If the Democratic Party continues to go

[votesparks]

in the direction of right-leaning, corporate-biased Democrats, fewer and fewer people turn up to vote Democrat.

If the Democratic Party turns its overall course and goes in the direction of progressive Democrats, voter turnout increases, the party is infused with new blood, and we win.

Any questions?

[nc4bo]

1. Bring that up to DWS and the DNC. Let's see what they think?

Not being - just being real.

[votesparks]

3. A Dem campus organizer I met this weekend

told me that the college atmosphere that he and other organizers are experiencing (from being on campus, internal polling) is around 80-20, Bernie over Hillary, all over the state.

The low level young ranks within' the establishment can already see the writing on the wall, and that is that in order for the Democratic party to ever be successful up and down the board again, bold left progressive values and policies must truly be fought for by party leaders and candidates who aren't bought by the very interests oppressing average working people.

[nc4bo]

5. Obama pulled the young ones too. We all had hopes then, older and younger....

then saw what that first cabinet would consist of and the air was sucked out the room.

Bernie, is the real deal. His message is the real change so many people yearn for.

But, Bernie's message doesn't play well to the moneychangers and those who do their bidding and that MUST include the members of the Democratic Party hierarchy.

Half assed, watered down versions of Bernie's message is not acceptable. We've been there, done that for 8 years now. It's time to continue the progress even if it means dragging the party, kicking and screaming BACK to the left or consider parting ways.

And you're right, this is where we win. This is why we lost our mid-terms - it wasn't just lack of enthusiasm. I think much of it was due to lack of effort by the DNC to GOTV and we should all question the reasons why.

[nc4bo]

9. ..

Threats again?! That dog don't hunt.

:yawn:

[Ken Burch]

17. In fact, that dog just got put to sleep. n/t.

[nc4bo]

40. MIRT team does a good job! nt

[Sancho]

75. Young people don't vote...

and now days, they don't register either.

?attredirects=0


http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics

[nc4bo]

80. They made a difference in 2008. nt

[Sancho]

81. Not much.

Look at the data.

[reACTIONary]

99. What made a real difference was...

.... the black vote. There is a similar chart based on race, and then black vote really spiked - same percentage as the white vote.

Hopefully the black vote stays strong - America really needs and benifits from their participation android perspective.

[daleanime]

86. And you really hope.....

it stays that way?

[Sancho]

89. No

I teach them...and I see how they act. If any candidate in 2016 puts their stock in 18-25 year olds, they will lose.

[daleanime]

90. So you really hope....

it stays that way. Got it.

[Sancho]

91. No..you are making things up

I'm giving you objective information. That's the way it is. I hope young people vote for a Democrat, but they choose just like every one else. Right now most don't care much about politics. The ones I see in Florida mostly favor Hillary.

[daleanime]

94. You say you hope....

but you indicate no concern or worry over your 'facts'. Which of course just happen to, in your view, support your candidate. So please don't pretend to 'hope' for young voters, your campaign is being built on suppressing democratic enthusiasm and involvement. Makes me wonder exactly what your trying to win.

[Sancho]

96. I've been working with Democrats for decades...

I first met Jimmy Carter when he was campaigning on a college campus. I contributed, volunteered, and worked actively for Democrats since the early 70's. I just worked to get some students to register at a meeting celebrating Title IX on a college campus a couple weeks ago. It's not "my campaign", but I have to say that Hillary is the best Democratic candidate for 2016.

The facts are that since Vietnam, most young people have not turned out in proportions equivalent to older voters. The Baby Boomers (I'm one) vote in much greater numbers. I wish more young people had voted in 2000 and 2004 for sure!

I am an elected union officer, an educator, and I don't "suppress" anything. In fact, I know very few people who do more to encourage young people to register and vote than me. I'd like to see "automatic" voter registration as Hillary has suggested.

You can attack me personally all you want, but it doesn't change the facts. Young people don't seem very motivated right now. We'll see what happens in 2016.

In the Sunbelt - young immigrants prefer Hillary. Union analysis favors Hillary's proposals. For young people, women often favor Hillary's advocacy for women's rights and salaries.

It's very difficult to tell young people almost every day to "save" for retirement starting early, and go to college to get a good job with a major company; while at the same time telling them their jobs and savings will be gone when Wall Street is torn down and the banks are broken up! It's hard to negotiate public employee benefits and retirement, when Bernie wants to tax that retirement fund to pay tuition that will often go to the already wealthy. Minimum wages don't matter to millions of undocumented people living off the books anyway.

No matter how you look at it, Bernie's plans are simplistic and don't work for young people or senior citizens or the undocumented. That's why he doesn't get much traction for the majority of likely voters. Bernie attacks income inequity, but he doesn't deal with the primary reasons for the problem.

Universal voter registration and a path to citizenship would add millions of young voters - and the majority likely Democrats.

[nc4bo]

123. They did turn out in 2008.

Our Democratic Party needs to ask itself what has changed from 2004, 2008 and beyond?

It may require a whole lot of soul searching.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/voting/cb09-110.html

Additionally, voters 18 to 24 were the only age group to show a statistically significant increase in turnout, reaching 49 percent in 2008 compared with 47 percent in 2004. Blacks had the highest turnout rate among 18- to 24-year-old voters -- 55 percent, an 8 percent increase from 2004. The increased turnout among certain demographic groups was offset by stagnant or decreased turnout among other groups, causing overall 2008 voter turnout to remain statistically unchanged -- at 64 percent -- from 2004.

"The 2008 presidential election saw a significant increase in voter turnout among young people, blacks and Hispanics," said Thom File, a voting analyst with the Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. "But as turnout among some other demographic groups either decreased or remained unchanged, the overall 2008 voter turnout rate was not statistically different from 2004."

Although the youngest voters were the only age group to show a statistically significant increase in turnout, voting did tend to increase with age. In 2008, younger citizens (18-24) had the lowest voting rate (49 percent), while citizens who fell into older age groups (45-64 and 65-plus) had the highest voting rates (69 percent and 70 percent, respectively).

The overall voting age (18 and older) citizen population in the United States in 2008 was 206 million compared with 197 million in 2004. Of that total, 146 million, or 71 percent, reported being registered to vote. That's slightly lower than the 72 percent who reported being registered to vote in the 2004 presidential election, but does represent an increase of approximately 4 million registered voters. The percentage of those registered to vote that actually did so was slightly higher in the 2008 election (90 percent) than in 2004 (89 percent).

No they were not crucial but......

http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/11/13/young-voters-in-the-2008-election/

Young people were not, however, crucial to Barack Obama’s victory, according to the exit polls. Obama would have lost Indiana and North Carolina, but carried other key states such as Ohio and Florida, as well as the national vote. But young people provided not only their votes but also many enthusiastic campaign volunteers. Some may have helped persuade parents and older relatives to consider Obama’s candidacy. And far more young people than older voters reported attending a campaign event while nearly one-in-ten donated money to a presidential candidate.

There's that crappy word "enthusiastic" showing it's ugly, inconvenient head again.....

[Sancho]

125. My facts are the same as yours...

except social science research demonstrates over and over that an enthusiastic crowd does not predict votes.

There is a big difference between 2008 and 2016 in the "big states" like Ohio and Florida now - it is MUCH HARDER to register or get to the polls or vote on your college campus. NC, per your example, now has draconian statutes to prevent college students from voting easily. I also know for a fact that locally, 18-25 year olds are having issues getting registered because they have to produce birth certificates and all sorts of documents. Even then, they sometimes have to travel to a home precinct to vote.

As such, it's likely that the younger turnout will be LESS in 2016. On campuses in Florida, I see more enthusiasm for some GOP candidates and Hillary than anything else. The majority of college students now are women - that that's a strong support group for Hillary.

DU, and Bernie fans on DU, are an abnormality - they are enthusiastic, but have not gained any significant traction so far at 1.) winning the senior vote, 2.) winning the minority vote, 3.) winning the gender vote, 4.) winning the immigrant vote, 5.) getting the young voters to register in significant numbers.

With the polls, endorsements, and unions on Hillary's side - and virtually no demographic except the middle age white males - Bernie cannot win the primary or GE with the current profile.

[demwing]

105. But Obama is no Bernie Sanders

[CorporatistNation]

129. As Soon As You Saw Podesta Pull Up In The Limo In Front Of The WH 1/20/07, You Knew WE Were FUCKED

WHO IS HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER? I'll provide just a little hint: His initials are j p



And these folks want to vote for ... MORE OF THAT?

So... Fuckin Johnny Podesta continues his Parade of Progressive Policies? NOT!!!

Gettit?

Johnny P. is the "String Puller" fer Da Powers Dat Be!!!! WTF!!!!

[appalachiablue]

83. That's very encouraging news of campus support for Sanders, awesome.

[safeinOhio]

2. This is America

so just follow the money..

[Rebkeh]

4. Exactly

I'm not particularly attached to the D party as I am attached to progressivism.

[nc4bo]

10. Btw welcome to DU. nt

[Ken Burch]

11. As you no doubt always did in the past.

Btw, we weren't even talking about BLM in this thread.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

12. Enjoy your stay...

It will soon be over.

[Agschmid]

14. Annnnnd they are outta here :)

[CaliforniaPeggy]

15. Well done, my dear Agschmid!

[Agschmid]

18. Not me, but some good reliable MIRT folks!

Hope all is well.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

21. Thank you--all is well with me and my family! Yay for MIRT folks! n/t

[beam me up scottie]

20. Merry Christmas from MIRT!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

22. Thanks, beam me up scottie! Merry Christmas to MIRT!

[beam me up scottie]

23. Just doing our job, mam! Thanks!

[Agschmid]

24. Thank you.

[beam me up scottie]

25. You're welcome. :)

[nc4bo]

39. Thank you and Merry Christmas. nt

[beam me up scottie]

50. Same to you!

[Ken Burch]

16. think that was an all-time land speed record for 'stoning. n/t.

[Agschmid]

19. Well when it's that clear...

[H2O Man]

8. Recommended.

No question about it.

[Indydem]

26. What proof do you have of this?

Also, your entire premise is based on a lie. The party has not drifted rightward, the country has moved left. Rather than compare the policies of our candidates to FDR or JFK you Bernie folks want to compare them to Marx.

[cascadiance]

28. So, where are the FDR's of today taking on the economic royalists the way he did?

The party of day has been getting in bed with those same economic royalists AGAINST most Americans' interests. Yes, the country has moved left, and the party has ABANDONED them for campaign money and has not fought the battle against the system that has corrupted it over the years, but has with the DLC (which was also funded by today's economic royalists like the Koch brothers) and its creations like the Third Way has MOVED TO THE RIGHT... Just because the Koch Brothers empire was funded by their business dealings with Stalin doesn't mean that they are related to Karl Marx with their policies. Not sure where that latter theory came from.

[Indydem]

29. Who taught you history?

A clown?

FDR didn't "challenge the economic royalists," he worked with them. He gave them a shit ton of money to build up the armed forces. His policies were no where near as left as Sanders. In fact, no US politician has ever been as far left as Sanders (I-VT).

[cascadiance]

30. I study history of spoken word!!! A clown? I think one that's a clown denies SPOKEN WORDS!!!

Watch that video and ask yourself if any of the CORPORATE Democratic Party members of today would say the same thing that would basically take on those that have given them power with the way the "Democratic" Party of today works.

"Far left"? Many REPUBLICANS are "far left" enough to see someone who is honest about what he feels is the need to work for voters who are his constituents.

Bernie Sanders's policy stances are supported by a MAJORITY OF AMERICANS!!!! Hardly "far" left the way the organized propaganda seems to want to drum up about him as they appear to be paid by the billionaires to do.

[reACTIONary]

106. Propaganda is hardly needed...

.... since he has already proclaimed himself to be s socialist. The majority of Americans aren't going to vote for a socialist. Even atheists poll better than socialists.

So his policies aren't realy relevent, what is relevant is his ideology.

[cascadiance]

107. You don't like social security, public education or other SOCIALISM in our country?

Tough being a MINORITY of people that feels they only win when they use socialism as a "four letter word".

The financial elites really don't care about policies of those they work with, like the way the Kochs worked with Stalin to get their fortune, and the likes of Prescott Bush and his family worked with those like Adolf Hitler and Mussolini, and J. P. Morgan in order to try and get a fascist state tried to get General Smedley Butler to also be an unprosecuted TRAITOR and try to start a fascist coup here.

Yes, the elites have been controlling our media and political parties, etc. lately, but the next generation and many others are seeing through the crap that's being spewed everywhere here.

There's a reason why people look at bar charts of democratic socialist countries like Sweden of their wealth divides and see that as the ideal of our country and see our heavily more skewed version of what it is and can't believe it's that bad.

Policies reflect his ideology, and his ideology and policies is WHAT PEOPLE WANT! Deal with it!!!l That's why his numbers as a candidate are the ones that are growing as more people get to know him, not others'.

That's why REPUBLICANS in Vermont voted for him along with Bush too as their senator.

You need more than name calling to make an argument against him, even if that's all you seem to be able to do in this post.

[reACTIONary]

112. WHAT PEOPLE WANT! is ....

.... definitely not a socialist. Socialists rank below even athiests in the electorate's opinion. Yep below athiests.

Calling sanders a socialist is not name calling because that's what he calls himself. If that is used against him, and it would be, it's his own fault. That's just the reality and ignoring it isn't going to make it go away.

Social security, public education, libraries, roads, etc. are not socialism. They are examples of welfare statism, reformed capitalism, and just good old fashioned concern for the common good.

[cascadiance]

113. And real studies have been done that show your OPINION to be WRONG!!!

Read here...

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/americans-want-to-live-in-a-much-more-equal-country-they-just-dont-realize-it/260639/

Compare what people think our country's breakdown is, what it really is and what is ideal.



https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140922122811-90103575-wealth-inequality-differs-from-income-inequality





Note how most people's ideal is closer to what Sweden has than what we have now. Whether we realize it or not, we WANT the socialist system they have giving the economic mix they have, not the divided SHIT that people are sick of now! If we weren't sick of it, WHY were there so many Occupy movement protests out earlier.

Saying Bernie is bad because you feel that "socialist" is a bad label is borrowing a page out of Rush Limbaugh's book in calling "liberals" bad and using the term "liberal" as a pejorative in the same way, even though I'm proud of being a liberal in what it really means in depth and not just used as a four letter word that the right likes to use the term that you feel most Americans are.

It's like also the way the Turd Way is using the term "progressive" to describe their more conservative organizations pushing things like the TPP, to get false name associations and connotations being associated with that term too.

Sorry, but any economist would tell you that social security is far more of a SOCIALIST policy than it is "reformed capitalism" (whatever the hell that means!).

If you think socialism is so bad and can't be used to describe institutions like social security and other public goods we have, why don't you provide a better definition than just "bad" to describe what you think "socialism" really means. That would be interesting to see what you manufacture there.

[reACTIONary]

116. This is not MY opinion...

.... this is the opinion of the vast majority of Amercan voters. Even atheiests poll higher than socialists. There are fewer people who would vote for a socialist than for an atheist...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/17/could-a-socialist-actually-be-elected-president/

Sweden isn't a socialist country and neither is bernie's much beloved Denmark

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," /Denmark's prime minister/ said, "therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders

Of course no one will be concerned about Sweden and Denmark during the election. They will be concerned about Venezuela. Unlike Denmark's leadership, Venezuela's leaders actually call themselves democratic socialists. Bernie will have to answer for it

[cascadiance]

117. Then why do they vote for Koch supported candidates that made their money from COMMUNIST money...

... from Stalin? Huh?

Is socialism worse than communism? Why? You still haven't provided a description of WHAT you think socialism is in detail and WHY people should dislike it other than the name calling aspect of it, which you seem to want to deny that you are pushing as the reason why people don't want "socialists" in power.

[reACTIONary]

120. You miss the point ...

... my conception of socialism isn't relevent; why or why not people should or should not like socialism isn't relevent; and why people have or haven't suported Koch candidates isn't relevant.

What is relevant is that most people won't vote for a socialist and bernie insists that he is a socialist. Game over.

BTW, It completely escapes me why the fact that people vote for Koch candidates might indicate that they will vote for a socialist candidate. I don't see that at all.

[cascadiance]

122. Again, here's an ARTICLE not just my opinion...

... that shows more people would vote for Bernie against Republicans than they would for Hillary...

That's just as "game over" as your opinion post here with nothing to back it up.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/12/02/poll-sanders-more-electable-clinton-against-gop-frontrunners

If Republicans don't like "socialists", then why in Vermont do they vote for Bernie at the same time they vote for someone like Bush? Huh? EXPLAIN that.

The reason why they do is they like candidates like him who are HONEST to them and don't depend too much on BRIBERY from the likes of Kochs or other big money people to do their bidding.

[reACTIONary]

124. The article you shared is very interesting....

.... and I took a close look at it.

But it doesn't, and can't, address the impact of the vicious, negative campaigning Sanders will be subject to by the repugs if he is nominated. That campaign will focus on his socialist identity, and that won't be a smear because that's what he calls himself. He will spend all of his time explaining and excusing and justifing socialism and if you are explaining, you are losing.

Right now Sanders is struggling to break 30% among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. That's a very sympathetic population, but he doesn't seem to be doing very well. So I would not be optimistic about his chances in the general election.

[Indydem]

126. Blah blah blah.

FDR was for keeping the country together. He feared that there may likely be a complete revolt of the people and a destruction of the federal government and the country reborn as a communist nation.

As such, he introduced policies that protected capitalism, and monied interests, but also helped the common man - if they earned it.

If FDR was such a leftist Socialist as folks like you claim, why did he oppose the Townsend plan and instead support and shepherd Social Security? Because he wasn't a leftist fool like Sanders.

If FDR was such a liberal socialist, what exactly did he do to the "big banks" that mattered? He established FDIC and HELPED the banks! Glass- Stegal? A law which was a grumbling point but didn't stop banks from making a boatload of money (especially during the run up to, and the execution of the war.)

Your history of FDR is skewed and distorted. He was a great man and a great leader. He led our nation through two of the worst times in history, but he wasn't as left as you would make him out to be. He sure as hell wasn't as left as Sanders (I-VT).

[cascadiance]

128. Blah, blah, blah too...

If FDR was such a great "capitalist", then why were the likes of JP Morgan and others in FDR's day so set on having Smedley Butler join them in a FASCIST coup to try and follow in the footsteps of Mussolini that they probably more admired in their desire for a "capitalist" leader. Of course, that event was censored from our textbooks even without the Texas school board from the same groups of people like you that want to serve someone in echoing the Republicans in their chants "Socialism bad, capitalism good!" mantras that are being pushed on us from corporate money everywhere these days.

If you feel that leftists are "fools", why don't you join the Republicans that aren't "fools" as you describe the left as being. You might feel more at home where they aren't as objecting to those who like corporatism there.

So, what is Sanders so much "more left" than FDR was that has you feel he's bad for the party and the country in general.

Be SPECIFIC! Not the generalizing CRAP that of just dwelling on the "socialist" namecalling bits with not details other than just showing that you can echo others' pejoratives.

[beam me up scottie]

32. "no US politician has ever been as far left as Sanders"? What clown taught you history?

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

59. LOL

That poster has obviously never heard of Shirley Chisholm, Gus Hall or Eugene Debs.

All three were presidential candidates who were to the left of Bernie. Gus Hall actually ran as a candidate of the American Communist Party.

[reACTIONary]

102. LOL, Guss Hall . ...

.... i think maybe the reference was to real, actual, serious candidates. Not fringe candidates who represent extremist ideologies. Who struggle down below one percent of the vote.

Hall's results in his presidential candidacies:

year votes %
1972 25,597 0.03%
1976 58,709 0.07%
1980 44,933 0.05%
1984 36,386 0.04%

Yep, those are hundredths ,... not even one tenth of one percent.

[cascadiance]

108. Was Eisenhower too "extremist" for you? He's more "socialist" than just about anyone but Bernie...

who even has said he likes following Ike for his socialist beliefs and feels he is LESS socialist in his tax policies than that Republican was in earlier more pleasant times for everyone in this country... ;P

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-eisenhower_5647f1c0e4b08cda34892728

[reACTIONary]

110. I think the question was ....

..... whether or not any politcian has been to the left of Bernie. As you note, Eisenhower was not to the left of Bernie.

My remarks about extremist ideologies were directed at the sugestion that Gus Hall be considered a politcian in the same sense as FDR and Eisenhower. I don't think that's a reasonable comparison. Personally I am very disappointed to hear a DUer treating the likes of Gus Hall as their equal.

[cascadiance]

111. No, as I noted Bernie says Eisenhower was MORE SOCIALIST than Bernie in his tax policies...

... which was what the link I put there noted when he was noting he wasn't pushing for a 90%+ top marginal tax rate that Eisenhower was comfortable pushing to keep in place in his MORE socialist policies in this area than Bernie's.

Eisenhower called those that didn't like his leaning towards protecting socialist infrastructure like social security *stupid* and he was RIGHT (even if less "right wing" than so many politicians of today in BOTH corporate controlled parties). He warned us AGAINST the dangers of a too powerful MIC even as the general who lead our military in previous wars, when corporate elements of both parties of today seem to just love to make the MIC bigger and more powerful.

People are wanting a candidate that is speaking out for real PROGRESSIVE change! Obama was more nebulous about his stances with his less than definitive "hope and change" campaign that said he would "renegotiate NAFTA" that gave quite a different impression of what he'd do instead in reality later with TPP and other "free trade" policies. But his more nebulous policies were what got the vote over Hillary then who was less nebulous about her more corporate serving policies then, which is why he won. And he was helped by the PTB who probably knew long before Edwards was pushed out of the election right before Super Tuesday that he wasn't going to be in the running at the end, but likely WANTED him to draw away a lot of the progressive votes in to a black hole so that any other real progressive candidate in the field like Kucinich would have much a voice that far in to the primaries, even if people WANTED more progressive policies that Edwards was pushing that got him SECOND place over Hillary in the Iowa caucuses then too.

There were communist party candidates back in FDR's time that arguably pushed he and the democrats more to the left then too to keep them out of the mix as well.

[reACTIONary]

114. Cadence, may I quote you? You said...

of Eisenhower "He's more "socialist" than just about anyone but Bernie...". Which I take to mean that bernie is to the left of Eisenhower. Honestly, if you want to come up with a successful politcian to the left of Bernie you should be able to do better than that.

Some people are wanting a cadidate like bernie. Right now a significant minority of Democrats and independents who lean democratic. But the majority right now favors clinton.

[cascadiance]

115. Polls showed Clinton also heavily ahead of Obama too! How'd that turn out?

My emphasis was that Eisenhower who was president during better economic times before the Reagan Revolution screwed the middle class of our country, took stances more "socialist" than just about any of the candidates today. Bernie himself as I noted in the article said that Eisenhower was more socialist than he was in his tax policies. Now whether Bernie is "more" or "less" socialist than Eisenhower isn't really the issue in my book. It is that on a relative scale in those times, Americans when they had a decent middle class liked leaders, Republican or Democratic, that had more socialist policies than the corporate owned politicians in both parties today.

Yes, the Kochs want it to stay that way, and have paid politicians to put their servants on the Supreme Court and also in congress to set the rules so that bribery is no longer a crime and our government is for sale to them instead of working for us the voters.

You might like that, but many in BOTH parties are getting fed up with that. That's why there's even more populist tendencies in the Republican party going after candidates less tied to the financial oligarchy like Trump, even if they themselves have a lot of flaws that are unacceptable to most of us that don't want their Tea Party crap too.

It is your OPINION that most people favor Clinton. Maybe most KNOW her just like more KNEW her at this point in 2007 as well. But that is not the same thing. And it is way too early for those of us who feel that this country needs a change like Bernie to give up, no matter what those who seem to LIKE oligarchic rule want to push on to us. Why do you like those that don't want to stop oligarchic power?

[reACTIONary]

118. As far as OPINIONS go, my ...,

.... OPINION has the benifit of some supporting polls. I'm not exactly sure what the basis for your OPINION might be. That said, I have not suggested that you give up. Good luck.

[cascadiance]

119. Sorry but this article has polls that show Bernie beats Republicans MORE than Clinton does...

It is your OPINION that he won't win because of him being labeled a "socialist", when polls show that to be FALSE!!!

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/12/02/poll-sanders-more-electable-clinton-against-gop-frontrunners

I've provided a basis for my opinion here. Will you deny those FACTS?

[reACTIONary]

121. Nope, I won't deny...

..... thanks for the information I'll take a look at it. And please do the same with the polls I provided because they, also, are relevent.

[Indydem]

127. I meant politicians that mattered.

There have been a bunch of fringe candidates. Bernie is one out there. If you think getting 1% on a ballot makes you the same kind of disruptive as Sanders, then this conversation doesn't make much sense.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

130. Bernie is NOT a "fringe candidate"

Geez.
I remember the '60s, when Bernie would have been a mainstream Northern Democrat.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

131. No, you said "No US politician has been as far left as Bernie Sanders"

Not "no politician who 'mattered".
Gus Hall was a US politician.

But if you want to limit your argument to politicians who held office, Shirley Chisholm who was a Democratic Congresswoman from New York who ran for President in 1972 and actually collected some delegates, was more to the left than Bernie.

I would even argue that LBJ was more to the left of Bernie.

And Bernie is close in philosophy to Robert Kennedy.

So enough with this bullshit about Bernie being some fringe candidate.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

60. Who taught you history? Mr. Peabody?

Four-time presidential candidate Gus Hall would make Bernie look like a Rockefeller Republican.

[Chef Eric]

98. Who taught you history? Bill O'Reilly? nt

[Scootaloo]

33. "You Bernie folks want to compare them to Marx."

You know that this is already a dumb argument, and that you're doing it no further favors, right?

[Scuba]

36. That's an incredibly ignorant post.

The current Democratic party leadership is to the right of the 1956 Republicans ...

[newfie11]

38. +++++++++

[bvar22]

77. What passes for the Democratic Party today is unrecognizable from the Party I joined in the 60s.

[reACTIONary]

103. So, were these young republucans....

.... to the left of Bernie ? To the left of FDR?

[tazkcmo]

87. I compare them to LBJ and Carter.

In fact, Nixon's platform was more left than today's Democratic party.

[zeemike]

27. That is assuming that infusing the party with new blood is wanted.

And for those entrenched party leaders that may not be the case at all.

[Feeling the Bern]

31. I've been saying this for years. We want Democrats, not Republican-Lite

But when I said it here before, I got torched like a candle because I use the phrase "Real Democrat."

[Flying Squirrel]

34. Yes

What shall we call our new party?

[liberal_at_heart]

35. and yet they claim it is the left of center progressives that hurt the party.

It sounds like it is the other way to me.

[firebrand80]

37. The party is moving left

Bernie's candidacy is evidence of that.

[Scuba]

44. The base has been left of the party leadership since the Kochs and Bill Clinton founded the DLC.

[Betty Karlson]

41. Just one: how do we dislodge DINO-Debbie?

Because every day she spends in that chair is another day of damage to the party.

[Doctor_J]

42. your post presumes that they want to win

People like Hillary and dws and the other dem movers and shakers will lose money and power if liberals are given a place in the party. Their incentive to become more liberal is very small.

[baldguy]

43. What does it mean when someone can't tell the difference between a noun and an adjective?

The reason the party establishment is the establishment is because they are people who have been involved in the party and have been working for its success for decades. If you think things are going to change in one election cycle, you're dreaming.

That's not to say the party doesn't need new blood - it needs new blood continuously. Unfortunately, what's going to happen is that when Bernie loses his supporters will evaporate, instead of staying and starting work for the next election, and the next, and the next!

The fact is - and what's been proven by Bernie's most ardent supporters here on DU - is that they aren't Democrats. They have no loyalty or connections to the party (which means they'll never have any influence in the direction the party takes), they're more than willing to jump ship in the general election and either vote for a third party candidate or not vote at all (which only allows Republicans to be victorious), and they disdain the very processes and actions which make a party successful & which allow policies to be turned into legislation and get enacted into law. And that's the whole point, isn't it?

[Scuba]

45. For many of us, it was never about party, it was about polcies and principles. I don't cheer ....

... for the blue uniforms, I work for the policies I believe will improve the lot of most Americans. That's why I support Bernie.

[baldguy]

46. And how does Pres Bernie get his policies crafted into legilation & passed

without a caucus to herd it through Congress?

[bahrbearian]

47. How does Hillary? when Dems keep losing seats due to DWS policies?

[Scuba]

51. Bernie Sanders: "I will not make that mistake."

from my email ...

One of the biggest mistakes President Obama made once he was in office was, after mobilizing millions of Americans during his brilliant 2008 campaign, to basically tell those supporters, 'Thank you, I’m going to sit down with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and take it from here.’

I will not make that mistake.

What we’re building together as part of this campaign is not just about electing a president. No one person, not me or the best president you could imagine, can make the changes we need by him or herself.

What's necessary to make change happen is a mobilized grassroots movement. That’s especially true when a few wealthy billionaires and corporations have their sights set on buying our elections.

If we’re going to accomplish what we want for this country, it won’t happen by negotiating with Mitch McConnell — it will only happen when millions of Americans get out and make their voices heard.

We have a chance to do that today.

Last week, the House of Representatives stopped a bad trade deal that would have continued the approach that forces American workers to compete against workers in nations that have near non-existent minimum wages, where independent labor unions are banned, and where people are thrown in jail for expressing their political beliefs.

But make no mistake, Wall Street, corporate America and their representatives in Congress will try again to pass this bad trade deal … as soon as tomorrow.

This is our chance to make our voices heard. Click here to enter your information and be automatically connected to your member of Congress. Urge your member of Congress to hold fast and vote against any legislation that would allow the president to “fast track” the disastrous Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The TPP follows in the footsteps of other unfettered free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA that have been supported by corporate America and that cost America millions of decent-paying jobs.

Since 2001, nearly 60,000 manufacturing plants in this country have been shut down, and we have lost almost 5 million decent-paid manufacturing jobs. NAFTA alone led to the loss of almost three-quarters of a million jobs — the Permanent Normalized Trade Agreement with China cost America four times that number: almost 3 million jobs. These agreements are not the only reason why manufacturing in the United States has declined, but they are important factors.

The TPP would also give multinational corporations the ability to challenge laws passed in the United States that could negatively impact their “expected future profits.” Take, for example, Phillip Morris, a company using this process to sue Australia and Uruguay for passing legislation designed to prevent children in those countries from smoking. Or a French waste management firm suing Egypt for over $100 million for increasing the minimum wage and improving labor laws.

Virtually every major union and environmental organization in the United States is against the deal that Congress could vote on again tomorrow. Major religious groups are as well because they know what it could mean for some of the poorest people on the planet.

Click here to be automatically connected to your member of Congress and urge her or him to vote against legislation that would enable the implementation of the TPP.

Not a lot of presidential candidates would use their campaigns to influence legislation being considered in Congress. Some candidates haven’t even expressed an opinion on this critical issue, which, frankly, I don’t really understand.

But as I’ve said before, this campaign is not about Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or Jeb Bush -- it’s about the needs of the American people.

And we need a new approach to trade in this country — one that benefits working families and not just the CEOs of multinational corporations.

Make your voice heard,

Bernie Sanders

Your post sounds a lot like an unconditional surrender. Not exactly the message that will inspire voters.

[baldguy]

52. Bernie doesn't have coattails.

Pres Bernie won't be able to get his legislation through Congress because he's not going to help Democrats get elected. And in many cases he'll make it more difficult for Democrats to get elected. They'll have no reason to help him.

And here's a clue for you: if a Democrat loses a House or Senate seat, the person who wins won't be a Bernie clone, They'll be a Republican.

Pres Bernie will be a lame duck starting at 12:01 PM on Jan 20, 2017.

[Scuba]

53. Well, chasing the mythical "moderate Republican" has gotten us ...

... 900 fewer state legislature seats, 12 fewer governors, 69 fewer House seats and 13 fewer Senate seats.


I'll stick with Bernie.

[baldguy]

54. And that's happened because progressives have been led to believe that both parties are the same...

and they accept the RW lie that the Democratic party establishment is just Third-way corporate "Republican-lite", and that dogma is more important than organization, and that one Presidential candidate can really change the way everything is done in every branch of govt.

Sorry to tell you, but the world doesn't work that way.

Do you want a progressive candidate for President and progressive legislation passed today? You should have started getting like-minded people together 20-30 yrs ago. WHAT YOU NEED IS A POLITICAL PARTY!

Don't evaporate away when your candidate loses. And certainly don't sit things out - or worse, vote for a 3rd party candidate. If you work to build a new Progressive Party, accept that the issues you care about will be ignored for several election cycles at least, or more likely ignored altogether forever (which is why third parties are destructive & generally suck).

Or you can get involved with the progressive party we already have - the Democrats.

But then, you don't like political parties, do you? Even though political parties are required to get policies you want passed into law. The Republicans know this, and are perfectly happy allowing progressives to think we can get away with not dealing with the organizational bullshit and doing everything they can to destroy it, shooting ourselves in the foot & setting Democrats and progressives up to lose. Again.

I don't want to lose again. America can't afford to.

[Scuba]

56. What do you think makes it a "lie"? Corpo-Dems are indeed just Repuke-lite.

The corpo-Dems are trickle-down war hawks who don't hate gays. Not good enough.

[baldguy]

61. The belief of which has led to the situation you complain about.

That's called shooting yourself in the foot.

[Scuba]

62. I have no idea what your post is supposed to mean. Please try to be more clear.

[baldguy]

63. The "both parties are the same" meme is a RW lie

Designed to take progressive support away from Democrats. See how well it's worked? We now have progressives saying that a black guy and a grandmother can't be trusted because they're part of the Old Boy's Network.

Progressives are supposed to be the smart ones, but the success of this particular bit of bullshit shows some of us aren't so much, doesn't it?

[Scuba]

64. They clearly are not the same.

But their way too damned similar.

[baldguy]

66. You're trying to make a distinction without a difference, yet allowing the damage to be done.

Good luck trying to get anything done like that.

OTOH I prefer dealing with people that CAN get things done.

[Scuba]

67. The damage is being done because the two parties are too much alike ...

"Given a choice between a fake Republican and a real one the public will choose the real Republican every time".

~ Harry S Truman

[baldguy]

69. Your argument just proves my point.

Insisting the RW lie is true dooms the progressive cause to failure.

[Scuba]

70. Cheeezus H. Kriste, Harry Truman wasn't a a right-winger!

[baldguy]

72. Harry Truman never heard of Paul Weyrich.

But Paul Weyrich knew of Harry Truman, and has used that knowledge to great effect. As we have seen from your posts.

[Scuba]

73. Hey, have a great and safe holiday.

[mythology]

82. And yet by objective measures

The parties are more polarized than ever before. You keep repeating the claim that they are too similar but it simply isn't the case.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/

Objective measures matter. It helps keep one's view properly orientated rather than letting what somebody wants to believe prevent them from seeing the truth.

[Scuba]

84. Which party leadership wants to rein in Wall Street? Neither. Which party leadership ...

... wants to secure our voting rights? Neither.

Which party leadership wants Medicare for All? Neither.

[Snotcicles]

74. If there is a massive turn out that gets Bernie elected. That will be the mandate, and with

continued support from the people you'll see change.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

95. If you want to look at someone who didn't have any coattails,

look at Bill Clinton.

In 1992, when Clinton won his first term, the Democrats should have made some pickups in the House and Senate. Instead, the Democrats actually LOST 9 House seats. And didn't gain any in the Senate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1992

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1992

But we still had comfortable majorities in both Houses. That is, until 1994, when we lost control of both houses with a loss of 8 Senate seats, and 54 House seats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1994

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1994

And in 1996, when Clinton won a second term, it didn't rub off on down-ticket races, as we lost 2 more Senate seats, and regained only 2 House seats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1996

So in two presidential elections where Bill Clinton should have had some coattails, Democrats actually lost a
total of 7 House seats and 2 Senate seats.

[ablamj]

97. So yeah

We need another Clinton...






Not!

[cascadiance]

109. Bernie is helping MORE Democrats PROPERLY standing against the TPP get elected far more than Obama!

Obama was working more with Republicans on that crap as were other CORPORATE SERVING and NOT people serving Democrats (who share that trait with corporate serving Republicans).

There are far more REAL progressive Democratic politicians that would feel more comfortable with someone like Bernie's progressive leadership than the lack of such from Obama in so many areas like so-called "free trade" and prosecuting less banksters in this last crisis than Reagan even prosecuted in the Savings and Loan crisis of his time.

There IS a reason why so-called "right" states like Oklahoma and Arkansas PASSED referendums to raise the minimum wage and at the same time didn't vote for or voted against DINO Democrats that DWS's DNC was trying to push on them! And this reason is why the party leadership NEEDS TO CHANGE if the Democratic Party wishes to regain its reputation as the people's party and not party working for the economic royalists that FDR won four terms consecutively fighting against!

[reACTIONary]

104. The real question is how does SENATOR Bernie . ..

..... get to be PRESIDENT Bernie ? I don't think he's going to get to the point where he has to worry about legislative strategy.

[ecstatic]

133. +1000.nt

[Vinca]

48. I heard a remark on some show last night that America is a "center right" country.

That can only mean the Democratic Party has shifted right. We need a course correction. Badly.

[Thinkingabout]

49. I have been a Democrat all of my life, I will remain a Democrat,

I have not waivered from the DNC into the fringes nor taken stands with other parties, the DNC has been having conventions every four years since 1832, I don't expect the demise of the DNC for many years, in 16 more years it will have existed for 200 years. It may not be the party some want it to become but it is still the DNC

[votesparks]

55. At the local level, the party is withering

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9565119/democrats-in-deep-trouble

In my city's last mayoral election, the turnout for two D's running against each other was around 9%.

[Zorra]

57. Well said. Simple and accurate. nt

[brooklynite]

58. Remind me who won in 2012, with the same alleged pro-corpoate policies being implemented

[AgingAmerican]

65. The DNC is committing political suicide

[Ferd Berfel]

68. Sounds exactly correct to me

[HereSince1628]

71. OR... maybe the more moderates joing the Democrats and shift it's balance

further to the right.

And, Golly Gee-willikers, that does sort of seem to be what's happened over the past ~25 years.

The R's have lost all balance and the D's are bipolar.

[rhett o rick]

76. Just one question, "Why do you hate tyranny?" nm

[99th_Monkey]

78. Nice succinct summation of the 2015/16 Democratic Primary. Thank you. nt

[Enthusiast]

79. You nailed it, votesparks!

[raindaddy]

85. Mandatory Voting. People will be required to vote for a candidate from either corporate based party.

[Jack Rabbit]

88. To hint at (but not bring up for discussion) the obvious

How long does the Democratic Party establishment think we democrats are going to put up with being called "retards", having a blind fool like Jon Cowan continually claiming his poling data shows no evidence that democrats exist in the Democratic Party or being told some other Wall Street toad who accidentally put a "D" after his his name instead of an "R" that we should give up on our crazy dreams of a just democratic society and mumbling some nonsense about rainbows and unicorns and adding "kust shut up and vote for the candidate of our choice"?

The only difference between an establishment Democrat and a Republican is that one supports abortion rights, equal pay for equal work and marriage equality and the other does not. That will get me to vote for a Democrat in a pinch but not up and down the ballot in election after election.

[pansypoo53219]

92. they sold their soul during reagan to survive, but reaganism is dying.

time to cut the wall street leash.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

93. Like I have said before.

Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

Then Bernie will win.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

100. And give up all of that MONEY???

[cantbeserious]

101. The DNC DWS DLC Third Way Establishment Is Apoplectic About A Bernie Presidency, The Panic Is Theirs

eom

[ecstatic]

132. Is being anti-corporate part of the democratic platform now?

If so, me and a whole lot of democrats, especially democratic small business owners, must have missed the memo. Last I checked, our party was for well regulated capitalism coupled with a little socialism. If that has changed, pardon my mistake. If it hasn't changed, then feel free to join or start a party that is closer to what you're seeking.

[Recursion]

134. No, it's pretty much unchanged over the past 30 years

http://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/

There was a flight from the Democratic party in the early 1980s, which was only stopped by the party's pivot under the DLC.