A note to some people who are finally calling for everyone to join together

[MineralMan]

to fight Donald Trump: Too little, and too late. I'm seeing some people calling for unity, now that their calls for separation in the past have led to the election of Donald Trump. Some are recognizable party splitters who are now making this call. Some are people who attacked President Obama, starting on the day after his inauguration and never stopping. Some of us have been calling for unity for eight years now, to no avail. You didn't pay attention, but continued to work toward division.

I don't believe you, and with good reason. I don't believe that you want us to unify. I don't believe you have the good of the nation, nor progressivism, in mind. I believe you will continue to attack unity in the future, as you have done in the past. I'm not having any of it. I remember what you did during the two terms President Obama was in office. I remember your actions during the 2016 presidential primary and general election campaigns.

No, thank you. We do need to unify. No question about that, but calls for unification from those who split us up ring hollow, somehow. I have no trust that you will not simply do the same thing again. Sorry, but unity requires steadiness.

By the way, lf you think I'm talking to you in this post, you may well be right, whether you're here to read this or not.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. Amen. People who until yesterday were loudly

Fighting for the right to criticize democrats, were making up random unsubstantiated attacks against democrats, are not people I trust to lead a call to unity.

They need to first demonstrate that they are on my side to begin with.

[ehrnst]

125. Yep, I think that actually being a Democrat is a requirement for even being in the discussion

of what the party is and will be.

Otherwise, you're just a naked opportunist.

[Gothmog]

134. We need closed primaries and we need to get rid of causes

[ehrnst]

155. Caucuses, yes. Closed primaries serve an important purpose.

Closed primaries help to prevent a large scale crossover by the opposite party to install a weaker opponent.

Someone who does not have a party registration, or wants to change can simply register for the party for whose candidate they wish to vote by that state's deadline. Of course they could do this to crossover to install a weaker candidate in the opposite party, but they have to make that decision in advance, and they will not be able to do so at the last minute if things change for their preferred candidate.

The Black Congressional Caucus is very much in favor of keeping closed primaries, because they have seen historically their own vote diluted or cancelled by crossover party primary tampering.

The states have much more say over whether the primaries are open or closed, caucus or primaries, so it's not really up to Democrats, or even Republicans.

Caucuses will be harder to eliminate, because in caucuses, the party pays the costs, instead of the state. I agree - because a minority of very loud, very agressive delegates can install their candidate, as we saw in the 2016 caucuses.

[MineralMan]

4. And yet, we had a choice between two candidates

in the general election. Which one do you think would be better in the White House?

We always end up with a binary choice in presidential election years.

I know which candidate I would prefer to have won. Clearly, I know that, to the depths of myself. She didn't win, and there are reasons she didn't. I know what some of those reasons are. Hence my post.

[Whiskeytide]

84. I don't entirely disagree, but...

... there's always a "but" ... I really don't think democrats criticizing democrats lost this election. That's what democrats do. We don't march in lockstep, we don't (usually) single issue vote, and we don't blindly follow our "Dear Leaders". I think we lose a lot of our identity if we abandon that model.

So what DID lose this election? I think it's pretty simple. The democrats failed to accurately read the mood of the electorate. Period. There are different examples of this, but they all come back to that fumble. This was an anti-establishment election. And Trump seized that ground early. Clinton - rightly or wrongly - came off as more of the same, and for the middle class in this country, "the same" has sucked for 30 years.

We lost to quite clearly the most unqualified and unfit candidate in history. That, for the most part, is on us. We offered very little to mainstream America. And they ovviously noticed. We have to change that if we want to turn this tide around.

[radical noodle]

121. We offered a lot to mainstream America

[mountain grammy]

129. We offer a lot to mainstream Americans

We had a good platform. Our message is drowned out by the relentless noise of the right wing and corporate media. I don't agree with this OP and I don't agree we offer very little to middle Americans.. the economy is vastly improved over the last 8 years.

[hotrod0808]

138. Hillary Clinton

is politics-as-usual and nowhere nearly as inspiring as Senator Sanders is. That said, once she won the nomination, I was all in. It became increasingly clear to me, as Trump gathered steam, that whomever won the nomination from our party deserved our full support. Bottom line is this: politics-as-usual trumps loudmouth neophyte every fucking time, and not every person on DU seemed to understand that. That means that several liberal voters didn't, either.

And that, my friends, is why we lost this and much more. It is because we do not get behind our candidates like we should. See for reference: any fucking Ohio election.

[Ghost OF Trotsky]

154. We failed to show up

Plain and simply we didn't get out the vote.

Was sexism a factor- sure

was racism a factor -sure

was celebrity and the fact the our arrogance made us underestimate someone who might be unqualified to lead but knew how to ENTERTAIN a factor -yes,

The people calling Trump 'dumb', 'ignorant', 'a buffoon' and his campaign 'disorganized' or 'a train wreck' were as bad as any fifth column or cadre of Russian hackers.

Too many in the media and the DNC made the fatal mistake of not discerning the difference between someone who could COMMUNICATE with ignorant dumbshits and the someone who WAS one. That was my nagging, annoying theme for months- Trump is not stupid, and he's 100 percent ethically flexible. He and Kushner and Bannon were quite happy to have 538 give him a 10 percent chance, and probably encouraged Hillary's campaign to dismiss their sophisticated operation as a clusterfuck with no GOTV or 'ground game', all the while targeting every dollar exactly where needed to pick up electoral votes.

And now were doing the same shit. This guy ain't stupid, he knows how to hire people to do the job he wants them to do. Underestimating your enemy is foolish and anyone who doesn't see how precisely his tweets and other media actions are calculated to fuck with our heads and keep us off balance, who continues to dismiss him and his team, on the tautology that only someone dumb or incompetent would even work for him, is part of the problem.

But fundamentally, in my opinion, it was failure to get out the vote. If registered Democrats had voted, we would be eagerly anticipating Hillary's inauguration.

[LiberalLovinLug]

131. So just give up then?

Fishing for enemies within your own party is not the way forward.
You being uncomfortable working with an ex-Bernie supporter that had to hold their noses to vote Clinton. How do you think that Democrat felt the day Hillary clinched.... With covert help from the DNC?
If they can get over that to reach out to you to fight Trump then it's pretty childish to reject that

[uponit7771]

5. Yeah, OMalley was really screwed from the beginning :rolleyes:

[dembotoz]

63. oh that is not how to make friends

[KittyWampus]

91. Don't know what you responded to... but I was an O'Malley supporters who watched as nary a Sanders

supporter gave him the time of day except to call him their number 2 pick.

Despite the fact Sanders' plans didn't add up.
Despite the fact Sanders never released his taxes
Despite the facts Sanders' wife helped kill off a college in VT
Despite Sanders' inability to fully grasp Civil Rights

On the one hand, O'Malley waited too long and didn't have enough of XYZ to get enough support.
On the other hand, too many on the Left grabbed the first candidate that came along and were severely lacking in discrimination in making their choice.

My frustration level never really went down. I supported Clinton and suffered for it on this Forum. But I only supported her because O'Malley dropped out and the alternative was Sanders. And then we all find out that Clinton took the Rust Belt largely for granted. And her campaign still seems to lack the capacity for self-reflection.

-Sigh-

[uponit7771]

3. +1, right now its a trust issue... this election was way important for the pettiness that was shown

[think]

6. The DNC flagrantly violated it's own rules to favor one candidate. Was that pettiness or just WRONG?

[uponit7771]

10. The DNC didn't keep any of the candidates from putting resources into the "southern states" so

... the premise of the question in and of itself is flawed at best.

She won by 3 million in a primary... and it wasn't because the DNC put their thumb on the scale for a DNC loyalist

[Plucketeer]

34. Really?

So DWS stepping aside just before the election was based on her desire to spend more time with her family?

[uponit7771]

62. Red herring, it also had nothing to do with primary candidates purposefully skipping "southern

... states" either.

I see your response ignores that FACT NOT IN DISPUTE

[Plucketeer]

71. Please point to where

your contention is even hinted at in the OP.

[uponit7771]

74. Strawman, I'm responding to your intimation in your response in this child thread that DWS had

... her hand on the scale towards one of the candidates by saying they didn't make any of the candidates do something really stupid like skip the "southern states".

That's was the theme in this sub thread... the DNC had their hands one the scale... even if they did they didn't make the candidates do stupid stuff that was a big factor in the losing candidates losses.

[George II]

117. Not to butt in, but I believe that person was responding directly to your comments.

[Plucketeer]

137. Right....

have you heard Pelosi's comment that the Democratic party should just "stay the course"? So I'm supposed to just look the other way and proclaim my allegiance? I have this really bad habit of thinking for myself. And as such, when something smells rotten, I don't just dive in because someone tells me it's really good. It's sometimes tough having a brain and practicing the art of objective thinking with it.

"Kool-Ade good! You drink!"

" Ahhh... No thank you." - even tho I might be thirsty as hell.

Where are we in DC and the state houses now? Yes, yes, it's my fault. I'm a retired veteran who is anything but well off - and who the DNC couldn't care less about if they tried. I gave about 4 grand to folks with a (D) or an (I) next to their names this time around. My checking account WINCED every time I gave to those I favored, but I thought it was the right thing to do. My only solace is that I didn't just hand it over to the DNC.
Again, as I'm sure you'll point out to me - my fault (and the faults of others like me).

[Lucky Luciano]

40. That 3 million number is so misleading.

Any objective person knows that fails to count caucus states won.

That said, I do agree with getting rid of caucuses for the usual reasons. Primaries are much more democratic. If these were all primaries and the margin was 3 milli N, then the number is not misleading. As it is, it is hard to speculate what the true margin would be if it was all primaries. The caucus states are likely states he would have won as primaries, but it is all hard to say.

[uponit7771]

64. OK ... she won by 1 million and that's still a mile... I don't see how that helps the JPR type ...

... position ignoring the fact that some primary candidates skipped the "southern states" (their words not mine)

[hfojvt]

87. any objective person

should know that counting caucus states is a nonsense exercise.

It's a faulty assumption to assume that the percentage for a caucus would be the same percentage for a primary. A caucus is NOT a random sample. As such it is very unlikely to reflect the larger group.

Bernie supporters accept a bad argument because it favors their candidate, but its still a bad argument.

[Lucky Luciano]

110. I didn't say to use the caucus percentages.

Your statement is correct which is why I didn't speculate on the "true" margin, but 3 million is wrong.

[George II]

116. I've seen estimates of the caucus states votes, and they were just a fraction of the turnout...

...that was seen in primary states.

One of the big factors is that people just simply didn't want to deal with in-your-face badgering, which we've seen in countless videos/

And remember, Clinton won some caucus states, too, which also balance out that vote count.

[Lucky Luciano]

119. I agree caucuses should be eliminated.

Primaries make much more sense to me too. Very obvious.

Very hard to speculate how the caucus votes would be as primaries.

[hfojvt]

144. I don't see any reason to believe he would have won caucus states

For example, both Nebraska and Washington had caucuses and primaries. The caucuses counted and the primaries didn't. Bernie won the caucuses, by a landslide in Washington, but he lost both primaries. In Washington, Hillary got 38,000 more votes than he did in the primary, whereas he won the caucus by 72% to 27%. In Nebraska, Hillary got almost 5,000 more votes in the primary, whereas she lost the caucus by 57% to 43%.

Other caucus states were Iowa, Nevada, American Samoa (all of which Clinton won), Minnesota, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, North Dakota (and some territories like Guam and Northern Marianas. Other than Maine, Washington, and Hawaii those are fairly conservative states that Bernie would be expected to lose.

In Kansas, at least, it is the state legislature that requires the caucus, so that is in the hands of the GOP by a huge majority.

[Lucky Luciano]

153. Non binding primaries mean nothing.

Might as well poll who likes coke better than Pepsi.

Why in the world do they have these non binding primaries?! What possible purpose does it have besides wasting time and money?

I will reiterate my support for eliminating all caucuses and only having primaries.

[DrDan]

24. the Democrat?

[DawgHouse]

89. How dare they!

[yallerdawg]

26. The DNC allowed a lifelong 'independent' to make a serious run as a "Democrat"?

Not one fraction of a spit of gratitude.

[brush]

43. And the DNC didn't hack its own firewall to steal information. One campaign did though

And then complained that the DNC was against them.

[George II]

104. No, they did not.

[Hekate]

109. They sure did,& it will be a cold day in Hell before they let an Independent sucker them again....

Isn't that what you meant?

BS got the use of the infrastructure of the Party he had no hand in building, and was, not to put to fine a point on it, quite churlish about it. He "brought in millions of voters", so it is said, but in the end they had no loyalty to the Party either, except the ones who started out as Dems and had some experience in the ways of the world.

We can make the Democratic Party tent big enough to include them, but in order to actually win elections, we also have to keep the tent big enough to include Democrats who live in deep red states and have to arrange their message accordingly to their constituents. That's how it works in the real world.

[Gothmog]

135. That talking point is simply false

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

Easily the most ridiculous argument this year was that the DNC was some sort of monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against the will of “the people.” This was immensely popular with the Bernie-or-Busters, those who declared themselves unwilling to vote for Clinton under any circumstances because the Democratic primary had been rigged (and how many of these people laughed when Trump started moaning about election rigging?). The notion that the fix was in was stupid, as were the people who believed it.

Start with this: The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very little power. It is composed of the chair and vice chair of the Democratic parties of each state, along with over 200 members elected by Democrats. What it does is fundraise, organize the Democratic National Convention and put together the party platform. It handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the party’s nominee is selected. This was why then-President Richard Nixon reacted with incredulity when he heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in at the DNC offices at the Watergate; he couldn’t figure out what information anyone would want out of such a toothless organization.....

According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And that’s what happened—just a couple of days before Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandists—working through an array of Twitter accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the dates of the most controversial emails—May 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21—were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the “primaries were rigged” narrative. (Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didn’t change the outcome.) Two other emails—one from April 24 and May 1—were statements of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, “So much for a traditional presumptive nominee.” Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didn’t know what the DNC’s job actually was—which he didn’t, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.

Bottom line: The “scandalous” DNC emails were hacked by people working with the Kremlin, then misrepresented online by Russian propagandists to gullible fools who never checked the dates of the documents. And the media, which in the flurry of breathless stories about the emails would occasionally mention that they were all dated after any rational person knew the nomination was Clinton’s, fed into the misinformation.

In the real world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his losses piled up.

I was a delegate to the national convention and I saw much of this silliness first hand. This election was winnable but the sanders campaign did a great deal of damage that is the subject of valid commentary

[Hekate]

148. This needs to be an OP and it should be bookmarked by many

Thank you

[dionysus]

167. It already is' and he 's been spamming with it ever since...

How long are you going to waste energy being bitter about the primaries?

No amount of dissing bernie is going to change the fact that hillary lost to a chump. At least bernie lost to someone formidable...

[MineralMan]

7. Thank you. Yes.

We do need to come together, but we need to do it in a way that will be productive. I cannot trust those who fought against our current President to suggest who the next one should be. I do not trust faithless people. I will not. I will continue to work for unity, but I will not work with such people to do so. Never.

[still_one]

8. The fact that every Democrat running for Senate in a swing state, lost to the

establishment republican incumbent, supports your cynicism.

The numbers suggest that those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary, and either voted third party, or did a write in; enough of that demographic also didn't vote down ticket for the Democratic Senate races in those critical swing states, and we lost the Senate. That doesn't include those self-identified progressives who didn't even bother vote

[MineralMan]

12. Yes. Clearly.

In Wisconsin, especially, our candidate for Senate should have won easily. That he did not is, in part, due to the divisions caused by those who are now calling for us to unify. Screw that. I suggest that they go join the Green Party and leave us alone to rebuild the Democratic Party. They can lose as Greens instead of costing us another election.

[Ford_Prefect]

54. So there were no bent voting machines of any kind in Waukesha county?

No one tilted the Wisconsin vote there and possibly elsewhere to arrive at questionable numbers?

The same thing also did NOT happen in NC where the vote for President and Senate candidates was far out of scale with that for Governor and Supreme Court?

In NO states did the dumping of Democratic voters from registration rolls have any effect on the outcome?

In no way did Comey's manufactured claim have any effect on voters who were making last minute decisions?

Third party candidates have no right to participate in the presidential race and election despite specific Constitutional grounds for it?

You appear to be splitting hairs to justify re-arguing the primary while you ignore the elephants in the room at peril to us all. You argued against the Democratic Left at every turn, and now you insist yours was the only democratic option?

Tell me another one. I need a good laugh today.

[Wabbajack_]

58. If they

were outright capable of manufacturing votes in NC, why did they not manufacture enough to win Governor?

Roy Cooper had won statewide in NC before, unlike the Senate nominee and Secretary Clinton.

[Ford_Prefect]

75. The digital fix was only built to guarantee the White House and Senate went GOP.

They assumed they had Governor, but dumbass sunk his own votes over HB2 and other arrogant acts. He only got as close as he did because people gave him too much cred for responding to the hurricane and forest fires. The evidence is that they tried to fiddle the vote for Governor in more conventional ways and were afraid a full state hand recount would show it along with the altered votes for President and Senate. If the regulation count had not crossed the 10,000 vote margin we might be hearing very different headlines about it all since NC uses paper ballots that can very easily be hand counted.

[MineralMan]

77. Everything plays a role in every election.

I don't know about the details of the elections in any state but my own. The bottom line is that the Democratic candidate lost, by a small number of votes in a few states. Beyond that, it doesn't really matter. Any of several reasons could have cost her the election. You can pick the one you wish.

One of them was that not enough Democrats in enough states voted for the Democratic candidate. That's the one I'm interested in the most.

[hfojvt]

94. well he has lost twice now

and he lost by a bigger margin than Hillary did (IIRC)

I happened to be at my parents' and watch one of the final debates. Gotta say, he was not very impressive, not sure how much difference that made, but his actions since his defeat don't look all that good either. I wish they'd had a better candidate, a new one. A state senator who could have stepped up or something.

[MineralMan]

95. Yes, he has. Unfortunately, I must say.

However, it's a sign of something, I think, and not a good sign at all for the very people I'm addressing in my OP. It's a very worrisome sign, it seems to me, and indicates that it is not simply that progressives are certain to win elections. That's clearly not the case, really, at least in some states like Wisconsin.

Every state is different. This election has demonstrated that clearly. More study is needed before the next election, I believe. We're going to have to fine-tune our candidate selection process to match each state better than we have done.

There is no one-nation rule that applies in our 50 states. Not even close. Just nominating progressive leftist candidates is not going to result in the wins we need. That ship has sailed.

[hfojvt]

98. I don't believe WE should have a "canidate selection process"

I think candidates should run, and the voters should decide.

That's kind of how we got Tammy Baldwin and Russ Feingold. I remember both of their primaries (cannot remember who I voted for) I think I left before Baldwin's primary, but before that happened I met her and two or three other candidates, even the Governor candidate in 1998 in the metropolis of Hub City where the Richland County Democrats decided to meet. Not sure if the state party backed a candidate in those primaries, but ultimately it was the primary voters who picked those two candidates.

The same was true this time. Once Russ decided to run himself, probably nobody viable was going to challenge him (and likely lose the primary).

[MineralMan]

101. By WE, I meant the voters.

They're always the ultimate decision-makers.

[BlueMTexpat]

102. I'm with you,

Who needs them when they have made their contempt for us and all that we stand for so obvious?

[randr]

9. Absolutely Nothing will make Trump legitimate let alone qualified.

His brand of Neo-nazism is repugnant and anyone trying to make nice will be consumed.

[Paladin]

11. Thank you MineralMan, for saying what needs to be said. (nt)

[MineralMan]

13. My pleasure. Truly.

[Baitball Blogger]

14. It will be interesting to see how you keep your bitterness fresh.

The rest of us our focusing on the fact that we lost the winning votes based on faulty machines and Comey's interference. But, you go ahead and blame it on people that could help remedy those two factors, if we all worked together.

[Nitram]

17. Not bitterness, but a lesson bitterly learned. We learn from our mistakes.

Fool me once, um...how does that go?

[MineralMan]

18. Oh, I'm sure some will give me fresh reasons for bitterness

down the road. Why did we lose? It was a combination of things. Had any one of them not been in place, we would have won in those three states we never should have lost. Any one of them. Today, I'm focusing on one specific reason. Tomorrow, I'll focus on a different one.

I was prompted in this by another post here that brought the words of one of the people I'm addressing to DU. That writer is one of the people I'm talking to and about. And, yes, I did post in that thread as well.

[zipplewrath]

29. Can you point to it?

Context is always so helpful to these otherwise vague posts.

[MineralMan]

30. Sure:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028387056

I'm sure you've already seen it, though.

[LaydeeBug]

47. I unsubscribed from this *because* of the lack of unity. The OP is spot on. nt

[MineralMan]

49. Yes. Thank you.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

78. Wasn't WP the guy who refered to Obama as a used car salesman?

[Hekate]

149. The very same

In fact the whole phrase was "piece of shit used car salesman", since abbreviated to POSUCS by those of us who want to make sure no one is allowed to forget why WP is no longer here. He went on an epic and incoherent rant over the ACA because he had failed to do any research about his new wife's chronic, debilitating, incurable disease and how the ACA would help in real life. He moved to another state without investigating how that state would handle things differently than he was used to. When a specific medication was denied on the basis that a cheaper substitute existed, he had no idea that such a thing as a Formulary existed or that he could go through a procedure to challenge the denial. He went ballistic. In his mind he was the knight charging to his wife's rescue, and Barack Obama was, well, a POSUCS who had betrayed us all.

His rant was excellent flame bait. There got to be hundreds of replies. A bunch of people agreed with him. But there were also quite a few of us with chronic illnesses, medications, and insurance companies who went out of our way to be informative. He was having none of it; he was on a tear.

I trust that he eventually sorted it all out, but we never got an apology on behalf of the author of the ACA.

That was not quite the last straw for Skinner, iirc, but I don't remember what finally got him shown the door. He still has fans here, but many more of us ceased to be amused even before he did that.

[tecelote]

56. Yes.

Divide and conquer is usually deployed by outside groups but it seems an odd strategy here. Why would we want to cultivate division and resentment?

[yurbud]

65. When progressives yelled about those faulty machines in 2000 and 2004, the corporate Dems

called us conspiracy nuts and did as little as possible.

[Baitball Blogger]

107. Agreed. This is something where we can make a difference.

I am sure that if a leader in the Democratic party would take point in suing the states to upgrade or remedy their machines, we would be there with donation money to make it so. Perhaps this should be a progressive cause, since it doesn't look like the establishment Dem are interested in riding point.

[yurbud]

168. If it doesn't have a way to do a manual recount, it shouldn't be used.

Greg Palast said they had such a system on the machines in Ohio--and disconnected them.

Again, Dems can't seem to muster the courage to call out Republicans, but they have no problem accusing Russia for some reason.

[Baitball Blogger]

169. Agree on all points.

[hunter]

81. Oh bull. Blame it on faulty machines and Comey's interference.

The fact is that know-nothing "greens" and "independents" stayed home. A despicable number of Sanders supporters were simply misogynists, the sort who see strong women as, well, you know the word.

However rotten the Republicans are, however dependent they are on voter suppression, the electoral college, gerrymandering, empty-headed celebrity "journalists" and dirty tricks, they do hang together, even when they are holding their noses for a candidate they don't especially like.

Politics is a dirty business.

Oh, and fuck Ralph Nader too.

[Baitball Blogger]

108. You don't find many greens and independents in red precincts.

And in the Dem or purple precincts there was massive bleed out of votes at the ballot box level Do the math.

Let's try to run this party like efficiency matters.

[hunter]

114. What sort of "efficiency?"

I'm happy to tell anyone who "couldn't" support Hillary Clinton that they are just as deplorable as any Trump voter.

I'm also a creature of California politics which are, behind closed doors, as byzantine and Machiavellian as anything the Republicans get up to. California has a Democratic super-majority but it doesn't mean we're all friends.

I sincerely believe our national party was too nice to Bernie Sanders.

If you are talking about the kind of ruthless "efficiency" that would have cut the legs out from under Sanders early in the campaign, and then moved on to utterly destroy Donald Trump, then maybe I agree with you.

But I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean.

Or maybe it doesn't matter... maybe the oligarchs running the show decided they needed another meat-puppet president like Reagan or George W. Bush.

It's already very clear Trump and Pence won't be running the show. Trump is a thin-skinned narcissist and Pence is a knob. They'll read the teleprompters and do as they are told. Pretty soon now, watch, Trump's going to lose his tiny little twitter thumbs. (It's fun to imagine one of Putin's goons with a pair of clippers, but it will probably be as simple as giving the orange man a super special hyper-secure big boy "president's phone" that doesn't tweet.) The tweets will continue, of course, written by staff, and our fawning press will note how Trump is "maturing" into the job.

But it comes back again to misogyny. Too many Americans respect political ruthlessness in a man as a "strength," but not in a woman, and that's not an entirely Republican problem. Our party needs to get past that, maybe by pruning out the fucking gentlemen and misogynists within it's own leadership.

[Baitball Blogger]

115. Let's run elections like every vote matters.

No brainer.

[hunter]

127. If every vote mattered, Clinton would be President.

Pandering to white guys who are threatened by women, most especially those within our own party, is a mistake.

[Baitball Blogger]

128. That's my point.

Fix the flaws in the machines and we won't be having this discussion.

[Nitram]

15. Amen, Brother.

[jimlup]

16. Well honestly I disagree

we do have a reason to be unified against the hatred of the Donald and his sycophants. They are MUCH worse than the differences we have among ourselves (those who post here in general.) I think you are still a bit angry about the Primaries but I think we should have put those aside half a year ago - I did.

I recall thinking as 2016 moved towards its inevitable horrible conclusion that maybe we were seeing the death of the Republican party. Now I am frightened that I was exactly 180 degrees off.

[MineralMan]

19. I'm not angry about any primaries. We had them, and had a nominee.

This has nothing to do with the primaries. It is purely about the General Election and how sad it is that we lost there. Three states and less than 90,000 votes in those three states. It's impossible to stress enough how close we came and how we should have won. Do I blame some people for that? Yes, I do, but it's not about the primaries. I would have supported whoever was the Democratic nominee, as I have said hundreds of times here. This is about the General Election. The primaries were over long ago. This is also about the future, which is really the only thing that matters now.

I'm responding to people who are now talking about that future as though they were on our side in the recent past. They were not, and I don't trust them to ever be.

[jimlup]

23. Then I honestly don't know who you mean

My wife hated Hillary and voted for Stein. The family (including me) have still not forgiven her but she's still the grandmother of my grandkids ... are you talking about her?

As an aside ... I live in one of those three states - the closest of the 3 and yes, I'm sure that there were at least 10,000 voters like her in Michigan on November 8th.

[stopbush]

31. Sounds like your wife is exactly the kind of person MM is talking about.

You're still mad at her. I wonder if she's still proud of casting her vote for Stein. After all, she hates Hillary and was instrumental in keeping her out of the WH, so, mission accomplished, no?

[jimlup]

139. Because she is my wife I'm not really into talking about it here

She was wrong. Everyone in the family realizes it except for her but beyond that I really don't want to get into it. There were interesting elements I guess I'm willing to talk about it in the abstract but I made a mistake in bring this personal information here.

[MineralMan]

48. Every voter has a right to vote as he or she sees fit.

I'm not talking about individual voters here. I'm talking about people who encourage splitting from the party in public places and who then want us to join with them after the party's candidate loses.

I don't know your wife. You do.

[jimlup]

140. So I guess I really don't know who you mean

and I'm not trying to be difficult. Who speaks publicly about "splitting form the party" and now wants us to join them? Do you mean the Greens? The extreme radical left? We never really had them so I don't think this is different.

By the way, and no offense taken, but I do know my wife and I made a mistake bringing her into this discussion. Yes, we in the family are hurt by her vote and yes we do think it made a difference. But no, I'm not willing to talk about it in personal terms so I retract my bring her up.

[melman]

160. The point of this thread

is to bash Bernie and cry about JPR. Same as all the others.

[Hekate]

163. Then you missed the point by a mile. Too bad.

[Bettie]

72. But there were many times that number blocked from voting by

various suppression efforts.

Some people seem really angry at 3rd party voters, but not at all angry at things like crosscheck and other suppression efforts. They seem perfectly OK with unverifiable vote counts as well.

They also seem very much on board with no one ever even questioning any of this stuff. With conceding the second it looks like it might not go your way with no protest, no questions, no spirit whatsoever.

It's 100% on third party voters as far as some are concerned.

Full Disclosure: I voted for Clinton, though she was not my first choice, even with the constant drumbeat in GD that she didn't need dirty leftist voters to coast to victory.

[still_one]

22. As far as unitfying against trump, I agree. However, anyone who willfully refused to

vote for the Democratic nominee or the Democrats running on the down ticket, I see no merit in it since they helped enabled this situation.

[Fast Walker 52]

70. I think the current strength of the GOP is an illusion that may well fall apart quickly

I just hope they fall apart before the world blows up under Trump.

[jimlup]

141. I agree but I don't think it will end well

sick dying party of fools will not go down without stupidly hurting everyone else in the process. Maybe the Trump presidency will actually bring the Republicans down. They are all aligned behind him right now and I think they are going to look pretty bad when he goes down in flames.

[Liberal_in_LA]

20. k&r

[Wounded Bear]

21. I'm hearing you...

If I wanted a "be reasonable, do it my way" leader, I could vote for Trump.

Yes, we need to come together, but people dictating the terms in advance always worry me.

[world wide wally]

25. "Stupid" should be the word of the year. "Stupid has conquered all and made our country "stupid"

We now must turn our free, albeit imperfect, country over o a "stupid" man and his "stupid followers as we give up every social safety net we had along with a myriad of freedoms.
Here is something I hope sinks in with everyone. America is (was) a TWO party system whether we like it or not. When election time comes around, you are only offered TWO choices regardless of what you think it should be.
It is "stupid" to cheer for the Broncos when the game is between the Patriots and the Cowboys. It is "stupid" to order steak when only chicken or fish is offered.
If people want to build a third party, or fourth, or fifth let them start by winning some seats in Congress or even locally.
When you refuse to vote for the "lesser of two evils", you get the greater.
Just keep that in mind next time and hope it's not too late.

[SnowCritter]

67. Well said!

[Thinkingabout]

27. Without unity we will have eight years of the orange man, with unity we can limit him to four years

and a lot of hell for his decisions along the way.

[JHan]

28. Thanks MineralMan.

I had to give major side eye to anyone who put their ego above the progressive agenda. Some also helped make the GOP case against our candidate. If anyone on a team isn't operating in the collective interest of the team, maybe they should re-evaluate where their true loyalties lie.

[MineralMan]

32. I'm thinking that some should really be focused

on building some third party, rather than being the spoiled apple in the Democratic barrel. They'd do less damage, really, and could be the big wheels on that train. If, instead, they make a try at recasting the Democratic Party and fail, they'll predictably to something similar to what they did this year and rot the entire party, causing a loss that shouldn't have taken place.

That's what I'm thinking when I read one of those latter day calls for unity after we've already lost this one.

[zipplewrath]

41. I'm thinking they're trying a "tea party"

I seem to see a belief on several other sites that there is an opportunity to move the party in a way that the Tea Party moved the GOP. I'm dubious. Too many factors that are missing for such a change.

[zippythepinhead]

42. The biggest mistake of the democrat party was to nominate Clinton

I voted for her but she has been stigmitized by RWnuts for years. The super delagates meant that the fix was on to nominate her [like it was her turn].

Biden would have won, imo.

The strong eat the weak. It was an unnatural selection to pick hillary.

I also put a lot of blame on Debbie Wasserman shultz for fucking over bernie.

There is not enough time to build a 3rd party.

Let's just repair what we have, imho.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

82. Democrat party?

It's the Democratic party. I hope you know the Democrat party is a right wing phrase.

[HopeAgain]

106. Republic party is controlling the language better

Shows how much better the Republicans have been in controlling the lexicon than the Democrats... I noticed everyone is starting to say "Democrat" Party rather than "Democratic." Why is it they are so much better at this? Is it because appeals to base emotions from Faux News, Limbaugh and the like are simply more effective than intellectual appeals from the left? If so, maybe we need to get better about pissing people off about the "Rebulic" party!

[zippythepinhead]

156. I did not know that.

It's hard to keep up with their code speak.

For example the latest coded phrase I heard from a repub was "Christian Southern Gentleman" which means "closet racist."

[mcar]

33. K&R

[seaglass]

35. Difficult to count on people who run in the other direction when things don't go exactly their way.

I imagine another foot stomping if Keith Ellison does not get the DNC chair.

So yeah, there is a lot to expend energy on in resisting Trump without wasting efforts on unreliable "allies."

[MineralMan]

37. I really, really like Keith Ellison.

He's the House representative from my neighboring city. Our rep is Betty McCollum, who often works closely with Ellison.

I would have zero problem with either of them as head of the DNC. However, if someone else is selected, I'm OK with that, too.

I will not, however, fall in behind people who constantly railed against the Democratic Party, but now think that they can rebuild that party in their own image. Not a freaking chance. I've spent about 50 year of my life working with our party in elections, both here in Minnesota and in California for 35 years prior to that.

While I am always encouraging people to get involved with their local party organization, and I welcome newcomers, I've seen many people join and then drop out when they discover that not everyone agrees with all of their ideas. The Democratic Party is, and should always be, a big tent. Those who want to come in, send everyone out of the tent and then let only those they like back in are not what the party needs.

Our party is different in every state, every county, and even every precinct. We work toward common goals, but goals are different in some ways in every location. We're unified, but only to the point that we support our nominees, who are all selected according to long-established, proven methods.

Those who stand outside and yell at the party are not likely to become the long-term hard workers the party needs to be and stay successful. They are often pretenders with very narrow viewpoints.

[JHan]

38. great post [phone]..

I got serious abuse when I switched my support from Bernie to HRC around April. I was even called a "vagina voter", it was sickening. I took no issue with those wanting to support Bernie, but the vitriol was so intense. It isn't surprising that negative energy still lingers.. and we don't need it.

[NewJeffCT]

55. I like Keith Ellison a lot as well

My problem is losing his voice in Congress if he does step down to head the DNC. I just think the next DNC head should be on the job full-time and not splitting their time between Congress and the DNC. We really need to rebuild in every state. (While I like Howard Dean, I also think it's time for new and younger blood to head the party...)

[emulatorloo]

59. Keith Ellison is terrific. I am also willing to bet he will fail some 'purity test' once he's head

of the DNC and he will be vilified as a 'sell-out.'

Fortunately he's tough.

[jack_krass]

85. "people who constantly railed against the Democratic Party"

Who the fuck did that??? Hillary Rodham Clinton is NOT, I repeat NOT NOT NOT the Democratic party.

The vast majority of those who supportted Bernie voted for HRC.

What the hell else do you want?

[druidity33]

112. Hear Here!

I have a lot of problems with the inequity of the process, but i've always been a Democrat and hope i always will be. So yeah i have railed against the party's decisions during this election. At the same time though, I think this OP is divisive. In the post you just responded to MM says the D party needs to be a big tent, but the OP is basically telling anyone who disagreed vehemently with the Party's machinations this cycle that they can take a hike. I've seen countless OPs in the last few days that are saying in no uncertain terms, f*ck the working class especially if they're white. At this point i'm discouraged enough that i am done with politics on anything other than a very local level. I'll be spending more time with my family and neighbors in the next few years...

[Hekate]

158. Ive been here since 2002. I know exactly what that means. There are people who wear their....

....non-Democratic Party avatars and slogans very proudly and preach their own party lines in every post. No Democrat is ever good enough, and the Party certainly isnt. Then there are the ones with the FDR avatars and quotes: they claim he was practically a god, they don't exactly know history, but they have an extremely romanticized picture of that man. No actual present day IRL Democrat can ever measure up.

I wouldn't mind their opinions if they didn't spend the entire election season (every one) running down all our viable candidates and declaring they have spent their entire lives holding their noses to vote, but this time is different, they have found the One Pure Candidate and will vote for no other.

I was here when Obama ran for prez the first time: he was too black, he was not black enough, he was not angry enough, he was too alien because he came from a state that lots of Americans can't seem to remember really is a state, he lacked enough experience, and it was Hillary's turn. When he got the nom, there were a flock of women, not all of whom were Democrats, who declared "Party Unity, My Ass" and a bunch of DUers who said the same. Then as soon as he was elected, before he was sworn in, the hate started up and it never stopped here at DU. Same with Hillary this time around. Every RW lie and then some were purveyed here until she got the nom, then Skinner put a stop to it temporarily.

No, the individual candidate is not the Party, but there is a very clear pattern here of people who go out of their way to denigrate and run down our Party's frontrunners and officeholders, every damned time. One wonders if they were born yesterday or are moles here with some other purpose in mind.

MineralMan is very right. Calls for unity from such folks ring absolutely hollow.

[baldguy]

36. I still see posted here that "Clinton just wasn't *exciting*" or she was "the lesser of two evils".

They're still repeating the RW lies from the primaries, as if the convention, the nomination, the illegal theft of emails from Clinton & the DNC, interference by the FBI, hacking by Russia, and the election where she still won 3 million more votes never happened.

You're right. The calls of "Can't we all just get along" bullshit coming from that quarter does ring a little hollow.

[LanternWaste]

39. Focusing our attention on...

Focusing our attention on, and pointing our fingers at the inconsequential is often much more effective, efficient and constructive than the inconvenience of self-introspection and problem-solving.

[SHRED]

44. What did Will Rogers say?

I am not a member of any organized political party.
I am a Democrat

.

Will Rogers

[SHRED]

45. Obama's elections should have been a clue...

...to establishment Democrats.
But no, they stayed with the status quo.

Whom I voted for considering the alternative.
And actually grew to appreciate her.

[elmac]

46. Yawn

[MineralMan]

50. Thanks for taking the time to read it, anyway.

[Javaman]

57. I read your posts because I think you are a good writer and generally well informed...

but the reality is: there is a division in the party.

And unless something is done to try and heal wounds and each side reaching out to the other, we are destined to become one party controls all country.

I supported Bernie but I'm not so stupid to realize the gravity of what confronts us.

and I'm absolutely willing to work with all Democrats to unseat the ultra right wing that is now in-charge of this nation.

Frankly, a call for unity at the moment is simply too early.

I say let's wait until the orange jerk takes office and see just how truly fucked up things are. THEN you will see quickly how Dems will want to work together to unseat the crook.

until then, everyone on both sides of the Dem party are clutching onto their blocks and not wanting to share.

That's fine and it's to be expected.

So, I just wait and watch while the passion play plays out here on DU until finally everyone comes to their senses and sees just how fucked we are as a nation. And they will.

I'm a man of patience and a player of the long game.

[MineralMan]

79. I, too, am a man of patience. Out of necessity.

This year's election was just part of a pattern that I have watched since I first became interested in politics in 1960, when I was just a 15 year old boy in a small town in California.

The consequences of losing this particular election are apt to be somewhat more severe than some of the others we have lost since 1960. There is at least the potential for harmful changes that will take even more decades to repair than some other elections where Democrats have lost by small margins in just a few states.

The nature of this country is to switch parties at the federal level with considerable frequency. That nature has cost us plenty over time. We should be much further along the path of progressivism that we are. There has been considerable movement along that path in those 50+ years, but it's all subject to change every time we elect a Republican as President. This year is especially alarming, since we also lost in Congress and thus face changes in the Supreme Court.

I'm an old man, now. My disappointment is sharpened by that. In 1960, as a kid in high school, I was looking forward to progress in my future. Today, I'm looking at regression in my future. That's not something I'm very happy about at all. It's a bitter pill I'm forced to take in my dotage, I'm afraid.

We made a major mistake in 2016. There are many reasons for that, but the mistake was made. This election should have been a landslide for Democrats. Instead, it turned into a mudslide that threatens us all. I'm not a happy old camper.

[LovingA2andMI]

142. zzzzzzzzzzz....

[elmac]

51. And the circular firing squad continues

Ready, aim, FIRE!

[HassleCat]

130. Small correction.

Ready, fire, aim!

[Gothmog]

52. Great post

It is hard to take calls for unity seriously from people who worked against the interests of the party

[TygrBright]

53. Exactly. "Unity" is not the optimal choice right now.

As I pointed out in The Road From Here on Monday, in a time of Resistance to overwhelming institutional power, "unity" can be a trap.

Another thing we have is diversity. Which is good. We're accustomed to thinking in terms of the power of "unity" and the added punch of a clear focus on one or two priorities. Exhortations like "if we ALL get behind >preferred priority here< we'll be so much more effective!"

No, we won't. Read your Sun Tzu, read your Miyamoto Musashi. Where forces are gathered, the opponent with the weight of infrastructure and weaponry will concentrate the blow. The principles of guerilla conflict apply.

Rather, we must find the point where we each, individually and in smaller groups, can effectively resist and degrade the power and control of the Putsch, and put our passion THERE. We need, not a 'unified' effort a single objective, but dozens, hundreds, of constant chips, cracks, grains of sand, to grind the Machine to a halt.

soberly,
Bright

[madamesilverspurs]

60. He wants a wall.

We'll give him a wall. A wall to contain him.


.

[yurbud]

61. to the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, "unity" means leave the driving to us

not "let's work together on issues where we agree," and figure out where both sides can give a little in other areas (like get Wall Street the fuck out of public education apart from paying more taxes).

[Spitfire of ATJ]

66. Why don't we all unify around issues instead of a person?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

83. Well said

I think many want a savior who they think will lead them out of the wilderness only to turn on them because they aren't 100% what they expected.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

99. The whole "Democrats fall in love - Republicans fall in line" has got to stop....

The way I put it is:

Republicans vote for a LEADER that they can FOLLOW. Also a BOSS they expect US to OBEY. (They then accuse us of being disloyal to the thug.)

Democrats vote like it's for a Union Steward and watch them like a hawk for signs they've been sold out.

[Hekate]

159. For the simple reason that people's names are on the ballot, while the Party platform

....outlines "the issues."

[Spitfire of ATJ]

161. Nobody is on the ballot anymore.

[ismnotwasm]

68. K&R

[Fast Walker 52]

69. as much as I tend to agree with this, I think if Trump didn't unify liberals, I don't know what will

He was a unique, clear and horrible threat, and I will not forgive any liberal who didn't vote for HRC.

[MineralMan]

92. Well, he certainly should have, if only to prevent his election.

In the popular vote, people did choose Hillary Clinton. But, since we have the Electoral College, that was not quite enough. We lost several states we should have won handily by very narrow margins - close enough for recounts to be made, actually.

People will be debating why that happened for years to come, but it doesn't matter, really. Not enough people in those states voted for the Democratic candidate, or the situation would be reversed. It's very sad, really. Just a few tens of thousands of votes resulted in Donald Trump's victory. Just a few tens of thousands.

In fact, the total margin for Trump in each of those three states, WI, MI and PA, was less than the number of votes placed for Jill Stein in each of those states. So, it wasn't a large bloc of votes, nor was it votes that weren't counted, either. Enough people in those states voted for Jill Stein to have allowed Clinton to win if they had been cast for her.

That is, for me, a very sobering bit of information. I know some Jill Stein voters in Minnesota. They're as horrified at the prospect of a Trump administration as I am. Fortunately, Minnesota went for Clinton.

And then, there was the undervote for the presidential race in those three states. That number, as well, is larger than Trump's margin of victory in all three of those states. People who didn't cast their vote for any of the presidential candidates.

Not enough people in enough states voted for Hillary. That's why she lost, pure and simple. Votes were counted. Now, there may well have been shenanigans surrounding the voting and counting, but those votes (or non-votes) were counted. In both cases, there were enough of those to have flipped the election in WI, MI, and PA.

Sad, but true.

[Fast Walker 52]

100. it was close and several factors appear to have swung it to Trump

I think a big and under-discussed reason is voter suppression of AAs. But just too many factors overall worked against her that would have been hard to overcome even if she ran a absolutely perfect campaign.

[anniebelle]

150. I have no sympathy for those who have deliberately tried to divide us.

I watched Samantha Bee talking with one of the most hateful, divisive people on the planet, Glenn Beck, and it absolutely made me nauseous. I hear these people that have been working on this division since FDR saved this nation for the good of ALL its citizens and now, they want to talk of unity. It's so sad to see that the people who put this sociopath in the White House are the ones that are going to suffer the most. Look at the map ~ the red states are the poorest, require more government help than the blue states, have the lowest quality of life, but they get in their little junkers and drive out of their hovels to the polls every time to vote these people in who will take everything they have left. I've watched this unfolding my entire 72 years on this planet and it's so evident to those of us who actually think, but the brainwashed will never believe or even see the 'truth'. I weep for my country and the world.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

73. I hear you.

Just put someone on ignore today who's the type of person you're talking about. I usually don't like to do that.

[HassleCat]

76. Then there is only one path forward.

Make the orthodox party so big and powerful it crushes all dissent. Any splinter candidates and their supporters will be detected and ejected. It would have worked this time. If Bernie and his supporters had been run off in Iowa, Hillary would be president-elect right now. So it would be a winning strategy, and consistent with our party philosophy for the past 35 years. If winning is everything, then it doesn't matter what side effects winning may have.

[MineralMan]

80. We had the election we had. We always do.

I can't look backwards, really. That serves no useful purpose. We lost. We'll have more chances down the road. I hope we figure out how to improve our odds. That's all.

[liquid diamond]

86. They only want unity

up until the majority of our party rejects their nominee in the primaries. They will then whine and threaten to take their balls and go home. And then we're dealing with the same shit all over again. You're right. They need to just start their own party and stop trying to change ours. We will find new voters to replace them.

[DawgHouse]

88. It's a trojan horse.

[Hekate]

90. So this is what it looks like when our calm sage MinMan loses his temper

I'm with you all the way, my friend. Even in this thread the slugfest continues.

Be well.

[MineralMan]

93. Pretty scary, huh?

I lose my temper rather gently, I think. Inside, however, it rages on.

[Gothmog]

133. I have a great deal of anger that I am dealing with

You are doing great. Great thread

[Jamaal510]

96. K&R

[HopeAgain]

97. Our way or the highway?

Maybe, just maybe, it's time the Democratic establishment stopped telling people what to think and started listening to it's constituency. This ,election, in the end, was not about Bernie, it was about the sense of entitlement demonstrated by Hillary and by the DNC itself.

Look at it this way; how are the Occupy people supposed to feel when they watch Hillary and the DNC suck up donations from the very people and institutions they protested against? She who became rich by giving one-hour talks to the entitled 1%? How about coal miners, steel workers and other displaced from the modern economy who hear more about student loan forgiveness for those more likely to at least have a job than about their impoverished Plight? Were they supposed to look for her plane as she flew right over them?

Do the DNC policy makers understand that that although Hillary was referring to racists and nationalists when she talked about "deplorables," it was not a stretch for others to believe she was referring to anyone who is not a latte-sipping East/West Coast snob? Is this still the party of the New Deal/Great Society? Really? 'Cause I had a hard time feeling it, to be honest with you.

Yes, of course I voted for Hillary in the general election. I am intelligent, educated and understand the depth of Trump's threat to democracy. But if we are to move forward, calls for unity should mean a broadening of our acceptable views, not more "it's our way or the highway..." In my mind it's not about whether Bernie could have been our candidate, it's about the elitist attitudes that pervaded this election from the left.

[TonyPDX]

143. +1

[George II]

103. Excellent points, sir. Thank you. Off direction, but what we're seeing now reminds me of.....

...the old Army saying "there are no atheists in fox holes"!

Thanks again.

[MineralMan]

105. There are always atheists in fox holes,

and thank goodness. They're keeping their eyes out for the enemy while the rest are praying with their eyes closed.

[Gothmog]

132. LOL

[betsuni]

111. K&R, obviously

[brer cat]

113. I agree

and thank you for posting. K&R

[NastyRiffraff]

118. A lot of the people calling for "unity"

really mean "agree with me." Their idea of unity is to agree to let them define what it means to be a liberal (or progressive; I don't get the difference and I prefer liberal).

Of course we need to unite against Donald Trump and the GOP, but there are those who will help with that, and others who will, as they did throughout the 2016 election cycle, get in the way and made it possible for the unthinkable to happen.

Great OP, Mineral Man.

[DinahMoeHum]

120. A time and place for everything. A time to build bridges. . .

. . .and a time to take sides.

[SixString]

122. "Hillary is too stupid to be President."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251742444#post31

"MineralMan wrote:
Hillary is too stupid to be President. Her RFK remark sealed the deal. It won't go away, and will also end any chance she might have had at being the VP choice. Way to go, Hill..."

That high horse you're trotting around on is a bit wobbly.

[MineralMan]

123. Yes. That was over eight years ago.

It was true at the time and probably cost her the nomination. Your point? You might want to find a new hobby. I'm not really that interesting.

[gulliver]

124. One wrong statement doesn't make the "horse wobbly"

Not even close. What you are talking about is more like a horse fly bit the horse, and it swished the fly away with its tail.

[Hekate]

162. My goodness, SixString, you came all the way out of retirement to dredge that up?

MinMan has not spent the last 8 years hating on Obama nor the past year and a half perseverating on Hillary. He's built up some cred while you've been rusticating.

[Hekate]

165. Let me just memorialize your statement to me: "Geez, you're one stupid fuck."

Hold a grudge much? Bye-bye.

[SixString]

166. Adios.

[George II]

171. Damn, that was one nasty comment to you. No wonder he/she self deleted it.

[Hekate]

172. What makes it truly special is that *I* got alerted on!

[shenmue]

126. True

[Tatiana]

136. We don't have the option of not being unified if we are to survive this disastrous administration.

Not sure who did what (I took a long break from DU), but at this point, I really could care less.

We're in a fight for our lives and at some point, we're going to have to "move on" form our intra-party squabbling and band together to fight back the evil that will be assuming power.

[YOHABLO]

145. Catastrophes bring people together. Do we wait for one created by Trump?

[Jim Lane]

146. Don't write those folks off. Remember 2000.

I do NOT want to rehash the old debate about whether to blame Nader for the Bush administration. I'll simply point to the undeniable numbers. Nader got 2.9 million votes in 2000 -- but in 2004, after four years of Bush, Nader got fewer than half a million.

Here's my interpretation of that stunning falloff: A lot of progressives bought Nader's argument that there wasn't much difference between Bush and Gore, so they thought they had no particular reason to vote for Gore if they didn't strongly support him. Bush showed them the error of their ways.

The people you're talking about this time didn't strongly support Clinton (I didn't either) and felt they had no particular reason to vote for her (which is where they went wrong). My guess is that Trump will be even more effective than Bush the Lesser was at bringing people back into the Democratic tent. I'm more ready to forgive them and welcome them back than you seem to be.

[McCamy Taylor]

147. I hope that people can learn--and that they will learn from this.

[Martin Eden]

151. "calls for separation in the past"

It would be helpful if you fleshed that out a little, because I'm unsure what you mean by it.

If "unity" means there shall be no disagreements over candidates in the primary and no criticism of elected Democrats in office, then I respectfully reject such unity.

We need unity of purpose, and it is essential we thoroughly discuss the purpose as well as the best strategies for achieving shared goals. There will, of course, be disagreements along the way.

And we must, of course, unite behind Democratic candidates in the general election because Republicans will obstruct our shared policy goals.

[Roy Rolling]

152. "I don't believe you"

That line says it all. They want to escape accountability for eight years of derisive and corrosive behavior. I didn't forget, and your statement tells me why I am so uncomfortable being gracious.

[Cary]

157. Leopards don't change their spots

Ever.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

170. When the trumpsters start, I just answer them...

"I will never forget, I will never forgive."

For the last 12 years I have tried to be civil, try to take the high road. But no more it is now in your face, conventional. And yes, there will be I told you so's and dancing when hell comes calling.

I'm setting here with a degree in Mass Communication. I plan to find ways to use it to make rethugs lives unbearable.

P.S - I am putting more under the title of rethugs than just republicans.

[Exilednight]

173. I'm not sure if the OP is sincere or a comedy sketch.

First he bashes everyone who disagrees with him, then calls for unity, then back to bashing.

I hope no one is surptised by the 2020 election.