2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf party unity means that Bernie supporters have
to support Hillary in the GE regardless of her positions on trade, war, Wall Street, banks, corporate welfare, etc. then I say "to hell with party unity." As I see it, the political revolution we need starts with revolutionizing the Democratic Party. If Hillary wants to get on board with the progressives and govern like a real progressive, fine. If not, then just call me a PUMA! Party unity will not depend on Bernie capitulating to Hillary but the other way around. I hear Hillary supporters saying they don't need Bernie's supporters. Fine with me.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
onehandle
(51,122 posts)
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)few months.
Rockyj
(538 posts)Why are Bernie supporters supposed to go to the dark side instead of the other way around. Blaming us because their candidate is corrupt and is just giving us lip service because she's really for Wall St. & 1%!
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... you don't care.
J_J_
(1,213 posts)No, she's giving the election to Trump cause she feels so entitled to be president she will do anything to 'win' including fixing the election when she has no apparent popular support except for the 'people' she has hired on the net.
If she weren't so entitled, we might have a chance at electing the person we really want and actually making positive change in this country.
If she 'wins'... we will get 4 useless years of Republicans impeaching her....and we all lose.
And she will have very few Democrats defending her because we already know she was too damn corrupt to elect in the first place.
Normally Republicans are just full of shit making stuff up, this time they have the real goods on her.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)And your posts add little to the board.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)It's very 
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts).
Another faceless person who seems to like putting sticks into other people's cages.
Unfortunately, actions like that just help to do the GOPs bidding, by further fracturing the Democrats!
.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)We'll see if Hillary doesn't.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Choose your fate, and get the politician you deserve.
hamsterjill
(15,223 posts)What does that say about you?
I'm a Hillary supporter, and I'd love for you to support her in the General Election. But if you don't, that's your choice. That's between you and the ballot box, and no one else's business.
But if you don't support Hillary because of something I or any other Hillary supporter posts, you have a problem with the big picture. Because no one that I know of on DU is authorized to be speaking officially on behalf of Hillary. They are each expressing an opinion, just like you are.
blm
(113,083 posts).
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)going to come to the Democratic party and make major changes to the party after and still criticizing the party. He just came out of no where, and you think lifelong Democrats were going to rush and vote for him to be head of the Democratic Party. It doesn't work that way. There is no political revolution--Democrats have picked our Leader.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)has been Republican for the last few years (decades) and especially so this election.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)or are you just infallible in your opinions?
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)It's his way or the highway. That's why his political revolution has not come to fruition.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Stop that crap. I don't care whether you like or dislike Sanders, agree or disagree with him and the 40 percent of the primary voters who have supported him so far.........
But please stop this nonsense about "purity" and "not compromising" and the rest of those memes designed to pervert principles into hard core Stalinist Marxism or something.
First of all, supporting Sanders is not some monolithic blood oath. There are millions of different types of people with varying shades of opinion.
And if you would ever bother to read about Sanders and how he governed Burlington, for example, you would find that he held to principles while ALSO compromising, co-opting opposition, building coalitions and consensus and being a pragmatist and getting things done.
And the majority of those of us who support him are perfectly willing to compromise and work in stages to the goals he (and we) espouse --- which for the most part are what used to be mainstream Liberal Democratic goals. We're not the ones trying to dismiss legitimate goals with infantile terms like "pony" and something that "can't be done or even pushed for."
Agree or disagree, fine. Just don't misrepresent.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)when was the last time Bernie Sanders gave a speech to a small group of people--never--because he does not want to have to explain himself. He says what he says then leaves the stage. He's lucky he is still being handle with kid gloves. Hillary gets all the tough questions and answers them. And the anti-Clinton crowd complains about her answers.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)More distortion.
And outside of the primary constraints he has always been known for being accessible,and for showing up and visiting with constituents. It's one reason he is so popular in Vt.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Or to never demand them.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)asuhornets
(2,405 posts)timmymoff
(1,947 posts)they do after all dress the same 
dana_b
(11,546 posts)The party so we feel no need to buckle to some pressure to support the party.
We vote how we want to. Period.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Bernie won WV but somehow the most conservative candidate won the WV Supreme Court election. Evidently plenty of people voted how they want instead of for what was best.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)I would suggest voting for H. Clinton to reduce the risk of seeing Donald Fucking Trump sworn in as president.
Even Sanders says that Hillary on her worst day is "infinitely better" than any of the republicans. So, listen to Sanders and vote for Clinton.
FWIW - I voted for Bernie in WV.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)argument ever again.
WhiteTara
(29,721 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)I'm sorry but such a place does not exist.
apcalc
(4,465 posts)Some people are so heavenly minded they are no earthly good.
Enjoy the purity.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)You can either step up and vote responsibly or you can let the idiots in America send the worst candidate to the White House.
TacoD
(581 posts)I prefer to see it as "the lesser of two evils is still LESS EVIL." I'll vote for less evil over more evil every time.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)It's random anonymous IDs on the Internets that we don't need.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)rateyes
(17,438 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...presume to tell everyone else to bow down to, kiss the feet of, kowtow to, and switch their voting preferences to the losers in this Primary, then fuck those whiner losers.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Write in Mickey Mouse if you want to.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Millions of others will likely be writing in Bernie Sanders if Hillary, by hook or by crook, wins the Dem primary.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)It's your vote, you can do what you want with it. You can rip up your ballot and swallow for all most people care.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)just like you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Doesn't mean anyone necessarily will, but they CAN.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)of party unity. Glad to hear it.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Protesting is fine and dandy, but not voting against the Republican seems perverse.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and the only reason you can provide as to "why?" is "the Republican is scary."
My answer is: Hillary is scary, too. The sociopathic "we came, we saw, he died (chortle)" attitude of Hillary is terrifying.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)I wish more people would take part in the Democratic Party in order to move it leftward.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)the wishes of the Left in favor of Rightist policy.
Remember us being called "retards"? Being told to "eat our peas?" We keep getting told that we have to vote for the Democratic candidate, and the Democrats keep giving us the finger.
Why do they do this?
Because their strategy is to frighten, shame, and bully us into voting for them by pointing at the Republicans and telling us how scary they are. And, like fools, we do exactly what they want without ever holding them accountable for ignoring our issues. We just keep voting for them.
They know that they don't have to even try to implement Liberal policies, because they know that ultimately we don't care. We are so afraid of what the Republicans will do that we fail to look at what the Democrats are doing: a coup in Honduras, the destruction of Libya based on lies, increasing military operations in Africa by 217%, intensifying the unconstitutional NSA surveillance program, claiming the power to execute Enemies of the State without due process, doing away with habeus corpus, putting social security on the bargaining table, soaking themselves in corporate cash, ramming through the TPP, supporting fracking, pushing for the Keystone XL pipeline, etc., etc., etc.
"Party unity" just lets them keep doing that bullshit with no opposition.
shanti
(21,675 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)At least, the beginning of such change does. Think of this as our first convention. Though we aren't waltzing in with an eady victory, we will be represented by a great candidate and a fuckton of delegates.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)The status quo is untenable. Better not tie the Democratic Party to a sinking ship. But if they do: I won't be playing the violin on the upper deck.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)Become the party of FDR again, I will jump ship. I am done with it after the 2018 mid-terms if the third wayers aren't primaried out and we are still being led by the Schumers and Wasserman-Schulzes of the world.
WhiteTara
(29,721 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)With the latter you keep your integrity.
WhiteTara
(29,721 posts)is that integrity? But don't complain in the future if Hillary doesn't win. No one will want/care to hear it.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)(The metaphore extensions go quite a long way, don't they?)
WhiteTara
(29,721 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)in my own state I know that we are already in the process of voting for the establishment when we vote for a slate of people suggested for next years leadership without having the slightest idea of who or what they are. Chair of this committee or that comittee. Most delegates did not even know what those committees were for.
It is very sad to see this happen.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)
Beowulf
(761 posts)If that's all you got, you got nothing.
Try this on. I believe a Hillary or a Trump presidency would do terrific harm to our country albeit in different ways. Once in office I believe it would be easier to stop Trump from doing his worst than it would Hillary. Trump is despised by the establishment GOP, anything he proposes is DOA regardless which party controls congress. Hillary would have the support of Dems in Congress and we all know her instinct to triangulate. The military has said they would disobey any crazy orders like torturing or using nuclear weapons. But Hillary brings a degree of legitimacy to what she supports and does that Trump could never have.
No, I would never vote for Trump. Ever. But I know I would regret voting for Hillary. As the OP says, reform begins with the Democratic Party. If that's not possible, then a third party may be necessary.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)you are helping tRump. There is NO denying that.
Beowulf
(761 posts)who are helping Trump by greasing the skids for the candidate who matches most poorly against Trump. If the super delegates really do the job they are supposed to do, prevent the nomination of a weaker candidate, they'd switch to Bernie.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)How undemocratic (and hypocritical) of you.
Beowulf
(761 posts)So there's no hypocracy. I do think they should be abolished. But I merely wanted to point out that if they do the job they were intended to do, they would support Bernie as polls have consistently shown him to run much stronger against Trump. If there is any hypocracy, it's with Hillary's campaign as they cynically used the system to stack the SD's with friends, people who owe them favors, and lobbyists. They weren't chosen to protect the party, they were there to protect Hillary and their own self-interests.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)The "Bernie is polling better against tRump" talking point is a load of crap. Once the Republicans were to set their scorched Earth tactics upon him, he'd be toast and you can say bye-bye to the lead BS has. Maybe he would still be ahead ... who knows? But right now, Clinton is polling better than Trump, even after 20+ years of Republican scorched Earth. Early polls don't mean anything, anyways. rMoney was polling ahead of Obama only days before the election ... and he lost by a couple of points.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)If Trump wins, Repubs will undoubtedly control all of Congress. This country will suffer immeasurably during the next four years in immeasurable ways. News alert: There will be NO progressive legislation enacted at the federal level during those four years. None whatsoever. Not only that but we're looking at two decades or more of destruction coming from the Supreme Court. Are you willing to go that long without any progressive action nationwide?
I don't think the OP has thought through their short sighted and irrational position.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)in will be any less of a dystopia? Oligarchy is the same rather it is a 1% or a corporatist run state.
As to voting for her - none of us want to - but many of us will because of the SCOTUS. Because we do not want Trump nominating 4 new justices in his term. But then I do not trust her either - she is owned.
As to NO prgressive legislation - do you really think we are stupid enough to believe that she is anywhere near to a progressive? Her welfare reform along with her Billy hurt many people like me and my severely disabled daughter all across the country. If they did not even care about the severely disabled children back then what makes her progressive now?
Don't worry between her R friends who share her values and those of us who are voting against trump (not for Hillary) if she gets the nomination she may be able to win.
The only candidate that will support progressive values is Bernie Sanders. I have already voted for him in the primary.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)She may not be as progressive as Bernie on some issues but she is more progressive than him on others (like guns). She is certainly nowhere near the Joe Manchin wing of the Democratic Party even though some people want to place her there. She's simply a pragmatic progressive just not the idealistic progressive some prefer.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)when I voted for Billy twice. Progressive is not idealist.
When she and Billy wanted to send our children to institutions so that we could get real jobs that was anything but pragmatic. She wanted me to stop taking care of my daughter (for less than $.60 an hour) and put her into a high cost institution (@ $3000 a month today). The idea of keeping people like my daughter in the community was at the time called very progressive.
Glass-Steagell was another item in their agenda that was anything but practical. It works fine for the bankers but not so well for the people who have lost their money and their pensions in the stock market. I am old enough to remember when the day when banks were safe.
Her idea about ACA is also not pragmatic - it leaves many uninsured and getting their care at the more expensive emergency room. And costs much more the administer.
What Hillary calls pragmatic is status quo. No progress at all.
mooseprime
(474 posts)seems to me the quickest way would be for Sanders voters to all join the Democratic Party and swamp the current "leadership" out of the way. the numbers are there, and Clinton's older-generation support is going to lose out by attrition and energy to Sanders supporters. based on my experience with caucusing here in Washington State, the party structure is feeble and mortally disorganized already.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)enabling the constant Rightward tilt towards madness and embrace the Progressive/Populist views and policies that not only made us the great party that held a majority for much of the last century but also views and policies that are appealing to a broad swath of the American public (more than enough to win this next elections and bring in the Senate and possibly the House as well).
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)The idea that a candidate getting, say, a 55% majority of delegates must adopt wholesale the priorities and positions of the candidate getting 45% is sheer lunacy without any grounds in math, politics, parliamentary rules or common sense.
However so is the idea that that 45% can be railroaded and given none of what they want, if you expect the coalition to have any chance of continued existence let alone co-operation.
The answer however is simple and openly available. Take that delegate ratio and mirror it in the platform both authorship and approval committee. Get a platform which has a substantial portion of Sanders' priorities and positions. Strengthen the minimum wage increase, increase marginal taxes, put hard restraints on banks, push for a public option. Sanders can't get everything. Maybe we miss free tuition or compromise on Wall Street reforms and let single payer wait a while longer. Let the delegates haggle it out; it's what they are for, but they won't and shouldn't get it all. 45% doesn't mean you set 100% of the agenda.
But it shouldn't mean you set 0% either. That kick in the teeth to supporters who will at some point be necessary (I hasten to point out I mean Democratic supporters who will work within the party, not outside agitators who never will. Bernie is fine. Bernie or Bust is idiocy) is plain political suicide.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If the party insists that I support a candidate whose actions and policies are antithetical to my beliefs, then the party can suck it. I very much doubt my party affiliation will survive the past the completion of the Oregon primary. I have no need, once that's done, to be registered to a party that continues to veer to the right.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Fuck that.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)Defending that POS against the republican attacks while he was giving the country away to the corporations and the 1%.
The policies adopted during Clintons second term, were arguably worse than Reagans in creating the disaster that American democracy has become 20 years later.
I've been a registered Democrat since September of 1962, when I turned 21. But no more. I can't change my registration online but the next time I'm near the country courthouse, I will become NPP (No Party Preference). From here on, I will vote for the candidate, not the party.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)I'm not a Republican. My principles and morals are not subservient to the Holy Party or her Highness.
Regardless of the bogeyman at the gate. Revolutions cost, in pain, suffering, setbacks......
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)'Unity' seems to mean something different to her. I will vote for no fracking, no TTIP, and very much in favor of $15/hour. I would like unity to mean coming together in favor of people. But, mostly I feel the party has left me. We shall see. I am waiting for the platform. Am sort of curious as to how many people will be on DU after the conventions. I'll drop in to see the toons!! Thank you n2doc.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)and -- as far as the top of the ticket goes -- let's encourage nose pinching in Ohio and Florida but the overwhelming majority of us in non-battleground states should not be required to violate our consciences to support a neoliberal candidate offering a neocon foreign agenda.
We should adopt the slogan -- "Ohio and Florida Democrats: Pinching Their Noses So the Rest of Us Can Sleep at Night"
basselope
(2,565 posts)I don't care what letter you have next to your name, it is your record that matters.
blm
(113,083 posts)Would you determine your medical decisions based on replies from internet rivals?
Decisions about your child's education?
Internet is rife with opinions that differ from yours.
I'm a Sanders voter who wouldn't let HRC supporters or BernieBusters dictate what I do in November. What I do in November is contingent upon only ONE THING - what is the best choice I can make for all those issues I claim as my priorities - environmental issues and protecting and expanding voting rights just happen to be some of those at the top.
hamsterjill
(15,223 posts)See my post # 78.
But your post is better.
