2016 may be the last time I get to vote for

[upaloopa]

a Dem for president. I will be 70 in 2016.
If we lose the White House we will lose the SCOTUS too. The Kochs will own the federal government.
I know things are not as progressive as they should be. Hillary isn't as progressive as we would like.
We all know that. But if she or someone else is the candidate we need to work together to elect them. Losing is not an option!
Stand on principle if you need to but just be aware that 2016 is not going to be an election where your principles are on the ballot. In a few races there will be progressive candidates. Vote for them. Kamala Harris in CA is a good example.
Work your asses off for them.
But I hope at some point you get off the purity kick and realize that you build your dreams one step at a time. Look long term.
I hope younger Dem's here see a progressive movement take place after I've gone. But remember it takes winning in 2016 for that to happen.
Don't take yourself out of the game because your favorite players aren't on the field. For our sakes and our kids sakes, winning is everything.

[leftofcool]

1. Amen!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. My mom lived to 90, God Bless her...

She cast her first vote for Franklin Roosevelt... When we used to see septuagenarians I referred to them as babies...

You're still young!

[marym625]

5. Yeah! that

My grandmother voted in the 1912 presidential election and her last vote was in 1984 and she voted for Mondale. She died just a year before the'88 election at the age of 97.

[marym625]

3. In the primary

Where we are now, it isn't the progressives that need to get off the purity kick. This is exactly when we should be pushing for debate. Forcing feet to the fire. Screaming for change. Demanding transparency. Shouting for equality. Accepting nothing short of Dodd-Frank and more regulations on banking.

Without this time to push for a real liberal, Democratic agenda, we lose either way

[upaloopa]

12. This is my age talking but I like to think it is

wisdom. In 1968 after I got back from Vietnam I worked for Gene McCarthy. We got Nixon. In 1984 we ran Mondale and had Reagan for four more years. In 1988 we ran Dukakis and got Poppy Bush.
I think 2016 might be like those elections. Of we run a true liberal we will lose and the game will be up for the next generation. We will lose the SCOTUS for the next 20 years if not longer.
Be pure all you want but it won't make things improve. After we win 2016 then push for the next 8 years. Don't give up your dreams but be a pragmatist not an idealist.

[marym625]

19. The difference being

The obvious front runner in '68 was murdered. Mccarthy never had a prayer.

In '88, we were already selling out and have in every election since.

There's a difference between making sure our nominee doesn't sell out and going hook line and sinker, without a word of objection, for things like the TPP.

But I appreciate what you are saying

[B2G]

4. Bah...70 is the new 50

(I keep telling myself I'm only 32).

[jtuck004]

27. That's what the guy on Craigslist keeps telling the women. n/t

[jeff47]

6. That's how we got here.

For our sakes and our kids sakes, winning is everything.

And that's how we got here. Zero incentive for Democratic candidates to give a damn about anyone on the left. Vote for a shit sandwich, because at least it has bread around the shit.

Doing the same thing over and over again will not produce different results.

Either the party starts caring about the left, or the party will lose.

[marym625]

9. +a kazillion!

[upaloopa]

13. Sounds nice but you are wrong. It takes center right money to win

That is why you get candidates you don't like. If we win in 2016 we have a chance at changing campaign financing. You run a liberal and you will never get that chance.
Your principles will damn you.
We all laugh when the right says the reason they lost was because their candidate wasn't conservative enough. You are they 180 degrees out of phase.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

42. If it 'takes center right money to win'

then we've already permanently lost, and there is no reason to vote.

[jeff47]

55. Which is why CA's governor is Meg Whitman and not Jerry Brown.

Oh wait...the opposite happened.

Well, that's why the billions of outside money won the 2012 election for Mitt Romney.

Oh wait....the opposite happened.

To win you need more votes. Money can help to achieve that goal, but the effect rapidly becomes saturated.

If we win in 2016 we have a chance at changing campaign financing.

So your argument is that candidates that only won due to screwed-up campaign financing would turn around and fix campaign financing?

Yeah, and I'm sure the banks that needed bailout money are going to turn right around and fix their broken business practices without any new regulations!

We all laugh when the right says the reason they lost was because their candidate wasn't conservative enough. You are they 180 degrees out of phase.

Well, let's look at results:
Crazy right-winger loses. Crazy right wing claims they were not crazy enough, nominates and even crazier person who then loses.

2008: "Crazy" left wing (in speeches) wins.
2010: Party says "OH MY GOD I'M SORRY WE TRIED TO FIX HEALTHCARE! LOOK HOW CONSERVATIVE WE REALLY ARE!". Party loses badly.
2012: Party has to stick with supposedly "crazy" left wing and "left wing" achievements. Wins
2014: Party puts forth candidates that are so conservative they won't even admit to voting for the party's presidential candidate. Party loses badly.

Hrm....looks like a pattern. But maybe it's presidential years versus midterms

2004: Presidential candidate flees his left-wing positions, loses.
2000: Presidential candidate flees his left-wing positions, loses. (We can argue about "stolen" or not, but at best the election was close enough to steal due to Gore's ousy campaign)

1996: Booming economy, no wars. A ham sandwich could win reelection. (See: 1984)
1992: Presidential candidate runs to the right. Wins because Perot peels off libertarians from GW Bush during recession. Add Perot's results to GW Bush's (they aren't liberals) and Clinton loses badly.

Republican-lite loses. Over and over again. Will crazy liberal always win? Well, we haven't tried it since 1944, and the war kinda had an effect on that election. How 'bout we try it and see what happens, instead of repeating what loses?

[MADem]

7. I hope you are well.

If you're otherwise healthy, there's no reason why you can't vote for another twenty years, at least. People are living a lot longer, nowadays--my next door neighbor's mom just died, a week before her 100th birthday. She'd been feeling poorly of late, poor dear. But up until she felt bad, she felt great...!

I'm voting for Clinton, and I'll volunteer to help out if I can. If she wins the White House, she'll turn 70 during her first term. She's got good genes, though--her mother Dorothy lived until 92--and medicine has improved a lot even in the four years since she died.

I agree with your thesis, though--it's a journey, and we've gotta build those dreams like Johnny Cash's car--one piece at a time!!!

[upaloopa]

14. Like that Johnny Cash song

[Scurrilous]

8. Wise words.

K & R

[Hoyt]

10. +1 It really is a long-term process, often requiring small steps. But set-backs are guaranteed

if the wrong folks win the next election.

Good Post.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. I'm 71 and will vote for my principles.

Purity? I would think that people demand voting for one party are "Purists".

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only, no matter how big its membership may be, is no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently.

Rosa Luxemburg

[upaloopa]

15. Repeating other people's words is nice

but they are not alive for this case.

"Discretion is the better part of valor"
Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Should I be discreet and not vote for my principles?

Or, just say I'll vote for Hillary to avoid being thought indiscreet?

[upaloopa]

17. It's your vote do what you want with it.

I think it is the outcome that matters here. My principles tell me that I should help the Dems win because that will be the best outcome for everyone concerned not just me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Good. So will I vote for my principles.

And, "....you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." Even if you vote alone.

[upaloopa]

21. Well I don't think your principles will be on the ballot.

Push hard for your principles but vote.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. We'll see. I expect they will.

[paulbibeau]

58. What else do you have?

Solid answer.

[jwirr]

25. I don't think there were parties when Adams made that statement. The names of all the candidates

were placed on the ballot and the top vote getter was President and the next was VP. Then you were voting for a personality and it was easier to do what he is talking about.

[heaven05]

20. +1000

[RebelOne]

22. I am 76 and plan to be around

for the next presidential election after 2016.

[secondwind]

23. thanks for the perspective oopaloopa! KnR

[jwirr]

24. I just realized at 73 I am likely to be in the same boat. We need to win this one on every level we

can. One comfort for me is that if I am not here for the next one I am leaving a whole family of Democratic voters behind. I raised them right.

[upaloopa]

26. I am not saying we should not push for

progressive ideals in this election just that we also need to win or progressive ideas won't matter.
We have to pick our fights

[jwirr]

29. Yes, I hear you. There are two goals here that both need to be met if possible. First we need to

fight for a progressive candidate during the primary. Then we have to win in order to preserve what we still have so that we can continue the fight into the future. We need to win to preserve those hopes.

[JDPriestly]

28. upaloopa, you make a good point.

It took years of failure by the progressive movement to finally get a couple of presidents who, for a short time, realized progressive policies. And then, the presidents who made put those policies into action were not the most progressive. They were simply converted to and emboldened to progressive action by the pressure of the many, many Americans who demanded it.

But, the assumption that at this point, a year before the primaries, we should all support the candidacy of Hillary, perhaps one of our most right-wing potential candidates, is based on what I believe to be a false assumption: that Hillary is the only potential candidate we have who can win in the general election.

That I would call, the fallacy of the inevitable Hillary.

First, although she is doing well in the polls, we have not assurance, no proof, not even much evidence that Hillary will survive the primary, much less win in the general election.

I was a child when Adlai Stevenson ran and ran again for president. He did not have the personality, the charisma to win. In his first race, Nixon lost. When he ran in 1968, Nixon played every dirty trick in the book to win against a candidate who would have made a far better president than Nixon did.

We should not, at this point, assume that Hillary will be our candidate or that she will win.

We should be encouraging other candidates to stand up and run in the primaries. Primaries are not just popularity contests. They train and test the candidates. They help them hone their messages. They put candidates in the limelight and submit their personalities, their character, their ideas and their purposes to criticism and public appraisal.

The assumption that Hillary will be our candidate may prove true. It may not. It is far too early to tell.

Hillary has a huge campaign fund. That is an advantage if you look at it from a superficial point of view.

But a huge campaign fund has to have come from somewhere. And that can be a trap for well funded candidates. Hillary is no exception. Her biggest donors include people who work for large financial institutions and major law firms as well as big corporations. Those donors will be scrutinized and examined inside and out. Their relationships with the Clintons will be analyzed and publicized. And what is discovered may be very unpleasant for Hillary Clinton.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. We do not know who our candidate will be. It is too soon to start marching the brass Hillary band. She has a long trek to march before she is nominated, much less elected.

Remember. Every one of her major donations and some of the minor ones will be examined, turned inside and out, reviewed and could come back to create problems for her.

So relax. Anything can happen between now and November 2016.

[lovemydog]

30. Yes. Relax. Anything can happen between

now and November 2016.

Best way to relax and still make a difference is to get involved with volunteering and other things in our local areas. I realize a lot of people can't do that, and that's cool too.

Whenever I want to relax, besides volunteering at a horse shelter, I go for walks or read history books or watch movies.

I try my best not to fight with people here at DU. I'm here to have fun and relax and see different sides to things. I'm a straddler, in the sense that I'm a democratic socialist who is to the left of most self-described liberals. Yet I don't believe in hating on democrats. My hatred is reserved for republicans, who are far worse than most democrats. I believe we should be taxing the rich a lot more, and reducing our military spending, and the democratic party should be putting forth Congressional candidates who take this to heart.

Have a good day JDPriestly. I enjoyed your post.

[upaloopa]

35. I think I don't need to relax much more than I am.

I am not saying Hillary is inevitable and I am not saying to STFU if you disagree with her. It is my true belief that how loud the left gets determines where the center is.
I am saying that this is not the best of elections in terms of progressive issues mainly because progressives don't have the money to fund a candidate and win an election. Our best bet to become more progressive is to win in 2016 as big as we can and work from a position of strength. I am asking those who are purists to push your points of view but help elect who ever is our candidate. Don't stay home because your principles are not on the ballot this time. The right wins a little bit at a time and holds on to gain more next time. That is the way states are turning red. They would no more not vote because they can't get all they want than not eat. They think long term we should too.

[JDPriestly]

39. There is a counterargument.

Many of us on what used to be the center of the Democratic Party and is now referred to as the "left" worked very hard to get Obama elected.

I did. I really worked hard and I am not the youngest.

When he got into office, he appointed people from Wall Street and Rahm Emmanuel as his close aides. He barely tipped his (proverbial) hat to people like me who had worked so hard to get him into the White House. He has been a good president in many respects, but he has not been a progressive president by any means.

Then the Occupy movement began, and the federal government was to say it politely very rude to that grass-roots movement that was, yes, protesting in part, Obama's economic policies that had resulted in so much misery in the country. His policies in dealing with the banks after Bush's and also Bill Clinton's policies in also picking Wall Street economic advisers and repealing Glass-Steagall and then signing an act that allowed the worsening of the media consolidation, all policies that caused our 2008 economic crash. (To say nothing of Bill Clinton's signing of NAFTA.)

I for one, am sick of working hard for the Democratic candidates, and then being told after the election, that my views, my issues, are just not important enough to be addressed favorably. I will not do that again. And I anticipate based on the record of Bill Clinton that Hillary will do precisely that: address my issues in her campaign and then forget about me and the progressive issues I care about once elected.

So that is my beef with Hillary.

Further, I read an article about Hillary's speech before a group of small business owners in Norwalk, Iowa (a place I know well). She broached the topics that are in the news today: the attacks on the ACA, equal pay for women, etc. But she did not venture one step beyond those issues which are uncontroversial within the Democratic Party. I am waiting for her to actually fight for any truly progressive issues say on climate change or the TPP. I am waiting. It is very easy to be for equal pay. It is very hard to write or pass a law that will require it and even harder to enforce such a law. But the issue makes for good press. And as a woman, I certainly want equal pay for women. But to get it you have to deal with a myriad of issues like equal work -- what is that? -- about childcare -- about which parent takes kids to the doctor and misses work -- about the time women take off to care for their children -- about all kinds of issues that are not so easily translated into questions of discrimination. As I said, I am a woman and this is an issue that matters a lot to me, but it is a very complex issue even thought it lends itself easily to a slogan.

Most of all, I fear that Hillary will compromise Social Security. Among the many friends of Bill and Hillary is Pete Peterson, an avid and effective and very wealthy foe of Social Security. She will never admit to being willing to compromise Social Security, but I do not trust her on that issue because of her close ties with Wall Street including her son-in-law's employment.

So there you have it. I am not an extremist. I am an FDR Democrat. And I do not trust Hillary.

Above all, even to those who do like Hillary, be wary. It is utterly important that we vet our candidates and make sure they will fight for our interests once they are in office. We live in times of great corruption. We must be very careful about who we trust to wield the power of the White House.

[paulbibeau]

57. Amen.

[world wide wally]

31. Sometimes it's really true...

With age comes wisdom.
Upaloopa is being wise.

[Thespian2]

32. Yes

I dislike HRC because of her DLC/Third Way connections. I would prefer an actual progressive, not a sham.
Having said that, I know you are correct in what you say. I will do what I can to keep any member of the GodOffalParty from holding any office, especially the presidency. I am 77 years old.

[Hekate]

33. You and me both, upaloopa. I'm only a few years younger than you, but...

...I feel mortality. We don't have any 90-year-olds on my side of the family. There's no more time to waste.

[olddots]

34. I disagree whole heartedly

and will leave ir at that .

[99th_Monkey]

36. Why not wait to see what other Democrats declare, and then who actually wins

the Democratic nomination for POTUS.

How long did you wait to see -- after Hillary declared -- to see
who all's running in Dem Primaries (remember those?) before
coming to your "reluctant" decision to support Hillary? 1-2 days?

[upaloopa]

38. I meant to speak to people who aren't going to support

Hillary if she is the candidate. I will support who ever is our candidate.

[99th_Monkey]

40. "I know things aren't as progressive (and) Hillary isn't as progressive as we would like"

You start out by saying ^this^, yet just a few moments later you say that
not-Hillary folks are on a "purity kick" if they don't fall in line to support Hillary.

So just 2 days after Hillary announces she's running, you think people who want
someone more progressive are on a "purity kick"???

The Inevitable Hillary aside, I don't want to even BE in a party that doesn't
even have PRIMARY ELECTIONS <-- I ask again, remember those?

[upaloopa]

41. We aren't going to have a progressive

candidate because they can't raise enough support or money. Given that still vote for who is our candidate. To not do that is helping the repubs win

[99th_Monkey]

43. I know , I know

Excuse me, but your Third Way is showing.

We "need" BIG $$$ to elect a candidate, who will then
serve their Wall St. Masters.

rinse, repeat every 4 years.

[upaloopa]

44. Get real! Even Bernie Sanders said what

I said tonight on the Rachel Maddow show tonight.
I can't help it if that is the way things are. You can yell at me all day but that won't change things.

[99th_Monkey]

60. I guess my point is

repeating same "settling for what we can get" over and
over again has gotten us exactly where we are today, with
a over-weened bullying billionaire class running the show,
and fuck everyone else.

Barack was supposed to be hope and change, but
they even got to him. Hillary's worse than Barack
was, so .... I don't know the answer, but doing the
same ol', same ol' does not strike me as prudent.

I'm frustrated and angry about this, yes. I didn't
mean to take it out on you. And I respect your choice
and your process of getting there. I'm just in a
different place myself.

cheers,

[Marr]

59. +1. People who claim to be "compromising" now are doing nothing of the sort.

They just want Hillary. That's fine, of course-- they can support anyone they like. But it's absurd to act like you're just make a pragmatic compromise when the primary hasn't even *begun*.

[freshwest]

45. If the GOP win in 2016, there will be no nation to host a president. The complete dissolution of the

United States is at hand, and there will be no coming back. It'll be feudalism, divided up into Koch fiefdoms. That is what is being implemented in the states right now.

People are mad at the only force that can hold the rich back, just as they have been taught to do. And those who have some comfort now are complacent. When it's gone, the gloves will come off, but it will be too late to cry about.

I'm glad that my WW2 New Deal parents are not around to see this.

[Savannahmann]

46. It depends.

If Hillary is nominated, then the last time you got to vote for a Democrat for President was 2012.

Clinton in favor of reducing regulations that protect workers. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026515671

Clinton's Wall Street backers. We get it. Hillary has to use some populist rhetoric in order to get elected and help us. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026514685

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/wall-street-republicans-hillary-clinton-2016-106070_Page2.html

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/why-wall-street-loves-hillary-112782.html#.VSg8CvnF_50

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-complex-corporate-ties-1424403002

http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/12/hillary-clinton-wall-streets-pick-2016/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-helping-hillary-clinton-stand-up-to-wall-street/2014/10/30/2765a1fa-604f-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html

No, this is not a dream candidate, it's a nightmare.

[joshcryer]

47. Time outs.

My mom is the same way.

[MrMickeysMom]

48. Leave your legacy, upaloopa….

Instead of thinking at age 69 that you'll have to settle (once again), stand up for something…

When I read though your OP and downstream posts, I get a vision of someone who's already given up and given in.

What a way to leave the earth. Unless you are not robust and your frailty limits you to strengthen your spine a bit, I say get up and get going, because as you'll see, we aren't going to "take it up the ass" anymore.

Good health to you!

MMM

[B Calm]

49. K&R

[99Forever]

50. Funny how I draw the opposite conclusions.

Hollow wins are actually nothing, not "everything."

If I can't stand for my principles while I am still alive, how would I possibly do so when I am dead?

et al.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. What will the legacy of our choices be?

Will we choose a path that actually will help those who come after us, or will we focus on the short term, the political equivalent of chasing quarterly numbers?

Political expediency, or principled choices that might hurt in the short term?

[99Forever]

54. "Political expediency?"

Last edited Thu Apr 16, 2015, 10:37 AM - Edit history (1)

Ahh yes. The same rotted shit that got us where we are today.


Wonderful.

[ScreamingMeemie]

52. Lombardi always regretted saying that.

[LWolf]

53. Every time I cast a vote

might be the last time I ever get the chance to vote for the best choice/s on my ballot.

And that's what I do.

[PowerToThePeople]

56. ssdd.