on very small survey samples, so small as to be statistically invalid, as was the case in a commercial poll by Harvard-Harris commissioned by the Hill. People don't care if it's accurate or statistically valid. All they want is a talking point.
Now I understand you believe that I have no right to question or verify what you consider left, but I don't share your view that I owe deference to any site, and certainly not to you. And when a site repeatedly denies Russian interference, they earn my skepticism and ire. I posted links elsewhere in this thread to some of those articles. With all the bullshit lies we've seen spread in this election cycle, questioning and verifying is essential to being an informed citizen. I looked at every single question in the most recent poll I found on the Harris Harvard website. It turns out I was wrong. Because I care about the truth, I admitted my mistake and corrected my posts. Rather than accepting that fact and moving on, you tell me I shouldn't even question the site. Not happening. I will continue to question everything, and I am right to do so. You'll have to look elsewhere to enforce conformity of thought.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I did not accuse you of lying. I wrote, "The article you call a 'fabrication' is correct and your post is false." It would have been very easy for me to write, "The article you call a 'fabrication' is correct and it's your post that's the fabrication" -- but I didn't say that. Your statement was false so you wrote a falsehood, but "falsehood" doesn't equal "deliberate falsehood" as you seem to assume. As I said, you were just careless.
I'm not going to bother discussing your tangential attacks on Common Dreams. I recognize that some people on the left have differences with Common Dreams, but I expressly made clear that I was not saying that the site was above criticism: "It's one thing to disagree with their politics." I added that it's "a fairly well-known website, one generally considered progressive (yes, I realize some here probably disagree)...." So I was simply refuting one particular false charge, namely that the linked article was fabricated. Far from saying that the site is above all criticism, I expressly noted the disagreements.
In the face of that, you write:
The claim that I said no one has a right to question what I consider left, or that you owe deference to the Common Dreams site, is complete horseshit. Not only did I not take the positions you impute to me, I expressly disclaimed them. I'm certainly not a believer in enforcing conformity of thought (although some people on DU seem to take any disagreement as being such an attempt).
Initech
(100,076 posts)We need to stop everything and kick them square in the balls or we're going to keep losing elections. 
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)advocating that is "moving right"
Specific examples?
Thanks in advance.
lovemydogs
(575 posts)A year after the general election, it seems those who supported Clinton are still infuriated by Sanders running in the primary.
Though it was perfectly okay for people to run in a primary - democrat or republican.
Funny how Trump was not a lifelong republican and yet, ran as one against longtime republican politicians.
Bernie only did the same.
So what.
This ongoing resentment against Bernie Sanders is silly.
And I don't know if it is really over Hillary or because Bernie brought in ideas that excited people - especially those who dislike centrism and you a big supporter of New Democrats and find the move by many on the left to embrace again New Deal ideas and that upsets you.
But, this ongoing anger and resentment needs to be gotten over.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)Also stop pretending there were significant policy differences between Bernie and HRC.
The first few debates were mostly Bernie saying "I agree with a Senator Clinton" or HRC saying "I agree with Senator Sanders". There were minor differences on implementation but that's about it.
The vast majority of DU'ers are committed to progressive policy. So please stop smearing left-liberals and progressives as "Centrist"
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)We sure can’t be too picky right now, with that dangerous narcissist in charge now.
But the further “left” the better for me. What that means is believing it is just and right to have cheaper single payer health insurance that strips profit out of the equation....the way it was once. Also I believe in a universal base income for everyone. We could swing all this if we quit giving tax breaks to multi billionaires and giving defense a blank check.
All that said it is all hands on deck right now, any non crazy port in this storm....but please not Joe Biden we need younger blood in their now.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Edit: again, I looked at Sept and not Oct. The results for Oct may differ.
31% of those under 30, the highest response as liberal. The rest are split between moderate and conservative. What about that says majority support for a leftward shift? The majority of even the youngest respondents don't even identify as liberal.
Support for single payer is divided equally, 50 who support it and 50 percent who support private sector healthcare. 51 percent say single payer will result in runaway tax increases.
The conclusions and even the reporting on the questions asked are made up.
Please, look at the poll yourselves. Tell me what I missed that supports the writer's claims.
http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/HHP-September-Wave_Topline-Memo_Custom-Banners_Registered-Voters.pdf
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)but Bernie is not the messenger for this movement. He is to the right on social issues.
coolsandy
(479 posts)
Tobin S.
(10,418 posts)We're getting buried. We've lost all the branches of federal government and the GOP controls most state legislatures and executive offices. Same ol' same ol' just isn't going to cut it. Those old school economic and social policies in the history of our party were wildly popular then and they will be again. FDR served three terms and was elected to a fourth. All that stuff Bernie ran on was just old school Democratic policy- represent ordinary people and promote policies that benefit them. It's really very simple. Not only do those policies appeal to our already established base, but they will bring in probably a good portion of the people who chose not to vote in the last election- that being 40% of the electorate. We don't have to go outside of our party to get this done. It can all be done from within.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)As you correctly noted, Democrats have steadily lost power for a variety of reasons. But constantly moving to the center means that as the GOP shifts to the right, the perceived center also moves.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If he had won, you could have a point. So I'm afraid it is not very simple. Conservatives have an advantage in the way the government is set up.
Our problem is not about the ideology. It's about laziness. Not able to pay attention to lower offices than the presidency. Not voting at all and/or not voting in midterms. Or ignorance. People who think there are no elections unless someone is running for POTUS. People who think the POTUS "runs the country" so that's the only office to be concerned about. Or that the POTUS "leads the free world."
Tobin S.
(10,418 posts)It needs to be a party wide movement. But feel free to keep going with this mushy middle ground stuff that has lost us almost everything. Feel free to keep blaming ordinary people for the failures of a party that has long ago abandoned them for the most part.
treestar
(82,383 posts)they need to get involved. Self government. Not sitting there waiting for the party to please them. There is no reason for an American to play the victim of a party. They could go get involved in it and have a bigger say. But at the very least they could vote. And realize that there is more than the Presidency. That's basic responsibility of an American.
Tobin S.
(10,418 posts)Why do you think we keep losing? Poor people and working class people have been voting for Dems for a long time, but things have been getting worse for us for a long time and very little in the way of progressive legislation has come our way since 1980. We watch these Dems glorifying the middle class, kissing up to rich people, and selling out to big money while we continue to get trampled on by moneyed interests. That does not inspire confidence in Democratic politicians.
You guys can keep calling us stupid and lazy and apathetic. See how that works out for you. See how many people you inspire to come out to the polls using that strategy.
I'm telling you guys how you might be able to save the Democratic party. Might be able to. If we continue with business as usual the Democratic party is probably doomed.
treestar
(82,383 posts)don't mean for you to take it personally like that.
They have to be part of it and not sit there expecting others to just do it somehow. If they aren't at the party meetings, how is the party supposed to know?
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)Tobin S.
(10,418 posts)Any Democrat who voted for that bloated defense budget (that;s most of them) is too far to the right, that includes many "solid progressives."
Yeah, Feingold is a progressive, but the party establishment does not support that by and large. I spoke before I looked at Feingold's voting record, and was going on comments he made that gave me a different impression.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)Honest question, trying to understand yr point of view.
Thanks for the content of your post
Tobin S.
(10,418 posts)We're getting killed out here. I shouldn't have to explain to Democrats why they need to better represent poor and working class people, but here I am doing it. Not speaking of you at this point, but just in general.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)I'm getting weary as well. Of the false notion that majority of DU'ers aren't committed to the core values of progressivism. I do not know of a single DU'er who does not believe the Dem party should strengthen its commitment to the poor and working class.
I don't know what's going exactly but most of us don't disagree on policy. It looks to me that we are arguing a lot for about personality, which is pointless
Tobin S.
(10,418 posts)I know that most Democrats truly value progressive politics, and it shouldn't be a hard sell to get people to support that, but just look at our representation. Ever since Reagan the party has been too afraid to back lefties in the party. I'm know that most Dems care about ordinary people, but they are so afraid of taking more losses that they generally just don't back the kind of people who will really help us. As a result we have lost all the power in federal government, and a majority of the state legislatures and executive offices, because a very large swath of the population has the perception that the Dems don't truly represent them. Ironically, in a reactionary attempt to try to maintain progressive policies and stem the losses, the Dems have taken a course that is resulting in the wholesale destruction of them.
It's not about Hillary. It's not about Bernie. It's not about anyone's personality. It's about policy.
malaise
(269,004 posts)hang on
lapucelle
(18,258 posts)said that the Russian investigation is hurting the country.
79% of the Republicans* polled say that the inquiries are hurting the country.
49% percent of the Democrats* polled agree.
There's also this "finding" from the poll which seems to contradict the Common Dreams opinion piece:
"Do you think these left-leaning movements will help, hurt, or have no effect on the chances of Democrats to win the next elections?
29% of the Democrats polled answered "help".
31% of Democrats polled said "have no effect"
40% of the Democrats polled responded "hurt".
*The questionnaire asks respondents for "party identification", not "party registration".
RT has been using this poll all week in its propaganda efforts. Caveat lector.
http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/HCAPS-October_Topline-Memo_with-banners_Registered-Voters_Current-Events.pdf
bluedye33139
(1,474 posts)bluedye33139
(1,474 posts)Ok
LexVegas
(6,063 posts) Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Internal strife in the party!?
GENIUS! The GrOPers will never know what hit them!
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Is it even legal?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Hey if you think ripping the party apart right now is a good idea, then say goodbye to all the progress of the last sixty years. Say what you like about the GrOPers, but they will vote for the R no matter what. Our team won't, it seems.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)you are mistaken. And 2016 showed division in both parties as to direction. No party is a monolith.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Time to inspire people - with real vision.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)They appreciate the help this kind of crap provides.
Don't fall for this shit again. Please.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Consider me to be impressed.
kentuck
(111,095 posts)I think Democrats should do the exact opposite.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Imagine what FDR could not have accomplished if his advisers had counselled him to move to the right in search of the center.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And a precursor to building a platform for 2020.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Hate to break this to TPTB, but you'd better start talking about it quickly . . . because I wouldn't want to be the last very wealthy man in a really poor kingdom.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Not the mainstream Democrats. Talk to deplorables. You will find they only care about us being unhappy. Librul tears. There is no rationality in these people.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)What makes anyone think they'll push for a bold and very necessary item like UBI without worrying about "Teh stink of SOSHULISM"?
I mean, it's only the end-game of near-Pure Capitalism affecting every working person's future and means of consumption (which you kind of need in a consumer based economy), NBD.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There are just so many that don't care. If they want a health plan, they have to make it clear to the politicians by voting for or against them based on that. As it is, we have deplorables who say they voted for Donald of Orange only to enjoy our liberal tears. And a lot of people who don't have a clue. We need people interested in taking some responsibility for self-government. We could control those corporations if we paid attention, voted in local and state elections/midterms and did not seek to be entertained by politics rather than taking it seriously.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And Common Dreams rocked until an actual person of color got elected US President. Then it went off the rails to join Amy Goodman and The Nation in a town called hate. . . .
samnsara
(17,622 posts)...I don't care where they are on the spectrum of Democrat ideals....just friggen' get out there and VOTE and if your person doesn't make the cut.....then ppl just quit yer bitching and whining and get behind the nominated candidate....and BE NICE! No more name calling no more baseless accusations and no more throwing dollar bills at cars.
treestar
(82,383 posts)had voted for "corporatist" "republican-lite" Hillary to be their candidate.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Reflecting a divided electorate, and even so, it says nothing about what people want.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They will vote for the candidate that says what they want.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)
I'm glad for the days this shit makes me laugh instead of bang my head on the desk.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)1) IRL people I know liked both Bernie and Hillary. There was preference for one or the other, but most would have been happy w either as nominee. That's because both were very close on policy positions.
2) In an election, 51/49 represents a divided electorate. A twelve point spread in an election is not at all close.
3) the party is left and continues to move left
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)I wish it wasn't so. Governors elections are statewide. We are fighting to save our Democratic Senators. Take a look around you.
emulatorloo
(44,124 posts)So that's good!
50 Shades Of Blue
(9,995 posts)
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)Of center and left right now...
Lunabell
(6,080 posts)The status quo has lost us the Congress.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And right wing media dominance.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)When the Republican Party (as batshit crazy as it is) has the White House, the US Senate, the US House, a majority of governorships and a majority of state legislative bodies, I fail to see how anyone can conclude that the Democratic Party doesn't need to make some significant changes (in both tactics and message). Talk about batshit crazy.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)
