Chafee and Webb announced.

[boston bean]

Where's the love for them? Is its absence indicative that there are other dems to the right of Hillary?

How could it be???

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. There are some of us who really do not give a shit

who is in the White House. We have reached a state of Zen that residents in oligarchies do reach sooner or later. Elections stopped mattering a while ago. Just voting really matters not.

I know this is not the kind of response you expected. But truthfully, we could have Warren or Sanders in the WH, and we would have the same policies continue... with a few side issues on the edges that would be different.

I accept that state... I grew up in an oligarchy, so none of this is new to me.

[sufrommich]

2. "There are some of us who really do not give a shit who is in the White House."

Brilliant.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Hey I did not give a shit who was in Los Pinos either

but I know what an oligarchy looks like.

And a few scholars now agree with me. You know like Princeton U... for example.

That does not mean I will boycott the vote, as tempting as that is, I just don't expect it to make a diddly of difference.

[zappaman]

9. Yeah right.

Who is President doesn't make "a diddly of difference."

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. In certain policies, nope not a one

see foreign policy and trade policies.

Those are the logic of empire

[seabeyond]

13. you did not say "certain" policy, just that it didnt matter. of course it matters, for some of us.

[zappaman]

15. And there is nothing else besides foreign policy and trade issues?

And you really think there is no difference on even those issues?
Do you actually think Gore would have invaded Iraq?

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. I really think we would still be arguing TTP

if Gore was elected, and other trade agreements. Never mind they are opposed region wide, by folks in organized labor (well where labor is allowed to organize, not so much in Vietnam or Brunei)... but you get the picture.

Invading Iraq, perhaps not. But that is because he would have (I hope) paid attention to a certain August 6 PTB, that would have prevented a certain attack. So we would not have been talking Al Qaida for the last 15 years. But that is not foreign policy, that is basic protection of the homeland.

So sue me, go for it. I really do not give two shits anymore.

I will not be sending any money, or walking precincts, or any of that. I will vote, who is my business. Anyway, as media I cannot do any of that partisan shit. So it is what it is. We will continue to cover the signs of oligarchy. But horse race stuff... really I do not give a shit.

[zappaman]

36. Well, glad you came back to tell us there is no difference between the parties.

How did we get by without that insight?

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. I did not quite say that

what I said is that we are an Oligarchy. And Oligarchies work in very precise ways, regardless of where.

[seabeyond]

48. YES... we KNOW we are in an oligarchy and we do not need you to tells us we are. we also KNOW

the parties are different, that it does matter. that is what we address with you. YOU telling us, it does not matter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. To me it does not

we are allowed to disagree, can't we? Or maybe not.

[seabeyond]

57. all opinions are not fact. i am stating facts, to illustrate where you are flatly, wrong.

opinion or otherwise. hold to your opinion. that is fine. i do not give a shit. i will present facts, that show you are wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. I am also stating a fact

or did you miss Democracy Inc, and a few university studies on how the US is NOW an oligarchy?

It can stop this process, but it takes a LOT MORE THAN JUST VOTING. And if all you are going to do is vote, and GO TEAM, we are going to be stuck increasingly in that morass. Those are facts.

You and I are seeing the facts in a slightly different way. That is all. And our official point to cross the rubicon likely was Citizens United.

When a presidential race is likely to approach the annual budget of the county of san Diego, we are in real trouble.

We are just looking at the facts differently. As I said, we are supposed to be able to disagree.

Ed. for clarity

[seabeyond]

72. again. no one is arguing oligarchy. we are arguing that this election matters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. And I disagree that the election itself matters in an oligarchy

I am not telling you that you should stop voting, That is electoral ludism (Thanks for Ackerman for that term). But if all you are going to do is vote, you are spinning your wheels.


We are in the middle of a huge crisis of democracy. And in oligarchies the little people rarely have their concerns taken care off, or paid attention to.

I got very excited in 2008 when Obama ran. In 2004 I was extremely active with the Dean and later Kerry campaigns. I am not getting excited about this election, not one bit. I know that the changes that need to happen go well beyond JUST VOTING, or going GO TEAM.

Like any other oligarchy they will take place, but not within any organized political party. They will likely happen in union halls, (what remains of them), it will happen in civil society, it will happen in civil organizations. And it will take years, likely decades.

[seabeyond]

80. i get you disagree. and i am saying, the supreme crt matter. you are saying it is minor.

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. In oligarchies the judicial system

is also captured, and it has.

Not just the the SCOTUS... but the whole kit and caboodle. This is why increasingly avenues for regular people to sue corporations are lessened, as well as police departments and even for things like equal rights.

Have you read the New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander? If you have not, I highly recommend you do. It will detail some of that process for you.

I disagree that a lot of this matters at the moment, but we as a society need to wake up to what is happening to the country, becuase it is nowhere close to what you learned in Civics in school.

[seabeyond]

85. yes. if we say stupid shit like there is no difference in the party. hence it making no sense

even from your point of view.

that is where fact.... comes into play.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. The differences are academic in big picture policies

not all of them mind you, like minimum wage, but in others it truly is.

We have been seeing the privatization of literally everything under both democratic and republican administrations ranging from city hall and on up.

See charter schools for example, or "competitiveness" for city services, which is code to privatize. This is going on everywhere, not just in Wisconsin.

Yes, there are some differences, like minimum wage... but not as significant as they used to be.

As I said, this goes well beyond just party platforms, and it goes to who gives money and in what amounts. We cover city hall, and county and we do policy. That is what we do. I will not bother with the horse race beyond announcements and who wins and loses, because I cannot compete. I can educate people on the crisis of democracy though, and once people get it, that really gets them pissed, and mobilized.

And I will never, ever tell you, don't vote. I will just add the caveat, if all you do is just vote, you will get the government you deserve. We need to MOBILIZE people, and what both parties have been doing is demobilizing the voters, because mobilized voters usually do more than just vote.

It is not just me that sees this. I get it, I grew up in an oligarchy that worked slightly differently, so they bought votes... because large majorities translated into legitimacy. Here, due to the legal system, you do not need those large majorities, bought with a torta and a coke, but just 50+1 of the pool of voters that actually show up.

I am just giving you food for thought. Just don't be too surprised that not just me has figured this out. I will tell those voters who have figured this out here in the states, GET ANGRY, VOTE, and DO MORE THAN JUST VOTE. But I will not tell them to get excited about any candidate. I know I will be there in November, but who I vote for, is my business at this point.

And yes, I am a member of the fastest group of voters in California, decline to state, with good reason.

Ed. Clarity

[seabeyond]

102. yes. i know. my social issue are insignificant to YOU. i gotta that nadin.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. I did not say that

and if that is all you got out of it, perhaps I am not communicating well. So let's try to laser focus on one of the many issues that should have been solved a generation ago. Let's preface this by saying this.Social issues matter a lot, to not just you. But they are not good for business or the current oligarchy.

You think business leaders want to pay the same to men and women? And that is an outstanding example. I want that, you want that, they don't. So that will continue to be an issue to float every so often but really not fully solved. That is not an accident.

And until you get that just voting is not going to get you anything...

[seabeyond]

108. first post. party/election does not matter. they only thing i hae called out, consistently,

thru out the thread.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Yes, it really does not matter

in an oligarchy it does not.

You need to do a lot more than just voting, to change that. I am being consistent. You, on the other hand, are trying hard to get a rise out of me. It is quite cute actually.

[seabeyond]

114. but... it matters in this election. you cannot deny. so MAYBE your sense of pure

oligarchy is a tad, hyperbole.

and ya... you are being consistent in not giving a shit about so many issues the democratic party does address.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. Nah I am being consistent in calling what we live under

an oligarchy.

And in an oligarchy elections are best case to redirect the direction slightly, worst case for show. In the States it is a good question wether it is to move the direction slightly or just for show. I think 2016 will be telling in that academic respect.

Why you need to do goes far beyond than just voting and go team. I do not expect at this point for you to understand what exactly I mean. It usually takes a while for people living in an oligarchy to understand this.

But when I was 18 we all voted, in 80 plus percent of the population. Presidents won election by numbers of the popular vote that would make both Democrats and Republicans envious, just by pure sheer numbers. We all knew we voted to keep in practice for when it mattered. It has truly yet to really matter, and things have gotten far worst even with the back and forth with two parties.

The US is at that stage now. So we as citizens need to figure out how to make government responsive to people. Just marching in the streets will not do it. Just voting will not do it. I am being extremely consistent on this. I do not expect the current oligarchy to care about equal pay, I expect them to give us cannabis legalization and LGBT rights, but I do not expect them, to give us back rights to abortion. Never mind it is legal ok. Why? Believe it or not, it has to do with who is giving lots of money, to the tunes of millions to candidates.

Yes, those rights are very popular among the people, but just like after Sandy Hook, with people wanting background checks in supermajorities, that was not going to happen, for the same exact reason. Who gives money and how much. The score cards from the NRA were just and are just for show. That is a classic of oligarchies.

The system is treading a very careful line. It is theater, and I know this makes you very uncomfortable. The challenge is not to get people to vote for party A or party B, it is to get people to vote, and then remain engaged. That is your challenge.

So to go back to the original statement, no, it really does not matter who is in the WH at this point.

[seabeyond]

123. again. i do not give a shit about your oligarchy argument. i give a shit you telling me i do not

matter. that we are merely a minor issue.

you consistently argue, what i am not arguing. you do not address what i am arguing.

calling out your statement that it does matter matter if you vote or not, both parties the same.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. If you really give a shit about not mattering

then that should piss you off royally. In an oligarchy, you and me, and my husband and mostly everybody in my building and my city don't matter.


We really do not matter. Well unless you have at least five million to give to a given campaign, then you will get the ear of your chosen candidate. Five bucks, that is a good joke, though thanks for the email address, that is worth it's weight in gold to those who sell those lists. I ended up in Bachmann's list somehow by the way, funniest thing ever.

And I have also said, consistently, that YOU NEED TO DO FAR MORE THAN JUST VOTE.

[seabeyond]

128. oligarchy does piss me off. i address it regularly. that is what is so stupid. you are making me

an enemy when i am saying the exact damn thing on a nation moving to oligarchy. and i TOO fight it. withOUT it being at the expense of others.

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. Expense how?

Look, you are now backtracking because putting words into my mouth has not worked,

But going to the original stance, no voting is not going to make a tinkers damn of difference. Not one bit.

There is so much you need to do beyond voting. As to the expense of others, exactly how? By listening to people who consistently tell me they are fed up? They are fed up that their concerns don't matter to those in power? To be super local for a moment, that my city is willing to spend a quarter of a million dollars to try to keep the chargers, when they have a billion plus hole in infrastructure repairs?

That the police denies there is any racial profiling even when their own stop data reveals that?

Or that a whole generation of youth is getting prosecuted for being young and black? Those are real issues, and this is why people are going why bother?

If all you are getting out of this is don't vote, you are not understanding what you are being told. Once again, what you are being told is that partisan politics is not the solution, you need to do FAR MORE THAN JUST GO TEAM and JUST VOTING.

But no, at this point at this point I really do not care for that. I used to... but then, as the joke goes, I opened my eyes.

[seabeyond]

135. my gosh, really nadin? it is not like i have not repeated myself a number of times. telling me it

does not matter who you vote for, they are the same, and my issues are minor


your position is at my expense.

i hold the same position of you and YET, i recognize this election matters and the parties are not the same.

no backtracking. anywhere.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. Well once again if you think I minimized your issuesq

you are wrong,

but those in power do regularly.

[seabeyond]

137. lol. you stand with FACT, the supreme court nominations does not matter.

whatever.

others can decide.

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. Again you misrepresent what I said

Why you need to do this, I really do not care but it is cute.

Here is your big point of clarification.

Yes, you might get socially liberal justices, or at least more socially liberal. You will not get, if they can avoid it, one that is NOT extremely business friendly. That would be bad for business.

And MIGHT is the big question mark.

[seabeyond]

140. your words

There are some of us who really do not give a shit

who is in the White House. We have reached a state of Zen that residents in oligarchies do reach sooner or later. Elections stopped mattering a while ago. Just voting really matters not.

I know this is not the kind of response you expected. But truthfully, we could have Warren or Sanders in the WH, and we would have the same policies continue... with a few side issues on the edges that would be different.

I accept that state... I grew up in an oligarchy, so none of this is new to me.

seabeyond (100,112 posts)
12. some of us recognize the power in the balance of the supreme crt. the difference a vote will make

17. That is one minor aspect

voting matters not
elections stopped mattering a while ago.
one MINOR aspect.

[nadinbrzezinski]

142. Of course, this is an oligarchy

so... you are throwing at me what I honestly believe? How exactly does that work? Trying to shame me by telling me that I wrote that in an Oligarchy voting really does not matter, and that you need to do far more than just voting?

You might not believe we are living in an oligarchy but we are, So let me quote myself

There are some of us who really do not give a shit

No, I do not give a shit, about national elections. They really do not matter in an oligarchy. I know there is more to this than merely going GO TEAM AND JUST VOTING.

who is in the White House. We have reached a state of Zen that residents in oligarchies do reach sooner or later. Elections stopped mattering a while ago. Just voting really matters not.

I know this is not the kind of response you expected. But truthfully, we could have Warren or Sanders in the WH, and we would have the same policies continue... with a few side issues on the edges that would be different.

I accept that state... I grew up in an oligarchy, so none of this is new to me.

Yup, and... this is what happened in Mexico and what has happened here. If Warren or Sanders were in the WH there are some policies that are the exact same policies, or is Seabeyond also denying the US is also an empire?

seabeyond (100,112 posts)
12. some of us recognize the power in the balance of the supreme crt. the difference a vote will make

17. That is one minor aspect

Yes, it is a minor aspect. The Justices selected in an oligarchy will be friendly to the status quo and while they might be a tad more socially liberal, they will be extremely business friendly.

See, I am consistent. So what other quotes do you want to throw at me? I am not the same person who used to post here. These days I cover real people and have gotten as far away from the bubble as you can. It is actually quote healthy.

So....ZZZEEENNNN!!!!

[seabeyond]

143. OMG... i am throwing at you, the incorrect OPINION that the election does not matter.

[seabeyond]

144. that is a SIMPLE fuckin' sentence to follow. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

145. And it does not matter in the big picture

in an oligarchy it really does not matter.

YOU NEED TO DO FAR MORE THAN JUST MERELY VOTE AND GO TEAM!!!

I am being extremely consistent as you try to shame me.

I find this whole exercise kind of cute though.

[seabeyond]

146. i disagree about your assessment of what warrants a "big picture". nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

147. That is far better than trying to shame people

disagreements is what adults do, Shaming... well, what can I say?

To me the big picture is far larger than to you, that is obvious, and we can be adults about it and disagree. We can also disagree on whether you need to just vote, and go team, or do far more than just merely vote.

That is what adults do.

[seabeyond]

148. no. dismissing people. and you do it over and over. once again. your big picture so much larger

than mine. wrong.

you dismiss much of the population and then point the finger at me. shame?

they are your words. if you feel shame, it is on you

i am simply saying.... NO

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. If I were dismissing you, I would not be

having an adult conversation with you.

Perhaps that was my mistake, thinking that was possible.


And you are the one trying to shame me into whatever you believe is compliance by quoting my own words, which I wrote and fully believe that is the case. I find the whole exercise quite cute... really cute. Partly a waste of my time, but hell, it is Sunday afternoon. I should be reading a lot more into the drought, but hell, what can I say? I needed the distraction.

ZEEENNNNNN!!!!

[seabeyond]

150. done.

[zappaman]

68. Here's what you said...

"There are some of us who really do not give a shit who is in the White House."

"Elections stopped mattering a while ago. Just voting really matters not."

"...a few side issues on the edges that would be different."

"I just don't expect it to make a diddly of difference."

"I disagree that the SCOTUS will be allowed to decide anything that will really affect life."


So, that boils down to...

It doesn't matter who is elected because both parties are the same and who gives a shit about "side issues" like women or LGBT rights before the Supreme court because they don't affect you.

How inspiring.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. And I own it, becuase in oligarchies

who occupies the WH, or Los Pinos, or whatever, does not matter.

[randome]

158. So if it doesn't matter, what harm is there in voting...just in case? Laziness?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[nadinbrzezinski]

161. If you bother with the full thread

you will realize that I am all for voting... but NOT JUST VOTING. In oligarchies just voting gives legitimacy and if that is all you do, they really love you for it. People need to get far more active than JUST MERELY VOTING, or going GO TEAM. Not voting because it feels good is electoral ludism (once again, thanks to John M. Ackerman for that term, it is on point), but you will not get me to say that all is well, and that we do not have a crisis of democracy that is profound. Nor to blame one party over the other... I am done with that crappy thinking.

And DO NOT expect me to either tell you who I intend to vote for, or even if I did, or for that matter to send money to any candidate, or walk precincts. I used to do that. Not anymore. I cannot afford to give any of these pols enough money for them to give me the time of day. And since I am not a multi millionaire none of them will ever be on speed dial. It is what it is in oligarchies.

And anyway, I do not run a partisan news outlet, nor do we concern ourselves with day to day horse race matters. With Citizens United I prefer to educate people on the policy issues and other aspects of the system than who is merely running or why, or where they had lunch. That is rather superficial shit. Anyway, we have plenty of outlets doing that shit and ignoring things like redistricting, or more money than god in races due to citizens united.

But in the big picture, it really does not matter who is in office for some very specific big picture policies. There is SOME variation in some social matters, but at the real top, not as much as there used to be, to be charitable. That is also a nature of oligarchies. And I get to hear this from people, you know regular folks, who are not partisans. They are pissed, that their needs are ignored. I mean real pissed, and some of those folks will not vote, because they believe that will make a point. You could not get them, at this point, to vote for an R, a D, or for that matter anybody else. They are done.

It is NOT my role to get them voting, just to educate them as to why that might not be a good idea. It is their decision whether they are going to vote ever again, or not. I know some will not vote ever again, and they have good reasons not to. And this... is part of the demobilization of voters that we are seeing nationwide. The type of US Oligarchy prefers it that way. But if you are going to vote, they also prefer that it is the only thing you do.

[zazen]

89. so "perhaps" up to one million Iraqi souls would not have died? I'd say that matters

I agree with you that building local resilience and alternative economies is more vital than ever on wrong side of EROEI and that we effectively have one mainstream global capitalist oligarchy with multiple factions clamoring for ground on all sides outside of that. And that the presidential election functions conveniently as a circus show distraction for the banal talk show set. You're absolutely right.

That said, I hope we can also be sensitive to the people and species whose lives, not to mention quality of life, have most certainly been lost as a result of the 2000 SCOTUS theft of the election from Al Gore. Obama and Clinton are Wall Street neoliberals through and through but they support birth control, free access to abortion, expanded healthcare, some environmental protection and not rushing headlong into senseless wars (though they're ruthless when they have to be), so on behalf of those folks and the Earth I'd say it does matter a bit.

I think those of us so sickened by the interrelated (but not entirely hegemonic) global kleptocratic regimes need to constantly remind people still caught up in electoral salvation that we STILL HONOR the electoral process, but only as ONE force among many through which shift power.

We need to keep working on developing a more effective terminology and strategy to shift some of the focus/energy from "the horse race." Let's commit to that while honoring the quality of life and very lives sacrificed by a more extremist POTUS.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. You get no argument from me on environmental issues

the US will be brought to that kicking and screaming though.

And the damage we did (and not just the U.S.) in both Iraq and Afghanistan should see an IMT. but that is another signal of oligarchy, it ain't gonna happen. Those people live in a different legal system than you or I.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. We had Saddam in a box with the no fly zones and sanctions regime.

For no other reason a sane Democratic president would have supported the status quo rather than upsetting it with the possibility of unforeseen negative consequences. It's not that we are pacifists but we are sane.

[NCTraveler]

201. One of the greatest scholars in the world, that Princeton U. nt./

[nadinbrzezinski]

204. Yup

That team is top notch.

[Agschmid]

7. .

[seabeyond]

12. some of us recognize the power in the balance of the supreme crt. the difference a vote will make

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. That is one minor aspect

but that is my view, It's been one for years, Why I do not do horse race.

Now citizens united. Sure. and that is one symptom of oligarchy.

For the record, I do not expect the modern court to get rid of it in the near future... perhaps after a lot of damage is done in 25 to 30 years.

[seabeyond]

23. in YOUR opinion it is minor. not all of us agree with you. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. And that is fine

In a former democracy, we are not one any more, we all used to be able to disagree. I disagree that the SCOTUS will be allowed to decide anything that will really affect life. My views are formed from having grown in an oligarchy, and now living in a newly minted one.

Yes, some social issues they will touch, and decide "the right way." Those who run oligarchies realize that you need to give something to the people that they will like. Or use the Courts to keep things roiling. We will see what course this one takes.

My view is quite cynical, I realize that. But we are free to disagree. To me the political process is far from responsive anymore. The research into this is quite deep and extensive.

[seabeyond]

47. so gracious to allow me to see the significance of the supreme court

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Hey, they might shock me

and be the place where they break the process towards oligarchy, but this is at the moment a RW court, more akin to the one in the 1930s. So forgive me for not expecting that. Nor do I expect the US Senate to confirm candidates that are all but business friendly, and towards the RW where it matters.

I told you my cynical view of things. It is what it is. But it is also one reason why my horse race coverage is limited to winers and losers, I cannot compete with the money tsunami and my 5 bucks are not going to buy me a seat at any table, not even the children's table. Now if I gave a 5 followed by 6 zeroes, that would be a somewhat different story.

It is what it is, and some of us have indeed given up on the system as being responsive one bit.

Now I do spend time on this dysfunction and what citizens united has done. But the horse race? I have not gotten excited on any of it in a few years.

[seabeyond]

52. look. honestly. i am really not interested in the rest of your story. telling me this race does NOT

matter is everything in my book, in the here and now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. So have a good day

we are cool

[seabeyond]

61. interesting and that works for me. two different position. i can respect that, anyway. nt

[zappaman]

28. Yes, issues before the Supreme Court like equal rights for example are "minor".

[zappaman]

22. Yeah, but that just helps for distractions like equal rights for women and

The LGBT community and who cares about that?

[seabeyond]

29. yes. and then my good friends who participate in this populist movement of theirs ask me WHERE i am

getting the idea that social issues do not matter. that they are actively promoting MY issue does not matter.

well, when one or two or many more TELL me it does not matter. then.... that is where i am getting it from, friends. like, nadin telling me in this thread, how insignificant the supreme crt is.

[boston bean]

37. Can't you see, Sea? You're just a dividerer...

Dividing the populist movement from the Democratic Party..

They got all the angles sewed up.

Except it is they who are creating the real divisions. Pure projection.

[seabeyond]

41. i am the divider for not going to the back of the bus like a good, nice little girl? nt

[boston bean]

42. pretty much.. in their eyes.. nt

[seabeyond]

49. am i allowed to say.... NO!

lol

[boston bean]

53. If you want to remain a dividerer,

By all means keep saying no!

[seabeyond]

62. except, from what i see, i have the power in my no. not the other way around. nt

[boston bean]

66. Right.

You realize I am being facetious.

[seabeyond]

73. of course.

as am i. lol. ah BB.... life. this is an interesting race. i am learning a lot.

[NYC_SKP]

16. You're kind of right, Nadin. We're stuck with two flavors of the same shit soda, it seems.

The entire system has be so thoroughly corrupted that now that the lead candidates of both parties can be expected to:

Start wars
Protect the wealthy class
Dismantle the social safety nets
Create jobs overseas
Screw the environment

The difference is that we're supposed to like it when the person has a D next to their name.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Yup, reminds me of my voting days in Mexico

same shit, different color.

[zappaman]

24. Yeah, both parties are the same.

Why vote, right?

[seabeyond]

31. she is totally wrong too. see how that works? i do see how you walk the line though. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. It makes a huge difference for a gay person who wants to get married.

It makes a huge difference for a gay person who wants to get married, a working class person who wants to keep getting his Medicaid and Food stamps, a woman who wants to make her own reproductive choices, a undocumented worker who wants to come out of the shadows, a middle class family who wants to send their kid to college, a person who lives near the water who doesn't want to see his house turn into a house boat because of climate change.

That's a starter...

[zappaman]

38. Who cares about that stuff?

Both parties are the same anyway, dontchaknow?

[seabeyond]

40. yet... we have dems stating it is a minor matter. totally fuggin' amazing. surely,

only on du.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. They are ruling the right way on some social issues

counter with Hobby Lobby... and anything affecting business.

This is not new, just new to the US.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. I don't want to join in the "bashing"...

You just posted in the wrong thread because the argument that both parties are the same and if you disagree you're a "turd wayer" or a "corporatist tool" is very much in vogue here.

There's this meme that the Democratic party was a some sort of socialist party that was hijacked by folks who wanted to turn it right. If that was the case why hasn't one of our presidents called himself a socialist or put forth socialist policies? I always see FDR cited in these conversations. FDR wasn't a socialist...He saved capitalism from itself.

The Democratic party is what it was; a catch all , big tent, left of center party.

That's an empirical observation and not a normative one.


The current crop of radical Republicans want to eliminate the welfare state. They want to turn Food Stamps and Medicaid into a block grant. That leaves poor and working class folks to the tender mercies state government, most of which are Republican. They want to turn Medicare into a voucher program. That leaves older folks at the tender mercies of insurance companies. They want to eliminate the ACA subsidies leaving some lower middle class folks with no insurance at all...

These are big deals.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. I just posted that in my view

and that of more than a few academics, the US is now an oligarchy.

It is a view that started to jell for me in the early 2000s and now it is fully formed. It is a view now increasingly coming out of academic studies as well.

I do not get excited about parties, and the Democratic party is THE OTHER PARTY OF BUSINESS according to many working class folks, I hear this regularly. We see parties NOT remain the same regularly. I predict the Dems will finally jetison labor, or labor jetison the dems, in the near future. Who will jetison who, or whether it will be mutual, is a good question.

I talk to regular people every day. And what I hear is not nice, if you are a partisan for EITHER party.

People are fed up. This is also a feature of oligarchies by the way.

And yes they are big deals, have you looked recently at the size of the middle class? And have you explored policies to help that middle class in both blue and red states and when they are implemented? I have. I do this regularly. In some ways the ACA is an outlier.

Could the democratic party go back to the New Deal coalition? Perhaps, but that will only, maybe, perhaps, happen if people do a lot more than just vote. As long as the only goal is to either get votes, or demobilize voters, people will keep seeing this increasing distance from parties to their respective bases.

As to crazy republicans, yeah they are, and... radical anything is baked into the US. The language of crazy whatever is not as frightening for many people as it used to be. The language is not as effective because the voters, they are not seeing their leaders, whether at city hall, or the US Congress, be that responsive to them.

You are right, this is not the "right thread," because when you are not willing to listen, you will get even less voters showing up. For the record, 2010 and 2014 were the failures they were for Dems, for the same exact reason. We will see if the same happens in 2016 when the electorate should be more pro dem. That will be an interesting exercise. If history is a guide though...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

109. We have been ruled by elites since our founding.

Nothing has changed. But there are malevolent elites and there are benevolent elites as long as their elite status isn't threatened. We have been navigating through those elites since our nation's foundings...

I subscribe to what Old Joe Kennedy, a newly minted member of the elite, tolh his kids, "the rich can take care of themselves, it's the little guy who needs the government's help.

Its their concerns that are my cause and that's why I am an unabashed and unhyphenated small d and Big D Democrat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. That noblese oblige disappeared a generation ago

and things have gotten off a rail. And as I said, I spend way too long with regular folks, while covering news. I admit, I listen to far more local sausage making than it is safe as well.

But I see it over and over and over again, when government bodies refuse to even listen to citizens.

And what I hear from people now consistently, is that they are fed up.

I never tell somebody to not vote. I just do not tell them who.

First it is not my job.

Second, they usually are pissed enough at insert government official here, that they will vote for the guy\gal running against them.

[SidDithers]

64. No, all those topics are minor issues....

because TPP.

Or something.

Sid

[MineralMan]

54. Uff da! I have to wonder why you bother with a political forum

at all, in that case. If it doesn't matter to you who is in power, what could be interesting about politics?

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. I bother with a few things that matter to me

and they are very limited.

[MineralMan]

67. I'm sorry, but when you say you don't care who is in the

White House, you've lost my interest in your concerns altogether. Truly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. And that is fine

not like you and I have ever seen eye to eye in even the color of the sky.

I guess race relations matters not to you, or income inequality, or police violence., And I am cool with that. I really do not care.

[OilemFirchen]

156. ...

I have requested to have my account permanently closed. I would like that to be done.

What was the question?

[MineralMan]

157. I believe you are replying to the wrong post.

That is no a quote from any post I have written.

[OilemFirchen]

186. Not really.

When I replied, it was the contents of the "About" here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=127191

... and had been for months.

All of a suddy like, it's been changed.

Shocking, eh?

[nadinbrzezinski]

187. I did ask the account to be closed

I decided to participate after we made a promise to one woman locally after we interviewed her. It is her issues that matter to me, not you mind you.

But thanks, you reminded me to change that,

And to toughen my password. Take my word on it, it was silly how weak it was.

Apparently you have a problem, but you know what bud... that is your issue, not mine.

Now where exactly did I place that series of PDFs on infrastructure? Oh yeah, over there.

Thanks!



I mean that.

[OilemFirchen]

188. Bud?

Whatevs.

You keep on wit yer bad ol' promises, Trixie.

[nadinbrzezinski]

189. Cute.

very cute.

[MineralMan]

192. You replied to a post of mine, quoting something

I didn't say. Without a reference, I couldn't determine what you were talking about. I don't typically look at DUers profiles.

[OilemFirchen]

196. My mistake.

I should have included a link.

It's all good.

[nadinbrzezinski]

199. I keep finding this extremely cute

call outs and TOS, but what can I say? I won't bother with it. The whole level of cuteness is all I need. It is almost as cute as a baby kitty....

Cuteness.

In the extreme.

[zappaman]

200. Telling people voting doesn't matter and both parties are the same is NOT cute. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

205. If you bothered to read

You would realize I am telling people to do far more than just vote and go team not reading is also far from cute.

Also go argue with the scholars who are saying we are an oligarchy. I understand what that means. And trust me, that is not cute.

[SidDithers]

58. Oh FFS...

Sid

[LuvLoogie]

131. Nam-myoho-renge-kyo!

"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

Snap out of it!

[QuestionAlways]

197. The Republicans love you

There are some of us who really do not give a shit

Your attitude is what they hope all progressives adopt. Just wait and see what they have in store for us if they control all three branches of the Government.

[nadinbrzezinski]

198. Actually both would prefer that none of us voted

I intend to vote, but I am fully aware that my vote counts for nothing in the big picture.

If I want to change things, it will take a life time, another reality residents in oligarchies learn sooner or later. And it will take far more than just voting.

Trust me oligarchs love you. Go vote, and JUST VOTE. They absolutely love that, It gives legitimacy to the policies by the way.

And by the way, it is also a reality of oligarchies that partisans are the absolute last ones to understand this.

[QuestionAlways]

206. You can give up, or you can have hope

and hope is a necessary first step for change to occur;.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

and things do change over time. Today that group of children would include black faces
because of these two men who had hope, and did not give up even in the face of tragedy

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[nadinbrzezinski]

207. You got me there

I have completely given up why I am waiting to cover a demonstration outside the Hall of Justice. Yup, indeed that sounds like I rolled up into the fetal position and gave up.

Forgive me for pointing out that what you indicate on change is no longer active the way it was. This is part of the problem about oligarchies remember what Frank Zappa said about walls and scenery. We are at the moment where that stagecraft becomes even that much more important

[QuestionAlways]

208. To me, you seemed to indicate you had given up, I'm glad I was mistaken

Even in an oligarchy change can occur, but it will be slow. The first step is to elect a Democratic candidate who will appoint justices to SCOTUS who will overturn Citizens United. I believe Hillary is that candidate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

209. And that is where we differ

I do not believe at this moment that change, which is critical, will be allowed by the big donors. You will hear plenty of sound and fury though.

[Autumn]

3. Must we love Hillary, Chafee and Webb? I for one don't.

[boston bean]

6. Who said you had too. I assume most

aren't supportive of them.

[Autumn]

10. I simply answered your question with a question of my own.

All three are easy not to love

[NYC_SKP]

74. This thread is proof of the assertion that there is pressure to fall in line.

There are replies posted, for example, that suggest that if one supports LGBT rights that they must support Clinton.

Good grief, any democrat worth a shit support's equal marriage rights and equal pay for women.

For a candidate to run on that is incredibly safe, easy, and weak.

If and when Clinton comes out in favor of unions and a living minimum wage, and does it in clear terms, then I might start thinking she's something other than a Democrat by convenience.

Sorry to see you being challenged by a contingent who think you have to support Clinton or else...

[seabeyond]

75. fall in line? a democratic board, adn democrats saying, there is a difference in the parties.

with the argument that .... they are the same and the election does not matter.

we are demanding you fall in line, to allow us that my life .... matters?

challenging.

[NYC_SKP]

82. Many comments imply that only Hillary cares about women, LGBT issues.

Even yours.

She deserves credit for coming out much earlier than many as an advocate for these groups, but in 2015 we see more and more states allowing same-sex marriage and Democrats, good ones, have always been for equal pay.

So what is so special about Hillary's support for these? Where is the courage?

My demand for an open primary and desire to have more choices than the loudest most entitled person in the room is not an unreasonable one.

I just want a primary, I want a choice, it's the Democrat in me.

[seabeyond]

84. i have no problems with ANY dem. i have a problem with populist party that tells me i do not matter

i have said this repeatedly.

[NYC_SKP]

88. I certainly would, too, and would fight such comments or suggestions that you do not matter.

I might be missing something here.

So, sorry if my replies to you are misplaced.

Anyone running for president as a Democrat had better have everyone's best interest at heart, especially the dispossessed and unrecognized.

And that's actually at the heart of my disapproval of candidate Clinton, as I feel the underpaid are among these.

[seabeyond]

106. you "kinda" agree and validated nadin. yet, she was stating we did not matter. calling out that

takes precedent over the oligarchy issue. i already agree on that issue. i too fight that issue. but NOT at the expense of me and that is blatantly what nadin was doing. that you not only did NT cal out, but "kinda" agreed with her.

[ND-Dem]

191. we have a populist party? and it's telling you you don't matter?

[boston bean]

90. The democrat in you that continually proclaims

You would not vote for Hillary under any circumstance including a general election?

[NYC_SKP]

93. She is not, IMO, a Democrat and she will not get my vote, you are correct.

Give me a Democrat and I'll give you a vote.

I'm doing everything I can to lead by example, hoping others will follow, we don't have to accept her.

She is not one of us, she's one of them.

I'm not sure she'll win the primary and she won't have my vote. And if she moves ahead to the GE, the California Electoral Votes will go to her without my help.

Instead, I plan to not give her my popular vote and will simply leave it blank.

Terms of service of this site do not require voting FOR a candidate, even in the general.

I'll vote alright, but the presidential boxes will remain empty.

[boston bean]

95. LOL.

[cui bono]

126. My sentiments exactly.

I don't understand why anyone would LOL at your post.

[Autumn]

97. Hillary has a record on social issues, a good one, but that's not all that's important.

Funny thing about a persons record, it stand there for people to see. Some of Hillary's record is good, some is not. Any Democrat is for those issues, if one isn't then one simply isn't a Democrat or even a decent human being. IMO we need more at this time. The status quo just isn't good enough. It's time to go big or go home. As my Bernie say's "I think there is a lot of discontent out there on the part of ordinary people who feel the system is grossly stacked against them." That system has been stacked against us for quite a while now, I'm not voting for a continuation of that rigged system. Fuck that.

Yeah Bernies right. Bernie gets its. I see no reason to support a democrat who can't step out of their safe little comfort zone and take on a big challenge for the people. I'm up to being challenged. We all are... let them do as they will.

[seabeyond]

113. hence, me welcoming all dems and an independent to hear what they have to say. without throwing

alot of people under the bus.

[Autumn]

116. There is no reason for us to throw anyone here under the bus. We are Liberals

and we should have each others back, no matter which Liberal or democratic politician we support as long as that democrat or Liberal politician accepts and upholds our core values. I have no problem with anyone wanting Hillary as President and I see no reason why anyone should have a problem with me not wanting her as President.

[seabeyond]

117. you and i agree. and i will repeat. i have no problem with any of the dems. it is populist party

telling me my issues do not matter, that i challenge.

[Autumn]

120. I would have a problem with any party or poster telling me my issues don't matter

and you are right to challenge that.

[seabeyond]

124. thank you autumn. that is all, lol. i appreciate it. nt

[FSogol]

4. Neither Webb nor Chafee have officially announced. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. LOL I was thinking either bb was the only one to have heard OR

I was the only one who hadn't.

[BlueCaliDem]

19. I believe Lincoln Chafee had announced he's running on CNN last Thursday.

"Yes, that's why I'm running. Because I feel strong about where we're going as a country," Chafee told CNN's "New Day" on Thursday, when asked why he's been so critical of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. Chafee was asked by CNN's John Berman in the context of having not formally declared his presidential campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/16/politics/lincoln-chafee-running-for-president/

His spokesperson, Debbie Rich, quickly tried to correct that statement, saying that Chafee did not declare himself as a candidate for president Thursday, despite saying "that's why I'm running."

When you say "I'm running" it's, to me, pretty much clear that you are no matter what your spokesperson tells the press. He's running, all right.

[FSogol]

77. Notice I said, "officially". He informally stated his intent (and Webb is exploring his

options), but neither has officially announced. The official announce will be a campaign kickoff as well as filing forms with the FEC. Neither Webb, O'Malley, Sanders, or Chafee have done so. HRC filed her forms with the FEC about 8 days before her official announcement.

FTR, O'Malley will announce in before the end of May. He is waiting for HRC's announcement excitement bump to level out.

[BlueCaliDem]

81. True. But Chafee, imo, has all but officially announced since he did it publicly,

whether or not he's filed the proper papers to "make it official". As a seasoned politician, he knows better than to go on teevee and announce he's running if he has no intentions of doing so. The same goes for Webb, O'Malley, and Sanders.

Hillary Clinton had said nothing and evaded questions probing her on whether or not she's running up until she filed her papers and officially announced her candidacy.

Then again, I believe the others are doing so in order to see if they can gain enough donors to fund their campaigns. It's so frustrating that politicians today have to garner billions of dollars just to run for a job that only pays a fraction of that in government salary, isn't it?
The sooner we kills off Citizens United or pass a Disclosure law so that we'll know who's trying to buy our government, the better it will be for this country and average Americans.

[FSogol]

103. Out of all of those candidates, O'Malley is the only one playing the long game.

He was out in Iowa during the last midterms using his staffers to help local and state candidates. He's building bridges for future attempts if he doesn't succeed this time.

[brooklynite]

159. Warren hasn't "officially" announced and people are happy to support her...

Last edited Sun Apr 19, 2015, 08:58 PM - Edit history (1)

You can like Chafee and Webb's positions (or not) whether they're an announced candidate or not.

[BlueCaliDem]

162. Exactly! eom

[William769]

8. They can't get anyone they like to run, so that only leaves them one thing to do.

Tear down a Democrat. Wished I saw this much enthusiasm going after the Republican side.

[FSogol]

18. "Wished I saw this much enthusiasm going after the Republican side."

[seabeyond]

20. +1. nt

[zappaman]

26. No kidding.

[BlueCaliDem]

27. Sad, isn't it? Those people believe everything is about them, not the country.

They are the Republicans best adversaries against Democrats, imo.

[we can do it]

30. +1

[greatauntoftriplets]

33. + 1 brazillian.

[William769]

35. Remember what I said earlier.

[greatauntoftriplets]

39. Oh yes.

Not the first time this week (well, technically last week, since it's Sunday) that I've used that image.

[zappaman]

60. Whatever.

Who is on the Supreme Court is just "a minor thing".

[boston bean]

76. Why worry their beautiful principled minds

about such things?

In their mind every one else is just stupid and unprincipled. From their position perched from on high.

[seabeyond]

44. lol lol. so fuggin perfectly cool. nt

[greatauntoftriplets]

45. ...

[treestar]

99. Right , now there are two more "choices" to support

Yet I don't think we'll see them running to either of them.

[BlueCaliDem]

164. And I truly wonder why that is.

They keep pushing for a candidate who said, over and over again that she won't run, even had her attorney file with the FEC that she's not associated with the PAC that wants to draft her - has said, lately even, time and time again she's not going to run and is positively CLEAR about that...knowing that if they convince enough Dems that Hillary Clinton is eveeeel and to support a Dem who is adamant that she's not going to run for the presidency in 2016...they just might decide not to vote, and voila! A Republican steals his way into the White House. This scenario might not be what they want, but that will be the result. Thanks but no thanks.

[cui bono]

129. Oh gawd. Wish I saw concern for true Democratic values and principles.

Instead of tearing down other Democrats who disagree with you.

[seabeyond]

130. when you ignore 80% of the democratic value, it is easy ot not see

true Democratic values and principles.

ya think?

[cui bono]

132. I don't understand what you're getting at. n/t

[NYC Liberal]

153. Working to build support from the ground up for a challenger is hard work.

It's far easier to just point and criticize on the Internet.

[onehandle]

193. Yep. nt

[Cheese Sandwich]

25. I missed the Jim Webb announcement... link?

[whatchamacallit]

63. Um... waiting for some policy specifics before professing my love

If that kinda stuff matters to you, you should do the same.

[HereSince1628]

70. I'm glad they are in. I don't care for Webb, don't know enough to say about Chafee...

But I'm glad that there are more people for the media to scrutinize.

Maybe there will be less Scoobyparkinggate level bs. in the news

[seabeyond]

79. sitting with the position that so many do not matter, in our political party, simply

is not a winning position.

it is not cause anyone is picking on anyone or demanding people fall into line.

it is the reality that there is a difference in the parties and a dem getting in does matter.

fact.

i am not getting anyone making this argument. it will always be a lose.

[Mike Nelson]

86. Welcome, Chafee and Webb!

... looking forward to good debates from the Dems - and funny ones from the Repubs!

[LWolf]

87. When? Where?

I can't find it.

Meanwhile, I've donated to Sanders and stand ready to work for him should he announce. If not, I hope someone else does.

[Octafish]

91. Great! Democracy in Action.

Now let's see if they stand up to scrutiny. Are they people of good character? Do they have integrity? What is their record? What are their positions? Who are their backers?

[whatchamacallit]

92. That doesn't matter Octa

Just pick a horse and flog it over the line.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

98. I'm giving Chaffee a "maybe". Webb a "not likely". Hillary a "no sale".

[zazen]

101. why the HELL can't Chafee or Webb or Clinton run as a Republican?

And before anyone says, you don't understand polling, I understand that at least 1/3rd of the Republican Party wants a figurehead to move more overtly back to effectively Clinton's position, which is their position (socially liberal, economically neoliberal). They're just socially/professionally pressured into professing a difference with Clinton (and Chafee). Another third could be persuaded through campaigning to move there.

With the right social media campaigns and strategies, those Republicans would rally around a Webb or Chafee or even Clinton (1/3 secretly agree with her). They just need a Grand Narrative, because they like to follow authority and have a group of "liberals" to dislike/effeminize, against which to define themselves. Because of identity politics there's a fundamental gendering unconsciously pushing faux party differences (in the middle).

An "I saw the light and want to bring back Eisenhower values to the Republican party" candidate, especially if a Democrat "renouncing" some minor issue within the Democratic party as a distracting false wedge issue that would provide plausibility for the "switch," would garner a solid third and might--just might--win the primary. Hell, a Dem-turned-Republican who rallied against Common Core, a mainstream neoliberal strategy that could be superficially pinned on Dem leadership), they'd get some Dem parents too.

A moderate Republican candidate would force our candidates to the Left. And would more effectively split the Republican fundamentalists off from the mainstream, which is a matter of global urgency since they're poised to be the fascists of the 21st century.

Republicans, and mainstream Americans, LOVE conversion/rebirth narratives. It's our religiosity.

Yes, Clinton or Chafee or Webb could win the general election as a D, but I just DREAM of a day when they're what's considered conservative in this country, as in Europe.

[AtomicKitten]

110. Chaffee has announced his candidacy. Webb announced an exploratory committee.

Webb is just slightly to the right of Hillary.

Chaffee is a good deal to the left of Hillary, and voted no on the IWR.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

118. No.

"Chaffee is a good deal to the left of Hillary..."

No, when they were in the Senate Hillary Clinton voted more like Ted Kennedy and Lincoln Chafee voted more like Ben Nelson:

Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) is an American political organization advocating progressive policies. ADA works for social and economic justice through lobbying, grassroots organizing, research and supporting progressive candidates.

http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2001.pdf


http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2002.pdf

http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2003.pdf


http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2004.pdf

http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2005.pdf



http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2006.pdf

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

-John Adams

[AtomicKitten]

122. Yes.

You will know them by their works, not an outdated voting record.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. Those are the only votes she cast and the only votes he cast

Chafee's voting record was indistinguishable from Ben Nelson and his voting record makes Bill Nelson's voting record look like Bernie Sanders.


And the most sad thing is he represented deep blue Rhode Island so he could be as his liberal as he wanted but his Ben Nelsonesque voting record shows who he really is and what he believes...

Oh, loved his votes for Alito and Roberts didn't ya:




http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00001

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/politics/politicsspecial1/28rollcall.html


Yes, we know him by his works:

By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

P.S. David Duke (R) and Pat Buchanan (R) vigorously opposed the Iraq War Resolution. That is not enough of a compelling reason for me to vote for them either

[AtomicKitten]

138. And all that has transpired since for both is more relevant than a decades-old voting record.

People change. Chaffee with few notable exceptions promotes left-leaning issues and policy.

Hillary's SOS record is and should be very concerning. She undermined the president's Syria and Libya policy, going as far as to say he's responsible for the rise of ISIS. She big-footed the Commerce Dept taking over promoting corporate interests worldwide. She promoted the rightwing coup in Haiti and the murderous aftermath. She's bellicose on Iran, Syria, and Libya.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

141. All I know is Chafee became a Democrat after his approval ratings sank to 22%

All I know is he became a Democrat after his approval ratings as governor sank to 22% :

Hard as it is to imagine, Congressman David Cicilline and Gov. Lincoln Chafee have managed to lose even more public support.
Cicilline’s job approval rating has sunk to just 15% among all Rhode Island voters, down from 24% in December, according to a new Brown University poll released Thursday morning. Chafee’s approval rating isn’t much higher at 22%, down from 27%.

To put those numbers in perspective, President Richard Nixon’s approval rating was 24% a week before he resigned over Watergate in 1974. Slightly more voters rated Chafee’s job performance as poor (45%) than said so about Cicilline’s (43%).

http://wpri.com/blog/2012/02/23/cicilline-chafee-approval-ratings-now-worse-than-nixon-in-1974/

and he thought he could save his job by becoming a Democrat but alas that wasn't enough and he decided not to run for re-election.

No thank you but I won't be voting for an Alito and Roberts approving, Social Security privatizing, and CAFTA supporting former Republicans and Democrat of convenience. My checkbook, actually I don't even have one, won't allow it.

[cui bono]

115. So your argument is that because there may be candidates to the right of Hillary we should be happy

with someone who embraces moderate Republican policies?

[boston bean]

119. Maybe people think they are more liberal.

[cui bono]

133. So what was the point of your OP then?

[TBF]

154. Who in their right mind would think Webb

is more liberal than Hillary? They are both pretty conservative and he is 2 years older. He's the democrat's version of McCain.

[JI7]

151. i don't even think most of them actually support Elizabeth Warren

the support seems to always be wrapped up in hate for other democrats.

there is also lack of ground support for warren . obama had a lot of it.

[zappaman]

152. Warren should be announcing any day now she is running.

She has not ruled it out!
And I have a feeling that she will be riding a unicorn that shits skittles when she makes this exciting announcement!
Just wait and see!

[MineralMan]

160. Entitled? I love Skittles!

EW for President! Really. Oh wait, she's not running. Guess I'll have to buy my own Skittles. Oh, well...

[Warren DeMontague]

170. Funny

I thought the rainbow would taste better

[zappaman]

171. Obviously you forgot to wear these when catching skittles out of a unicorns ass.

https://www.getshittens.com

[Warren DeMontague]

173. I thought maybe tobasco sauce would help

Sriracha?

[zappaman]

180. Sriracha makes EVERYTHING better.

[Warren DeMontague]

176. You know zappa, i respect you, we go way back you and I..

And i hope you've been paying attention here long enough to know that I am one of those people who supports the nom every 4 yrs, hell or high water.

And it is quite possible- probable, maybe- that HRC will be the nominee. And anyone who says they wont vote for her in that case, fuck em.

But ..shes not the nominee yet, and belittling those parts of our party who may want a different choice or direction in the primaries, isnt helping her campaign, or the arguments for it.

Just my 2 cents.

[zappaman]

181. I'm not backing anyone yet.

But to continually pine for someone who has been honest and forthright about NOT wanting to run strikes me as extremely silly.
I love Warren and donated to help get her elected even though I live clear across the country, but some people need to stop with the fantasizing and put that energy into someone who might actually want to run!

I see your two cents and raise you a nickel.

[Warren DeMontague]

182. I don't think Liz Warren is running, either.

As much fun as I personally could have with that, given my username.

But I also think "you don't have anywhere else to go" isn't a real compelling campaign narrative-- not saying you're pushing it, but some are-- there will certainly be plenty of time to rain rhetorical poop down on anyone who says "I won't vote for---- X" once X has a (D) after her, or his, name. Remember what happened to the PUMA people, once Obama was nominated?

I think something is driving a lot of people to WANT Warren to run, even if she isn't going to... and I do not believe all of those people are poorly disguised right wing trolls (although a couple, for sure, are ) ... I think it is worth a bit of self-examination, as a party, as to why that is and how do we bring everyone on board.

[zappaman]

183. Can't argue with that.

If Hillary gets the nomination, will you be changing your first name?

[Warren DeMontague]

184. Hillary DeMontague doesn't really have much of a ring to it.

I have to think that we're overdue for a name change amnesty either way, come Jan. of 2017.. The Greg The Bunny reference was mildly amusing to me in 2009, but I'd be ready for something new.



I'd say I'd pick something from Archer, but unfortunately that show has gone downhill too.


Although come to think of it......



would be a good username.

[Zorra]

155. All "the love" is already backing Bernie Sanders. Perfect on social issues and not owned

by Wall St. Great on the environment too.

Why settle for half candidates, when you can have a complete one?

[BlueCaliDem]

169. Do we have a Senate liberal enough to support him? No? Then he'd be just another lame-duck, one-term

president and a Republican would win the next round handily...just in time to appoint more Alitos to the SCOTUS.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Zorra]

194. By that line of thinking: Because the current Senate is not liberal enough to support

President Obama, a Republican will be elected President in 2016.

You don't actually believe that the current Senate is liberal enough to support President Obama, do you?

[BlueCaliDem]

195. *Your* "line of thinking" is *way off*. President Obama compromises with Congress

and is anything BUT a "lame-duck" president. Do you actually think Senator Sanders has that clout with Democrats? He sure as heck doesn't have it with the Neo-Confederates posing as Republicans.

President Obama found (tentative) favor with Democrats in order to get things done - but only after they admonished him when he tried to "go rogue" and keep his campaign promise to close Gitmo the moment he was inaugurated.

What happened there? The Senate won the battle, and not only kept Gitmo open but refused the $80 million he asked for and wrote in the law that he couldn't bring any "terrorist" within United States borders, voting 90-3 to stop him from. Result? George W. Bush's and Republicans' terrorist breeding camp for their perpetual war remained open ever since. And they did this to a DEMOCRAT. Can you imagine what they'd do to an eventual President Bernie Sanders? They'd make him a lame-duck president, incapable of keeping any of his strong liberal promises - promises he can never realize without Congress' help. Politically informed Americans understand that and have understood that from the get-go. Staunch Bernie Sanders supporters don't appear to be able to.

The current Senate and the Senate before this one, is and has NOT been liberal at all - hence the outrageous stalling of Loretta Lynch as successor to Eric Holder (when Democrats could have easily voted for her before Republicans took over in January) and the need of President Obama to use more and more E.O.s.

If Senate Democrats appear more moderate than a moderate President Obama, can you imagine how badly liberal President Bernie Sanders would fare?

[LittleBlue]

163. Many are still holding out for Warren

Chafee's campaign looks like a profile type run, being the moral anti-war guy. It can't hurt him.

Webb looks to be gunning for VP. Defense cred and swing state cred.

Neither is very exciting.

[BainsBane]

165. "holding out for Warren"

I don't believe that. She has made clear many times she is not running, and quite emphatically. It's nothing but a smokescreen to trash Democrats.

[LittleBlue]

166. Who is creating a smokescreen? nt

[BainsBane]

174. People who don't actually want to see

a Democrat win the White House.

[LittleBlue]

178. Warren supporters are stealth Republicans, then? nt

[Warren DeMontague]

168. No, it's not a smokescreen, it's called a primary process.

And "you dont have an acceptable alternative" does not entitle any primary candidate to immunity from criticism.

[BainsBane]

172. Right, because holding out a candidate who has repeatedly said they won't run

is the way to achieve Democratic victory. We now have four to pick from, not one. There is no logic in "holding out for Warren." It serves no constructive purpose.

I realize you think everything is some cryptic conspiracy to get Clinton in the White House, but this OP is actually about two other candidates who just declared. It helps to keep the subject of the OP in mind.

[Warren DeMontague]

175. "i realize you think----"... she says, followed by something she made up out of thin air

that I've never come close to actually thinking.

Same shit, different day.

ETA: Your subthread, here, is about Liz Warren (presumably) so that's what I responded to.

In terms of responding to the topic of the OP, here you go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6534753

[Warren DeMontague]

167. I'm waiting to hear substantive policy positions from all of them.

Right now the only one who has done anything even close is O'Malley.

Hillary has offered some unsurpisingly vacuous pieces of poll-tested pablum, not much else.

As far as left or right, Chafee as a Republican still managed to vote against the IWR. Im not sure where that puts Hillary on the graph.

If Webb or Chafee take positions most in line with my values, I will support either of them in the primaries. Same with Clinton. Same with O'Malley or Sanders, for that matter, if they run and run as Democrats.

i still think it is way too early to demand support for anyone, although far be it for me to mess with anyone's hobbies.

[BainsBane]

177. It's not possible they are to the right of Clinton

I have it on good authority that no one is to right of Clinton, at least on the issues that "really matter."

[onenote]

179. Webb announced? Don't think so

I live on the same street as Webb. You'd think he'd have let us know.

[customerserviceguy]

185. A former Rethug

and a former Cabinet official who served a Rethug president.

Yeah, the two of them really impress me...

[Jim Lane]

190. Democrats who are to the right of Hillary?

In the Democratic Party as a whole, not all that many (Hillary is much more vulnerable on her left flank than on her right).

On DU, even fewer.

Many DUers are OK with or even enthusiastic about the prospect of Hillary as the nominee. Of the many DUers who are not in that camp, all or virtually all want someone to Hillary's left. That's why there's enthusiasm for Sanders and Warren, who both meet that criterion, and who attract attention even though they are, respectively, not an enrolled Democrat and not likely to run.

O'Malley has attracted "love" (your term) because the progressives see him as someone who could carry the left-of-Hillary banner. The most frequent comment about O'Malley among those not cheering for Hillary seems to be "I don't know much about that guy but what little I've heard seems positive and I'd like to know more." (The most frequent comment about him among the Hillary supporters is to not comment. This is in keeping with Hillary's 2006 primary campaign, when she faced a progressive challenger with much less name recognition. She ignored him and refused to debate.)

With that landscape in mind, I turn to your question. (I realize that it wasn't a serious attempt to gain information but for expository purposes I'll pretend it was.) Webb is perceived as being more conservative than Hillary. That has two consequences:
(1) He doesn't attract support from the DUers who want an alternative to Hillary, because we want someone who's less conservative, not more so.
(2) He doesn't attract attention from the DUers interested in forecasting the race, because, as someone coming at Hillary from the right, he doesn't seem to have much potential. At this point I see Hillary as the heavy favorite to win the nomination, but if she doesn't win it, her successful opponent will almost certainly be someone who mobilizes the left wing of the party and gets the votes of those who consider Hillary too conservative.

Chafee is a more complicated case. One obvious reason for the lack of "love" is that his first public expression of interest in the race came much more recently. We've been discussing Clinton/O'Malley/Sanders/Warren/Webb for months with no Chafee on the radar. Even people like Gore and a couple of Browns received more attention than Chafee until the last few weeks.

Beyond that, his ideology is harder to pin down. He was a legacy Republican, son of a prominent moderate Republican who would have been far to the left of today's GOP. He had some liberal impulses. As a result, his Senate record is a mixture; opposing IWR isn't his only progressive act, but he also has a lot of party-loyalty votes for bad things. As a further complication, he has clearly moved to the left since leaving the Senate.

The upshot of all this is that it was clearly predictable that Chafee's emergence would not produce an immediate stampede of DUers to support him. People know even less about him (about where he is today) than they do about O'Malley.

I'm guessing that the point of the OP was to try to convey the impression that anyone who isn't loudly cheering for Hillary is therefore a mindless hater with no real interest in a constructive alternative, because otherwise those of us who don't want Hillary to win the nomination would be leaping to support Chafee or Webb. If that's your point, it's a complete non sequitur. If your point is something else, maybe you could spell it out a little less obliquely, for the benefit of those of us who are a bit slow on the uptake.

[KamaAina]

202. Yay Chafee!

Boo Webb.

[Proud Public Servant]

203. You're asking where's the love for

a guy who's been a Democrat for maybe 18 months, and another guy who was a high-ranking official in the Reagan administration?

Can I get back to you about that?

[philosslayer]

210. Do they get fonts too?