Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

LiberalArkie

(15,719 posts)
1. They believe that if they can get Bernie to tell his supporters to support HRC that
Fri May 20, 2016, 10:58 AM
May 2016

the Bernie people will give up on what they believe. Give in to principles that disgust them and to follow what they see as the "dark side" because he said so. Bernie said it wasn't about him it was about the people.

If Bernie is not the nominee, I believe all the new people will either stay home or vote for Stein. The Democratic Party was a vehicle for his ideas, now if that vehicle decides not to carry them, well.

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
2. My support for Bernie is because of his ideals. The fact that he now has a 'D' after his
Fri May 20, 2016, 11:09 AM
May 2016

name is purely incidental. I don't care if he puts a scarlet 'A' after his name as long as he stands for, and fights for, truly progressive values. My money follows Bernie. I know my money is peanuts compared to the DNC's billionaire owners , but if they want my money then they better re-think their Cheating For Hillary campaign.

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
3. I think they do covet what he stands for
Fri May 20, 2016, 11:24 AM
May 2016

his supporters, his ideals, his enthusiasm but don't want what he wants

Article:

I’ve written before about how the Hillary Democrats are running against hope, and how the Sanders campaign have outed them as frank corporate shills and enemies of even mild social democracy. But now even nominal liberals, or progressives, or whatever we’re calling them these days, have gotten in on the act.

Not content with merely saying “No!” to new programs like single-payer health insurance and free college, they’re highlighting the worst aspects of the New Deal in an effort to . . . well, what exactly? Promote Hillary? Fight Trump? It’s hard to tell.

A few days ago, Jamelle Bouie, chief political correspondent for Slate Magazine and a political analyst for CBS News, tweeted this remarkable observation (since deleted):




Actually, that working-class movement had a lot to do with the Communist Party, which was an antiracist organization with a large black membership. Not only did it organize autoworkers in Flint, it organized black farmers in the South and black urbanites in Harlem. But saying nice things about the CPUSA is not the way to keep a job with CBS News.

Not long after Bouie’s ridiculous tweet came a longer instance of 1930s-bashing from Bryce Covert, economic policy editor at ThinkProgress and a contributor to the Nation. Covert identifies Donald Trump’s pledge to “make America great again” as appealing to whites, especially men, longing for the days before the Civil Rights Movement and feminism ruined things for them.

That’s not a controversial point; it may be incomplete, but it’s not untrue. Covert’s innovation is to locate much of that appeal in New Deal programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance, and postwar successors like the G.I. Bill.

This is rather odd, given the holy place that the New Deal once had in Democratic discourse. Covert’s beef is that to get the votes of racist Southern congressmen, FDR had to craft his programs to exclude black workers. This is both true and awful, though it’s not clear how they would have gotten through Congress otherwise.

But instead of saying that the New Deal was a good partial model, something that should be built upon — probably the only period in American history when a sense of the collective, and not competitive individualism, dominated our political thought — she emphasizes only the exclusions, and identifies them as the source of the nostalgias that Donald Trump, not previously known as a friend of social programs, has been basing his campaign on.

Neither Bouie’s tweet nor Covert’s op-ed makes any sense unless they’re trying to discredit an ambitious social agenda. That is precisely what the Hillary Democrats are doing to fight off the persistent Sanders threat that just won’t go away. (That despite the fact that, as Gallup recently reported, a majority of Americans support a single-payer system. The least popular option is Hillary’s position, keeping Obamacare largely as is.)

more;

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/democrats-hillary-clinton-new-deal-sanders/

I thought about asking my question after reading that article. So I know it was rhetorical in a way.


 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
4. Wow, that's some deeply ignorant shit from Bouie
Fri May 20, 2016, 11:45 AM
May 2016

And I've seen it elsewhere often enough that I'm certain it has to be a directed effort from somewhere.

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
6. Interesting, and it reminds me of Clinton's initial approach to Social Security
Fri May 20, 2016, 12:10 PM
May 2016

Rather than raise benefits for all she espoused just showing some charity towards those in the most desperate need. Some largess, in other words.

She's traded her ethics for great wealth, and is now willing to champion the idea of charity for the poor. That's different that bolstering the framework of programs Democrats fought so hard to put in place, and maintain.

It's a marker of many wealthy Democrats, imo. Once they've made it, they start looking down at the masses that want a piece of the pie. I see this as connected to the source of their wealth. They're getting their slice from the corporate pie, and they are jealous of it.

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
5. I think they're "evolving" past coveting
Fri May 20, 2016, 12:02 PM
May 2016

It's now an emotional response, "Hulk smash", to what they can't have. We're going to see them run the whole gamut. "We don't need their support, they don't show up to vote, they're not really Democrats, they're Trump supporters in disguise, they need to grow up, Bernie was never with us, Bernie needs to work with us, etc."

For me the biggest lol is when Secretary Clinton compares Sanders to herself in 2008, and by implication, Obama in 2008 to her. Wow!

I saw Obama's campaign, and Clinton's doesn't resemble it. To think Sanders supporters are in a movement that resembles hers in 2008 shows a disconnect with reality.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Does the Democratic Party...