2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf you're on the Left, the time to influence your party is now, not later.
Democratic voters: You will NEVER have more influence on your party than you have right now with your voice, with your vote. The Primaries are the time when the party establishment is LISTENING to you!
Don't get weak-kneed now. Don't bury the headline. Don't rush headlong into voting for the candidate you THINK is inevitable. That's putting the cart before the horse.
If you care about Progressive issues and EVEN IF you love Hillary Clinton, you should use your influence to push her further towards the Progressive side by showing support for candidates to her left.
If you jump on the establishment bandwagon now, you are essentially sending the signal that you will take whatever you are given.
Yes, now is the time when they are listening. Don't be silent, especially now.
Aim high. Always. What you wind up with always be better than if you shoot for the middle.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)We were all on pins and needles, just waiting to see which way you'd go.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)even that is likely to continue to diminish. Registered Dems now make up only 32% of the electorate. She is now at 50% of that vote and below that in some polls.
Sanders is telling Dems the truth. And it's they recognized, you can't force people or scare them any longer, into voting for candidates they did not choose but are chosen for them.
The largest voting bloc in the country right now is the Independent vote, people leaving both parties are the reason for this. What Bernie is saying is those voters, so necessary to win, are not going to return to vote for people who are part of the establishment and responsible for the policies of the last number of decades that drove them away in the first place.
The party can either listen or lose, we'll see what the do..
onehandle
(51,122 posts)©2000. All Rights Reserved.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I wish I had known!
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)I suspect the point of your post is obfuscation.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)It's sad, really. I wish one of these people would make a list of what she stands for, so we could compare the candidates, because I truly have no clue where she stands on most issues. Bernie tells us where he stands at every opportunity.
I'm starting to get annoyed, because there is no way to have a civil discussion about real issues with Hillary or her supporters. Insults is all you ever get.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Still p'o'ed about it.
eridani
(51,907 posts)And one who has attacked Obama's foreign policy from the right?
I'm supporting a candidate who was pretty ticked off at what Bush did, and is a very close confidante of President Obama.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--why would he ever need enemies? If HRC was ticked off with Bush, why was she still defending the war in 2008?
KMOD
(7,906 posts)But again, I will say that the Iraq war was a huge mistake.
eridani
(51,907 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)That quote is not only hawkish, it's sociopathic. Maybe you can explain how turning Libya into a chaotic shithole dominated by the war of each against all is good for the world's women.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)More hypocrisy... It's like a hypocrisy farm powered by weather vanes.
kath
(10,565 posts)ooh, me likey.
Such a way with words, Bonobo!
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)That was pretty good. Maybe I should grab the url...
kath
(10,565 posts)Read it a coupla nights ago and recced, and it's just as great on the second read.
(Oops, meant to post that as a response to the OP. Oh well, just as true...)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It's the time for so-called progressives to put up and stand up for what they say they support.
Time enough in the General to vote for the candidate with the lesser credentials as a fighter for the people.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,998 posts)Saw this and thought--I love the smell of irony in the morning.
Ah well--off to save lives
jfern
(5,204 posts)Good thing the Bush administration didn't take full advantage of the warmongering that Hillary voted to allow them to do.
Hillary was a yes.
Obama missed the vote and said he would have voted no.
Sanders and Biden voted no.
LeftOfWest
(482 posts)to eridani's very good question.
She defended that war.
Enough no more of that eridani.
No more.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)"practically family", as the Clintons and Bushes describe themselves.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)She knew nothing else could possibly happen once Bush got what he wanted from the Senate.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)Clinton: While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.
Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
http://aumf.awardspace.com/
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011884.php
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The triangulation dance. Keep stepping to the right.
How left was she when as a senator from the 9/11 state and a leader of the supposed opposition she cast her very decisive vote in favor of the Bushian war of aggression that murdered one million people for some geostrategic bullshit?
I was so hoping this was going to be about doing the "Time Warp, Again".
bummer.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)an attempt to use 1950's policy to run a 21st century nation.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)She is not left. She is center in too many issues that I consider to be important. I'm not a one issue voter.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)and you're entitled to it.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If she had no primary opponents(and most of her supporters still feel she's entitled to an unchallenged nomination, she'd standfor nothing, just like in 2008, when she ran as the candidate of "hard-working white people".
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)There's really no way to tell them apart.
That's important because it can be easily be misconstrued or distorted by the corporatists as a vote of confidence.
Primaries provide a chance to vote your conscience and your ideals and, hopefully, to help the person who matches those ideals become the Democratic nominee. Nothing is "inevitable." Don't let the self-fulfilling prophets discourage you from voting for a better world instead of one that's not quite as bad as the alternative. The people united will never be defeated.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)in the primaries and then the general.
Anyone one who has to be pulled left, is in fact not left.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)How many times have you been told the time to make your voices heard is during primaries? Now is that time.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)That might sound sweet in a world where your vote does not affect anyone, but the Bush II years proved that. Sadly, those who died in Iraq and in new Orleans, and ten thousand other places, cannot come here to explain that far better than I could, their only language is silence, which is drowned out by a bunch of privileged people singing Hymns to themselves about how principled they were to throw a tantrum back in 2000, led by a guy who NOW supports Rand (I will cut every social program) Paul.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Rule #1: You should vote for the candidate who is GOING TO WIN in the primary, because they are GOING TO WIN whether you vote for them in the primary, or not. Therefore it is absolutely essential that you vote for them in the primary.
Rule #2: You should make your decision on which candidate to vote for based upon the demographic makeup of their crowds, or even better, based upon what some random internet person yammers anecdotally about the demographic makeup of their crowds.
Rule #3: You should make your decision to support candidate B based upon some story about something nasty that someone in the crowd at candidate A's rally supposedly said, once (See rule #2)
Rule #4: You should vote for the candidate whose turn it is.
Rule #5: You should shut your pie hole if you know what's good for you.
Rule #6: You should make your decision on which candidate to vote for based upon which candidate has supporters you argued with here on some random shit, 6 years ago.
Rule #7: You should vote for the establishment, corporate-friendly candidate because to do otherwise means you're a rarefied elitist who doesn't give a crap about the disadvantaged.
Hope this clears it up!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)because that's what I've learned at DU about primaries, too.
djean111
(14,255 posts)ccinamon
(1,696 posts)Pretty good summation --- thanks!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)And yes, THAT "Dead".
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Argle bargle!
Uncle Joe
(58,389 posts)Thanks for the thread, Bonobo.
ccinamon
(1,696 posts)I totally agree with your post -- I think we are in this mess because for 30 years we've "followed" the establishment bandwagons wishes.....it is slowly getting worse NOT better for the middle-class and poor. Time for NEW ways of doing things, starting with voting for whom you believe is the best/most progressive candidate and not who you think "can win the general".
Love this sentence: Aim high. Always. What you wind up with always be better than if you shoot for the middle.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)This is what we SHOULD be doing.
Fortunately, most of DU supports Bernie for the very reasons I put out there.
I suppose I shouldn't be disappointed that there are a small number of people who have smaller agendas that can't allow them to see the bigger picture.