Why do they vote against their own economic well-being? Sanders is the logical choice.

[EEO]

He does not try to hide that the top 1/10 of 1% of the wealthiest Americans own approximately 22% of all the wealth in the United States. He does not look people straight in the eyes and tell them there are other solutions to "too big too fail" other than reinstating Glass-Steagall and breaking up the banks. It's time for a populist liberal, proud progressive, and democratic socialist to reclaim the moral high ground of a Democratic Party that does not ignore the poor, disabled, elderly, and veterans in favor of corporate masters.

[leftofcool]

1. Oh brother, here it is again. Democratic Party is evil thread.

[RobertEarl]

3. Not cool

Last edited Sat Sep 19, 2015, 01:41 AM - Edit history (1)

When one takes a careful look around and sees the truth that our Party has been taken over by money grabbers and power mongers one simply finds that that a leader such as Bernie is our best hope.

The Democratic Party can be grand again. But we must first see the Truth. Join us and really be cool.

[Ken Burch]

17. No. The OP is asking why non-wealthy people vote for economic royalists.

The Democratic Party wasn't mentioned at all.

[EEO]

29. Yup. Amazing how people jump to conclusions based on their political leanings.

[reformist2]

38. They only do so when they get caught-up in and/or scared by identity politics.

And just when you think they're fading away, the fires get stoked back to life. Sadly, issues like immigration and inner city police brutality are going to keep millions voting with their race, rather than thinking about anything else.

[EEO]

28. Who said anything about evil? Broken is more like it.

You may support a corporate Democrat if you want, but don't demonize others for not wanting to do so.

[NCTraveler]

2. Your logic breaks down...

Your logic breaks down by simplifying a decision based on many many aspects down to one aspect. It removes all possible reasons for coming to a decision except for one.

Not saying this with ant disrespect. I just believe I'm not alone when I say my decision in this area involves many more factors.

I can also make a strong case, with very minor changes, that you just made a rallying cry for O'Malley.

[RobertEarl]

4. It is good logic

Instead it seems your logic is what is unfounded and with little base in reality, Traveler.

Bernie is not owned by the power mongers and the rich who are destroying the Earth. Instead, Bernie is at war with them and he is asking for our help. You should join us.

[NCTraveler]

5. Possibly. Nt

[Ken Burch]

20. No. the OP is asking why people make self-destructive political choices.

Why is it, in short, that large blocs of people who keep losing under the status quo vote to preserve the status quo. Why false consciousness is so powerful, in other words.

Why do you see the OP as a rallying cry for O'Malley in particular? O'Malley has nothing more to offer for the 99% than Bernie does. And he's not even better on the issue of racism...as mayor of Baltimore, O'Malley let the cops do whatever the hell they wanted in black neighborhoods...it was pretty much the same as if Giuliani had been running Baltimore when it came to how AA's were treated in the O'Malley years.

[NCTraveler]

25. I read the op and understand what they are saying.

And they haven't made an argument as to why Sanders is the only "logical" choice. That is all.

In their "logical" process to claim Sanders is the only choice, you simply have to change a couple of words and logically one could say they are lobbying for O'Malley. Logically arriving at a decision that people are voting in something outside of their best interests unless they only come to ONE conclusion is a logical fail in itself.

[EEO]

30. Make the case for O'Malley and show me how he has no ties to Wall Street.

[Ken Burch]

42. The only reason to think O'Malley is a better progressive choice than Bernie

is that O'Malley is "officially" a Democrat...which is really a trivial consideration, since Bernie is seeking the Democratic nomination and if nominated, is obviously going to be working just as hard to get a Democratic House and Senate as O'Malley and HRC would.

Bernie has felt that the Democratic Party had shortcomings(as a lot of Democrats do). He hasn't been trying to wipe it off the face of the Earth.

[EEO]

44. Correct. I see Bernie as being more of what I think a Democrat should be than any other candidate.

Someone who has domestic policies similar to LBJ, Kennedy, FDR.

[Recursion]

6. You know what really wins over voters? Calling them gullible rubes.

Can you at least accept the possibility that other voters see their own interests differently than you do?

[RobertEarl]

7. It is obvious, isn't it?

That the most influential are the non-voters. And what do they have to say?

"Both parties are the same. It's rigged. Won't make a difference."

That's what great about Bernie. They can't say any of that about him. He's not a party man, he isn't owned by the riggers. And he has proven he will make a difference. Therefore, he will be able to attract the new voters the way Obama did.

Hillary has a few diehard, and as one on DU claimed "giddy" supporters. Bernie is gaining more and more new voters and he's doing it without big money. Surely you don't think his new supporters are gullible, do you?

[Recursion]

8. They seem taken with his "pledge" not to take superPAC money

That's definitely gullible on their part.

My point, though, was about the OP assuming everyone sees their own interests like the OP does. Yes: if everybody saw the world that way, voting for anyone but Sanders would be unthinkable. But we don't.

[RobertEarl]

10. Are you calling Bernie a liar?

He says he will not take big money, nor form a superPac. If you are calling Bernie a liar, you had better find a link.

But, no, we know you are just making it up. Hahahaha. Yer funny.

Of course Pacs can and do whatever they please.

As for the OP and interests, yes, Bernie People want a better, more equality based US. Against us are those who are in it for whatever they can grab.

[Recursion]

11. Well it's certainly disingenuous.

Yes, he won't form a super PAC or take money from one. By law no candidate can. It's like when the grocery store advertises their carrots as gluten free: true, but dishonest in the implication that the competitors aren't.

[RobertEarl]

13. You stated:

"....... his "pledge" not to take superPAC money ... That's definitely gullible on their part. "

And now you state that by law he can't, and won't.
You seem to be very confused.

[Recursion]

14. No, I'm not confused at all

Sanders "pledged" not to take super PAC money. The law forbids him or any candidate from taking super PAC money. So I consider that pledge at best disingenuous. And I consider his fans who applauded that pledge gullible.

[RobertEarl]

16. I see

You are calling Bernie supporters gullible for believing Bernie will follow the law!
That ought to win Hillary lots of votes. You may want to stop doing that?

Meanwhile Hillary has her 'foundation' which takes big money.
Do you think she will follow the law as well as Bernie?

[Recursion]

18. Amused that you think I support Clinton

Though I realize avatars don't appear on mobile views.

[RobertEarl]

23. Heh

But you sounded so Clinton like. Especially with your opening line in this thread, to whit:

"You know what really wins over voters? Calling them gullible rubes"

[Recursion]

24. I think I stole the line from Stephanopolous

So, yeah, I guess that had a Clinton stamp on it. It's a problem I think Democrats have had for a while, back to "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

[reformist2]

37. Are there *any* SuperPACs devoted to Bernie? Maybe that's the question you want to ask.

[Ken Burch]

43. The OP wasn't calling people "gullible rubes".

It was just asking for explanations for why false consciousness is so strong in some people. There was nothing in the OP that insulted the voters at all.

[McCamy Taylor]

9. See my last post in my recent OP. People's identity as workers is only

one part of their many faceted personalities. And most people would list worker or socioeconomic status after gender, religion, race, age, sexuality. Hell, even the sports teams they follow are more important to many people than their jobs. Arguments which say "You can only vote based upon your socioeconomic status" crash and burn. Otherwise. we would have had a socialist prez year ago.

[RobertEarl]

12. I saw one of your lines

Something like women are giddy to be able to vote for a woman, right?

Obama got millions of people to vote for the first time, for him. They did it, imo, because they were sick of the same old politicians. Because what they wanted was a future. Same thing today. A promise of a future. Bernie is the best hope for the future.

[senz]

32. No. It's voting to make America live up to its promise again.

Bernie wants to make our country work for ALL the people -- which includes and also transcends identity politics. Democrats champion the poor, the workers, women, gays, AAs, Latinos, the old, the young -- all Americans.

We don't just hunker down in our own identity group.

[liberal_at_heart]

15. That's a fair question. I hear Democrats ask why Republicans vote against their economic well

being all the time. The same could be asked about those who don't recognize the fact that the middle class is disappearing and more and more Americans are becoming poor. This has been going on for decades now and both the Republican and Democratic parties are to blame. Both parties take lobbyists' money and Super PACs' money. Both owe political votes to corporations and can no longer afford to vote based on what is best for the average American.

[vadermike]

19. Geez

I love Bernie and will vote for him if he is the strongest we have to offer but c'mon people do not vote on logic that's why the GOP wins and they beat us!!! I hope he uses more than logic and that goes for Hillary or Joe or whoever. !

[liberal_at_heart]

21. That is true. Most people vote on emotion, and as more and more Americans slip into poverty

the feelings are increasingly anti-establishment which means bad news for incumbent candidates, and good news for Bernie.

[Ken Burch]

22. "do not vote on logic"?

What should we vote on? Urban legends? folklore? Tarot readings?

Vote on passion and conviction in addition to logic, but logic is not the enemy. The GOP wins by running AGAINST logic, replacing it with meaningless concepts like "gut feelings" and "horse sense&quot I've seen a lot of horses in my time, most of them didn't have a lick of sense that I could see).

[Renew Deal]

26. There are many idealists in the world that think the world thinks just like they do

And if they don't, something is wrong with them. There are a lot of things that come into these decisions. Some people see a different path to the same destination. Some people think Sanders can't deliver. Some people have issues with personality, appearance, religion, race. Some people are one issue voters and there is a conflict. Some people like Sanders but have personal connections with other candidates. There are tons of reasons that Sanders is in third place when Biden is in the polls.

[EEO]

34. In the unlikely event Biden runs, I am wiling to bet those polls won't stand.

Being a possible candidate is different than being a declared candidate.

[BooScout]

27. Fact....

Most of the Democrats in America do not want a Revolution....in fact most think it's merely the mantra of a tired old hippy who needs to get out of the 60s. Bernie is not preaching something new and revolutionary....it's the same old rhetoric he's been droning on about for 25 years. ...and most Democrats really don't care about some Independent trying to tell them how to run their political party.

[LWolf]

31. Hmm...

Are you suggesting that the "Democrats of America" don't want the support of us "tired old hippies" who remember the 60s?

Would you like us "tired old hippy" Democrats from the 60s to abandon the party and leave it to you?

That sure as hell isn't happening in 2016.

Don't be too disappointed.

[senz]

33. Sometimes you sound like a Republican.

Democrats are for justice, fairness, working people, people of color, gays, lesbians -- ALL Americans. The revolution Bernie supports is a revolution to bring back opportunity, a living wage, a strong infrastructure, a fighting chance for the average man and woman, for bringing back the middle class. A government that cares more about people than about money.

You seem to hope we'll give up our ideals and get with the corporate program.

Think it over, BooScout.

[liberal_at_heart]

36. yes and the majority of Americans are in favor of higher wages and Medicare for All.

They want to marginalize us and make it sound like we want things most Americans don't want, but they are wrong.

[senz]

40. Yes, polls show that Americans care about the issues that Bernie addresses.

He speaks for the people. No way one can marginalize that unless one does not consider average Americans to be people. That is, if one gives all one's fealty to corporations and other holders of great wealth.

[leftofcool]

35. Yep. I remember talking about revolution in the 60's

I grew up, went to college, got a job, paid my bills and taxes on time, paid off a mortgage, raised 4 kids, put them through college, became a grand mother and now I can retire and be a Democrat who is tired of some independent telling me how my Party should be run.

[senz]

39. That was a different kind of revolution, in case you haven't noticed.

Bernie is talking about a political revolution to energize the people to defend our rights and take back our country from corporations that have bought too many of our politicians. Heck, you might even be voting for one of those bought politicians.

I too went to college (paid my own way), found excellent employment in my field of interest, worked my way through grad school, paid my bills & taxes (whoopdedoo), donated to worthy causes, paid off my mortgage (good feeling), and rarely brag about these ordinary things.

More importantly, leftofcool, I never lost my values and ideals, my love for what America was meant to stand for -- a nation of, by, and for the people. Remember that? I've been a Democrat ever since I was old enough to vote, but I sure as hell do not place party affinity above the intrinsic values for which party should stand. I'm not that shallow. From everything I've seen, Bernie Sanders is more "Democrat" than most of the Democratic politicians out there -- with the exception of the Democratic Black Caucus (which Bernie helped form) and a few great ones like Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, Al Franken, Barbara Boxer, Amy Klobuchar, Richard Blumenthal, Bill Nelson, Pete Defazio, Alan Grayson, and the late, great Paul Wellstone, -- among others, but that's all my ancient brain can bring up at present.

I strongly suggest that you think carefully about the country and the world that we are leaving to generations to come, including your grandchildren, leftofcool. Politics is way more than an in-group feel-good exercise. It is how we shape the world. If people matter, if life on earth matters, then the politics of democratic nations matter.

It's time to get serious.

[liberal_at_heart]

41. You know I find it very sad that the Democratic party has given up on fighting for pie in the sky

dreams. I hear put down after put down about people who want things they can't have. Well if you think that way that is exactly what you will get. The people in the '60s didn't believe that way, and that is why they were able to affect change the way they did. But then again I hear put down after put down about hippies here on DU also. Who do they think made those changes happen? Who they think made the Vietnam War end, and made civil rights and women's rights happen? It was the hippies. THE HIPPIES EVENTUALLY BECAME MORE POWERFUL THAN THOSE IN POWER. That is the power of the people. We have the numbers and we have the power to take control away from those in power. It will happen again.