2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow to really break apart a party.
You take the candidate that has far more votes and elected delegates, who would be the first female nominee ever, and who has won overwhelmingly with minorities, one of the most important constituencies, and deny her the nomination in favor of a white man with primarily white support, whose supporters are less in number but whine more loudly when they don't get to shove their candidate down the throats of the majority of us that don't want him
That's how you wreck a party.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)and fail to recognize the positive accomplishments of said party
you can't counter that it isn't corrupt (because it is), and overstate its accomplishments, while downplaying its support of policies that have decimated working people, then pretend all that isn't true and provide cover for things you shouldn't. If people like yourself had a friend that drinks too much or does damage to themselves, do you make excuses for that behavior, or are you a good friend and confront them for their own damn good?
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)and its not under your dictates or control
its a collaboration which needs to compromise to accomplish anything
it has very conservative members and very liberal members
and without either constituency it is far weaker than its opponent the GOP
some of the compromises suck...but without the compromises even less good would happen
kaleckim
(651 posts)you're describing every multi-party democratic government in modern history. Obviously you don't get everything you want, I have news for you, the New Deal was a compromise, it was just a compromise that benefited working people and the poor (although the early New Deal didn't benefit non-whites as much as whites). There were people and parties to the left of the New Deal Democrats, and they were pretty powerful, especially after the crash in 1929. More radical measures could have been taken, like the Labour Party in the UK did at the time. Again, the New Deal was a compromise. Please compare that to the recent "bipartisan" compromises like the WTO, the New Deal, the financial deregulation, austerity, school privatization, etc. Real wages haven't grown for most in decades, de-industrialization has spread (which has resulted in lots of good paying jobs being lost), inequality has exploded in recent decade, as has private debt, and we have a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure gap. Brushing that off by saying, well, everything isn't perfect is BS. The rich and corporations have gotten too damn much, and we have to do a u-turn to get reverse the situation. There is a clear, proven, gap between popular opinion on the issues and government policy as well. Not addressing that is pathetic, especially for that left. Anything else at this point in time is just talk, and providing cover for things you shouldn't.
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)and it did not benefit all people equally
It did a pretty good job of helping white males...
but not such a good job of helping females or minorities
Many of the factors you are complaining about are not under political control
De industrialization is not under political control and it is not done
Its a factor of changes in technology...
and its only going to get worse as robots and AI and machine learning get better...
its only going to get worse
and we can't stop it from happening.
Financial deregulation started 40 years ago or longer
And it wasn't the repeal of glass steagel which caused the great depression.
If it had been glass steagel the issue would have occurred 5-7 years earlier.
Business doesn't wait around to capitalize on opportunities...
The Democratic party did not push for school privatization or austerity...that was the GOP.
If liberals of all ages voted consistently it would not have happened.
And BTW, FDR was pragmatic and didn't believe in radicals who demanded purity.
kaleckim
(651 posts)"De industrialization is not under political control and it is not done
Its a factor of changes in technology... "
What nonsense. It ships production to places with lower labor and environmental costs, then ships the goods back to the de-industrialized countries to be bought on credit. Wages have stagnated for decades, inequality has exploded, and private debt has kept the economy afloat. Debt is now central to the economy, thanks to financialization. De-industrialization is the result of government policy, written into law by corporations, and the investor state disputes in NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, and the TPP go so far as to privatize the judicial system, and are highly protectionist in regards to things like intellectual property. We could have industry here, we could repair our infrastructure and support the green industry. We just choose not to. Regardless anyway, even if de-industrialization was inevitable, it doesn't excuse the explosion in inequality and private debt, financialization, and the total abandonment of poor communities.
"If it had been glass steagel the issue would have occurred 5-7 years earlier."
What in the world are you talking about? Please flesh out your logic, and try to do so in a less pretentious way. You're not Guy Debord.
"The Democratic party did not push for school privatization or austerity"
Factually incorrect. Again, what are you talking about? Obama supports school privatization and freaking austerity. He actually was open to more austerity in regards to cutting the big three. Know who Arne Duncan is, what he did in Chicago? Why do you think Obama tapped him to run education, and what has he done?
"FDR was pragmatic and didn't believe in radicals who demanded purity."
Call it what you want, it was a compromise, just one that benefited working people more than the rich and corporations. The entire conversation was well to the left of where we are today, and there is no good reason for that. Beyond what I said above, we are approaching ecological collapse and need to radically change to avoid it. There's more of a reason, given that, to push for structural change. Moderate tinkering around the edges ain't going to cut it. By the way, take a look at the Socialist Party platform during that period. EJ Dione had a book, I think it was "Why Americans Hate Politics", where he put up the Socialist Party's platform during that period. The New Deal adopted most of it, it just didn't go as far as the Socialist Party would have.
brush
(53,791 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Congratulations! Nearly half the Democratic voters now aren't going to vote for Clinton. Well done! Tell Brock you want a raise!
YouDig
(2,280 posts)griffi94
(3,733 posts)I saw a poll today that said 72% of Bernie supporters would
vote for Hillary to stop Trump.
But Nearly half of all Democrats won't vote for her you say.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
You Bernie supporters sure can be humorous.
Bernie isn't going to be our nominee.
Sorry.
The world can be a cold hard place.
Fortunately it's not going to be an issue.
Bernie shot his bolt and came up
hundreds of delegates and millions of votes short.
No way he gets the SDs.
In all probability some of the ones for him
will flip when they see it's a lost cause.
The number of BoBers is going to be negligible.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)YouDig
(2,280 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Even if you erroneous interpretation were what they are saying, if ain't gonna happen. You're just stirring shit.
In post after post after post after post.... Hmmm.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)they know it, and they are talking openly about the arguments they plan to use to try and convince the superdelegates to override the democratic result of the voters.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)That race is still open. She cannot clinch in until California.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)has a team of highly paid consultants, funded by believers in #berniemath, but those consultants can do real math.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)YouDig
(2,280 posts)And that's what he's trying to do.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)him to win the pledged delegate race.
In other words, when you say "he can only win by overriding the elected delegates" you are wrong.
He could win by winning the pledged delegate race. Which is as likely to happen as the other, next to nil.
regarding the post, what I think is a brilliant strategy when the likely nominee is polling so horribly against the most unpopular nominee in polling history, is to lie about supporters of another candidate, blatantly, on national television, in radio, in print and online, then demand that they fall in line and support the candidate the liars back. I think that Clinton supporters don't realize how much the country has changed, think that they can still kick the left and get away with it (thinking it will just fall in line as always), and that the left has nowhere to go. The Democrats are in danger of losing a good portion of the left. If Sanders, after the election, works hard to consolidate the left of center third party into a national party of sorts that could have modest short term goals (win city council seats, sit on planning boards, run in a congressional race here or there), he'd have millions of people on board. Don't delude yourselves about that. I hope he does it, and at least forces the Democrats to compete for the left's vote. Or, the left in swing states and the left that will not support Clinton can support Jill Stein, a great candidate, and maybe get the Greens involved in national debates. It's possible that Clinton can win back some people, but good luck on that with your recent dishonest and personal attack against Sanders' supporters. Not like it's the first such incident of its kind either.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)>>>>Account status: Active
Member since: Mon Apr 18, 2016, 07:35 PM
Number of posts: 1,055
Number of posts, last 90 days: 1055
Favorite forum: General Discussion: Primaries, 1036 posts in the last 90 days (98% of total posts)
Favorite group: Hillary Clinton, 3 posts in the last 90 days (0% of total posts)
Last post: Thu May 19, 2016, 10:28 PM>>>
A slightly belated welcome to DU. ( You're hard to keep up with.)
morningfog
(18,115 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)I can't look at latest posts without seeing another pile of shit from this one. And there's 50 more just like it. Where the fuck is MIRT?!
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts).... post here. There is/was a proliferation of new accounts around April of this year.... generally posting defamatory, poorly-reasoned ( often-poorly spelled and ungrammatical) frequently racist broadsides vs. Sanders.
Whether this dude/dudette is or is not is one of the hirelings I do not know; but I like to publicly welcome people who look and sound as though they are part of that cohort.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)out to those third way libertarians and created that new Business First Democratic.
During the 1990s you couldn't run for office unless you were going to be "good for the business community.
Shameful.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)just an FYI
Clinton is pure WASP
Sanders is Jewish, which many people do not consider to be included in the "white" category.
So if we're playing who's the real groundbreaking minority, Sanders wins hands down.
