2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat are the two common denominators of the 2008 and 2016 Democratic primaries?
1) Wedge issues (unusual for a Democratic primary); and 2) Hillary Rodham Clinton.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randr
(12,414 posts)A charismatic challenger
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)it was because of his position on the issues, most importantly his opposition to the Iraq War. He definitely has charisma but that wouldn't affect my choice candidate.
There was however very little record for us to go by to judge whether or not he was likely to abide by the promises made in the campaign.
Exact same reasons for supporting Bernie whose charisma is of a different kind. It is a refreshing honesty, a willingness to tell the truth that we know, but don't hear politicians say most of the time. We hear them dance around the truth.
And added to that, is the fact that we can see his long record backing up his words.
Both have charisma which is why both attract people so enthusiastically.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)There's an old guy who yells, sorta like the 2008 GE.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Based on the fund raising and rally attendance records he has broken.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Does it ever occur to you that when you personally attack Sanders, using that other vile bigotry, 'ageism' you might want to look at your own candidate and before lowering the political dialogue any more than it is already, assume that the same personal attack can be turned on your candidate?
Most of us do not personally attack Democratic Candidates like that. Disgusting and shows again how it is so difficult for Hillary's supporters to defend her on the issues.
Bernie has enormous charisma, obviously. And it is based on something so new to the American people, a politician who tells the TRUTH. It's actually so amazing that people are in awe that such a politician even exists.
randr
(12,414 posts)Bernie is an honorable Democrat who has the guts to tell the truth
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)On Mon Nov 2, 2015, 11:08 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
There is no charismatic challenger.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=756942
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Ageist bigotry has no place here.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Nov 2, 2015, 11:18 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is not worth an alert at all. It's a darn shame your feelings were hurt. Get over it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There are better ways to respond to the offending remark than alert and hide...Such as the response below this one.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a stretch. Compared to the obvious bigotry that is allowed to stand, this isn't even in the ballpark. No.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: some people have wayyyyyy too much time on their hands.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cannot reply to automated messages
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The two most discussed aspects in our primary today are Social and economic justice. By far. I do not consider them to be wedge issues.
To be clear, I think "wedge issue" is a bullshit term to reference something that doesn't hit one's personal radar as important enough to fight for. Example, I have heard people claim abortion is a wedge issue. A wedge issues as my rights are being rolled by in state after state. They don't truly consider it to be a wedge issue when they make that claim, it just isn't their issue.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Those are crucial issues and definitely not "wedge" issues. I was thinking primarily of sexism and racism. These are often issues used to divide us in politics, generally speaking.
Other "wedge" category issues, imo, would be abortion and LGBT rights, but neither of these were wedge issues in the 2008 and 2016 campaigns.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"I was thinking primarily of sexism and racism. These are often issues used to divide us in politics, generally speaking."
I'm going to stop there as I am really taken back by your reply here. Mainly the outright dismissal of serious issues that sure as hell were a part of 2008 and are a part of 2016.
You literally said abortion isn't a wedge issue, then three sentences later call it a wedge issue. I'm out.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)For the record I did not say abortion is not a wedge issue. What I meant was that is was not used as a wedge issue in the 2008 or 2016 Democratic primaries.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"Those are crucial issues and definitely not "wedge" issues. I was thinking primarily of sexism and racism."
Except when you disagree in your very next sentence.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)I really do not know what you mean. I am content to leave it at that, unless you want to discuss it further.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)no matter how many times you dismiss them as wedge issues. A lot of things are starting to become really clear.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)are incredibly important issues. I never said otherwise. But ONLY in 2008 and 2016 have they been used as wedge issues in Democratic primaries to pull us apart. It did not happen in 2012, it did not happen in 2004. It did not happen in 2000. It did not happen in 1996.
Etc., etc., etc. That is my point. Only when Hillary is involved in a Democratic primary, does that primary campaign get bad on wedge issues, i.e. issues to divide people.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The GOP did that for decades. Now it has infested the internal competitions of the Democratic Party.
Wedge issue is deliberately hitting people's emotional hot buttons with social issues and identity politics, rather than rational debate.
When people who are all basically liberal and agree on social issues are stirred up to squabble over phony distinctions on those issues to prevent unity and make it impossible to address the the matrix of issues connected to Wealth and Power , it's a wedge issue.
That's a whooooole lot different than legitimate discussion and civil debates over those issues.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)with respect to what you call wedge issues. One of the best debates we have had on these issues as a matte of fact.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It is bringing out the worst on everyone on all sides.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Truly one of the best discussions on what you are calling wedge issues.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The surrounding crapola, present in intensified form on DU but reflecting the larger underlying tone.
The candidates themselves were, until recently high minded and civil. Bit I worry that underlying toxicity may soon be bubbling to that surface too, as it did in 2008.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I was with a good size group over the weekend discussing these exact issues. While Hillary was what was discussed, not one negative thing was said about Sanders. This whole "du sets my world view" has to be some kind of joke.
This is one of the most polite primary seasons I have ever seen. That includes "recently."
Armstead
(47,803 posts)However, while DU is a hothouse where things are exagerated, it does reflect a lot of what is going on the Interwebs and within and between the campaigns.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)1) Tens of thousands of posts online in support of Bushs' character. Tens of thousands of anti-vaccer posts on the internet.
2) "Between the Campaigns" Rarely have we seen two campaigns respect each other like this. Once again, one would have to rely on du in order to come to any other conclusion.
Take away the anonymity and you find Sanders and Clinton supporters are great. You are basing your thoughts off a group of people whom 99% of which hide their identities. That is what you are putting forth as directing your view.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)They simply aren't wedge issues no matter how much you try to dismiss them personally.
Sanders is great on the issues I have mentioned. DU should not create ones world view.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And great. Maybe you'll want to go tell Clinton supporters that someone mixed up the names on their cue cards, and the shit they say ought to be pointed at Trump.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I really don't need to do anything as you request. Your words speak for themselves. Once again, you let a couple of posters on du determine what is a wedge issue for you. I will say I find you calling equality a wedge issue to be seriously flawed at best. Seems Hillary supporters showing up here fully disagree with you.
randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)The economy is no longer cratering, and one of the candidates served as SOS.
Bonus round, we know we can elect Presidents who are not white males.
Also, Black Lives Matter and Planned Parenthood attacks are hardly wedge issues.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)the rich own our country and our government.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Almost if not all of the "recovery" has gone to the top 10%...
Cosmocat
(14,568 posts)There has not been a contested primary in POTUS history that didn't have "wedge" issues, elbows, whatever, and Hill is not the only one doing it ...
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Here are issues I would consider to be "wedge" issues: racism, sexism, LGBT rights, abortion and immigration. They are generally issues relating to inclusion, in my view, although that would not always be the case. In context, almost anything which divides people emotionally could be a wedge issue. But racism and sexism have played a visible role in this campaign and at least racism played a prominent role in the 2008 campaign.
Here are Democratic primary campaigns where I think that wasn't true (excluding this one and the afore-mentioned 2008): all of them back to 1968, with the possible exception of 1988.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Those are only "wedge issues" to people who aren't affected by those issues.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)It is an assertion that a given issue is exploited to divide people. Look at 2008 and 2016 and you will find similar tactics by Hillary: dividing people for her political gain.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)people along racial lines after she lost the AA vote. Now she is at least attempting to divide people along gender lines by insinuating sexism.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)How did HRC try to divide people along racial lines in 2008? By seeking to attract the "hard working, er, hard working white Americans" vote?
Isn't that what Bernie has said?
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)First question, here is one of several pieces regarding race as a divisive issue in a DEMOCRATIC primary in 2008. IIRC, for the first time since 1968:
http://www.politico.com/story/2008/01/racial-tensions-roil-democratic-race-007845
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/11/19/365024592/sen-bernie-sanders-on-how-democrats-lost-white-voters
And, Yes ... 2008 HRC (and her husband) made some comments that were stupid, at best; but, how do you get that they were made for the purpose of being divisive?
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)But off the top of my head, I will give some reasons to question their motives:
In 2008, somebody tried to suppress AA primary voters in North Carolina. I'm pretty sure that somebody was not President Obama.
Bill's Sista Souljah attack.
Executing a mentally disabled black man in Arkansas.
Greatly enhancing the "drug war," with disproportionate sentences for POC.
Three strikes.
Ending welfare, all as part of their "Southern Strategy."
In her seminal book “The New Jim Crow,” Michelle Alexander writes that “ Clinton escalated the drug war far beyond what conservatives had imagined possible a decade earlier.” He scored a victory for Reaganite politics by “ending welfare as we know it” with the 1996 welfare reform law. “In so doing,” writes Alexander, “Clinton–more than any other president–created the current racial undercaste.” The Southern Strategy had become bipartisan orthodoxy.
To be outside of that bipartisan establishment doctrine was to reject a Washington-wide consensus that black Americans could be used — or exploited, rather — to achieve political success. The DLC continued the long tradition of profiting from black powerlessness. It was white privilege begetting more white privilege, the way it has always been maintained.
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/the_truth_about_bernie_sanders_race_why_his_biggest_weakness_could_become_his_greatest_strength/
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Just another eye opener here. Social justice has now been called a wedge issue by multiple posters.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)of us are "wedge issues".
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)to quote me saying that. I said quite the opposite.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"I was thinking primarily of sexism and racism."
It's stinks to read what you are doing here. Really stinks. You have made it clear that social justice is a wedge issue to you. As can be seen, you directly stated just that.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Especially since the 1960s, and particularly since the emergence of the Nixon "Southern Strategy," the GOP has used race as a "wedge" issue, i.e. to divide Americans in an ugly way. That is how they achieved the complete re-alignment of the South, so that it has become predominantly Republican. They continue to do that to this day, although now much of that focus is on demonizing Latino immigrants.
In the '80s, Reagan became particularly overt in using race as a wedge issue, by demonizing black people and creating the myth of the "welfare queen." That is a major reason why I consider Reagan one of the most despicable presidents in US history.
In the '90s, as part of his Third Way/DLC strategy, Bill Clinton made the "Southern Strategy" bi-partisan:
In her seminal book “The New Jim Crow,” Michelle Alexander writes that “[President Bill] Clinton escalated the drug war far beyond what conservatives had imagined possible a decade earlier.” He scored a victory for Reaganite politics by “ending welfare as we know it” with the 1996 welfare reform law. “In so doing,” writes Alexander, “Clinton–more than any other president–created the current racial undercaste.” The Southern Strategy had become bipartisan orthodoxy.
To be outside of that bipartisan establishment doctrine was to reject a Washington-wide consensus that black Americans could be used — or exploited, rather — to achieve political success. The DLC continued the long tradition of profiting from black powerlessness. It was white privilege begetting more white privilege, the way it has always been maintained.
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/the_truth_about_bernie_sanders_race_why_his_biggest_weakness_could_become_his_greatest_strength/
In 2008, when Hillary lost the majority of AA voters, she used race as a wedge issue to divide us, imo. There are numerous stories on that. Here is one:
http://www.politico.com/story/2008/01/racial-tensions-roil-democratic-race-007845
In this cycle, when BLM activists made social justice an issue by disrupting campaign events, I applauded their actions and said and felt it was (and is) an important opportunity for real dialogue, but more importantly a chance to begin a real overhaul of law enforcement and the criminal justice system so that black, Latino and native people can start to enjoy some modicum of justice in this country, something they have never had.
Unfortunately some of my fellow Bernie backers engaged in some ugly statements and behavior in response to the BLM activist actions, including conspiracy theories and attacking people on this board. I decried that and took some heat for going on the Bernie Group and asking people to quit talking past people who disagreed with them, especially POC. Some of that BLM emergence episode got ugly and I hope people can look inside themselves and try to grow from that, especially Bernie people who were way off base.
I also decried the purging of people on this site, and particularly supported Bravenak when that despicable stalking event occurred.
I believe after this campaign is over we need to open an honest dialogue on this board between all people of good faith and try to have some honesty and real healing about race.
I believe we need to open a pathway to citizenship for people living in the shadows.
I also believe we need a national commission on truth and reconciliation regarding the historic treatment of AA people, including some form of reparations. We also need a similar commission regarding native people to finally honor treaties in every practical way.
Having said all that, I stand by my OP. I believe HRC's record includes shameful institutional racism in the '90s and her rhetoric in a given campaign is based on which way the wind is blowing. Bernie has a lifelong record of fighting for everyone but the billionaires. That is why I support him and will never support her.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)
brooklynite
(94,707 posts)For better or worse, this is the system we have today; anyone who chooses not to play by the same rules is going to be at a decided disadvantage.
