IMAGINE: All Three Branches of Government in Republican Hands...

[MineralMan]

The destruction of rights on every hand would be enormous. Never mind the primary elections. We need solidarity building toward the general election in 2016. There will be a presidential nominee. Whoever it is will need our support and massive GOTV efforts if we are to avoid a disastrous scenario.

That is the bottom line for 2016.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Vote for Hillary Clinton in the Primary and We'll be Swearing in a GOP President in January 2017

All her funds can't buy a message that resonates with voters.

She's a turn-off, all she has is name recognitions and friends in high places.

She's taken Koch Brothers money before and she'll take it again.

Vote for Sanders.

[MineralMan]

2. I would suggest the same thing about Bernie Sanders.

He has many things going against him in a presidential run. Lack of name recognition. Age. The Socialist label. Questionable fundraising capacity.

Frankly, I'm not even talking about who the candidate will be. That will be up to primary voters. I'm talking about what we do once there is a candidate. That will dictate how the election turns out. The threat is real and serious.

This thread is not about picking a candidate. It is about the general election and our responsibility as Democratic activists. Your point of view is popular on DU. Polls say it's not so popular out in the general electorate. I support Bernie Sanders and will be caucusing for him in Minnesota. That said, I doubt he will be the candidate, so I'm not trashing the person who is likely to be. That's not productive.

[JaneyVee]

5. America is not electing a socialist from Vermont.

I wish they would, but it's just never going to happen.

[MineralMan]

17. I tend to agree with you, although I love Sanders.

I don't think he can get the nomination, either, but I'll caucus for him on principle.

[John Poet]

75. Of course 'America is not electing a socialist from Vermont'

The voting doesn't start until NEXT year.

[Marr]

111. 'America is not electing a black man with a name that recalls our two biggest national bogeymen'.

Then we did.

A little populist talk overrides a lot.

[NYC_SKP]

13. I'll trash Hillary now because it's the principled thing to do to call her out.

And to raise awareness, at least at this point in the process, where we select our candidate going into the general.

[MineralMan]

18. Yes, I know you will.

I think it's a bad idea, though. She's the odds-on most likely nominee. But then, maybe you won't vote for her in November, anyhow, so it may not really matter who you support right now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. She's the odds-on most likely nominee.

Like 2007? I ask because I remember that exact language. You were not here, but you are free to search the archives.

This silly season, there is a reason why it is called that, is following that precise script, including the not so veiled claims that if people like the other guy, they obviously don't understand and gasp, voted for Nader in Florida in 2000.

It is actually quite adorable.

As to the rest...whatever. This fear tactic did not work last time. I doubt it will work this time.

[MineralMan]

39. I'm not ignoring you, Nadin.

I'm also not going to engage with you. I see your posts, but won't be replying to them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. That is perfectly okay

others do.

I find your posts quite cute and adorable actually, tad on the pedantic side. But this is following the exact same script. It is almost to the time in the campaign.

[NYC_SKP]

49. It is a script, a script of fear, doubt, and uncertainty. They have nothing else, not a thing.

Reasons we must support Hillary and shut the fuck up about all her baggage:

"Nader"

"SCOTUS"

"Koch Brothers"

Now, never mind that Clinton:
-- is mostly funded by big banksters;
-- takes Koch Brothers money;
-- benefits from Citizens United;
-- thinks that corporations are more trustworthy than governments

These, to me, are huge red flags at a minimum, and should really disqualify her from consideration for running as the leader of our party.

Hi, Nadin!

[brooklynite]

54. Couple more reasons you left out...

Pro choice
Pro gay-rights
Pro health care
Pro overturning Citizen's Union
Pro Progressive taxation (nb - voted against Bush tax cuts in 2001)
Will appoint liberal Justices to the Supreme Court

and...

has the fundraising capability and campaign team to fight off what the Republicans will throw at us next year, in a way nobody claims Sanders will be able to do.

[NYC_SKP]

57. Weak sauce. Hillary picks the low hanging fruit. Any good Dem is pro-choice. This ain't the 1950s.

All she has is name recognition and banksters money.

And baggage.

Tons of baggage.

[Autumn]

60. That describes Bernie.

Pro choice
Pro gay-rights
Pro health care
Pro overturning Citizen's Union
Pro Progressive taxation (nb - voted against Bush tax cuts in 2001)
Will appoint liberal Justices to the Supreme Court

Since they have those things in common, that's why I had to look at other issues to chose whom I support. Bernie

We people will just have to step up .

[brooklynite]

61. Except for that last point...

...because if he can't get the resources to win a NATIONAL election (they let Republicans vote too...) his positions on the first six are irrelevant.

[Autumn]

63. Like I said, I guess the people will have to step up and fund a candidate

that will look out for their needs.

[brooklynite]

64. And if they don't?

Dennis Kucinich tried for innovative grass-roots funding in 2004. How'd that work out?

Hillary Clinton is targeting $100 M for the Primary and $1 B for the General.

[Autumn]

65. If they don't step up they don't get a President who

looks out for their needs.

[brooklynite]

72. ...and the 18+ million people who supported and voted for Hillary Clinton do....

...sounds like a win for me.

[Autumn]

73. Good for you. Your vote is your voice. Use it as you see fit.

[NYC_SKP]

85. If your candidate doesn't have the chops to win over voters of all political stripes, it's all moot.

And we don't think she does.

All the money in the world can't buy the passion required to articulate a vision.

This is precisely where candidate Clinton gets stuck, and what will lead to her failure in the general.

[brooklynite]

97. I appreciate the fact that -you- don't think so...

...but polling (and her performance in 2008) shows she's popular with liberals and centrists in the Democratic Primary, and enough independents and moderate Republicans to win in the General Election.

Show me how Bernie Sanders can do likewise.

[Autumn]

86. To you maybe. If a candidate wins a nomination based on just those 6 issues

that any democrat should support and sides with republicans and corporations on issues that are relevant to me, then there is no reason for me to vote for them because that candidate is irrelevant to me.

Your mileage may vary.

[NYC_SKP]

84. "NB", thanks for that.

One of those beautiful abbreviations all but lost in today's world, I still use it in professional correspondence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. I just watch the games with amusement

Any more. Best show on earth if you ask me.

[JaneyVee]

3. Really, a Republican that supports marriage equality, raising wages,

A woman's right to choose, immigration, criminal justice reform, equal pay, climate change, etc etc etc. Your hyperbole shreds any notion of credibility.

[NYC_SKP]

53. Every Democrat supports these.. That's not enough, her negatives far outweigh these basic points.

Those should be minimum qualifications.

We should be concerned by these things:

Now, never mind that Clinton:
-- is mostly funded by big banksters;
-- takes Koch Brothers money;
-- benefits from Citizens United;
-- thinks that corporations are more trustworthy than governments

These, to me, are huge red flags at a minimum, and should really disqualify her from consideration for running as the leader of our party.

[world wide wally]

6. This is exactly what could make that happen ^

As Ralph Nader once said, "there isn't a dime's worth of differene between Republicans and Democrats"
Really?
So environmentalist minded Al Gore would have pushed the same policies as G W Bush including the invasion of Iraq?
I hope you get off this purist, "all or nothing" boat and come to your senses before the 2016 election or we will end up with all 3 branches Republican.

And one more thing, I would also prefer Bernie, but I will not throw a tantrum and say rediculous, derogatory things about Hilary thinking that it will somehow help matters.

[we can do it]

16. Fuck Nadar. Fuck Nadar voters.

[NYC_SKP]

43. When a Clinton supporter mentions Nader, it's because they have no argument for her.

It's just a fear campaign.

[world wide wally]

47. As stated in reply #3 by JaneyVee:

She "supports marriage equality, raising wages, A woman's right to choose, immigration, criminal justice reform, equal pay, climate change, etc etc etc"


This says a lot for her besides fear mongering.

[NYC_SKP]

50. Everybody worth a shit supports these things. That is pretty much unimpressive.

Those should be minimum qualifications.

We should be concerned by these things:

Now, never mind that Clinton:
-- is mostly funded by big banksters;
-- takes Koch Brothers money;
-- benefits from Citizens United;
-- thinks that corporations are more trustworthy than governments

These, to me, are huge red flags at a minimum, and should really disqualify her from consideration for running as the leader of our party.

[we can do it]

78. Stupid comment. My first current choice is Bernie. I will support the Democratic nominee.

Not fucking Nadar. Not some other fucking ego candidate.

Fucking Nadar and the fucking simpletons that voted for him fucked the country. Fuck them all straight to hell.

[NYC_SKP]

80. I wasn't disagreeing with you, sorry you think the comment is "stupid".

And, by the way, Nader ran as a third party opponent to both parties.

There is no comparison to this moment in time, we are in the primary season.

So, we agree, Fuck Nader, but my comment wasn't stupid.

[we can do it]

82. I know he did. Sorry. I take it back.

[rhett o rick]

58. What a sad statement for a supposedly "political liberal" DU poster. nm

[we can do it]

79. FUCK FUCKING NADAR.

[rhett o rick]

87. It's certainly not clear what you have against Felix Nadar. A fine photographer.

http://publicdomainreview.org/collections/photographs-of-the-famous-by-felix-nadar/

[we can do it]

89. A laugh is always a good thing.

[upaloopa]

32. The Kochs spend $900 million on a one

word ad. "Socialist"
We are done!

[bluegopher]

103. Why are we trashing either one?

I would rather see Hillary win the primary because I'm way more confident in her ability to win, but I understand the reservations about her. The best thing going for both of them is that they're not Jeb Douche, Walker, Wisconsin Wanker, Marco Polio, Ted Cwuz, or Mike Hickabee.

[kentuck]

4. Imagine the DLC standing on the ramparts...

as the sole defender of the Democratic Party.

[MineralMan]

19. The DLC has been defunct for years, now.

Time for a new organization to bash. Really. There is no DLC in 2016.

[Robbins]

24. no need for them

They are running the democratic party as dems are helping GOP kill working class and unions.

[doc03]

7. i fear that will be the results of

2016, Democrats have sat back and have no electable alternative to Hillary.

[rhett o rick]

8. That's the very reason we need to support Sen Sanders for president. Seems to

me that most Democrats will support Sen Sanders. Why choose a candidate that has so much baggage as HRC?

[NYC_SKP]

14. I agree.

I am reading two different memes from supporters.

There are those who truly believe the candidate is a good representative of our values, likeable and real and trustworthy.

There is a larger group that talks about the SCOTUS appointments and the fundraising capability.

This second group is working from a fearful POV and, frankly, reminds me of the person in a dysfunctional relationship who cannot find the strength to leave out of fear that there's nothing better beyond it.

This is a very real fear and not one an entirely unreasonable one.

But at this stage of the game, the primaries, we ought to do our level best to promote the best person for the job, not the one who has the most name recognition or largest bank account.

[MineralMan]

20. I doubt that enough Democrats will support Sanders to get him

past Super Tuesday. That's my frank opinion. I'm as close to certain that Clinton will be the nominee as I can be. So, there it is. If I'm right, then we'll have to elect her to keep the Republicans from gaining control of all three branches of the federal government. Primary season is one thing, but presidential elections matter, not only in who is the President but in whether we can regain control of the Senate. Voter turnout will be crucial in both matters.

I love ideals, but the USA is not an ideal environment, politically. Not in any way. It always is teetering on the brink of falling into Republican hands. The party in power consistently switches from one to the other. When Republicans are in control, we get crap and eggs for breakfast. When Democrats are in power, we get bacon with our eggs. Just one or two strips, but that's better than crap.

It is so easy for the Republicans to win. They've done it many times, and we've seen the results. They might do it in 2016, to our great detriment. The small gains we have made will be reversed if they do. That's guaranteed.

If I thought a candidate like Senator Sanders could actually win a general election, it would be another matter. I don't. I don't think he'll even come close to becoming the nominee. So, I'm strongly against booing the home team. That trick never works.

[Robbins]

22. it doesn't matter

Obama has sold out everyone who voted for him.

he failed those who supported him against hillary on Iraq

he failed minorites by sitting back and doing nothing as young black men as being killed by police

he failed unions who worked for him with TPP

If TPP is passed and Hillary wins nomination it's proof there is only 1 political party anymore.Both dems and GOP are corporate party.
There is no place for liberals and progressives anymore in Democratic party.

[MineralMan]

37. Not everyone agrees with you, actually.

That may come as a surprise, but it's true.

[Oilwellian]

107. Robbins, and there are many who do agree with you

The Democratic party is in real trouble. Hillary will not draw the votes that will be needed to win.

[rhett o rick]

59. I am disappointed in seeing such attitudes from some here. "I think we can't, I think we can't."

"Sen Sanders cant win so he shouldn't even try". "Obama didn't try for single payer because he knew he couldn't get it."

What a sad testament. Granted we have an uphill fight against Goldman-Sachs and the big money behind Clinton and the Republicons, but we must try. We can not survive going the direction we are and Clinton has shown no indication that she thinks wealth inequality is a problem. How far into poverty will you allow our children before you are willing to fight for our freedoms and liberties?

[onecaliberal]

101. That's the thing. People who don't think they'll be affected don't care.

Thought we were the party of the people. I don't think that any longer. Less than half the people in this country think we should help the poor. Not. Even. Half. Who the hell are we?

[okaawhatever]

26. I put Hillary's baggage in perspective. If the GOP had any candidate under a microscope the way

they have Hillary, said candidate would have at least as much baggage. I know absolutely everything Hillary has done wrong for the last 15 years.
With other candidates, the GOP likely has something on them that they've been waiting to put out. I wonder what they have on Bernie.
I don't think it will be anything serious, but with constant media exposure they'll make it out to be something big.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. I'll do my part to take back the House and Senate.

And vote for whatever candidate best embodies the Democratic Party ideals in the general.

[MineralMan]

23. Well, that's going to take serious GOTV efforts.

Generally, the presidential candidate's coattails play a large role in that. I worry that many people who might be active in voter turnout activism might stay home, due to being in a snit about the presidential candidate, if it's Clinton. It's a difficult problem, really. Since I work in the local DFL party on election activism in Minnesota, I see the results of GOTV efforts.

So, I'm not certain what "do my part" actually means. What part is that for you?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. I believe in 365 day a year GOTV.

I talk up the accomplishments of good politicians like my Senator Sherrod Brown to rl world (offline) folks any chance I get. Which is why I appreciate it when Democratic politicians actually do useful and good things for me to talk about. I work on friends and neighbours, slowly moving them left any chance I get. When I have money, I donate to candidates I know will continue to do things that cast a good light on the political left. Hence my recent donation to Bernie Sanders. I've gone door to door in the past, during regular GOTV, but I feel that's often far too late. You need to inspire people early and keep them inspired with candidates who promise to help them, and then keep their promises once elected.

It doesn't mean doing GOTV for people I think will only tarnish the Party image.

[Autumn]

10. That would be horrible. The Democratic party leadership needs to get on the stick

and make damn sure that doesn't happen.

[Robbins]

11. well

on wall street and banks+foreign policy there isn't much difference between Clintons and republicans.Add trade to that too.

Bernie Sanders voted against DOMA that Bill Clinton signed into law.

Do you really think Hillary Clinton will speak out against police abuss and militazation of Police.

Who is more likely to stand up for social safety net-Bernie Sanders or wife of president who de-regulated banks,signed media consolidation,and who signed wellfare reform which hurt single mothers.

The fact we have a democrat In White house who is pushing TPP like a republican is outrage.

[aspirant]

12. Bernie is the truth and the way

Since your working with Bernie can you share the contacts in Minnesota for the Bernie Campaign so other Minnesotans can also join in.

[MineralMan]

25. I'm not involved in primary campaign organizations.

I work on legislative stuff during primaries. So I can't help you. I will caucus for Bernie at the precinct level and in our district conventions. But the presidential election is not my primary thing. I don't do presidential primary stuff. I support the nominee in my efforts for the general election.

[jeff47]

15. IMAGINE: A party that understands this is their problem to solve

and it's not up to the voters to "eat their peas" and prevent it.

[MineralMan]

29. You know what? In the end it is precisely the voters

who decide. They'll decide who the nominee is, and then they'll decide who gets elected. Nobody else will do that. The voters will. They are the party. The official party organization only has as many votes as it has participants. The party follows the voters.

You will see that in the early primaries. The voters will make their choice.

[jeff47]

44. Not in the system we actually have.

In theory, the voters decide.

In practice, they don't. They get to choose among who the party presents to them. Because the party works it's ass off making sure the "right kind of candidate" wins in lower offices. The party also offers a great deal of help, official and unofficial, to the candidates they would prefer to win in lower offices.

Since those lower offices are more-or-less required to win higher office, the party gets to set who runs.

As a much more obvious/explicit example, if your claim was true, there would have been no controversy surrounding the 1968 convention. The voters selected a nominee. Yet that wasn't the guy on the ticket that November.

Your position seems to be that voters need to stop the Republicans, no matter who is on the ballot, or what the party does putting them there.

I'm done with cowering in fear. The party can either come along, or they can lose. It is the party's choice to make. You are welcome to continue fearing the Republicans, but a mantra of "be afraid!!" will work very poorly in motivating me, and the very large block of left-leaning independents who came out in 2008 and stayed home in 2010 and 2014.

Give people hope, they'll vote for the Democrat. Give people fear, they'll stay home. You are handing out fear. And when it doesn't work, you keep handing out more fear.

[Marr]

112. +1, well said.

[whatchamacallit]

21. What does 'never mind the primary elections' mean?

What are you suggesting?

[NYC_SKP]

34. I think it might mean STFU and eat your gruel.

Money has won the day, we must live in fear and accept the candidate with the most money, even if it's Koch money.

Nobody seems to care that Senator Hillary Clinton took Koch Brothers money.

That's OK, ya know, because she sends out rosy Tweets.

[MineralMan]

35. I'm suggesting that the primaries will result in

a nominee. They feed the Democratic National Convention. There are 50 states. I'm in one of those states and one only. I'm almost certain that Minnesota, my state, will choose Hillary Clinton in their primary, along with their caucus and convention system. She's quite popular here among Democratic voters.

She's quite popular in many, many states with the actual voters who will turn out for the primaries. Watch. You'll see. Turnout, as usual, will be very low in primaries. My prediction is that Senator Sanders will be out after Super Tuesday. Then what? If I'm right, we'll be dealing with a situation many don't like. Even so, there will be a general election.

So, never mind the primaries. They'll turn out as they turn out. I don't think you're going to like the results.

[whatchamacallit]

52. Lol... Amazing how much milage you get by stating the obvious

as if no one else knows.

[seabeyond]

28. and so many states, to enhance, reinforce, progress on their path. nt

[MineralMan]

30. Absolutely. State legislatures should be a huge part of

Democratic politics. Sadly, the focus in presidential election years is any thing but on legislative votes. In mid-term elections, frankly, the official party organization is almost invisible before election day. More's the pity.

[seabeyond]

31. this is my point. living in a red state and watching their strategy. this is what 2016 is for me.

where i see we had better address as it works its way up to fed supreme court.

[libdem4life]

36. I'll do whatever I can for Bernie...he's won me over. And I truly believe, in the end, IF...

and I now mean IF...Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee, I'll vote for her.

However, if by some wave of sanity, the Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders, it will be by the power of his message and his nigh impeccable political record. He will gain much of the Independent vote and some of the Republican Right votes in the General. A lot of Hillary folk are reconsidering as he becomes more national in scope.

People underestimate the degree to which a lot of people don't much like Hillary. Unfairly, IMO, but she's not Bill in the charisma department. Bernie has the charisma of a wise Grandfather, he's not going negative (that will hurt Hillary)and I don't think either are a negative.

I think the word "Sage" should be interjected into our descriptions...that means Wisdom...and Bernie has that in spades.

[MineralMan]

41. And I encourage you to do just that.

If he wins the primaries and gets the nomination, that will be great, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not seeing it happening, though.

Senator Sanders has great appeal to a segment of Democratic voters. I think that segment, though, is smaller than most people in that segment think. DU doesn't reflect Democratic voters very well, really.

[libdem4life]

45. Well, it's still a time away...some of the first primaries will give some guidance. But when I

converted to Democrat, many long decades ago, I've always voted D. As I say, the worst D is better than the best R. Now isn't that partisan? Sure as heck is.

[bklyncowgirl]

51. My thoughts exactly. Vote your heart in the primary. Vote your head in the general election.

It's not the way that it should be in the best of all possible worlds but I do not live in the best of all possible worlds. I live in a world where elections, even corrupt elections soaked in corporate money have consequences. Hillary Clinton is far from perfect but I agree with her on many issues. I agree with the likely republican nominees on none.

[RKP5637]

38. K&R! n/t

[Vinca]

42. It's a terrifying thought.

I love Bernie, but if Bozo the Clown is the Democratic candidate, he's getting my vote in the general.

[Bobbie Jo]

46. I literally CANNOT afford

to white-knuckle it through another term of Republican controlled government.

Under the fiasco of the Bush Administration, I lost a home AND a profitable business of 10 years. Almost lost a marriage to boot.

Now that I have finally clawed my way back, the prospect of reliving that hell on earth is unthinkable. I will work my fingers to the bone for the Democrats in 2016, elections matter.

That's my bottom line.

[MineralMan]

67. Thanks to GWB, I have no retirement funds.

I'll be working until I slump over my keyboard. No other choice, frankly. Bush's recession ate my retirement.

[Bobbie Jo]

69. Yep

I blew through what little I had left to try and save my home. The rest was wiped out when the markets tanked.

At age 48, I was literally starting ALL OVER again. I won't survive another Republucan fiasco.

So...I'll be hitting it right along side you, MM, till I drop.

Elections matter.

[MineralMan]

71. Elections DO matter, and the party of those elected DOES matter.

One way we do better than the other way. I vote for Democrats because of that. Every time.

[TBF]

48. And that's why we need to run someone who can win.

we all saw what happened in 2008 ...

So my question to you is: what has changed? She couldn't win then, why would she win now?

[brooklynite]

62. She COULD win; she didn't

She ended up with the same number of votes as Obama did; she made tactical mistakes in terms of which States to compete in.

Two big differences: she's not running against a guy as popular and well financed as Obama, and she's smart enough to learn from her mistakes.

[MineralMan]

68. She would have won in 2008, except that

the most charismatic candidate we have had since JFK challenged her and won. No such candidate is apparent for 2016. Either Clinton or Obama would have won.

[TBF]

77. Perhaps after all the charisma folks are ready

to look at substance. Granted Hillary is definitely a good candidate in that area, I'm just not convinced she has the interests of the 99% foremost and center like Bernie does. But my impressions could change.

[L0oniX]

56. I can imagine people voting for the oligarchy's choice.

[AlinPA]

66. The first thing that comes to my mind is the 1939 German "government" and a book

"The Handmaid's Tale".

[Gothmog]

70. I am also very worried about the GOP controlling all three branches

We need a massive GOTV effort in 2016 and some good court rulings to keep the GOP from stealing the election. Make no mistake, the GOP will try to steal this election with crap like voter suppression laws.

[kentuck]

74. I would say that we are heading in that direction...

..and it wasn't the "progressives" that got us to this point.

[kentuck]

76. Well, maybe it was?

Due to their own refusal to step forward and lead.

[Rex]

81. No thanks, but you go ahead and dream.

[NYC_SKP]

83. Oh Snap!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

88. could be a reality

Democrats need something to offer voters

[woo me with science]

90. We have united oligarchy, not divided democracy.

The policies make that very clear.

[WillyT]

91. And It Would Be Different... HOW ???

[MineralMan]

92. Ask your LGBT friends, or a pregnant woman

who doesn't want to be. If you can't see the difference, you're no looking. Or ask someone who hung on to a 401k somehow and has seen it recover from Bush's economic collapse. There's much more. If can't see it, get new glasses.

[Aerows]

93. Imagine a trade deal

that hands over the commodities of resource rich nations to labor rich nations (read pennies an hour) with no tariffs.

If the economy is positioned to be in a downward spiral, it really doesn't matter who is running the show, because the answer is the same - vulture corporations. Not vulture capitalists, those are bad enough. This will be vulture corporations.

Now MM, I know you well enough that you are going to blow off my assertions like I don't have a clue, I'm uninformed, and I'm like the people thinking they are getting corralled in a Wal-Mart by FEMA trucks, etc.

Once you get all of that out of your system, look at precisely what I stated. That is not in anyway an ineffective strategy that has been used over and over again.

Move the resources to the places where labor is cheap for it to be processed, then sell it back to the places that have the resources that begin dwindling because they don't have the benefit of the taxes for said resources nor the benefits of tariffs for re-importing it back.

If that sounds familiar, it really should.

Does that sound familiar to anyone here?

[DCBob]

94. It would get very ugly.

Republicans know their future is in doubt with inevitable demographic changes. They will do everything within their power to keep control of this country.

[Jesus Malverde]

95. Pretty cynical post

What if ISIS took over the U.S.? Fear as the motivator?

[99Forever]

96. All 3 branchesof government already are in the hands of Republicans.

You just won't acknowledge it.

[brooklynite]

98. Why exactly do you hang out at DEMOCRATIC Underground?

Apparently the Democratic Party doesn't meet your needs.

[bluesbassman]

100. God forbid the "Underground" part of the name is ever embraced.

Perhaps Skinner could be persuaded to rename it Democratic Central and make it more to your liking?

[brooklynite]

105. I'm perfectly happy with how Skinner runs the shop...

Last edited Wed May 13, 2015, 11:33 PM - Edit history (1)

...I'll never run afoul of the "Vote for Democrats" rule, and I'll never be holier-than-thou enough to try and decide who is and IS NOT a Democrat.

[bluesbassman]

106. Sorta of ironic don't you think...

coming from somebody who just questioned another member as to why they hang out at DEMOCRATIC Underground?

We all experience DU in different ways, glad you're enjoying yourself.

[brooklynite]

108. I questioned him after he claimed President Obama was a Republican...

All 3 branchesof government already are in the hands of Republicans"

. Since his definition of a Democrat doesn't seem to mesh with the DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S definition (or for that matter, of the millions of Democrats who voted for Obama), I thought maybe the Democrat Party isn't where he'd be most comfortable...

[BlindTiresias]

99. Mineral Man's MO

Hand out fear and wonder where everyone went. Your tactics are ineffective and your political analysis is facile.

The fear based voters are in the right wing, neuroscience and experimental psychology verifies this. Your fear based methods are ineffective because you and people like you fundamentally misunderstand your audience and especially your future audience.

Jeff47 is right, you need to shut up and get out of the way.

[DCBob]

104. I think MM's MO is simply to help some of you to see the big picture.

[TheSarcastinator]

114. BWAHAHAHAHA!

Hilarious, thanks. That was great.

[R B Garr]

110. I would call what he said reality based, not fear based. n/t

[MineralMan]

113. I won't shut up, nor get out of the way, thanks.

DU is a forum that has the stated goal of electing Democrats to office. That's what I'm about. I think I'll just continue promoting that idea. But thanks for your reply.

[bluegopher]

102. Thanks a lot MineralMan.

Now I can't stop thinking about it. Please make it stop. 😢

[CanadaexPat]

109. They'd probably vote for a war of choice.

[TheSarcastinator]

115. My guess is that the barb of your comment

will be lost in the sea of intentional ignorance and callow optimism that is the OPers MO.