The "extreme left" didn't give us Trump. The path to hell was paved by

[pat_k]

Last edited Fri Mar 10, 2017, 04:49 PM - Edit history (3)

... the Democratic leadership's refusal to do their duty and defend the Constitution they swore to uphold by fighting, win or lose, for:

1. Impeachment of Reagan for Iran-Contra.
2. Prosecution of Bush Sr. when the extent of his role in Iran contra was exposed.
3. An objection to the unlawfully appointed FL electors on Jan 6, 2001, as was their duty under the electoral count act.
4. Impeachment of Bush/Cheney for torture.

Too many of them failed to protect the constitution from Alito when they refused to join a winning filibuster that would actually have stopped him, and instead cast their useless No votes on the floor. Thinking things like "I opposed Alito, even tho I refused to do the one thing guaranteed to stop him" is the sort of thinking that has earned them their wimpy reputation.

As if their failure to stand and fight for our founding principles weren't devastating enough, they have stubbornly adhered to a policy of preemptive surrender on the proposed solutions they claim to support (The "Can't Win, So Don't Fight" policy.)

They give lip service to universal health care, progressive tax reform, ending mass incarceration, consumer protections, financial system protections, and on and on, but the leadership of our party almost NEVER actually takes concrete action. Over, and over, and over again they have refused to "whip up" support for proposals and bills that would make a real difference. The ONLY way to make a case to the American people for real change is to actually MAKE THE CASE.

Making a case for getting a slice of bread does not win hearts and minds over to the idea that we need, and can get, the whole loaf. Making the case for getting a slice does not demonstrate strength and leadership. It says "We are too weak to do the things that will make a REAL difference in your lives." Not a stirring message.

Fighting, win or lose, is how you make things happen. It's how you demonstrate the strength the electorate craves. Chances of "winning" today are irrelevant. Fighting now makes it possible to win down the line.

Until the Democratic leadership really "gets" this, our downward spiral will continue.

They could learn something from the right-wingnuts who unceasingly advocate for things long considered DOA. (Look at how many of those formerly DOA ideas are on the verge of becoming reality.) The Democratic leadership has not provided an effective counterpoint to the relentless corporatist/reactionary drum beat for decades.

The bottom line: The party leadership's immoral refusal to stand and fight for the Constitution coupled with their cowardly policy of preemptive surrender paved the road to our current hell.

The post asserting that the "extreme left gave us Nixon, Bush and now Trump" couldn't be more wrong. The REAL problem is the leadership's irrational phobia that they will look "too extreme" if they actually fight for meaningful change. Promoting the wrongheaded notion that the "extreme left" is the problem feeds their phobia. If you want to turn things around challenge their irrational fear. Help them overcome their phobia and step up.

______________________________-
On Edit: For those who see this as "bashing" and would call me a "Democrat hater," or who think I am being an apologist for the voters who opted out, perhaps the following posts will help you recognize what I am actually saying: Posts #449 and #274.

An example of what I mean by "driving the policy debate": Post #399

[dchill]

1. What 'extreme left?'

Who would that actually be?

[Cha]

111. The OP is Wrong.. Jill Stein spoiled the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton Gave us trump

Jill Stein's voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin helped Donald Trump win the White House

snip//

For those who worried that insufficient liberal support for Hillary Clinton would wind up electing Donald Trump, you were right.

According to a tweet from Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman on Thursday, the margin of difference separating the president-elect from his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in the three “Blue Wall” states — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan — was less than the total number of votes received by Green Party nominee Jill Stein in each of those states:

More..
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/02/jill-stein-spoiled-the-2016-election-for-hillary-clinton/

Link to tweet

[Chitown Kev]

116. What makes you think that those Jill Stein voters

would have voted for Clinton?

A number of those voters would have been for Stein or anyone regardless...heck, Nader got 38,000 votes in MI, I believe, in 2008.

And what of all of the votes that Gary Johnson received?

[Cha]

119. I stand by the article.. "Jill Stein spoiled the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton "

and the Planet.

[Chitown Kev]

173. That comes with the assumption that Hillary would have received the votes

that went to Stein had Stein not been in the running...and I disagree with the assumption...Clinton may have received SOME of those votes but not all of them...or even most of Stein's votes, IMHO

[Cha]

176. It's doesn't matter.. if they voted or stayed home.. they still fucked it up.

ETA.. and if stein hadn't LIED in the first place we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If she hadn't said it doesn't matter if you're in a swing state.. don't vote for Hillary.

Like good little soldiers they followed the pied piper.

stein is a putinesque ratfucker.

[Chitown Kev]

180. I simply don't like the idea

that a Stein voter "owed" their vote to Hillary Clinton when the majority of those votes would not have been won under ANY circumstance.

Personally, I think the OP here is rather stupid.

[Cha]

181. Didn't say they "owed" anything. Apparently not even the Planet..

Saying if stein weren't such a fucking Liar and cared about our Country We might have Won instead of Russia.

ETA... "Apparently not even the Planet.."

[Chitown Kev]

183. 15% of voters nationwide

liked neither Hillary nor Trump...the majority of those voters broke for Trump.

There are many levels where this thing crashed on Hillary...you name one out of many factors.

[Cha]

191. How Jill Stein and Donald Trump became allies of Vladimir Putin

snip//

Casey Michel writes: Last December, at a gala honoring the 10th anniversary of the Russian propaganda channel RT, Russian President Vladimir Putin nestled himself between a pair of visitors at the head table. To the president’s right: A former head of the US’s Defense Intelligence Agency, known best for his hard-right views on Islam, which he would later compare to “cancer.” And to Putin’s left: The soon-to-be Green Party nominee for the White House, whose presidential debate would be carried on, of all things, RT.

The two – Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, an adviser to Republican nominee Donald Trump, and Jill Stein, the presidential nominee from the Green Party – chummed with Putin throughout the evening, later joined at the table by RT (formerly Russia Today) head Margarita Simonyan and then-Chief of Staff Sergei Ivanov. Soon, Putin took the dais, running through rote commentary on RT’s accomplishments. When he finished, applause rang. Stein shook his hand. Flynn offered a standing ovation.

Within that gala, leading figures of America’s far-left, in Stein, and hard-right, in Trump’s surrogate, found common cause. The bookends of the American political spectrum had gathered in Moscow, glad-handing with Kremlin officials. The two camps, aligned in post-fact views on American foreign policy, discovered themselves aligned in celebration of the Kremlin’s foremost foreign propaganda vehicle.

Unsurprisingly, the policy prescriptions of Stein and Flynn don’t align on much else. As it pertains to Moscow, though, it’s clear that the distance between the Stein and the Trump campaigns have effectively disappeared.

The rest of the article..
http://warincontext.org/2016/09/09/how-jill-stein-and-donald-trump-became-allies-of-vladimir-putin/

I covered "other reasons" in another post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8768468

[True Blue American]

251. I read that this morning

Jill Stein is as corrupt as the Trump gang.

[Samantha]

193. And here is another level truly salient in the 2016 election results -- "Nobody won..."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-13/actually-nobody-won-2016-presidential-election-and-it-was-landslide

According to new voter turnout statistics from the 2016 election, 47 percent of Americans voted for nobody, far outweighing the votes cast for Trump (25.5 percent) and Hillary (25.6 percent) by eligible voters.

* * *

And the “I voted for nobody” group is actually much larger than the 47 percent reported because that number only includes eligible voters. How many millions of Americans under the legal voting age — not to mention the countless millions who have lost their voting rights — voted for nobody, as well? Factoring in those individuals, around 193 million people did not vote for Trump or Clinton. That’s nearly two-thirds of the population of the United States.

Nobody also seemingly won the presidential primaries, with only 9 percent of Americans casting their votes for either Trump or Clinton.

Sam

[Ligyron]

330. and there's biggest problem and our challange is to get them on our side

[pat_k]

370. The leadership has done a great job...

... of ignoring that vast pool of "opt outs" out there. They are so busy worrying about losing "moderates" or getting beaten up by the Republican noise machine if they "come on too strong" that they are completely blind to the upside of fighting the good fights. As I posted down thread, in my view the level of apathy is directly attributable to the Democratic leadership's unwillingness to:

1. Demonstrate commitment to core principles by drawing a few lines in the sand (like taking up the fight to impeach Bush to protect was is perhaps the most basic human right -- the right not to be tortured);

2. Get out there and advocate for a few "game changers" like universal health care and free access to college, instill confidence that we have the power to shape a government that works for us, and enlist people to vote elect more Dems to state and federal offices make it happen.

Continued here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8771920

[Hortensis]

229. We've been naming "one of the factors" -- spreading

such vicious lies about Clinton that many who thought they'd vote for her ultimately decided not to, putting the current pack of hyenas in office.

Right now we could be talking about our administration's plan to restore good, well paying jobs with good benefits to America. Starting with President Clinton's first 100-day jobs plan.

We talk a lot about Republican regret and wonder how that's coming along.

[Orsino]

243. One hundred million Trump- and non-voters fucked it up.

Eagerly assisted by dark money, US$3 billion in free Trump airtime, decades of anti-Clinton mythology, and millennia of sexism and racism.

Stein was relatively insignificant.

[SpankMe]

279. I agree with this.

The largest single proximate factor in Dems' loss in Nov. '16 was simply the non-voter. Some didn't vote because they didn't like either candidate.

All the other causes opined here were certainly a factor.

But in my opinion, most non-voters didn't vote simply out of apathy or misplaced priorities (i.e., I couldn't vote because I had to work late - interfered with poker night - Trump can't possibly win; too many people will vote against him; I don't need to take the time to vote - was too busy with fantasy football to fill out my mail-in ballot - mail-in ballot had too many ballot propositions on it; too confusing - hair appointment - just forgot - etc.)

Low voter turnout favors Republicans. Very low voter turnout favors crackpots.

[Orsino]

286. I'm not sure we can even lump all the non-voters together, tempting as it is.

Rather than being the largest single factor, we may need to look at them as 42 million stories that all happen to be about not registering to vote.

I don't understand that much apathy, and I think we must.

[pat_k]

377. Absolutely!

I think the notion that the electorate is some neat left/moderate/right bell curve is ludicrous. I don't claim to understand it all, but I took a shot at defining a few distinct groups I see "out there." I make no assertions about the size of these groups (except 4).

1. Staunch Democrats:
People who will stand strong with Dems no matter what the Dems do.

2. Not Republicans:
People who get out to vote for Dems because Republicans are so much worse. They are at risk for falling into 3. These may not be as strongly "behind" Dems as group 1, but neither are they "moderates" in the sense that they occupy some left leaning/middle ground.

3. Opt Outs:
People who have opted out because they have given up on either party ever doing anything that actually makes a difference.

4. Disenfranchised:
a) People denied the right to vote for life by their status as felons -- about 4 million nationwide (not a trivial number). For example, about 30% of the African American male population of Alabama and Mississippi fall into this category..
b) People denied the right to vote by the suppression tactics we are seeing enacted by Republican controlled legislatures. One of the most effective means -- and one that gets FAR too little attention -- is under-allocation of resources in "certain areas." In areas that had long lines as a consequence of insufficient resources I have no doubt that at least 1 in 10 turned around and went home, or back to work, when they saw the lines.

5. Republican "Swing"
People attracted to Republicans primarily because they perceive them as the "strong ones." They go with "Strong and Wrong" Republicans over "Weak and Right" Dems. Many of these would swing to Dems if Dems demonstrated strength and gave them a real choice between Strong and Wrong, and Strong and Right.

Group 5 is not "moderate" in the sense that they subscribe to some ideology in the "middle. It is the strength they see in the right-wingnuts that they find most attractive.

6. Knee jerk Republicans:
People who just see themselves as "Republican" and vote that way without much thought. Most of them probably always will. People in this group weren't keen on DT. Some stuck with him, some opted out because DT is such a horror show. Aside from the problems some of these have with DT, they go with Republican candidates down ticket. Some would actually start thinking twice if Dems transformed themselves sufficiently to inspire people in groups 3 and 5 to get behind them.

7. Staunch Reps/Dem haters: People whose hatred of Dems is so deep, nothing a Dem could do will ever reach them. Many are far more driven by hatred of Dems feed by the Republican noise machine than the propaganda against reasonable gun control and their commitment to "banning" abortion.

---------------------------------------------------

The current Democratic leadership "strategy" of preemptive surrender ignores the existence of 3 and 5. As a consequence, those groups have just grown larger and larger.

In re: 4, the failure of the leadership to make restoring the right to vote to every person who has "paid their debt to society" is appalling, as is the failure to advocate for the bold steps needed to end mass incarceration.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. The Dems are currently trapped by insidious memes and beltway group think..

They will never win a filibuster-proof majority if they don't break free of the "conventional wisdom." They won't win of a vast majority of state administrations and legislatures. If they don't change, they will not gain the power necessary to create a far more equitable nation over the coming decades.

[pat_k]

374. In my view...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8771920

[cwydro]

305. And people on this very site bragged about voting

for anyone other than Hillary.

It makes me sick.

[boston bean]

244. You are missing the fact that both Stein and Johnson votes increase exponentially since 2008/2012.

The increase directly correlates to Clintons loss.

Third party voting increased this election. Because these turds couldn't stand a Hillary presidency. So we got the Trump.

And if you come back and state that I cannot say for 100% certain that those Stein votes would have went for Clinton, then I ask you to prove how you know mid west voters who gave trump the presidency would have ever voted for Clinton. You cannot have this both ways.

More of the evidence supports it was third party voting that cost us this election. Not mid westerners who were ok with racism/sexism/xenophobia would have vote Hillary not matter what they would like to argue. Those people are conservative. An economic message meant shit to them.

[Chitown Kev]

321. Because Stein did get votes

in 2012 and Nader got votes in 2008.

I acknowledge that third party voting increased in 2016 but anywhere from 50-65 or 70% of those votes NO Democrat would have gotten.

Because there were tens of thousands of third party leftist votes in 2008 and 2012 as well.

That's all I'm saying

[still_one]

139. Well lets see, in Michigan Hillary lost by .3%. Stein received 1.1% of the vote

Similar results in Wisconsin, and the other critical swing states, and yes they would have made a difference, but Stein's major campaign was to tell her supporters under "no circumstances should they vote for Hillary, even in a swing state". She further spread the bullshit that Hillary was worse than trump. THAT WAS A LIE.

Those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary by either voting third party or NOT voting DID MAKE THE DIFFERENCE, and Noam Chomsky made that very clear that those "Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton made a ‘bad mistake’

"Legendary linguist and activist Noam Chomsky thinks that progressives and left-wingers who didn’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton this year have badly miscalculated — and will now pay a very dear price.

The Huffington Post notes that in an interview with Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan, Chomsky reiterated his position that people on the left should have supported Clinton’s White House bid, if only as a means to stop Donald Trump from getting elected.

“I think they [made] a bad mistake,” said Chomsky, who reiterated that it’s important to keep a “greater evil” from obtaining power, even if you’re not thrilled with the alternative. “I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of.”

Chomsky also attacked the arguments made by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who argued that Trump’s election would at least shake up the system and provide a real rallying point for the left.

“[Zizek makes a] terrible point,” Chomsky told Hasan. “It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early ’30s… he’ll shake up the system in bad ways.

”http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

Every Democrat running for Senate in a swing state lost to the ESTABLISHMENT, incumbent, republican

[Cha]

152. "Noam Chomsky made that very clear that those "Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton

made a ‘bad mistake’"

“ terrible point,” Chomsky told Hasan. “It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early ’30s… he’ll shake up the system in bad ways."

”http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

that was Sarandon's theory.. and now she's trying to act like she doesn't have any responsibility for this shite.

Thank you, still_one.. I think about that article that you posted awhile ago about..

"Michigan Hillary lost by .3%. Stein received 1.1% of the vote"

So I googled and got this one..

Jill Stein spoiled the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton Gave us trump

Jill Stein's voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin helped Donald Trump win the White House

snip//

For those who worried that insufficient liberal support for Hillary Clinton would wind up electing Donald Trump, you were right.

According to a tweet from Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman on Thursday, the margin of difference separating the president-elect from his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in the three “Blue Wall” states — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan — was less than the total number of votes received by Green Party nominee Jill Stein in each of those states:

More..
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/02/jill-stein-spoiled-the-2016-election-for-hillary-clinton/

Link to tweet

[still_one]

155. The numbers are there Cha, thanks

[angrychair]

258. Not that I don't see the point

I do...Unfortunately, I do take issue that it puts the lose on someone like Stein, a side note, and abdicates responsibility of republican45 and his campaign's treasonous collusion with Russia during the campaign.

There are several small reasons that helped contribute to Hillary's lose, of which Stein is one, but the focus should be on republican45 and his collusion with Russia.
In the end, that is the only thing that matters.

[still_one]

314. Of course the responsibility with what we will be going through the next 4 years lies

directly at the feet of trump and the republicans however, those who refused to vote or voted third party made that a reality, and in my view do bear some of the responsibility

[PatrickforO]

329. I don't disagree - the elephant in the room is that a hostile foreign power

affected an American election with the help of one of the presidential candidates. That isn't OK no matter which side of the aisle you sit on. It's called treason.

However, and it is a big however, 92,671,979 (40 percent) of the eligible voters did not even vote.

Our leadership better be asking how our message could be adjusted to attract these people? I mean, if someone feels that it is useless to vote because their vote doesn't matter, what will it take to change that?

My answer is a populist message - actually addressing things that will make our lives better instead of subtracting even more of the tax dollars we pay in and routing them to corporate coffers. You've all heard what I have to say about single payer healthcare, but it is a powerful issue. Still, every time I bring it up, I get told I'm a unicorn or a utopian or unrealistic. People pretty much ignore what I say on here, though when I have touched too many nerves I have been temporarily banned from a couple of rooms.

But you know what? I AM a Democrat in good standing. I DO sign petitions, call my US Representative and Senators once a week, write them at least once a week and from time to time give money. I'm also involved in efforts in my state to get both houses of the legislature to pass National Popular Vote legislation. Our governor will sign it, because he's a Dem.

Thus far, though, our state Senate Democrats have lacked the backbone, or the will, or the sophistication to get this through. Republicans are in the majority by ONE and yet our party allowed the bill to DIE in committee. We still have a chance in the state House, though because the Dems have a crushing majority.

The problems?
- There is very little in the way of a national vision - yes, I know we have one, but we haven't articulated it very well, have we?
- We are too fragmented. I can remember being sick when a certain discussion of economic justice devolved into allegations that social justice is more important. sigh. And this isn't new. In the 1960's the civil rights movement became fragmented and played right into the hands of the POB (read, white male good ol' boys).

And you know what? If you want to ban me for saying that, fine, but I'm telling the truth.

Sure, Jill Stein took some votes from Hillary, but Hillary STILL won the popular vote by nearly 3 million. If we'd have had National Popular Vote laws in enough states to make up over 270 electoral votes, SHE'D BE SITTING IN THE WHITE HOUSE RIGHT NOW.

And what about those 92 million eligible voters who did not vote? Where, and how strongly do we stand as a party for making election day a holiday? Or putting it on Sunday? Or automatic voter registration?

And where are our people when Tea Party cretins try and take over our school boards? Our local governments? What kind of party strategy and national direction do we have at the state and local levels. I see some good things happening here, but we need to keep it up.

Well, it was a rant, but it is clear from the threads on this post, and on others, that I'm far from being alone. For party leaders who watch this site to see what the base is saying, here we are. We're motivated, galvanized and ready to step up and be activists. Let's get the show on the road by setting a national vision with a few points and POUND ON THOSE until we get them. Then set new goals and POUND ON THOSE until we get them. And so on. That's what the Koch brothers did through the Tea Party. Why not us?

[pat_k]

395. Keep fighting the good fight!

If I didn't think the Democratic leadership was capable of "seeing the light" I would have given up a long time ago.

For me, one key is listening to their excuses for not doing that which they know is right. (And the leadership does know what the right thing to do is, as Pelosi demonstrated with her "I'd be for Impeachment if I weren't speaker" insanity.) If we can put a stake in the heart of the rationalizations that immobilize them, i think we would see a transformed leadership.

[Chitown Kev]

177. I've also looked at the 2012 and 2008 results in those states

although I don't know the numbers offhand.

I think that anywhere from 50-70% of the votes for Jill Stein 2016 would not have gone to any Democrat under any circumstance...which still may have been enough for Clinton to eek out a victory in those states but do not casually assume that those votes "belonged" to Hillary...they didn't.

[still_one]

187. As I said those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary by either voting third

party, or NOT voting, DID MAKE THE DIFFERENCE, and by their actions, not only got trump elected, but also lost the Senate, because they believed the bullshit, that there was no difference between the republicans and Democrats.

and they will have blood on their hands at the end of four years because of those actions

Ironically, if Hillary had won, they would have been a part of the conversation. Now they will have about as much chance of that with trump and the republicans as a snowball in hell.

All the progress made on the environment, women's rights, civil rights, worker's rights, social security, medicare, healthcare, etc. have just been flushed down the drain.

[Chitown Kev]

238. and I'm saying that a majority of those voters

did not vote for Barack Obama and would not have voted for Clinton ever.

[still_one]

246. I understand your point. You may not be aware, but we lost a good number of folks here who said

they had voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012, but refused to vote for Hillary.

While there is no doubt that the Comey/FBI interference, the distortion, misreporting, and double standard of the press, along with probable Russian involvement were severe blows, it was enough of those self-identified progressives refused to vote for Hillary by either voting third party or not voting, that made the difference.

They falsely believed she was "the lesser of two evils", which wasn't true.

These self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary by simply staying home gave us what we have today. They sealed it, not only for the white house, but also the Senate, as evidenced by every Democrat running in a swing state lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican

[pat_k]

393. Even if you were to accept the premise that every Stein vote....

... would have gone to Clinton if Stein had not been in the race, the level of responsibility for Democratic losses that could be laid at the feet of the "far left" is minuscule compared to the damage done by the failures of leadership i cite.

The adulation of Reagan would not exist if he had faced the impeachment his actions demanded.

Bush Jr would never have been in the running at all if Bush Sr. had been prosecuted.

Those failures alone didn't bring us here. The leadership had another chance to fight for us -- to fight for our right to have our votes counted -- by standing and objecting to the unlawfully appointed Florida electors.

And, even failing that, they had yet another chance to turn the tide by drawing a line in the sand and fighting to impeach Bush to defend perhaps the most basic human right there is -- the right not to be tortured.

When the leadership went all out to stop the momentum that was building for impeachment, the message they sent was crystal clear: "This is not important enough to us. Torturing in the name of the American people isn't really so bad." And that message gave power to the worst of humanity. Their failure to draw lines in the sand at critical junctures allowed lines that should be held inviolable to be crossed with impunity.

And when it comes to driving policy debates, what the Democratic leadership has yet to understand is that it is not just about what 'they" can "give us" or get done "for us" in the current legislative session. It MUST also be about building a vision of what the American people are capable accomplishing; it's about instilling confidence in our power to make those visions a reality. That is what engages.

The leadership has been so obsessed with their fears of being beaten up by the Republican noise machine if they do anything that anybody might call "extreme" that they have been completely blind to the upside of 'fighting the good fights." Namely, that a substantial number of the people who have either given up, or never felt inspired by either party, would BE inspired.

-------------------------
On Edit: As I have pointed out repeatedly, this is NOT about "bashing" them. This is not just about "the past." It is about THE FUTURE. All I am attempting to do is encourage a recognition of how wrong and destructive the rationalizations for inaction have been. I think it is vital to expose how counter-productive "can't win, so don't fight" is; to point out the extent to which fear of 'backlash' blinds them to the benefits of demonstrating the courage of their convictions; to put up a mirror to help them see how absurd notions like "I opposed Alito by casting a losing No vote on the floor (even though I refused to join the filibuster that would have actually stopped him)" are. If we can put a "stake in the heart" of the rationalizations that keep them from fighting the good fights, we will either see a whole lot more movement in the right direction TODAY and TOMORROW, or a new set of irrational rationalizations for inaction will crop up (and need to be torn down).

[Trumpocalypse]

521. It not just Stein voters

it is the millions who stayed home and didn't vote at all.

Also, I don't think voters today care much about impeachments that didn't happen either 8 or 30 years ago. They care about what is happening today.

[pat_k]

525. Absolutely.

Many, many factors at work.

I do not take the ridiculous position that the failures I cite are the only factor; or that the Stein voters are the only factor; or that low participation is the only factor, or that the Republican noise machine is the only factor; or that the billions invested by scaife, koch bros, and so on is the only factor.. All these things and more are at play. Low levels of participation have plagued us for so long. I think participation (national average for presidential) has topped out at about 60% -- which is shameful. This election was low, but it has gone lower. As a factor, it is one that is of very long standing.

The position I am taking is that those factors would have been overcome if we had not taken some seriously wrong steps. And that we CAN overcome the forces driving the rise of right wing extremism if we look at those mistakes and commit to changing some of the basic ways of thinking that led to those mistakes. It's all about being more effective going forward.

If we had been bolder, I believe the participation rate would have been higher. If we had been stronger, and drawn some lines in the sand, I think we would not be perceived as weak relative to the "strong" republicans... and so on.

[vi5]

308. Just out of curiosity....

What percentage of the union vote did Hillary win compared to Obama?
Answer: about 10% less.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/labor-unions-hillary-clinton-mobilization-231223

What percentage of the hispanic vote did Hillary win compared to Obama?
What percentage of the Jewish vote did HIllary win compared to Obama or even Kerry?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/ft_16-11-09_relig_exitpoll_religrace/

Last I checked those numbers she lost a percentage point or more from Obama on each of those groups (with the exception of Jewish voters from 2012 but not any previous election). I'm curious why those groups are exempt from all the blame going around?

Especially since those groups actively did vote for a Dem for President before and actively voted for the other candidate this time around.

And all the Stein voter brouhaha of her scary 1% of the votes doesn't even factor in how many Republican voters Johnson pulled or how many Republicans just sat out the election as well because they couldn't stomach Trump.

[Lil Missy]

135. And Comey, and Putin ...

[Cha]

140. YES! Mahalo, Lil Missy

[Lil Missy]

265. ....

[KPN]

159. Let's don't take any responsibility for any of this.

[Cha]

163. I posting the article in response to the first sentence of the OP.. there are other

reasons we lost.. Voter Suppression,Voter Purging, comey, the Russian coup/hacking/

But the damn lies of stein were a huge contributing factor..

Dangerous#1 Dangerous#2 Dangerous#3

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

they damn well will.. sitting on their millions while the Planet goes to shite and people go hungry and Immigrants banned from the US by "the bumbler" according the ever present idiot, jill stein

[KPN]

165. I get all that.

But I agree with the OP. This has been building for decades. Americans as a whole are disgusted with our two party system ... and the Rs have been doing a better job taking advantage of that while Dems have "incrementalized" in gentlemanly fashion. Good way to get sucker punched -- which we were.

[Cha]

170. You may get it.. but the OP doesn't or that wouldn't have been the 1st

sentence.

[pat_k]

190. What is it that you think I "don't get'??

[KPN]

375. I disagree with you on that too.

You present numbers that carry with them all kinds of assumptions while downplaying if not ignoring the bigger picture in my view. We are at odds on this -- I don't think that is going to change. My sense is there's nothing I can say that will change your mind. We need to move along and work together regardless of our opinions about why we lost. That takes a certain degree of acceptance regarding each other's perspective.

[SMC22307]

287. Exactly. You'd think that four months later,

there might be a little less DENIAL, but no. Never the candidate or the party or the message, but everyone and everything else.

[JudyM]

503. +1

[SMC22307]

282. How curious that you're beating up the female candidate, when Gary Johnson (L)...

had much more of an impact:

Pennsylvania
Johnson 2.4%
Stein .8%

Michigan
Johnson 3.59%
Stein 1.07%

Wisconsin
Johnson 3.58%
Stein 1.04%

Why is that?

The race shouldn't have been as close as it was in either of those three states. Folks with their eyes wide open know that the current clusterfuck has been building for over three decades. Abandon labor, Democratic Party -- this is what you get. "It's the economy, stupid." Never the fault of the candidate or the party in your world, eh? "Lessons learned" not your thing?

What's your magic plan for winning back those electoral votes? No one is offering up solutions.

[LiberalLovinLug]

288. Very good point

There were multiple reasons.

I don't know why they pick on the votes towards the most progressive party other than Democrats to pick on. Its like standing in a playground and when the orange faced bully knocks you down and walks away laughing, you get up and glare around and find the smallest weakest girl that is the closest to you to smack upside the head and make yourself feel better.

[SMC22307]

303. LOL So much ire toward Stein when good ol' Gary was the bigger menace...

and has the numbers to prove it. Same with the 24,000 Nader-voting Florida Democrats versus the 308,000 Bush-voting Florida Democrats. Just doesn't fit in with the left-bashing agenda, which I'm wondering... is it now part of DU's mission statement? Gotta check that.

Hillary should have gone *total* weed. We would have won Libertarians and Greens. Coulda, shoulda, woulda...

[LiberalLovinLug]

315. It does seem lately that there is an effort to shut down (or shout out) progressives in here.

Although I'm coming to the conclusion that there is an angry bitter minority that sits by their computers just waiting for any kind of OP like this and PM their cohorts and swamp the thread initially. If you wait long enough, saner voices usually fill it in.
TWIMC:



And those progressives are just people, Democrats, that basically want the same things as the ones who criticize them in here. Those critics, who if you went down the list and forced them to answer yes or no to the same issues, would be hard-pressed to disagree with anything. Which makes their faux outrage all the more laughable.

You are absolutely right about Hillary and her positioning. Her husband invented the Third Way and Triangulation and she was hell bent on holding on to that strategy till the bitter end. ie. overly careful not to piss off the 'moderate' Republican-lite who would vote Democrat (a creature who is probably outnumbered by unicorns).

Don't blame Bernie for being popular because he championed the traditional Democratic principles. And also moved them further with his proposals of the $15 wage, free college tuition, legal weed, and even floating the idea of eventual single payer. THOSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN HILLARY'S POSITIONS ALL ALONG. And then Sanders would only be the old man who wasn't a full time Democrat that said the same things she did. She would have not only swept every State in the primaries, but won the election handily.

[SMC22307]

323. The "angry, bitter minority" had vastly different positions at one time. VASTLY.

Check your e-mail -- I sent you two examples. I've bookmarked many more.

We all know that if Hillary won and proposed cuts to SS and Medicare to "save it," these same folks would be cheering. Now that it's Trump, Ryan, et al., they're opposed. DU was once a place of robust discussion and a great place to learn. Now? Not so much.

Just stumbled upon this beaut from one of the links I shared with you:

"The New Deal political philosophy that defined our politics for most of the 20th century has run its course; the political coalition it spawned has been split. Like Humpty Dumpty, the New Deal coalition cannot be put back together again."

DLC founder Al From, Blueprint Magazine, January 2001

Fuck you, Al.

[LiberalLovinLug]

345. + 1000

[Squinch]

480. Show me anywhere where ANY of "these same folks" have EVER shown ANY tendency to support cuts to

SS and Medicare.

That's a crap comment.

[JudyM]

504. Agree completely.

[Cha]

347. You call exposing "beating up".. "How Jill Stein and Donald Trump became allies of Vladimir Putin"

snip//

Casey Michel writes: Last December, at a gala honoring the 10th anniversary of the Russian propaganda channel RT, Russian President Vladimir Putin nestled himself between a pair of visitors at the head table. To the president’s right: A former head of the US’s Defense Intelligence Agency, known best for his hard-right views on Islam, which he would later compare to “cancer.” And to Putin’s left: The soon-to-be Green Party nominee for the White House, whose presidential debate would be carried on, of all things, RT.

The two – Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, an adviser to Republican nominee Donald Trump, and Jill Stein, the presidential nominee from the Green Party – chummed with Putin throughout the evening, later joined at the table by RT (formerly Russia Today) head Margarita Simonyan and then-Chief of Staff Sergei Ivanov. Soon, Putin took the dais, running through rote commentary on RT’s accomplishments. When he finished, applause rang. Stein shook his hand. Flynn offered a standing ovation.

Within that gala, leading figures of America’s far-left, in Stein, and hard-right, in Trump’s surrogate, found common cause. The bookends of the American political spectrum had gathered in Moscow, glad-handing with Kremlin officials. The two camps, aligned in post-fact views on American foreign policy, discovered themselves aligned in celebration of the Kremlin’s foremost foreign propaganda vehicle.

Unsurprisingly, the policy prescriptions of Stein and Flynn don’t align on much else. As it pertains to Moscow, though, it’s clear that the distance between the Stein and the Trump campaigns have effectively disappeared.

The rest of the article..
http://warincontext.org/2016/09/09/how-jill-stein-and-donald-trump-became-allies-of-vladimir-putin/

That's the "female" you're so concerned about with the "curious" insult.

Poor stein..

stein could stop lying her damn head off.. but she's already got $4 million and counting to be the ratfucker in the next election.

[SMC22307]

351. Will you do a 180 on Stein like you did with Hillary?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Meh. Thanks to a treasure trove at the DU of days gone by, I don't take your "concern" -- on anything -- seriously.

[Cha]

353. Oh good.. all you have are insults.. no defending stein on being a putin troll?

[SMC22307]

354. Exactly... "no defending stein on being a putin troll."

I couldn't care less about Jill Stein. Or Gary Johnson. What I care about is that the Democratic Party has imploded over the past three decades, and now controls ZERO branches of government, and only SIX states. That's not the fault of Jill Stein or any third-party candidate, regardless of how much you spam this OP with tweets.

[Cha]

355. Good there is no defense of the Liar stein.. she owns a chunk of trump

[SMC22307]

356. Gary Johnson owns a bigger chunk. And how much...

does the Democratic Party and candidate herself own for not appealing to voters beyond the coast and an inadequate number of blue pockets in between?

[Cha]

382. Hey.. don't forget about fuckng james comey of the FBI.. and the Russians..

wouldn't want to leave them out would you?

stein ran on the green party and lied her head off all off for the Russians and now the Greens have a fucking Climate Change Denier in the wh... way to go geniuses

[Cha]

383. Is that what you call it.. "an enquiring mind"? lol

Yes, I support Hillary now.. it's too bad that bothers you so much.

Link to tweet

[Cha]

364. No, Hillary did not "spoil" the Election... and your saying that does not

make it so.

Keep your blinders on. There's many many more of us who are into reality.

[BlueWI]

492. Do you ever hear Republicans unloading on Ross Perot?

He probably cost HW Bush his reelection. But you know what? Republicans moved on and won future elections at every governmental level. Dems are still fighting about the 2000 election in 2017, criticizing voters that didn't even vote Republican, ignoring registered Democrats and independents that did vote Republican. What is up with this pointless and counterproductive obsession with scapegoating Stein voters? Hey, I have a suggestion. Next time, let's have the Democratic candidate show up in the critical battleground states and win more voters than the Republican! It's been done before, and it could be done again!!

[pat_k]

130. The "Extreme left gave us..." post..

is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8749488

The "extreme left" referenced in the post are people who don't vote for Democrats because -- as the poster, Trumpocalypse, puts it -- the Dems don't pass some "purity test." It's a notion that vastly oversimplifies the thinking of the people who sit it out or vote third-party. The assertions the poster makes are firmly grounded in the conventional wisdom that Dems need to go to the 'middle' to win elections.

The way I see it, that "conventional wisdom," is a driving force behind the "don't do anything FOX might vilify" strategy we have seen in action over the last couple decades. (Fear of Republican "backlash" is the reigning champ when it comes to rationalizations for refusing to do that which they know is right. And the leadership does know what the right thing to do is, as Pelosi demonstrated with her "I'd be for Impeachment if I weren't speaker" insanity.)

My view of the breakdown of the electorate is very different, and consequently, I've come to a very different conclusion. I describe my view of the 'breakdown" in this post:

It is not a left/moderate/right "divide." It's more like this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2594053

[George II]

455. Your list in your post "It is not a left/moderate/right "divide." isn't complete...

...it has one glaring omission.

While we're at it, since you created (or posted) the list, in which category do you include yourself?

[pat_k]

461. Me? Group 1.

What group do I need to add?

[George II]

462. Are you serious? Let's review:

Group 1 consists of "People who will stand strong with Dems no matter what the Dems do". You claim to be in that group.

On the other hand, you opened your OP with this:

The path to hell was paved by... the Democratic leadership's refusal to do their duty and defend the Constitution they swore to uphold by fighting, win or lose, for:

1. Impeachment of Reagan for Iran-Contra.
2. Prosecution of Bush Sr. when the extent of his role in Iran contra was exposed.
3. An objection to the unlawfully appointed FL electors on Jan 6, 2001, as was their duty under the electoral count act.
4. Impeachment of Bush/Cheney for torture.

Operative words are "NO MATTER WHAT THE DEMS DO"!

You call that "standing strong with Dems no matter what the Dems do"? You (incorrectly, I might add) tell us that the path to hell was paved by Democrats and then later claim that you stand strong with Democrats NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO?

[pat_k]

463. I stand with Democrats even when they are idiots because I KNOW they are capable of better.

I stand with Democrats even when they are idiots because I KNOW they are capable of better. And as a staunch Democrat, I believe it's my duty to do what I can to make ours a more effective party

[George II]

464. Bashing the crap out of them for things that happened more than a decade and a half ago...

...is not standing with them in my opinion.

[pat_k]

467. You've made that pretty clear.

______________________________-
On Edit: For those who see this as "bashing" and would call me a "Democrat hater," or who think I am being an apologist for the voters who opted out, perhaps the following posts will help you recognize what I am actually saying: Posts #449 and #274.

An example of what I mean by "driving the policy debate": Post #399

[pat_k]

468. P.S. You neglected to say what group I need to add

You mentioned that there was a glaring omission. i'd like to correct it. What do i need to add?

[bravenak]

2. If you hate the party so much, then why post at a place for Democrats?

You seem angrier at the party than at the guy deporting immigrants and taking healthcare completely away.
I think whoever has these thought on the party need to prove they are right by winning. If yiu win, and work, people start listening. If you just point fingers at us for losing while your not even able win at all???

[pat_k]

9. Who's worse, a criminal committing a crime, or a cop that looks the other way?

Criminals are the "bad guys."
Cops are supposed to be the "good guys."
Criminals committing crimes is not upsetting. It's expected.
When you REALLY get into trouble is when the cops turn a blind eye and fail to do what they need to do to stop the criminals.

And in the political world, corporatists/reactionaries are the "bad guys."
Democrats are supposed to be the "good guys"
Corporatist/reactionaries doing destructive things is not upsetting. It's expected.
The reason we are REALLY in trouble now is that the Democrats have been turning a "blind eye" to executive branch high crimes. They have failed to do what they need to do to stop the criminals.

Serpico was a good cop. He fought for reform of the police depart.

i'm a good democrat. I'm fighting for reform of the party.

[bravenak]

10. Fight Trump for fuck's sake!

Fight him! If you aint got time to fight him, are you really who we need to listen to?

[sheshe2]

23. Exactly bravenak.

yes!

[bravenak]

25. It's kinda strange that we should only listen to those who are fighting us

[sheshe2]

30. strange...

yet very very interesting. hmmm.

[bravenak]

68. We've seen this show before. Tiresome.

[LiberalLovinLug]

138. This is not fighing you!!!

My gawd you take it so damn personal. It is having the strength to first look at what we as a party have done right, and that is many things, but also to look at mistakes, and address them, as hard as that may be. And in the end to create a stronger united force to battle this dangerous threat.

That is all the OP is saying.

[ProfessorPlum]

272. exactly

you'd think they were Democratic politicians. And also that they could do no wrong.

[pat_k]

46. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8767544

[pat_k]

40. "For fuck's sake" the way to fight DT is to kick Dems in the butt to go all out

Like lobbying them to filibuster Gorsuch.

Like lobbying them to oppose DT nominees.

You know. Like doing the work necessary to build the political will within the party to go all out.

[bravenak]

65. You fight him by kicking our asses? How the hell does that make any sense?

If the policies you want are so popular, why are there not hundreds of congresspeople with your exact same ideology.
They are already not voting for trump's nominees, mostly. The ones who are are doing so in states where there is no way in hot HELL that a far left progressive could win. Might want to tailor your message.

[pat_k]

70. The point is to get MORE of them to vote no.

It's really pretty fucking simple.

That's what lobbying is all about. Coordinating with the members who are doing the right thing to lobby other members to join them.

[JHan]

83. No you're kicking the Democratic Party over stupid shit.

that's already happened.. we have SHIT HAPPENING RIGHT FUCKING NOW. If you want to go back in time to every mistake the Democratic Party ever made have fucking fun.. here's some fun - go back to pre 1930's ... Find every single little flaw, and while you're wasting your time , other folks will see to more pressing matters like the current dipshit in the whitehouse.

I'm a millennial, and so help me god I will do my best to not see the bullshit of last year repeated because of DUMB SHIT... already 2 years of potential progress has BEEN LOST, and there's only so much shit my generation can fix when it's our time to lead.

[bravenak]

88. +1

[JHan]

90. I can't take the motherfucking bullshit anymore I swear...

Like I have years and years to throw away and flush down the toilet because of some resentments from over 3 fucking decades ago.. jesus fucking christ.

[bravenak]

98. Half the shit they mad at happened before we were born

[JHan]

103. and Iran-fucking-contra really?

Was I even a spec in my mother's and father's eyes?

We have the EPA about to be dismantled, every regulation or progress made to make the environment cleaner, so we don't get more Flints, and put the money predator's feet to the fire ( ALL BECAUSE OF DEMOCRATIC POLICIES) ..and I'm supposed to fucking care about Iran Fucking Contra - is Reagan still fucking alive?

OP Don't expect me to care. I can't afford to.

[bravenak]

105. I was still in Buster Browns during Iran Contra.

Back when there was still a Kenny's shoe store and a Lamont's at the mall. They put their grudges before our interests every damn time. Why listen to them? Nope. Done.

[JHan]

108. +100000000000000000000

[SMC22307]

143. Anyone who likens anger over Iran-Contra to a "grudge"...

is not someone who should be taken seriously. Perhaps you need to bone up on what actually went down during the dark Reagan years... might help you understand some of what's going on now.

[JHan]

144. I know because I study history..

and I study history enough to understand priorities and what the objective is RIGHT NOW, RIGHT HERE in 2017 and onwards.

[SMC22307]

146. Right-o. You "study history," but are you LEARNING from it?

"RIGHT NOW, RIGHT HERE" did not happen overnight -- it's been building for DECADES. You, Buster Brown, and so many others need to grasp that. Dems control only SIX statehouses, which is an historic low. How you gonna fix that? What's your master plan for winning back the crucial electoral votes of PA, MI and WI? Hmmm?

[JHan]

147. what makes you think I am not aware of the impact of history ?

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING, in my comments suggested that.

Yes I am very aware, I am LIVING the awareness right now , of stupidity and rank foolishness.

I don't need to be told about the legacy of american foreign policy, acquiescence, naivety or cravenness that is sometimes a feature of politics.

You don't get it - the OP's post is the most irrelevant post in the history of irrelevant posts

When I go to sleep at night I am not thinking of iran fucking contra, I am thinking of a blown up deficit in a couple years, I am worried about a seemingly trigger happy president who tweets dumb shit with serious repercussions at 6 am in the morning, I am thinking of friends who are afraid of coming back to the states or leaving for fear of being detained because of their religion and or ethnicity or their fucking name, I am afraid of the heritage foundation vultures swarming the whitehouse who will undo every bit progress first started under FDR, decades of liberalism gone, norms and values gone, and none of them will care about the outcomes of their sick philosophies. I worry about the spread of toxic populism, the fact that this president lied about jobs coming back and has no real plans or understanding of the unique challenges of this new century, MY CENTURY. I worry about the environment, and climate change and an asshole who heads the EPA and the other asshole who won't flinch if people die in this country because of poor health coverage.

but no, let's talk about what Dems did during iran contra.

[SMC22307]

157. Meh.

Try to grasp how pivotal the '80s were and how this unraveling has been building for DECADES, when the Democratic Party shifted right, abandoned labor, and stopped being the opposition party. We're all paying for it now. I imagine the older members of this board understand the magnitude of losing PA, MI and WI, perhaps someday you will, too. What's your solution to win back those electoral votes?

Let's move away from the far-reaching scandal known as Iran-Contra, shall we, since your knickers are in such a twist over the mere mention of it. Let's focus on something more recent, like Democrats rolling over during the selection of Dubya and entirely too many Democrats giving he and his merry band of warmongers the OK on Iraq, both touched on in the "irrelevant" OP. Still too far back for you?

Seriously, poo-poing Iran-Contra. Only on DU!

[JHan]

158. Naw you keep thinking about past fevers from long ago and keep misconstruing my point..

.. merely because I do not entertain the OP's view which remains irrelevant to the issues we face.

You're also free to assume that my youth means I don't understand the significance of history.

But you'll be wrong: I damn sure understand History - here's what I understand:

1- the history that gave us the outcome of the 2000 elections (NADER) which gave us Dubya and his administration which deceived millions upon millions upon millions of Americans, including congress, and sank trillions in the sands of Iraq. Dubya also gave us a supreme court justice who later voted for citizens united - which democrats oppose, not to mention the other republican appointees to the court who gave us the hobby lobby decision,

2) That the progressive vs establishment is a false dichotomy designed to fracture the party.

3) That the broad tent party of the Democrats has been in existence since FDR and the right has always found ways to divide and splinter groups under this tent for political gain - with success.

I'm sure there's another thread where we can talk about Iran Contra, and the first Iraq War, and the second, etc. I'm sure if Trump wants to go to war, those issues will become relevant again, but the choices were stark and clear last year. Bringing up the spectre of Iran Contra and all the other coded accusations from decades ago to excoriate a party in the present, is rank foolishness. I shouldn't need to explain why it is rank foolishness.

[SMC22307]

162. Be sure to let us know...

how far back we're *allowed* to go, mmmkay? I'm going to bed. Can't wait for the answer in the a.m.

Seriously, if you can't connect the foreign policy dots of the '80s to where we are today, there may be no hope for you.

Approximately 24,000 registered Democrats voted for Nader in Florida, whereas about 308,000 voted for George Dubya Fucking Bush. Your crusade-like blame is misplaced.

[JHan]

167. Nighty night, sweet dreams!

[betsuni]

171. LEARN FROM HISTORY.

Can't stop laughing.

[JHan]

179. Lol.

[SMC22307]

293. "Iran-Contra taught the Republicans that they can get away with anything"...

from StevieM's post, who is dead-on in that assessment. Dems rolling over is one of the reasons we're in this clusterfuck. Hilarious!

[betsuni]

299. I blame Republicans.

Watergate was the Scarlett O'Hara moment when Republicans vowed never to be hungry again: they would co-opt evangelical Christianity, establish think tanks to produce alternative facts and dream up grand plans of global conquest, fill courts and school boards and local governments with conservatives, do whatever it takes to create a powerful Republican world where they alone are the masters.

[SMC22307]

301. And Democrats who didn't fight that are off the hook in your world?

WOW.

[betsuni]

302. Who? I don't know who you're talking about.

Names names. Who didn't fight? How do you know?

[betsuni]

422. Seems to be a deafening silence in response.

[charlyvi]

322. Actually, when Ford pardoned Nixon

Republicans learned they can get away with anything. That was the original sin. Iran Contra just reinforced it.

[SMC22307]

324. Very good point.

But, hey, don't go too far back now... some can't handle it!

[charlyvi]

326. IKR! But sometimes it needs to be reinforced

All this shit didn't just start with Bernie/Hillary/Trump. We need some context.

[SMC22307]

331. But nothing matters since certain posters were still in their Buster Browns!

Thanks for your input.

[StevieM]

186. Here is a thread I recently started about Iran-Contra and its relation to what is happening today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028548992

[JHan]

192. Thanks, that's a rational analysis.

There's much I can think of that's responsible for the state of our politics today, going back decades - even starting before Iran Contra - but Iran-Contra was a water shed moment in "post truth politics".

[SMC22307]

294. "Iran-Contra taught the Republicans that they can get away with anything."

You are dead on in that assessment. Kinda sad that it's flying over the head of so many in this thread...

[StevieM]

185. Let's not forget the destruction of Acorn.

Also, here is a recent thread I wrote about Oliver North and Iran-Contra.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028548992

[SMC22307]

296. Ugh, yes. PERFECT example.

Forty years of good work destroyed by an edited 20-minute O'Keefe video, and Democrats rolled.

I kicked your Ollie/Iran-Contra thread. It'll sink like a stone because according to some, it's just too far back!

[pat_k]

188. Thanks.

I am mystified by the idea that events of 30 years ago are so "ancient" that they can be dismissed as irrelevant.

The unfolding of events from the Watergate era forward -- the "ancient history" of my adolescence -- brings us to where we are today.

The first world war, depression, second world war, post war, Vietnam era -- all that "ancient history" -- is the arc that brought us to Nixon. And knowledge of the arc of events and political dynamics gave us perspective and context. What we learned in classes was brought alive by memories of our parents and grandparents. History predating living memory has a very different character.

The "players" that were around during that ancient Iran Contra scandal are still around. And they have brought with them a set of beliefs that shaped decisions 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and last year. For example, during Iran Contra, Barney Frank expressed fears that Democrats would look "too prosecutorial" if they went after Reagan. Knowing that helps me understand how deeply entrenched the Party's fear of "backlash" is. And that knowledge gives me perspective. I keep banging away at the brick wall of beltway group think because I know it is a wall that will not come down easily.

I can't imagine what things look like from a point of view that has no interest in events that occurred prior to ones own adolescence.

[JHan]

197. Absolutely no one in this thread is saying to ignore history...

Of course history unfolds and impacts current events. I can find strands of history that have shaped politics today going back a hundred years.

Your OP made a specific allegation which places blame at the foot of democrats for deceit engaged by Republicans. The system doesn't always work as it should, sometimes it fails because politicians are flawed, or uninformed, or deceived or craven. There are many things I wish the Democratic Party did differently, but I fail to see the benefits of flagellation at this point - and that is my beef.

And if you're holding politicians hostage to beliefs they held years ago, you're holding them to a high standard we don't even hold for ourselves.

People change, circumstances change, stances shift - that is reality. So Barney Frank said what he said back then, what is the relevance to Barney Frank's position today? And what would you rather the democrats do RIGHT NOW to combat Trump? Is it that you think Democrats are currently too soft on him? Are you seeing parallels in the way North was treated then and Trump is treated now? And what are your solutions if you believe that to be so? What should they do instead that they are not doing now?

Don't conflate my( And others) wanting you to connect a thread with the present situation as us not caring about history.

[pat_k]

205. Someone who can rationalization doing nothing to stop torture...

... can rationalize doing nothing on just about anything.

The leadership will not move to Impeach Trump when he starts torturing until they acknowledge how immoral their efforts to stop the momentum to impeach of Bush were.

They will not stand up and filibuster Gorsuch until they recognize how irrational their rationalizations for refusing to filibuster Alito were.

There are many other examples, but the bottom line is that re-examining the "old fights" is ABSOLUTELY relevant to today's political world.

[JHan]

207. What are you going to impeach him on right now as of this moment?

Yes , we all want to see him impeached...

Including Maxine Waters, and other democrats.. but Which party currently dictate the rules, including which avenues of investigation we take?

So what do you want to see the democrats do right now, given the tools at their disposal?

[pat_k]

212. For starters...

Write their own ACA replacement billL Medicare for all. Get out there and talk it up. Make the case for electing Dems in two years to get it done.

Write a resolution to create a select committee to investigate the "Russiagate" charges, get every single Dem to co-sponsor it, and get the leadership out there making the case for this single action with a single voice.

Have the leadership start "herding the cats" and get commitments to filibuster Gorsuch, and any other DT SCOTUS nominee (the only exception being if Trump nominates Garland). This was Obama's seat to fill.

The thing is, it is NOT about what they can do for us. It's about proposing REAL change, making the case for it, and calling on us to join them to get it done. The answer to 'you don't have the votes to do xxxx" is "So what? Xxxx will make a REAL difference in the lives of countless Americans, and here's why. Let's make it happen. Elect Dems in 2018."

[JHan]

237. that doesn't answer the question about impeachment:

Because in order for impeachment proceedings to begin, we need investigations which the Democrats want but the Republicans - with the exception of Graham and McCain - don't want.

But I do agree about the Democrats coming up with a better plan but you sound like you think they aren't working - they are.

Even Sanders has shifted the conversation to saving the ACA as is and fixing it, rather than attacking it which he has done in the past. I happen to agree that we need to work towards universal health care coverage but let's be clear - Obamacare changed the baseline, millions of Americans now see coverage as a right. This is already change.

And I have confidence in Ellison and Perez to get things going. Everything I've heard from the democrats suggest they're aware of 2018, and it's critical they harness the organic energy fermenting against Trump right now.

[pat_k]

276. I have answered the question.

We do not (yet) have "torture in plain sight" -- something that every member of Congress had an absolute duty to fight to stop -- as we did with Bush. But when DT does openly cross such a line, if the leadership has not overcome all the rationalizations that kept them from doing their duty and fighting to impeach Bush, those same rationalizations will stop them from fighting to impeach Trump.

He has already declared his support for Torture. I have no doubt that he will start torturing in the name of the American people -- and doing it openly.

It's not just about coming up with an advocating a this or that "plan." It's about being clear about a vision -- the goal, having the confidence that WE can get there, and enlisting the American people in making it happen. Confidence breeds confidence. Taking on the naysayers within our own party is critical. We can't just be against DT. We can't just be trying to "stop" the RW. We must pit our dreams against the DT dystopian nightmare.

[JHan]

200. And secondly, your accusations that Democrats have not made the moral case for issues...

is too much far out to be believed.

Tonight on Brian Williams, a Republican Strategist made the point that Obamacare is now the "third rail", just as Social Security became the "third rail" - in other words, Obamacare is now the baseline. Millions of Americans will not accept anything less than Obamacare. This was unthinkable 10 years ago, when the status quo was very different: And it means we have had yet another shift towards expansion of healthcare, where Americans actually envision healthcare as a right and are demanding their representatives fix what ails ACA rather than repeal it -

Every single backward decision over the past couple decades that has imperiled our politics is the result of Republican shenanigans. The same Barney Frank you mention, was responsible for Dodd Frank, which Trump now wants to get rid of- Dodd Frank wasn't perfect but it was bothersome enough for the same one percenters to complain about it because, in the words of Trump , "my nice friends can't get loans"..

So sure, go on, see Democrats as the problem.

[pat_k]

203. I didn't say "Democrats" I said "Democratic Leadership"...

There is a big difference.

Who's worse, a criminal committing a crime, or a cop that looks the other way?

Criminals are the "bad guys."
Cops are supposed to be the "good guys."
Criminals committing crimes is not upsetting. It's expected.
When you REALLY get into trouble is when the cops turn a blind eye and fail to do what they need to do to stop the criminals.

And in the political world, corporatists/reactionaries are the "bad guys."
Democrats are supposed to be the "good guys"
Corporatist/reactionaries doing destructive things is not upsetting. It's expected.
The reason we are REALLY in trouble now is that the the Democratic leadership has done worse than turn a "blind eye" to executive branch high crimes. They went out of their way to stop the momentum that was building within the caucus for impeachment. They have worked to "nip in the bud" numerous efforts toward real change that were gaining steam in within the party. That is not leading on the issues. That is being an obstructionist.

Serpico was a good cop. He fought for reform of the police depart.

i'm a good democrat. I'm fighting for reform of the party.

[JHan]

206. I don't understand that assessment..

In my view, there's already an understanding baked in democratic principles that health care is important, and wages are important. We also need a strong economy, so you have your pro-growth democrats who believe the best way to secure the safety net is to ensure growth - which means not demonizing to the hilt "corporations". The key is funneling gains to wages so corporations cannot be allowed to run roughshod, after all CEO's will always want to improve their bottom line. There's already an awareness of this among democrats.

Change may not have happened as quickly as you would have liked, but it happened. And if there wasn't republican obstruction over the last 6 years, much more would have been done - Obama's second term defined obstructionist behavior - by republicans.

The Democratic Party is not perfect, no political institution is perfect, but if we fail at keep our alliances strong, we fail period. At this point, the Democratic Party is the only party defending our institutions, our liberty and our constitution. Our enemies are the RW ideologues itching to unleash their revanchism by destroying progress made ( KEY word there is PROGRESS MADE).

What you perceive as me ignoring history is me prioritizing what matters post at this point - and I have never expected perfectionism in politics. It is a distraction, because while we flagellate ourselves and circle the wagons, the republicans take power.

And I am also a good democrat who understands the painful process of reform.

[pat_k]

210. Who said anything about demonizing corporations?

Advocating consumer protections and financial system protections does not require any "demonization."

Advocating a progressive tax system doesn't require demonization.

And working for incremental change doesn't have to mean shutting everyone up on the REAL end point. For example, just because you are working to write/pass a bill that moves us closer to universal health care doesn't mean you have to shut up about the real goal -- universal health care.

Unfortunately, we have people in positions of leadership in the party who do not see it that way. Who want their outspoken colleagues to "shut up" about things like Universal Health Care, or shut up about taking serious steps to end mass incarceration, or shut up about restoring the right to vote for felons, or .. there are many, many examples.

Revisiting past mistakes is all about challenging the beltway group think that feeds silence and inaction on things they should be vocally fighting for right now.

For example, every single time someone says Repeal/Replace Obamacare, leaders in the party should be saying "Hell yes! Replace it with Universal Health Care!" And make the case. Loud and proud.

[JHan]

241. You said it,

You labeled them

"And in the political world, corporatists/reactionaries are the "bad guys."
Democrats are supposed to be the "good guys" "

but if I misinterpreted what you said, then okay, we have no argument there.

And working for incremental change doesn't have to mean shutting everyone up on the REAL end point. For example, just because you are working to write/pass a bill that moves us closer to universal health care doesn't mean you have to shut up about the real goal -- universal health care.

Shutting everyone up? Yes there have been heated discussions on single payer because it is complicated. There are many different universal care coverage options, different models we can look at. We also have a unique system here, compared to parliamentary democracies in the world, where States must get on the same page with whatever single payer health care coverage plan we wish to implement.

There are several things we MUST do and CONTINUE to do

1) argue the benefits of taxation for those in higher income brackets ( which we al ready do). Better access to healthcare means better quality of life and higher productivity.

2) Investing back in the commons, emphasizing the importance of a social dividend and starting the conversation about a Universal Basic Income.

3) Removing corporate welfare - which despite a high rate of 34% - still exists - while acknowledging that we're in competition with countries with a significantly lower tax rate than ours. Reform the corp tax code so it makes sense.

and we can think of other things re infrastructure, schools etc . Democrats are typically on the right side of these issues, even Obama wanted some infrastructure spending going but he faced obstruction from REPUBLICANS.

[pat_k]

274. All good

Last edited Sun Mar 12, 2017, 07:30 AM - Edit history (3)

I think the only thing we are talking past each other on is the fact that the leadership doesn't just refuse to talk about getting "big things" like universal health care, etc. They have been actively "sitting on" the more vocal members of the caucus in an effort to "reign in" efforts to garner co-sponsors and publicize the existence of bills like Conyers' on health care. They believe it is for the "good of the party" -- that we "can't do it so stop rocking the boat, there will be 'backlash.'" They are horribly mistaken.

I will continue to challenge that attitude, along with so many of the other irrational rationalizations that are invoked for inaction and silence in so many areas, until my dying breath. They must talk about the "big stuff." And they need to engage the American people in making it happen.

"WE can do this" is a clarion call that people respond to. The leadership is far too wrapped up in figuring out what "they" (the right) will "let" us do. They've forgotten that the way to get things done is to advocate -- loudly and proudly -- for your ideas. That is how you inspire and engage the public, build the political will, and enlist voters to put you in office to accomplish those things that will make a REAL difference in their lives. And you don't need to have nailed down the way to get to get there to do it. Define the goal, build the political will to commit to achieving it, and then you can hammer out the how.

I am being attacked because I "hate Democrats." That is so far off the mark it is laughable. I love this party. So many of the people who call themselves Democrats are amazing heroes. If I did not believe the leadership was capable of getting past the group think that has kept them from taking on the tough fights they must take on if they ever hope to win unbeatable majorities, I would have given up long, long, ago.

Am I 'upset' with them? You bet. When someone you love is doing themselves self-harm, it is extremely upsetting. Like someone whose loved one is an addict, I am compelled to do everything in my power to save them from themselves. You don't give up on 'family."

[JHan]

285. Ok. I get that..

I figured we want the same things. I just don't think the Dems are the enemy right now, and I get wary of attacks that paint Democrats as the enemy.

"I think the only thing we are talking past each other on is the fact that the leadership doesn't just refuse to talk about getting "big things" like universal health care, etc. They have been actively "sitting on" the more vocal members of the caucus in an effort to "reign in" efforts to publicize the existence of bills like Conyers on health care forward. They believe it is for the "good of the party" -- that we "can't do it so stop rocking the boat, there will be 'backlash.'" They are horribly mistaken. "

We're on the same page on a lot of things, but this is is what concerns me and why I'm wary of directing anger towards Democrats or tarring them for past sins, hence my relevancy comment:

The Overton window has been so dragged to the right that hatred of immigrants, the building of a wall, travel bans that amount to a muslim ban and an immigrant crime registry are now directives from a president of the United States and either downplayed or rationalized by pundits and endorsed by millions of voters. The status quo under Obama, that was so attacked last year in anti establishment arguments ( which is why I always considered those arguments so dangerous), has now been replaced by Trump's status quo - the dismantling and defunding of agencies which improve quality of life.

I understood what Obama meant when he implored us to not make perfect the enemy of good, because we were on track to get the things I would like to see: A healthcare system providing even greater coverage, undoing GOP suppression of the vote and gerrymandering, reversing Citizens United, valuing our partnerships in the world, ending corporate welfare, restricting religious imposition in our public schools, ensuring the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes etc, reproductive rights and gender rights.

I do think Democrats need to be more aggressive, but there are also democrats in deep red states making tough political calculations and their elections are coming up pretty soon. I agree with Keith Ellison when he said he wants the party to be the party of local government, we've been far too focused on Presidential elections, and that tunnel vision ( and stupidity) is partly responsible for Democrats abandoning President Obama in a census year in 2010.

So support at the grassroots level is critical, either through volunteering, funds and activism plus Trump is the perfect foil to illustrate the contrast between us and republicans:

- we don't demonize immigrants.
- we believe in the importance of a social dividend and we're the only party to really talk about income disparity - hell Donald Trump believes wages are too high.
- we believe in expansion of health care
- we believe in regulations that protect and conserve the environment: clean air and clean rivers and clean water.
- we believe in the benefits of taxation as a moral good that sees to the good health of the whole.
- we believe citizens should have a path to prosperity through improving the quality and standards of public schools, easing debt students are confronted with ( complicated task but doable) etc etc heck my ideal is a UBI but I know that conversation ain't happening anytime soon. We need majorities in congress to set policy in an aggressive way - we MUST give our presidents FDR majorities to get FDR like policies.

And we have to keep repeating those things over and over as the moral bankruptcy of the Trump administration and the GOP continues to be exposed.

What I don't want us to get mired in are petty squabbles and cutting our noses to spite our faces, we can't afford to be demoralized, we already HAVE the better arguments.

EDIT: It's insane that we won the popular vote, that most Americans agree with us, and yet here we are. I can't help but think that the cognitive errors Republicans have so successfully pitted against voters, have worked on liberals as well, where we engage in a type of self loathing that makes us ignore whatever hard work has been done by those toiling in the fields because it doesn't meet some arbitrary standard of perfection..

We're facing a well oiled well financed Koch brothers opposition and GOP machinations that disenfranchise countless americans, yet we bash ourselves, as though we're to blame, even tearing down our decent presidents by tearing apart their legacy and bashing our politicians, often needlessly and for the slightest of reasons.

It just strikes me as inane and self defeating.

[SMC22307]

300. Good post. My awareness started with seeing the body bags from Vietnam...

on the evening news, and trying, as a child, to process what was going on. Watergate was definitely another influence, watching my parents' reaction to Nixon, et al. So many influencing events between then and Dubya's selection, when I wanted to curl up in the fetal position knowing we were headed for some very dark days, thanks to new life breathed into those corrupt bastards from way back.

But, hey, it's all ancient history! Forward! Circle D!

[SMC22307]

141. And that diminishes it... how? (n/t)

[JHan]

145. if you want to whip the democratic party over some shit over 3 decades ago here.. hell..

why not 60 years ago? Or 80 years ago? Why even stop - why not go through the annals of time and pick and choose your grudges to lambaste a party in 2017.

Don't expect me to join you, I'm in my 20's and things are critical right now, right here - I got 99 problems and the op's issues ain't any of them.

[SMC22307]

148. Newsflash: It *ain't* all about you... things are CRITICAL right now for all ages.

Try to grasp how pivotal the '80s were politically. Seriously. LEARN FROM HISTORY.

Right now the Democratic Party controls a record low number of states. Do you think that magically happened overnight? At the national level we lost PA, MI and WI, FFS. You may be satisfied with those results, but I'm not. At what point do you think the party should be "lambasted"? Perhaps when we lose control of ALL states?

I'll say it again: Anyone who reduces anger over Iran-Contra to a "grudge" is not someone to be taken seriously.

[JHan]

149. I just answered all this in the other post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8768285

[herding cats]

211. I was not of age to vote then, but I was alive at least.

What you're missing is how many people who were of age to vote then ignored Iran-Contra. It wasn't even a blip on their radar. Really, those are the people your, and the OP's, anger should be directed at. You're all about the Democratic leadership, but where we're the people in the streets raising hell? Who was there holding their feet to the fire? It's the fault of all the people in this country who chose to turn a blind eye. They didn't care to push the issue, even if you did. Where was the angry majority of people? Be honest, it was a bad time in our history where people were accepting of the extreme Rightwing ideology. That's where real grassroots activism comes into play, and was needed but was absent at the time. Beating up supporters of the opposition party some 30 years later has no real merit. Really, there's zero good to come from something like this decades later. That ship sailed long ago. Yes, we can learn from history, but it's not the fault of people not of age then. It's the fault of people who were adults back then. I'm sorry, but that's just a fact.

Seriously, think about it. It's foolish at best, to beat up people who had zero power to effect change back then. I understand you're still upset, I'll be upset over Bush and Trump era travesties for ages, but I hope I don't attack people who were minors when it took place later down the road just because I can't accept that people of my, personal generation messed up. That's just divisive, and unhelpful.

[ProfessorPlum]

270. You two are both blind to why trying to fight Trump with Democratic politicians

Is like trying to win a swordfight with a limp noodle.



I expect everyone, including the Democratic politicians you think are so precious that they can't stand any criticism, even criticism that is essentially cheerleading them to actually try to fight Trump, to fight against this tyrannous regime. But I expect people with a lot more power than I have to fight even that much HARDER. It is their responsibility. And pointing out that we want them to win in their struggle against fascism (not just keep their powder dry and complain about losing later) should not be a controversial position.

[bravenak]

271. Funny how the folks with the least wins think they have all the answers on winning

[LiberalLovinLug]

289. Funny how the folks that keep losing...House,....Senate.....SCOTUS......State governorships...

Refuse the help of the wing of the party that has consistently been correct ...about WMD, Iraq, Deregulation of Wall st., in the past, and sided with the majority that wanted a public option for the ACA and background checks for gun ownership.

But lets just keep believing in the Third Way corporatists in the DLC that have been steering the ship for decades now decidedly right shall we? Snubbing the progressive wing's choice as the head of the DNC by running at the last minute the high profile establishment backed Perez and voting him in was just the latest. That's not a hill to stand on, but its an example of the fact that the progressive wing is never even given the reigns, despite being right in hindsight, almost every time.

Isn't it about time to trust the people? Enough of the chicken littles and debbie downers and the no we can'ts. Build it and they will come.

That's the difference, some have no faith that we could actually do anything more than react to Republican policies, stomp our feet. Because we dare not upset the applecart by introducing our own policies if someone on some message board might call them "far left". (Even though they are simply policies adopted by every other western democracy)

[pat_k]

397. "Build it and they will come."

Says it all in a nutshell.

[Cha]

97. Excellent, JH.. and Just to be Clear about the "extreme left".. "not" giving us trump as the OP ..

opines.. BULLSHIT.


Jill Stein spoiled the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton

Jill Stein's voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin helped Donald Trump win the White House

snip//

For those who worried that insufficient liberal support for Hillary Clinton would wind up electing Donald Trump, you were right.

According to a tweet from Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman on Thursday, the margin of difference separating the president-elect from his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in the three “Blue Wall” states — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan — was less than the total number of votes received by Green Party nominee Jill Stein in each of those states:

More..
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/02/jill-stein-spoiled-the-2016-election-for-hillary-clinton/

Link to tweet

[JHan]

113. they should collectively slap themselves.

cuz the truth hurts.

[Cha]

114. They should most certainly give a shit.. but they don't.

[betsuni]

106. +2

[sheshe2]

142. +1000

Keep it up!

[haele]

325. The point is to get more of us to run locally to get in. Not forcing ones already in to vote no.

Look, you're still playing catch up if you want the Democrats to become more "pure" once they're on the national level. By the time they've been elected as a House member, or a Senator, or heck, even a Governor, they're already locked into the politics that got them there - which means money and incrementalism.

Politics is the art of negotiation, not a football game. People forget that. It's a mix of balancing local needs and philosophies to create a greater federal good for everyone.
Republicans have forgotten that in their mad tactic of, as a party, marching lockstep into the embrace of Fascism so they can punish Democrats for the New Deal and Nixon.

To defeat the current Teapublicans, we need to 1) Work hard to nurture and elect more local candidates to unseat the Teaparty groundswell that took over back in 2010, and 2) Work hard to ensure these local candidates understand civics and the way governing works, rather than playing a game for money.
Which means we have to find a common ground between the people who are dedicated to specific projects and causes, and people who have to work with the world as it is, rather than the way they want it to be.
And we move forward together.

But if we keep saying to ourselves "Well, Hillary" or "Well, Bernie"... If we keep fighting the last election and talking about the surface what went wrong instead of what the reality is, where we need to be, where we should be, and where we can stand to start out from, we will keep losing.

We listen to our enemies and our detractors, fine. But we don't let them define us; we look for the weaknesses in their screeds for pick our arguments - if we choose to engage them rather than tell them "go on with your bad self and cry out about the world in your Snowglobe".

Because sure as everyone shits, I can tell you this - the Republicans and the Greens are both more comfortable in a world that is small and manageable for them, not a world that encompasses everyone, in which we have to deal fairly with EVERYONE.

If we as democrats ignore 70% of the electorate for a precious 15% and an equally concerning 15%, we will lose.
We do have to start out from the median, and show that we can chew gum and walk at the same time, that we can GOVERN instead of rule, that we can work with everyone for the whole instead of breaking down the country into disparate causes.

And lucky for us, polling and surveys show us that the middle is actually center-left.

I can start from there. Can you?

Yes, I'm a snowflake - part of nature and the rest of the Universe. Not some little bit of glitter protected with my buddies in a snowglobe.

Haele

[pat_k]

333. It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

1) Work hard to nurture and elect more local candidates to unseat the Teaparty groundswell that took over back in 2010, and
2) Work hard to ensure these local candidates understand civics and the way governing works, rather than playing a game for money.

Which means we have to find a common ground between the people who are dedicated to specific projects and causes, and people who have to work with the world as it is, rather than the way they want it to be.
And we move forward together.

Of course, that is all a given. But, it is also not enough. Transformation of the party from the top is also needed to inspire those who have opted out to opt back in.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8771920

It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[eniwetok]

433. In our system apathy is not an unreasonable response.

Unlike modern democratic systems that give people the right to vote their conscience and get some representation for what they believe... and where there's civic equality in the vote so each votes weighs the same in terms of representation... our system is not just and antidemocratic mess, but primitive in comparison. In lacking those features the system provides very real DISincentives to voting... up to 49.9% of the votes mean nothing in a winner take all election... more in the case of the so-called spoiler effect where a split majority can lead to a minority candidate winning. In our system the those representing the MINORITY can govern... as we seen with the Bush and Trump Juntas... and with the antidemocratic Senate. Then there's the fact that ultra tiny minorities can block all reform. In this case corporate power can fill the vacuum. We're all brought up to believe our system was the work of genius, but it really makes a mockery of the concept of self-government. On some level the people know that yet can't reconcile that with the fact our system is supposed to be that great. In our system apathy is not an unreasonable response.

[pat_k]

443. I would LOVE to see instant runoff/ ranked choice voting in primaries!!

State parties control the method for selecting the nominee. If State Democratic Parties started implementing ranked choice it would put IRV/choice voting into the national spotlight. Once in the public mind, It just makes so much sense I think we would see it quickly spread to local, than state, and eventually fed elections. This is another of those areas that keeping the ultimate goal-- IRV/ranked choice at every level -- firmly in the spotlight as we work to implement within our own party.

A girl can dream anyway!

I'd also love to see more states join the National Popular Vote compact!
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com

There are arguments that it may not withstand constitutional challenge, but even just having it in place and struck down would spur action forward on amending the constitution. And that is of course the ultimate goal... one of those goals we keep the spotlight on as we do whatever we can to move toward that goal.

[eniwetok]

453. We need DEMOCRATIC elections... and IRV is crucial...

I started a thread about it http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028735280

Dems need to walk and chew gum at the same time. NPV is a longshot... with big problems I've already mentioned. But what Dems SHOULD also be doing is taking a long term... 50 year view of finally making the Constitution democratic. But the amendment formula is so absurd it makes the Constitution virtually reform proof except for minor tweaks... and demographic trends are making the system more antidemocratic. Where once the population differential between the largest and smallest state was 17ish to 1, it's now about 70 to 1... and it gotten to the point states with less than 4% of the US population can block any reform... that is if an amendment ever gets sent to the states. To do so it has to run the gauntlet of the antidemocratic Senate where 18% of the population gets 52% of the seats.

If Dems are to stand for something it must be DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY of elections and government before an antidemocratic Constitution that is robbing the majority of the right to govern. And the first step is to DEFINE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES... something virtually NO Dem wants to do. People deserve representation... not states because in the end this is nothing but a vote weighting/dilution scheme... similar to how the Jim Crow South negated the Black vote.

Of course the other option to reform is to shock the system... say that Cal, the state most DISenfranchised by our system threatens secession unless the Constitution is reformed. This may be the ONLY alternative since I don't think that 50 year strategy would work.

Back in 1787 the Framers we charged with fixing the broken Articles... and realized they could not be fixed. They proposed a new system but to propose it meant violating the amendment process in the Articles... the supreme law of the land. It's time we got up the intellectual courage to critique our system. Maybe progressive activists can have a Constitutional Convention propose a modern system for discussion should that day Cal DOES threaten secession.

[pat_k]

458. YES!!

Achieving big things, like revamping constitutional institutions that no longer serve us, does not necessarily require a step-by-step 50-year plan (or any specified length plan). If we find ways to confront the electorate with questions that promote clarity and consensus on some of the basic principles that define us as a nation, the momentum to reform institutions that are antithetical to those basic principles can build very quickly.

Currently our policy debates are driven by questions like: "Can a proposal to raise taxes by X pass? Do we have the votes to apply those dollars to Y?" (where Y is some modest program that completely fails to address a massive underlying problem).

Those types of questions are all well and good, but they MUST NOT be the ONLY questions. We need to pull debates on policy out of swamp of "this is where we are and the only thing that that is remotely possible is making this little tweak." Of course "practicalities" must be considered, be we are so lost in the swap of practicality that we have completely lost our bearings on fundamental principles.

The types of questions we must be confronting the electorate with are things like: "As a nation, are we committed to the principle of X? In what ways are we failing to manifest our commitment to X?"

It's off the topic of constitutional reform, but my post on the need to put universal health care front and center provides an example.

Re: NPV. I agree it's a longshot and flawed, but working within our states to pass the legislation has value. It provides a context for a "rubber meets the road" decision. To take a position -- whether to support or oppose signing onto the compact -- elected officials and members of the public must answer the question "Should every eligible voter in the nation be given an equal voice, regardless of which state they live in?"

If one answers that question Yes, one is making a commitment to a vital basic principle. And commitment to that principle necessarily has implications beyond solving the "electoral college" problem. The electoral college is an outgrowth of inequities that pervade the system. There are undoubtedly other concrete proposals we could be working to implement that would drive the public discussion in the right direction. NPV is just something that is already 'in the works' and therefore can be capitalized on.

[eniwetok]

485. are you really thinking this through?

Achieving big things, like revamping constitutional institutions that no longer serve us, does not necessarily require a step-by-step 50-year plan (or any specified length plan).

We have a 230 year history where NONE of the antidemocratic aspects of our system has EVER been reformed. Here's a breakdown...
http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/2012/11/do-those-27-amendments-prove-we-can.html
keep in mind that when I used the term democratic... it's in two difference senses... one is allowing more to vote... vs a system where votes are weighed differently... allowing the minority to govern.

When I talk about a 50 year strategy that means a systematic breakdown of the obstacles to reforming our system.. one being changing the amendment formula so it's based on PEOPLE not states. Ultimately the ONLY way to make our system democratic is to abolish state suffrage... the source and that concept is so intertwined with the fabric of the Constitution... like the Articles... it might be impossible to reform playing by the rules.

There's a book written a few years back called the Frozen Republic... and that's what we are. As for: "The electoral college is an outgrowth of inequities that pervade the system.

No sure what inequities you speak of. Is it that the whites in the slaves states would not have much say in the new system?

If one reads through the minutes of the so-called Constitutional Convention... one comes across this little tidbit from Madison... July 19th 1787. Madison argues for a popular vote, but...

The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

[pat_k]

486. My only point is that absent clarity and sufficient consensus on basic principles, there...

... is no political will to take ANY step toward making those principles manifest.

Of course it could take 25, or 50, or 100 years. Or there could be a snowballing effect that moves things faster.

[eniwetok]

489. there's will be no snowball effect...

I've been debating liberal Dems on Usenet, here and at other "progressive" forums for close to 20 years. I know that a key obstacle is a Civic Religion that holds we have the best system in the world... and we mere mortals dare not question it.

Dems SHOULD be the party that promotes democratic values. Yet it just doesn't happen here in the US. We NEED to know why... just as we NEED to know why voting rates in the US are pathetic... about 35% of the voting age population (VAP) votes in off year elections. This means Newt's 1994 "Republican Revolution" represented the "consent" of only about 18% of the VAP.

We can expect some Dem reaction to the Trump Junta... but when you claim it may take up to 100 years to make the most basic reforms to our system... and that's akin to my saying it there should be a 50 year strategy. But THAT IS A CONDEMNATION OF OUR SYSTEM. Other western nations can deal with the defects in their system... yet we can't. Why? Because the Constitution is a straightjacket as were the Articles of Confederation. The founding generation was not bound by any Civic Religion and had the courage to stratagize how to reform the unreformable.

We lack that courage. Maybe you're different.

[pat_k]

493. I am an optimist at heart.

The contradiction between 1) the principles/beliefs we subscribe to (principle of equal representation and belief in the power of self-government) and 2) reality (unequal representation and barriers to ACTUALLY self-governing) is stark. it's a contradiction so stark it cries out for something to be done. unfortunately, it is also a contradiction that few give a passing thought to. I have the naive notion that if we can figure out ways to confront people with the contradiction, the impulse to act will naturally follow (and could be channeled). Of course, nothing is that simple. As a country we are pretty good at blinding ourselves to many of these types of "elephant in the room" problems.

Of course, being an optimist, I am unlikely to give up making some sort of an effort to shine a spotlight.

[eniwetok]

509. where's the evidence Dems believe in....

The contradiction between 1) the principles/beliefs we subscribe to (principle of equal representation and belief in the power of self-government) and 2) reality (unequal representation and barriers to ACTUALLY self-governing) is stark.

Where's the evidence Dems believe in either equal representation or self-government? (The latter assumes there can never be government run by those who represent the minority) This is my point.... Dems... especially liberal Dems wear democracy on their sleeves as the Right does the flag. We see this is all those liberal groups that have democracy in their name like Democracy For America. Yet when one looks at their actual positions NONE that I've found think democracy is more than mere tweaks to an antidemocratic system... and never making the system democratic. They maintain this intellectual dissonance by never bothering to define what democratic principle are. Not even a Bernie Sanders makes the connection that most of what he rails about is rooted in an antidemocratic system... one designed on class warfare giving the "minority of the opulent", to borrow Madison's term, a veto over the People. The entire system was designed to give elites a veto over the People at every turn. When the minority can govern or tiny minorities can block the majority, it's no wonder we have runaway corporate power and growing wealth inequality. It's made worse by a cowardly Democratic Party that after 35 years still has no response to starve the beast and other far Right outrages
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028774535

I can see how the Right has made progress in their strategic plan developed in the 70s to turn America into Amerika, but I'm not optimistic in the least about Dems can do the same. They get distracted by micro issues like trans bathrooms and can't even stand up for civic equality in the vote... something CRITICAL to the moral legitimacy of government itself. Our antidemocratic system poses a very real EXISTENTIAL THREAT to Dem programs... and still not a peep about real democratic reforms. They have no long range vision of where to take the US in 50 years so they develop no strategy to get there. Dems have no master strategy to regain control of runaway corporate power. Dems tend to have no plans past the next presidential elections... and it shows. My ONLY hope is to shock the system such as Cal threatening secession...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028380818

[treestar]

77. It is to get more voters

and we can do that and be part of it rather than sit back and judge the party leaders because they didn't do things our way. We can do things our way. No party leader, unless you become one yourself, is going to do it your way. Especially when they have experience you don't have.

[pat_k]

283. Dems will get more voters if the Dem leadership...

Last edited Fri Mar 10, 2017, 05:08 AM - Edit history (1)

... demonstrates courage of their convictions, lays out a vision of the big things we can accomplish, instills confidence that we can get it done, and enlists the help of the American people to elect Dems to make it happen.

[mcar]

52. +1000!

I don't get the constant Democrat bashing here.

[bravenak]

66. It's tiresome. It's why I'm trying to pull myself away from here

[mcar]

73. Haven't we learned anything?

Makes me sad, angry and fearful.

[bravenak]

86. Me too. I'm at the point of simply ignoring them and not giving them traction anymore

[SMC22307]

304. This thread is alive and well in spite of your "ignoring them"...

and not giving traction. Funny how that works.

[pat_k]

82. Bashing?

Last edited Thu Mar 9, 2017, 02:48 AM - Edit history (1)

If pointing out where they've gone astray, and working with members of Congress who have been doing the right thing to get the leadership to take a stronger, more effective, and WINNING stance, is "bashing" then I guess I'm guilty.

And I suppose Clinton was "bashing" when he pointed out that:

“When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody that's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right.”

I just want the leadership to really "hear" that message, and recognize that all their rationalizations for inaction over the years have done nothing but earn them a reputation as weaklings.

The thing is, Strong and Right is unbeatable. It's tragic that the leadership has gone out of it's way to suppress those in Congress who are acting on the courage of their convictions. I want them to stop doing that shit. We won't see change until there is some acknowledgement that what they have been doing -- things like fighting to stop the momentum for impeaching Bush, trying to keep Conyers from introducing Universal Health Care bill, and so on -- is INCREDIBLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, for all the reasons I stated.

[LiberalLovinLug]

110. thankyou pat_k for facing the storm paralized paranoid thinkers.

I too for the life of me do not understand this circling of the wagons and such a vitriol response to looking for ways to improve the party, make it more attractive to youth and to the progressive base...you know, those who are always proved right in hindsight 99% of the time. And even ......gasp.......thinking that maybe, just maybe there are things we can improve upon.

And THAT is how we ultimately destroy not only Trump, but the false hope of the extreme right.

[SMC22307]

160. Nothing brings out the claws more than...

pointing out how Woodchucks have gotten us to the disastrous situation we are today. Democrats fully control a record low SIX states all because of... Jill Stein! Or some such lazy thinking...

[ProfessorPlum]

273. excellent post, excellent point

and exactly spot on.

Voters respond to strength, to fight, to grit.

fuck, Trump has NOTHING except pure ape dominance - not morality, not brains, not truth, not policy, not anything - except that he acted strong. and that was enough to propel him to almost win the election.

Just display a drop of dominance - FDR and Truman (and even Kennedy and Johnson) showed us how.

FIGHT!!!

[Justice]

182. Amen Bravenak!

[JCanete]

214. you could say the same for people who want to spend their energy taking it to the "far left." Which

this post was responding to, wouldn't you say?

[pat_k]

218. I can't help but wonder how many...

Last edited Thu Mar 9, 2017, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)

... meetings at Senate or Congressional offices Bravenak's been in.

I wonder how many doors, for how many campaigns, the ones who are railing against me have knocked on.

Over the years, I've only had meetings with Lautenberg's, Corzine's, Menendez', and Conyers' senior staff , but I'm guessing that's more than most who are railing against the OP. I've only volunteered for a couple dozen campaigns, knocked on a few hundred doors, made a few hundred calls. That's a lot less than many on this board, but I'm guessing that it may be more than most who attack me on some strange assumption that I don't actually DO anything but complain.

thedeanpeople, an organization I co-founded, was only responsible for about 15,000 faxes going to congress advocating Alito filibuster and an objection to the Ohio electors, but who's counting?

[bravenak]

291. I wouldn't say it. We are fighting republicans constantly while they simply fight us

[JCanete]

298. that isn't true of this poster, and he's listed that over and over. It isn't true that nobody is

taking time away from the clear and present danger of a Trump Presidency to rant against people on the far left on this board either. If it's a problem its a problem people both sides of our own divide are perpetuating.

[SMC22307]

290. Get your head out of the sand.

We lost control of ALL branches of government and fully control a measly SIX states. This goes waaaay beyond Trump, but since you seem singularly focused -- go for it, "fight him." The rest of us will work on the party as a whole, at all levels of government... just don't get in the way.

[Cha]

386. All you have all insults.. maybe you just heed your own orders.

[Fast Walker 52]

92. can you agree we should reform to fight Trump HARD???

I have nothing against your post, but we have a GOP/Trump problem NOW.

[Cha]

17. And, trying to absolve jill stein's LIES and part ownership of trump.

[bravenak]

24. Jill Stein has never been a friend of the democratic party

[pat_k]

45. If you bothered to actually read anything I've posted...

If you bothered to actually read anything I've posted over the last dozen years, instead of having some knee jerk reaction, you wouldn't accuse me of being a green party apologist.

[Cha]

60. All you have are insults.."The "extreme left" didn't give us Trump" stein owns a Chunk of it..

Dangerous#1 Dangerous#2 Dangerous#3

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

they damn well will.. sitting on their millions while the Planet goes to shite and people go hungry and Immigrants banned from the US by "the bumbler" according the ever present idiot, jill stein

We will not shut up about the danger of the LIAR stein.

[pat_k]

67. Where did you get the bizarre idea...

... that I would want to "shut you up" about the damage done by Stein?

[Cha]

71. The "extreme left" was part owner of giving us trump.

[Warpy]

80. Stein would be completely irrelevant to this discussion

because her share of the vote was miniscule. She was a joke of a candidate who specialized in self satire.

Her only relevance is that she sued for recounts when the spineless leadership wouldn't do it.

[Cha]

89. You're wrong.. stein won by more in Michigan, Pennsylvania, & Wisconsin

than Hillary lost.

Jill Stein spoiled the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton

Jill Stein's voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin helped Donald Trump win the White House

snip//

For those who worried that insufficient liberal support for Hillary Clinton would wind up electing Donald Trump, you were right.

According to a tweet from Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman on Thursday, the margin of difference separating the president-elect from his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in the three “Blue Wall” states — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan — was less than the total number of votes received by Green Party nominee Jill Stein in each of those states:

More..
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/02/jill-stein-spoiled-the-2016-election-for-hillary-clinton/

Link to tweet

So please disabuse pushing that fallacy now.

[Warpy]

117. I'll say it again

The only vote you control is your own. Period.

Stein gained protest votes. In no way were those voters ever considering a vote for Trump or Clinton. Had Stein not been in the race, they'd have gone to Johnson or one of the other microparty candidates. Had no other candidates been in the race but Trump or Clinton, most of those voters would have abstained in the top race. Those votes never belonged to either Trump or Clinton and never would.

There is nothing you can do about this. You don't have to like it, but the only vote you control is your own.

Otherwise, it's like pundits and losing candidates in the other party complaining that if POC or women or poor folks or naturalized citizens or Democrats in general couldn't vote, their lousy candidates would have won. As if.

I'm sick of this blame game. If you want to know why Clinton isn't in the White House, look to James Comey, who is still sitting on everything he's got on Trump's Russian connections even after he torpedoed Clinton's campaign with innuendo less than a week before election day. You want to rail about a spoiler, pick him, not Stein or any of the other small party candidates, and certainly not the voters who had the gall to disagree with you and vote for one of them.

[Cha]

390. She LIED to get those votes... stein is a russian stooge.. if she were

a truth teller there would be no reason to vote for her damn a$$

[Hortensis]

19. Nailed it. Our outlooks and behaviors define

who we are politically, not our protestations of high mindedness. More than a little obviously also. I've put more people on full ignore today than the last month.

[bravenak]

22. Yeah, I see they feeling themselves today

All over the place, they are repeating these same talking points.

[Hortensis]

35. They need to feel shame for their part in electing 45,

and that's impossible. Like him, they want respect they can't have, and, of course, massive forgetfulness as soon as possible.

The best we can hope for is that, politically speaking, more people will see political groups for what we are based on our behaviors, rather than just swallow whole what we say we are.

[bravenak]

39. They will never feel bad for or admit their part in that

It would be nice to simply have some silence from those who refuse to assist in this fight againt a real oligarch. A putin puppet. I still think he was very involved in the russia hacking. I think people are starting to ignore those who refuse to help. We have a war to fight.

[Hortensis]

53. Silence would be great, and maybe they'll dislike

today's response enough to decide changing the subject is a good idea.

You're right, of course, that most will never admit their part in turning the nation over to right-wing extremists, but some may have some shame not compartmented entirely away yet.

I asked two or three times, who among them spent months adopting and spreading all those lies about Hillary's supposed corruption during the primary. My guess is if I searched back and looked most, but from out there... crickets. Nothing but crickets.

[bravenak]

61. Oh yeah. That gets me

All that faux innocense, the 'who me' nonsense, the 'I'm just trying to help' crap. I wonder what woke them back up.

[pat_k]

398. What "They" are you talking about?

It's sure not me.

[pat_k]

57. How many meetings with Members of Congress have you attended?

I have been involved in face-to-face lobbying efforts on voter suppression, objection to the Florda electors, and filibustering Alito. I've worked on efforts coordinated by John Conyers office on lobbying for co-sponsors for impeachment, health care, and the effort to get Senator to join in the objection to the Ohio electors and of Bush. I've worked with Bob Fertig of democrats.com. I had the pleasure of knowing and working with Tim Carpenter, founder of PDA (may he rest in peace). I am currently gearing up to lobby for a filibuster of Gorsuch. I can't count the number of State and Federal election campaigns I've volunteered for (all Democrats).

Yes. Our behaviors define us.

[treestar]

232. So did you tell them their failure to impeach

Reagan, Bush and Bush were such moral failures? What did they say?

[betsuni]

235. The "Do you know who am AM?" defense is hilarious.

[mcar]

247. Also assuming no one else here has done anything like it

[pat_k]

278. No assumption. Just wondering.

[pat_k]

277. No. Focused on eliciting, and challenging, the rationalizations for inaction.

[kacekwl]

29. There are many reasons why Hillary lost.

Blaming the loss on the extremism left (whatever that may be) and questioning why someone would post an opinion on a Democratic site seems too Rush like for me. (If you don't support US you can leave) I want to hear criticism and ideas to fix what has been happening as of late so improvement can be made.

[bravenak]

55. I want to hear ideas from people who know how to win and know who the enemy is.

[Gore1FL]

91. That would seem to support the OP's point then.

IT's pretty demonstrable that the "cower in the corner" approach hasn't been a winner and it hasn't taken the fight to the "enemy."

[bravenak]

100. And how has kicking Dems in the ass been a winner? It hasn't. The far left as not racked up

enough wins to force us to completely reform our party. When they do, they can expect more attention.

[Gore1FL]

102. I wish someone would have kicked them into useful action long before now.

I long for the Democrats to be Democrats again.

[bravenak]

104. I long for the far left to help or be silent.

Apoarentlywe have not been democrats by your view for years. Maybe you're not the model/archetype of democrats?

[Gore1FL]

107. Maybe I am just old enough to remember when Democrats didn't buy into Reaganomics.

Or simply old enough to remember when we stood for things.

[Go Vols]

134. +1

[pat_k]

217. Thank You Gore1FL

Last edited Sun Mar 12, 2017, 07:38 AM - Edit history (1)

I LOVE your DU name.

I wonder how many of the people who are railing against my post were in the chamber on Jan 6, 2001.

[SMC22307]

307. Hey, there are still six states to lose!

Just be a *model* Democrat and don't make any waves!

[SMC22307]

309. The graphic below, since 1995, is not something to be proud of.

Sure we got Bill and Obama, but look at the shift:



Damn, look at those six decades of mostly sold blue! What up with that? Perhaps if the dreaded "far left" had been listened to rather than the party go the Woodchuck/Third Way/Wall Street Suck-up route, that graphic would look a helluva lot better, and Drumpf's fat ass wouldn't be sitting in the White House.

[pat_k]

64. thanks!

I have NEVER given up on the Democratic Party and am always mystified by the tone of some of the responses. If I didn't believe they had it in them to "do the right thing" I would have packed it in a long time ago. If my views somehow make me "not a Democrat" then John Conyers is not a Democrat, Paul Wellstone was not a Democrat, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones was not a Democrat, Barbara Boxer is not a Democrat. Barbara Lee is not a Democrat...

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

[Cha]

75. And, one reason is "extreme left" jill stein's LIES who owns a chunk of trump...

Dangerous#1 Dangerous#2 Dangerous#3

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

they damn well will.. sitting on their millions while the Planet goes to shite and people go hungry and Immigrants banned from the US by "the bumbler" according the ever present idiot, jill stein

[George II]

33. Takeoff on that old Broadway hit: "A funny thing happened on the way to Democratic Underground".

[bravenak]

59. lol

[ProfessorPlum]

260. Your response blows chunks

Only people who really love the Democratic party give a crap whether it actually ever FIGHTS! both for itself and for the people of the country.

[bravenak]

266. They love it so much that they refuse to fight trump

[ProfessorPlum]

268. who is "they" ?

[bravenak]

269. If you dont know... That's too bad, cause I don't have time to repeat myself all day.

[ProfessorPlum]

275. you apparently have more than enough time

especially to try to silence people who want Democratic politicians to effectively fight the GOP, and to show the voters that they fight and are worthy of support, loyalty, and solidarity _because_ they fight.

There is no margin in being right if you don't fight for what is right. And my perception of the party is very similar to the OPs.

And frankly, we all know why they don't fight - they've been gently bought by the same forces that make the GOP so rabid in their support for the very rich.

[bravenak]

280. Not for you today. No time. Got class.

[bettyellen]

3. "We can learn from RW wingnuts" ?

[pat_k]

12. Not sure what the question is.

.Perhaps an example would help?

Leaders of the reactionary right don't stop talking about banning abortion, even though actually passing a federal law banning abortion is believed to be "impossible." They keep up a constant drum beat for banning, regardless of their chances of "winning." Their relentlessness has been paying off. By going for the "whole loaf," they keep the momentum going in "their direction." And they keep making headway toward the goal.

Leaders of the Democratic Party do the opposite. When they decide something is not "politically viable' they essentially stop talking about it. For example, there is no constant drum beat in the leadership for universal health care. The leadership actually makes an effort to suppress calls for universal health care because it is not "politically viable.

Instead of "going big" the Democratic leadership has been taking a "go small" approach. They set some small incremental change as the "endpoint" and try to whip up support for that. Unsurprisingly, they have a tough time building up the political will necessary to get the incremental changes done. When you take the spotlight off the big goal, it is very hard to build enough momentum to move toward that goal at all. Incremental change doesn't inspire passion. It only inspires passion when it can be celebrated as a concrete step toward the big goal you keep demanding/make the case for.

The effective approach is to keep the spotlight on the endpoint, make whatever headway you can, but NEVER stop demanding/making the case for the big goal.

[notdarkyet]

48. I've commented several times, only once here, about my disappointment that single

Payer was swept off the table without committed arguments, of which there are many, and at least some show of fire and passion for it in the congress because ,really, it is the right and best solution. We should not be playing Russian roulette with peoples lives so the one percent can have another slice of pie. Maybe they should go live in Belize. So lots of people have jumped me over my position, but Bernie said tonight, on, I think it was All In,that we are the only civilized country that does not provide HC for everyone. He is going on the road again with Chris next week to talk about HC. I'm going to be obstinate of being committed to my position of single payer, and other democratic and progressive leaders need to work together. That is what they were elected for, to fight for their voters.

[sheshe2]

69. THERE WERE NEVER ENOUGH VOTES FOR SINGLE PAYER!

How many times does that need to be said before the talking point comes back around again and again. BERNIE EVEN ADMITTED THAT!!!!

How Many Times Does This Have To Be Posted?

Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance

"It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that's it,"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance

[cannabis_flower]

93. Forget single payer!

We wouldn't even fight for a public option.

[betsuni]

120. The public option was killed because of Joe Lieberman, that was his price for his vote

which was essential to hit the needed 60 votes. I just saw the BBC documentary, "Inside Obama's White House," the second episode ("Obamacare&quot is about how hard, a miracle really, it was to get a health care law passed. Or just keep being wrong, whatever.

[betsuni]

121. This drives me nuts. How do people not know this?

Do they like to be wrong? Are they doing it on purpose? Are they allergic to history? It's so stupid.

[sheshe2]

123. I am beyond angry.

So many. So uninformed.

[Exilednight]

127. Just because you can't win you don't try?

Everyone loves an underdog, but everyone hates a quitter.

[sheshe2]

132. Do the math.

NOT ENOUGH VOTES! 1+1=$#%^&*()_

Wow...you just called our Dems quitters? Really? So ya just want them to stand there flaying a dead horse that will never rise again...'cause ya know they are dead and instead of moving forward to make something work, YOU just want them to fail by beating and beating and beating that horse that will never rise.

[Exilednight]

227. Okay, let's follow your logic to its logical conclusion.

We don't have the votes to stop Trump from enacting TrumpCare and dismantling key parts of the ACA.

By your own logic, we shouldn't even try to stop him.

You can't have it both ways and say it's fine to fight this fight we know we will lose, but we shouldn't fight the other one because the math is against us.

[pat_k]

401. Seems to be a deafening silence in response.

[sheshe2]

497. Really pat?

A deafening silence? Sorry all of us are not here 24/7.

You want an answer...read it above. I have no intention of retyping it for you.

Frankly, I don't appreciate the stealth attack from you and your friend.

[pat_k]

498. Apologies

[sheshe2]

496. We were talking about ACA!

WE NEVER HAD THE VOTES!

I am in no mood for your games. DO NOT F**K with me. Obama and Dump are two very different scenarios. Obama did not have the VOTE!. Dump? I will be fighting tooth and nail on any and EVERYTHING. I have serious questions about your tactics. I never once said we should give Dump a pass, yet here you are putting words in MY MOUTH. Just stop.

Okay, let's follow your logic to its logical conclusion.

We don't have the votes to stop Trump from enacting TrumpCare and dismantling key parts of the ACA.

By your own logic, we shouldn't even try to stop him.

You can't have it both ways and say it's fine to fight this fight we know we will lose, but we shouldn't fight the other one because the math is against us.

[Exilednight]

510. I didn't put words in your mouth, I just followed your logic.

You want it both ways.

With logic like that it is no wonder why we keep losing elections.

[treestar]

234. They should not be blaming the Dems but out there

trying to convince the public - the voters aren't going to send the Congress people who will pass single payer until they are convinced to do that. People who are always on about the leadership don't seem to get that. As an individual I can't call my Senator and just demand he do what I want when most of his constituents don't agree.

[pat_k]

402. So, free the leaders of the burden of leading?

Poor things might get tired or something?

Of COURSE we have to keep pushing them! But political will doesn't just come from the bottom up. It requires feedback from the top down too.

Universal Health Care is something that MUST be front and center for the party if they ever want to start winning again:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8773578

[treestar]

431. We have the push the other voters

We the People run this country. We are the leaders. It is their job to represent us, not talk us into any particular thing that one of us or some minority of us want. We decide our positions on the issues, and we need a majority for our representative to feel right about voting for a thing. We should not be pushing them and crying about how they don't do what we want. They won't until a majority of us want it.

Note the Republicans are scared about repealing Obamacare now. Because they are becoming aware that their constituents don't want that.

[pat_k]

445. Of course, but it's possible to "walk and chew gum" at the same time.

Bpttpm up + Top down. Must work on both. As both efforts advance it creates a powerful, positive, feedback loop.

[sheshe2]

499. I do not understand why you are so antagonistic to Dems.

Universal Health Care is something that MUST be front and center for the party if they ever want to start winning again:

You said THEY I though it was WE. You Know...like WE THE PEOPLE...like WE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Who is "THEY". Not us obviously.

[pat_k]

500. Bottom up/Top Down

We push to put universal health care front and center from the bottom up. And part of that is pushing leaders in the party -- the "they" in the post -- to do the same.

[pat_k]

400. Utterly and completely irrelevant. You're putting the cart before the horse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8773578

[JI7]

198. but those who attack obama and other dems for it do NOT fight for it either

it was on the ballot in colorado but they did nothing to support it.

[Exilednight]

219. I don't live in Colorado.

[pat_k]

494. "Everyone loves an underdog, but everyone hates a quitter."

This is a fantastic counter to 'can't win, so don't fight"!

[NewJeffCT]

256. While I agree that single payer didn't have a chance

Single Payer wasn't even given a seat at the table. Then, the public option was dropped as well. They apparently had a seat at the table, but the chair was pulled out from under them when they tried to sit down.

Why not start out with single payer, or at least a very strong public option, and then negotiate to something more robust than Obamacare? The ACA was a big step up from the current system, but it could be better.

[ProfessorPlum]

429. You prove the OP's point

Something is "impossible", so the Democratic politicians don't fight for it, whether it is good or not. It's almost as if they are afraid of the embarrassment of losing more than the embarrassment of dithering on the sidelines while the evil GOP gives our citizens a good rogering.

Think about the abortion issue. something like 70% of American citizens are behind a woman's right to choose. Republicans generally lose this battle, over and over again. But they keep hammering and chipping away at it, to the point where in many places women can't actually get an abortion, despite the fact that they have the legal right to. _THAT_ is how you push and push for the things you believe in a will fight for.

The Democratic politicians need to get their hands dirty and fight.

[pat_k]

495. Which is why you make the case...

... to the people. Generate the political will. Inspire people to vote more Dems into congress to get it done.

thhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8773578

[pat_k]

201. And keep talking about it!

That's the point!

We need our leaders to talk about the best solutions. And keep talking about them, and talking about them. Any bill they introduce needs to be introduced as a step toward the goal... and you talk about the goal. And talk about it. THAT's how you get incremental change toward a goal. If you don't keep the spotlight firmly on where you are heading you can't build the political will to get there.

[pat_k]

399. Universal Health Care must be front and center.

You are absolutely right.

The concept that you cannot have a functioning constitutional democracy if the people do not have equal access to a basic level of health care is a fundamental democratic -- little d and big D -- principle.

It is a given that you cannot have a functioning constitutional democracy if the people do not have equal access to a basic level of education. Education is pretty irrelevant if you are dead. Access to a basic level of health care is every bit as fundamental as access to a basic level of education.

Universal Health Care must be front and center because it goes to the heart of who we are as a nation. Are we a nation committed to making sure each and every citizen has the basic building blocks to thrive? Yes. Isn't health one of those basic building blocks? Yes, of course it is. Doesn't it follow that we must provide equal access to a basic level of health care for EVERYONE? Of course it does. It is a simple concept.

Are we powerful enough to make it happen? Of course we are.

A nation that makes these types of commitments, and endeavors to fulfill those commitments, is a nation to be proud of.

These are the types of visions we must build and work to make real because these are the visions that engage hearts and minds. Once we define ourselves as a nation committed to providing every person to the building blocks needed to thrive, we must necessarily start looking at where we are achieving this goal, and where we are not. The overarching definition of what kind of nation we are drives us in the right direction.

Universal Health Care must be front and center for another reason. Discussion of Universal Health Care is also a discussion of the limits of the "free market." Health care is NOT a commodity, and "Free market forces" don't apply. You need the health care you need when you need it. We all need a certain amount of preventative care. Some of us get sick. When we do, we need more. It's not like buying a car, or other commodity. You don't wake up one morning and think "I'd like to start injecting myself with Enbrel, I know it's expensive, but I deserve it!"

We do NOT need to get into the mechanics until we have built consensus on what it is we need to commit to achieving. What constitutes a "basic level" of health care? Define that free of concerns about cost. Only when you have defined some basic parameters of what the goal is do you shift focus to design.

[True Dough]

511. Great post!

"Powerful enough to make it happen? Of course we are."

Is there the political will to make it happen? Unfortunately, there is not. Not now.

[pat_k]

512. True. And if we don't make the case -- loud and proud -- we will never generate the political will.

[True Dough]

514. Not just a great post...

It's a great thread. It's too bad DUers can't question the Democratic party without being labeled a traitor. No matter what cause or philosophy you subscribe too in life, you should be prepared to examine it, see if you can poke holes in it, to see if there are ways to improve it.

Of course you should also be prepared to defend it as well, but just never as a mindless robot, which you clearly are not.

[pat_k]

518. One thing I've learned is that...

... I need to do a better job of "inoculating" my arguments. I may have avoided some of the flaming if I had made it clearer that I am not taking the ridiculous position that the failures in leadership I describe are the ONLY reason we are seeing such an incredible level of support for an extreme Authoritarian/Reactionary/Racist ideology. Obviously, as a number of posters pointed out, there are other factors, like the Republican noise machine -- FOX, RW radio, "think" tanks, etc.

But, if we look at what's happening and say "It's their fault, not ours" what we are saying is "We are outmatched. There is nothing we can do to stop the rise of the right-wing radicals." If that's our position, were done. We're at the mercy of outside forces. Full stop.

If we aren't ready to throw in the towel, there is only one choice. Look at ourselves. There are many, many questions we need to be asking ourselves. For example: Are we clear about our principles and goals? Are we failing to convey our principles and goals? Are people rejecting our principles and goals? Are there things we should have fought for that we didn't? Are there things we should be fighting for that we are not? Are we doing a lousy job of exposing how wrong and immoral "their" conduct and agenda is? Are we doing a lousy job of defending against their demonization of us and our proposals? Are we enabling them in some way? Who perceives us positively? Negatively? Do we know why?

If we can't identity any shortcomings or failures, there is nothing to fix. We're just outmatched and will keep losing ground.

For me, every failure we identify is a ray of hope that begets action. It's something we can work on changing. Maybe we aren't able to bring about the necessary change, or maybe our diagnosis is wrong and the change doesn't shift the balance in the right direction, but trying and failing is better than feeling helpless in the face of forces beyond our control.

We are up against some powerful forces, but I see no purpose in affixing blame for our predicament on "them." We must study "them" and the forces against us, but solely for the purpose of identifying ways to counter those forces, or shut them down.

Another thing I should have done is make it clear that the "hell" I'm talking about is not just the election of DT. in my view, we entered hell when polls indicated that the number likely voters who had gone over the extremist cliff was VERY close to the number on the “reasonable” part of the spectrum. If Clinton had won by a big margin, proving the polling wrong, I would have been relieved that things weren't quite as bad as they looked. If she had won by a small margin, we would still be facing a hellish political landscape. Voter suppression helped tip the election to DT. If all Stein voters had voted for Clinton it would have tipped the election to Clinton. I didn't address those things because the "hell' I was talking about was a political landscape that made a DT president possible, not the election itself.

I am not wedded to my diagnosis. If somebody thinks something I've identified as a failure was the right thing to do, let’s talk. I welcome any opportunity to listen to and debate other people's diagnoses. Some posters added problems/shortcomings to the list, but no one argued that the leadership was right to suppress efforts to impeach Reagan and Bush, or that their refusal to object to the Florida electors was the right move. it surprised me a bit that nobody hit me with any of the 'conventional wisdom" rationalizations for inaction.

Some of the negative responses are understandable. They were pissed because I “left out” causative factors. Those don't bother me. The posts that do bother me are the ones that attacked me for having the temerity to describe failures. These posters appear to believe that identifying problems is “bashing,” and “bashing” must be silenced.

I've been trying to get my head around that perspective and just haven’t been able to. I have trouble believing that they really think the party can do no wrong. Perhaps it’s just that we are supposed to keep our thoughts to ourselves? I don’t know. Logically, from that perspective, the only things we are are allowed to do is curse the other side, applaud what Dems do, and if what they do is not enough, we are left to watch helplessly as we descend further into hell.

I am not good at helplessness. Not my style.

Anyway, thanks for the vote of confidence! Forgive me for rattling on. One thing that is very gratifying is that the OP got more than 140 recs. The type of dialog I come here for is still possible.

[True Dough]

523. I read the entire post

and it's entirely reasonable, pat k!

Please do not capitulate to the vocal minority (albeit a substantial minority) who demand silence of anyone who dares to have the "temerity to describe failure" within the party. If they succeed, the party consists of sheep, essentially. Critical analysis is necessary. We do go through it during leadership selection processes, but it shouldn't end there.

Voices like yours are of great benefit. I firmly believe that!

[pat_k]

527. Apologies for length

Somehow my reply turned into a "postmortem" -- probably more than you bargained for. Appreciate you taking the time to get through it!

[RoadhogRidesAgain]

4. As well as constantly trying to reach out to right wing lunatics

I'm sick of hearing how it's the responsibility of the Democratic Party to be as moderate as possible because "unlike republicans we actually care about running the country"

We have to start cleaning house in our own turf and stop trying to appease these animals, because eventually you get stabbed in the back (James comey as an example)

[pat_k]

14. Yes. The notion that it's a left/moderate/right divide is flat wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2594053

And, "There can be no 'bipartisanship' with right wingnuts"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2586646

[Cha]

109. The extreme left did give us trump..

Jill Stein spoiled the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton

Jill Stein's voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin helped Donald Trump win the White House

snip//

For those who worried that insufficient liberal support for Hillary Clinton would wind up electing Donald Trump, you were right.

According to a tweet from Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman on Thursday, the margin of difference separating the president-elect from his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in the three “Blue Wall” states — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan — was less than the total number of votes received by Green Party nominee Jill Stein in each of those states:

More..
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/02/jill-stein-spoiled-the-2016-election-for-hillary-clinton/

Link to tweet

[RoadhogRidesAgain]

125. I didn't vote for Stien

She's a Putin shill who's operation in the election was to spread discord among those on the left. Susan surandon as well. Both should be considered enemies and are Party responsible for the victory of Trump.

But Jill stein is NOT an excuse to start trying to appease right wingers. Wanting the Democratic Party to start moving further left is not extreme, plenty of our voters want this.

[gopiscrap]

5. agreed!

[Starry Messenger]

6. All that and not a single line about racist vote suppression

I gotta hand it to you guys, once you fall in love with your own narrative, you're like a dog with a kong toy.

[MountCleaners]

13. I agree

I'm waiting to hear more from Greg Palast about this last election. I think it was stolen again.

[pat_k]

36. Sorry I don't explicitly list all the things I work for in one post.

Battling voter suppression, and working to make every progressive organization I have anything to do with make it a top priority, is something i've been hammering at for a dozen years. Most recently, I was appalled to see people on DU applauding long lines as evidence of high turnout. Lines are intolerable anywhere, but I have no doubt that Republican secretaries of state are complicit in suppressing votes though "cut backs" that somehow only seem to affect "certain areas."

I have no doubt that suppression of the vote via long lines, restrictive laws, ID, etc. gave DT the election.

I could dig up posts on the subject going back when I joined DU in 2004. Here are a couple about this election.

http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/12512586226

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512610437#post8

[brer cat]

18. +1000

Astounding and disheartening.

[pat_k]

199. "Astounding" that I don't list every issue in every single post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028767017#post36

[pat_k]

26. You've been around long enough.

I guess you haven't bothered to notice that fighting to make sure every eligible voter can easily cast their vote, and have that vote accurately counted is something I've been doing for about a dozen years.

I am appalled at the Democratic Party's tolerance for long lines 'in certain areas." I was horrified to see people on DU celebrating long lines as evidence of high turnout.

http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/12512586226

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512610437#post8

[Hortensis]

28. +1000.

More of an obsession, or perhaps just basic wiring. As a social scientist once put it humorously, a difference between the far right and the far left is that the far right hates everyone else and the far left hates itself (i.e., whatever they see themselves as part of).

When have you seen someone on the left who displays a deeply seated pattern of hostility toward the Democratic Party shift it to the Republicans? Just doesn't happen. If they ever could, surely it would have happened now?

[pat_k]

475. In re: my supposed bigotry, see post #36

Post 36 is here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8767512

And re: "deeply seated pattern of hostility:

______________________________-
On Edit: For those who see this as "bashing" and would call me a "Democrat hater," or who think I am being an apologist for the voters who opted out, perhaps the following posts will help you recognize what I am actually saying: Posts #449 and #274.

An example of what I mean by "driving the policy debate": Post #399

[bettyellen]

51. I noticed that too.

[pat_k]

474. See post #36

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8767512

[Cha]

112. Right.. or that jill stein Gave us trump..

Jill Stein spoiled the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton

Jill Stein's voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin helped Donald Trump win the White House

snip//

For those who worried that insufficient liberal support for Hillary Clinton would wind up electing Donald Trump, you were right.

According to a tweet from Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman on Thursday, the margin of difference separating the president-elect from his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in the three “Blue Wall” states — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan — was less than the total number of votes received by Green Party nominee Jill Stein in each of those states:

More..
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/02/jill-stein-spoiled-the-2016-election-for-hillary-clinton/

Link to tweet

Mahalo, Starry

[pat_k]

473. Regarding my supposed bigotry, see Post #36

Post #36
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8767512

Regarding Stein:

______________________________-
On Edit: For those who see this as "bashing" and would call me a "Democrat hater," or who think I am being an apologist for the voters who opted out, perhaps the following posts will help you recognize what I am actually saying: Posts #449 and #274.

An example of what I mean by "driving the policy debate": Post #399

[truebluegreen]

126. We've been losing ground for forty years

because of racist vote suppression? Yeah OK.

[pat_k]

136. Oh, and BTW, mass incarceration,

which I do mention, is one of the most obvious and destructive means of voter suppression there is. As I pointed out in this post:

People denied the right to vote for life by their status as felons -- about 4 million nationwide (not a trivial number). And about 30% of the African American male population of Alabama and Mississippi have been disenfranchised. People denied the right to vote by the suppression tactics we are seeing enacted by Republican controlled legislatures.

[JI7]

150. in their world there is no racism .

same with other bigotry

[pat_k]

472. See post #36

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8767512

[La Lioness Priyanka]

444. +1

[pat_k]

471. See post #36

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8767512

[suffragette]

7. Agree. An example of the contrast is Inslee and WA delegation stand against travel ban.

They stood up strongly and together and stated why they opposed this and demonstrated the values they hold and that we who elected them share in filing the challenge to stop it immediately.

This action validated and solidified the support of so many in the state and earned them the support of more across the nation.

[pat_k]

476. Hey Suffragette!!

[Stonepounder]

8. While I think your rant is a wee bit 'over the top'

I basically agree with what you are trying to say. The Dems have to whip up the complacent base and they seem to have done since the liar-in-chief's election. We got the government we have now because the tea party and the so-called 'freedom caucus' shouted their heads off and the opposition party tried to reason with them instead of just calling out 'liar, liar, pants on fire'.

And, I hate to say it (being an old fart myself) the Democrat Party has become a party of old folk. Hillary, bless her heart, was 70, Bernie is 75, Biden is 74, Pelosi is 76, Maxine Waters is 78, John Lewis is 77. Where are the up and comers? Paul Ryan is 47, Marco Rubio is 45, Kevin McCarthy is 52. We need the see and hear from the up and coming Democrats. We need to get them elected and visible and we need to KEEP ON fighting, marching, and activating OUR base.

[brer cat]

15. It is Democratic Party

not the republican "Democrat" party. If you can't name up and comers other than republicans, then you don't pay much attention to what is going on.

[sheshe2]

27. ...

[mcar]

58. Really

Lots of Dem up and comers. They've been quite vocal. Surprising some don't see them.

[Cha]

62. It happens to be.. The Democratic Party, Stonepounder.. and jill stein owns

a chunk of trump..

Dangerous#1 Dangerous#2 Dangerous#3

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

they damn well will.. sitting on their millions while the Planet goes to shite and people go hungry and Immigrants banned from the US by "the bumbler" according the ever present idiot, jill stein

We will not shut up about the danger of the LIAR stein.

[moonscape]

87. Cory Booker is 44, Chris Murphy is 39, Kamala Harris is 52,

Tim Kaine is 54, Jeff Merkeley is 52 ...

Of the top 10 oldest Senators, 8 of them are Republicans.

Sorry, not buying this 'Party of Old Folk' stuff. The opposition party put up someone 70 yo also.

[Blue_true]

11. The extreme left caused Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, throw in Nixon and Ford.

You are suggesting that Democrats resort to banana republic tactics to "punish" their predecessors that the extreme left played a central role to elect to begin with. Maybe it is time for people like Stein, Sarandon, West, Smiley to look into a mirror and look into the face of their true enemy.

[Cha]

16. You will not absolve jill stein's LIES.. she owns a chunk of trump and those who got suckered..

Dangerous#1 Dangerous#2 Dangerous#3

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

they damn well will.. sitting on their millions while the Planet goes to shite and people go hungry and Immigrants banned from the US by "the bumbler" according the ever present idiot, jill stein

We will not shut up about the danger of the LIAR stein.

[brer cat]

21. Sing it, sister!

[Cha]

31. Yeah, let's get some ******* Reality here.

[brer cat]

37. We don't have time for this shit.

Love you, Cha. Keep keeping it real.

[Cha]

54. No, we do not have time for this BLAME the DEMS game Absolve

the jill stein suckers.

Love you, brer!

[lapucelle]

63. Like Ralph Nader in 2000,

narcissistic opportunist Stein poisoned the well and helped deliver the White House to Trump. I can't believe that people fell for the "lesser of two evils" narrative again. Her ridiculous "I alone can fix it" posturing was simply the other side of the Trump coin. I often wonder about what the world would have been like then and would be like now if Nader had not run.

I also wonder what Stein was doing at the same table as Putin and Flynn at the RT dinner.

[brer cat]

78. I wonder if any investigation

will reveal why Stein was there. Absent Nader, we would at least be living on a healthier earth and not still suffering from the fall-out of 9/11. I would love to know what a President Gore would have left as a legacy.

[lapucelle]

81. We also would't have Chief Justice Roberts,

the Citizens United decision, among others.

[treestar]

79. +1

good research and compilation, Cha.

[Gore1FL]

99. Why are you conflating the poster's points with Jill Stein?

Is it too hard to refute the actual points made in the post?

[alarimer]

245. Beating a fucking dead horse.

What about all those non-voters? Stein is not the fucking problem. Getting into bed with Wall Street and not standing up for true progressive values has been the problem and it has been for many years, decades probably. Democrats need to grow a spine, stand up for Medicare, for SS, for voting rights, for the environment, for progressive taxation, for PEOPLE.

[Cha]

249. Tell that to fucking jill stein

[SMC22307]

313. Gary Johnson (L) was the much bigger issue...

no matter how many times you regurgitate those anti-Stein tweets.

[Dem2]

20. Lame Blame Game

is stupid.

HIDE THREAD.

[DonCoquixote]

32. was this the inspiration?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028749488

[pat_k]

220. Yes.

[George II]

34. You forgot to add this:

[brer cat]

41. ...

I owe you a beer, George.

[George II]

43. .

[sheshe2]

72. THIS

[Foamfollower]

38. Baloney, this is entirely the fault of the extreme left.

They gave us Bush in 2000 and now they've given us Trump.

They are fucking morons whose agenda must be ignored in favor of centrist voters who actually vote for Democrats from time to time.

[warmfeet]

56. Not so.

The left, continuously moving to the right, gave us Bush, and now Trump. I hope your post was sarcasm. If it was not, you may not be here for very long. What is currently defined as extreme left was once the centrist position. I consider myself to be an FDR democrat - call me extreme left, if you dare. Have a nice day.

[Go Vols]

76. Yep

President Obama said:

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican"

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

[Gore1FL]

94. No they didn't

Gore won Florida. The Dems didn't fight.

We had one decent DNC chair in the intervening years and he was replaced but a lackluster DLC hack that lost us multiple seats during her term.

I hope the new leadership brings the Democrat out in the Democrats again. Running as Republican light is a losing strategy.

[SMC22307]

166. No, 308,000 Bush-voting Florida Democrats gave us Duyba.

And a Democratic Party that just rolled over.

[BlueWI]

505. This obvious fact will never be addressed by Third Way apologists.

Never. Haven't seen it happen once.

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. Mostly disagree.

I think the Democratic leadership is in no small part responsible for the situation in which we presently find ourselves, but I think those items you listed are small potatoes, relatively speaking.

The party's biggest failing has been its move to a center/center-right economic platform. Richard Rorty predicted back in 1988 that the Democrats' embrace of third-way economics would leave blue collar whites feeling underrepresented, and these feelings, compounded by middle-class whites' precarious hold on their own jobs and resultant steadfast refusal to back social safety net programs, in search of a "strongman" to turn things around.

While I think Rorty's characterization of "cultural liberals" is unduly harsh, I think his criticisms of how the Democrats have handled economics are fairly on-point.

[leftstreet]

44. Excellent points. You'll get flamed. Hang in there n/t

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

47. So someone didn't get their pony so they figure screw everyone else?

[PatrickforO]

49. A little too much hyperbole, but I agree with the poster.

I'm tired of the POB in the Dem party ignoring this elephant in the room. For instance, I firmly believe that if the Democratic leadership that keeps talking about universal healthcare REALLY believed in it, then we would have it now. We pay lip service to getting money out of politics, but corporate donors abound for both parties. We're not supposed to understand that if a corporation 'donates' money to a candidate, they won't expect some consideration of their interests when the time to vote comes? What really made me want to vomit is the denial about why we lost the election, and the refusal to hear that we need to a) change our message, b) REALLY support workers (and yes I can give factual examples of times when this has not happened) c) quit being so fragmented and set a vision of no more than ten things we want (things like single payer healthcare, stronger social security, military spending cuts, a review of our actual need for an NSA, stronger policies around mitigating global warming and embracing alternative/renewable energy, equal pay for women, right to reproductive services including access to abortion, support for K-12 and affordable postsecondary education...stuff like this) and then POUND on them until they are enacted, then set new goals and POUND on those. Finally, d) do stuff that actually helps me, my family, you and your families.

I was talking to a colleague today. She's in her 60s and was at one time very deeply involved in the Democratic party. She is well known and well respected in my state. But now, she often says she dislikes politicians of both parties because she doesn't feel that either represent her. Honestly, at this point, in my late fifties, I sometimes feel as though the members of the US Congress who ostensibly represent me...don't, whatever their party. And that is sad. It really is. Because Congress isn't constituent-centered, it is donation centered.

Do you know, I get about 20 emails a day or more urgently demanding money, and we are in danger of losing ACA, Trump won the election, the EPA and State are being gutted. WTF? And leading Dems are STILL not talking impeachment??? What about Russia? Hey, I write my Senators and Representative at least once a week, and call them at least once a week. I sign petition after petition. I'm working in my state with groups trying to get National Popular Vote legislation passed. But, how is my giving $5 to help in the 'battle' really going to help in the battle? Where does that money go? Can the people asking me for money point to actual results of their efforts?

So, Dem leaders, the people have your back. We are more engaged than we ever have been. I've never seen this level of engagement in my adult lifetime. It's right up their with the giant movements of the 60s. But now you have to meet us halfway. I can think of several who are, but not all. Even my Democratic Senator votes for business interests above those of the people far more than I'd like.

No, don't expect me to be happy. Because I'm not. I'm horrified at the actions of the Dem party leadership that have led to this moment. But here's what you can expect of me: I will resist Trump and his right wingnuts tooth and nail. I will write and call and sign petitions. I will raise Dem issues when I speak to groups of business and community leaders. I will serve as a voice of sanity and quality of life in economic development conversations.

But don't expect me to be happy with the party leadership BECAUSE I'M NOT.

[Susan Calvin]

306. AMEN! nt

[Rex]

50. The extreme left that voted for Bush in Florida in 2000? The extreme left that picked Reagan?

No wait...it was 200k Dems in 2000 well maybe some of them were extreme left - I cannot imagine for my life why someone that says they are a Dem would vote for Bush or Reagan. Funny that. No doubt they and all the Reagan Dems are the extreme left. Right? Funny, now instead of decades of GOP voter disenfranchisement it is NOW the extreme lefts fault.

No...this is good, I want to see where this particular brain trust goes on DU...

[treestar]

74. any proof any of that

made people vote for Republicans?

Impeaching every Republican president would hardly have helped gain voters. Especially if it did not turn out well.

[Gore1FL]

96. Could we at least start bu calling crimes "crimes"? nt

[zentrum]

84. Agree. They have good

....social policies but are deep into the ideology of neo-liberalism. And it'a left us undefended.

Must rebuild our party.

[jalan48]

85. I agree with much of what you say. Voter apathy is consequence.

[TomCADem]

95. The Sane "Progressive" Makes the Exact Same Points!

The issue is not Republicans, Trump, Russians, or the Rich pouring millions into elections. It is Democrats!

Sure the Sane Progressive is a bit of a sock puppet who spends most of her air time attacking Democrats and giving Republicans a free pass, but she would totally agree with the points you made...

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxpfmCp2Z9VPTO7eWV6ebzQ

She has been hard at work telling progressives to stop picking on the Russians, but focus on the real enemy: Democrats.

[Raine1967]

128. Turned it off after she said both sides. FUCK RON PAUL.

[LovingA2andMI]

161. The So-Called "Sane" Progressive...

Is frankly insane and a complete plus utter waste of time. Would not spend two seconds of life that cannot be given back, listening to anything again she has to say.

[emulatorloo]

254. You nailed it

[BainsBane]

365. My brother has a very good theory about company names and monikers

that they are chosen to compensate for a weakness. For example, "On Time Mobility" is NEVER on time. The rule also applies here: The "Sane" progressive is anything but.

[Cha]

101. Jill Stein spoiled the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton.. there goes your premise..

Jill Stein's voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin helped Donald Trump win the White House

snip//

For those who worried that insufficient liberal support for Hillary Clinton would wind up electing Donald Trump, you were right.

According to a tweet from Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman on Thursday, the margin of difference separating the president-elect from his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in the three “Blue Wall” states — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan — was less than the total number of votes received by Green Party nominee Jill Stein in each of those states:

More..
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/02/jill-stein-spoiled-the-2016-election-for-hillary-clinton/

Link to tweet

[StevieM]

336. I blame James Comey a lot more than I do Jill Stein.

Dealing with candidates like Jill Stein is supposed to be part of a presidential election.

Dealing with an FBI that is interfering to rig the election for your opponent is not.

[Cha]

339. Oh comey was at fault too but the LIES stein told and in Swing States Cost us the election..

Jill Stein spoiled the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton Gave us trump

Jill Stein's voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin helped Donald Trump win the White House

snip//

For those who worried that insufficient liberal support for Hillary Clinton would wind up electing Donald Trump, you were right.

According to a tweet from Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman on Thursday, the margin of difference separating the president-elect from his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in the three “Blue Wall” states — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan — was less than the total number of votes received by Green Party nominee Jill Stein in each of those states:

More..
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/02/jill-stein-spoiled-the-2016-election-for-hillary-clinton/

Link to tweet

[StevieM]

344. I don't dispute that Stein, like Nader, cost us the presidency.

But without Comey's criminal behavior the race would never have been that close. Even if the race narrowed in the final couple weeks she still would have won by 6 points, with 333 electoral votes. Had the race not narrowed it would have been an 8-10 point victory, possibly getting 375 electoral votes.

[Gore1FL]

115. You are correct, of course. Too many here don't remember when the Democrats weren't cowards

You'll get flamed from the usual crowd who prefer rolling over and losing.

[Chitown Kev]

118. as opposed to...what exactly?

[Gore1FL]

124. As opposed to democrats who cower in a corner and cry "don't hurt me." nt

[Akamai]

122. Also, as much as I love Obama, I also criticize him for not calling out the Republicans enough

following the "Caucus Room Conspiracy." He knew the Republicans were absolutely united against him, that they would not compromise, etc., and he did not tell the public, demand that the media address this issue, etc.

As a result of his not focusing on this issue, the average American just did not know how effing blameworthy the Republican traitors -- all of the Republican leaders -- were.

The average voter just didn't know about the Republican total hatred of Obama and their refusal to cooperate with him at all.

[burrowowl]

129. K&R

[brewens]

131. The push to convince us we can only be center right to alt-right is well underway. It's

well off or close to retirement democrats pushing this. We're only supposed to be democrat enough to hold the line for those that have theirs, or see the light at the end of the tunnel. Don't rock the boat and screw it up for them.

During the election, I was real close to going full on Bern or let it burn! I ended up voting for Hillary and throwing up in my mouth a little when I did it. I'd still love to hear what she had to say to those Goldman Sachs people about how she would be a great president for them. Maybe it would sound good to just an average Joe working type guy like me that doesn't yet have a secure retirement locked in? It should have if she was the candidate for me, shouldn't it? Why didn't I get to know what she said if that was the case? It should have helped her with guys like me, right?

Goldman Sachs had it covered both ways didn't they? Next time forget about it. One dime of their money to any candidate, I will not vote for under any circumstances.

[betsuni]

133. Another "Show us on the dolly where the Democratic Party touched you" post.

Immoral, cowardly, problem, irrational phobia, wrongheaded, downward spiral, weak, refusal to do their duty, failed, wimpy, lip service, path to hell. Very dramatic. I guess the Democratic leadership is the new "Thanks, Obama."

[JI7]

151. everytime they post things like that on the internet they feel like tough rebels

[mike_c]

137. yes

eom

[JI7]

153. LOLOLOL, So White people supported Trump because REagan,Bush etc wasn't impeached , indicted Etc ?

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH

[msanthrope]

419. I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but note the absolution this gives to racist whites. nt

[caroldansen]

154. I understand where youre coming from. But since we cant go back, we must go forward and keep this

Country in the hands of the Democrats from now on.

[napi21]

156. I don't think anyone in particular gave us The Con. For DECADES I've been told we should elect

a business man instead of a politician. Then we'd get away from the party allegiance and beholding to their contributors. Even I never realized how BAD it would be if we ever did that! I never thought about business men usually own a lot of stock in the company that made them rich, and they would have to sell it. It's even worse with The Con because he owned the damn business so it's much more difficult to divest himself from any interest. Of course he doesn't care that he's breaking the law.

I can only hope all those people who thought they wanted a non-politician businessman have learned as I have that it's a really bad idea.

BTW, in case you're wondering, I voted for Hillary because of her experience and abilities AND because I saw the arrogance and chronic lying of her opponent.

[KPN]

164. Good, honest post.

Thank you for taking the time pat_k. Sorry to see so many take it personally. ... Seems that we are screwed. Critique the Party and be ostracized, or do what you've always done and expect a different result. Neither seems a winning proposition. ... The Right is laughing at us now.

[melman]

168. It's not really 'so many' that take it personally

just the usual group of obnoxious trolls that has made this place so unbearable.

[Cha]

172. All you have are insults.. you need to take a look at yourself.

[betsuni]

174. "The usual group of obnoxious trolls that has made this place so unbearable."

Insulting members of Democratic Underground who support the Democratic Party.

[Cha]

178. Yeah, sounds like projection to me.

[betsuni]

184. It is! Typical.

[SMC22307]

316. ...

[Cha]

175. No, it is not a "good honest post".. the first sentence is wrong..

Jill Stein spoiled the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton

Jill Stein's voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin helped Donald Trump win the White House

snip//

For those who worried that insufficient liberal support for Hillary Clinton would wind up electing Donald Trump, you were right.

According to a tweet from Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman on Thursday, the margin of difference separating the president-elect from his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in the three “Blue Wall” states — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan — was less than the total number of votes received by Green Party nominee Jill Stein in each of those states:

More..
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/02/jill-stein-spoiled-the-2016-election-for-hillary-clinton/

Link to tweet

[KPN]

371. Lets just say we disagree.

[Crunchy Frog]

169. Brave words on DU at this time. But I agree.

[herding cats]

189. Meanwhile people are going to die.

Last edited Thu Mar 9, 2017, 04:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Sick from curable conditions.

People will lose their housing, their food safety net, and children will lose their quality of education.

Elderly will not have enough money to pay for their food and their healthcare. Choices will have to be made and one or the other will have to be skipped.

The rich will get much, much richer while the poor and working class struggle under the burden of the current administration.

Migrants will live in terror of deportation or not being allowed back into the country if they leave. Dreamers are being targeted and deported.

Our civil rights are being assaulted on multiple levels.

Our environment will be raped on multiple fronts by corporations. Species will quite possible cease to exist here in the United States under this administration.

Science is being defunded and openly ridiculed.

Voting rights are being assaulted.

All this in the first 48 days.

Forgive me if my "bottom line" isn't the same as yours. To me these things are not a "slice of bread" but the very grain the loaf was baked from. These are the core issues I care about which are now being dismantled.

I'll vote for a politician who can actually do something to preserve these items any day over a selfish act of not voting because I'm not 100% feeling validated. I'm smart enough to know my nose functions best when it's still attached to my face.

[Cha]

194. Excellent Post, herding cats! Some freaking Reality.. How Refreshing even

though it's bad.

It's what I care about, too.. and you've stated it sooo Eloquently.

Damn girl!

"I'll vote for a politician who can actually do something to preserve these items any day over a selfish act of not voting because I'm not 100% feeling validated. I'm smart enough to know my nose functions best when it's still attached to my face."

[herding cats]

202. Thanks, Cha.

I'm afraid I'm too informed on current and pending legislation for these types of emotional outbursts. All they do is irritate me and make me shake my head at their lack of real understanding of what's taking place. I can't wrap my head around how this can be all about "your private battle" when we're losing the fucking war here, you know? We, you me and every other person who isn't being lost to inertia, are all needed and should be actively working to fight this lunacy. Not wasting time lamenting Iran fucking Contra. I mean, really?!

[Cha]

204. I know.. it seems ridiculous to me.. lets blame the Dems because

we're fighting for our very lives right now and the life of our Planet.

We had a Russian coup under our very (speaking of) noses.. and they're flaunting/denying it, daring us to do anything about it.

How Jill Stein and Donald Trump became allies of Vladimir Putin



snip//

Casey Michel writes: Last December, at a gala honoring the 10th anniversary of the Russian propaganda channel RT, Russian President Vladimir Putin nestled himself between a pair of visitors at the head table. To the president’s right: A former head of the US’s Defense Intelligence Agency, known best for his hard-right views on Islam, which he would later compare to “cancer.” And to Putin’s left: The soon-to-be Green Party nominee for the White House, whose presidential debate would be carried on, of all things, RT.

The two – Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, an adviser to Republican nominee Donald Trump, and Jill Stein, the presidential nominee from the Green Party – chummed with Putin throughout the evening, later joined at the table by RT (formerly Russia Today) head Margarita Simonyan and then-Chief of Staff Sergei Ivanov. Soon, Putin took the dais, running through rote commentary on RT’s accomplishments. When he finished, applause rang. Stein shook his hand. Flynn offered a standing ovation.

Within that gala, leading figures of America’s far-left, in Stein, and hard-right, in Trump’s surrogate, found common cause. The bookends of the American political spectrum had gathered in Moscow, glad-handing with Kremlin officials. The two camps, aligned in post-fact views on American foreign policy, discovered themselves aligned in celebration of the Kremlin’s foremost foreign propaganda vehicle.

Unsurprisingly, the policy prescriptions of Stein and Flynn don’t align on much else. As it pertains to Moscow, though, it’s clear that the distance between the Stein and the Trump campaigns have effectively disappeared.

The rest of the article..
http://warincontext.org/2016/09/09/how-jill-stein-and-donald-trump-became-allies-of-vladimir-putin/

stein's laughing her rich ass off now.. getting ready to rat fuck in 2018-2020

[herding cats]

208. Ridiculous, that's an excellent choice of words.

Oh, and don't even get me started on Stein. I come from the Republican "test" state for third party spoilers. I know the drill all to intimately.

You know, I wonder if I pointed out to them how they're being exploited the exact same way Texas Democrats have been with third party candidates for decades if they might pay attention? I mean, a lot of them loves to hate on Texas, right? Maybe if I point out how they're being done GOP Texas style they'd listen? It's a thought. Not for here, but for my 2018 Party work. I might ask if I can use some of my personal knowledge in my future work when I'm up against a purist.

[betsuni]

195. +1

[stevenleser]

436. Yep, and the excuse from the OP and those that agree with them for not opposing this is that those

who refused to support the Democratic nominee had a right to throw their tantrum just because.

And like you I find that a wholly inadequate response.

[pat_k]

469. Excuse for not opposing what?

I don't believe I have said what you seem to think I said.

______________________________-
On Edit: For those who see this as "bashing" and would call me a "Democrat hater," or who think I am being an apologist for the voters who opted out, perhaps the following posts will help you recognize what I am actually saying: Posts #449 and #274.

An example of what I mean by "driving the policy debate": Post #399

[akbacchus_BC]

196. No, it is not the extreme left and who is the extreme left by your

evaluation? It is Jill Stein and the the third party who threw their hat into the elections. When the votes were being counted, most of the States that Mrs. Clinton could have won went to the third party. Those two guys are the reason why the asshole in the white house won.

[pat_k]

216. Here's the post I'm responding to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8749488

The "extreme left" referenced in the post are people who don't vote for Democrats because -- as the poster, Trumpocalypse, puts it -- the Dems don't pass some "purity test." It's a notion that vastly oversimplifies the thinking of the people who sit it out or vote third-party. The assertions the poster makes are firmly grounded in the conventional wisdom that Dems need to go to the 'middle' to win elections.

The way I see it, that "conventional wisdom," is a driving force behind the "don't do anything FOX pundits might vilify" strategy we have seen in action over the last couple decades. (Fear of Republican "backlash" is the reigning champ when it comes to rationalizations for refusing to do that which they know is right. And the leadership does know what the right thing to do is, as Pelosi demonstrated with her "I'd be for Impeachment if I weren't speaker" insanity.)

My view of the breakdown of the electorate is very different, and consequently, I've come to a very different conclusion. I describe my view of the 'breakdown" in this post:

It is not a left/moderate/right "divide." It's more like this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2594053

[akbacchus_BC]

378. Albeit late but thanks for your response. In hindsight, trump promised people things he

could not deliver and the sucked his shit up so badly it is unbelievable. I do not wish bad for anyone but trumps supporters will be the worst off, he is an effing liar and he cannot bring back their jobs. Yet they support him! I have no idea what reprentation is all about but I strongly believe that when you promise your supporters to help them, you will deliver. Trump is not delivering!

[BainsBane]

209. You have no moral high ground

Which part of the constitution? And where does it say the Democratic Party is responsible for punishing the opposition in the constitution? I'd like to know the specific provisions you believe the Democrats failed to enforce? And how is it you determined that congress rather than the courts are responsible for protecting the constitution? That would come as quite a surprise to constitutional scholars and middle-school civics teachers.

Democrats did stand up in 2001: The Congressional Black Caucus, the Democrats that "progressives" consistently ignore, when they aren't calling them establishment. They are the ones who always stand up.

Let me see if I understand this argument: Your view is that a sizable portion of the electorate was angry at the Democratic Party for failing to impeach every Republican President since the 1980s, and because of that they decided to elect an incredibly narcissistic, unstable Republican with a White Supremacist agenda--a fascist? I would ask for evidence but I know none exists. No one was polled on those issues. This is yet another of a string of posts in which the author projects on to the election their own views. Given that yours date back decades before the election, they stand out as particularly strained.

I think there are a few themes that run throughout the arguments that third-party and "leftist" Trump voters were justified: 1) a contempt of government. Liberals and Democrats typically have seen government as having the capacity to do good. The self-described "left" now shares the right-wing antipathy toward government; 2) self-entitlement: We have a population that thinks nothing of wishing and working to inflict the very worst on the nation in order to exact revenge. The Trump supporters we saw at rallies wanted revenge on the non-white male population they believe have too much; some self-proclaimed progressives (who are in fact regressive) chose to deliver the country to fascism out of their anger at the Democratic Party and Democratic voters. Their reasons seem to vary. Some share the Trumpster resentment of women and people of color, some are simply indifferent to the suffering of others. They site different justifications, from TPP to now Iran-Contra, but the common thread is an intense desire to punish. Their anger at the Democratic party justifies punishing the poor and vulnerable through the policies Trump made clear he would enact during the campaign. Better to have a president who orders raids of schools and community events, stops cars (well within the US borders) demanding proof of citizenship, and implements a Muslim ban, all part of a project to whiten America?

One thing most of the anti-Democrats have in common is white male entitlement, an entitlement so impenetrable that no number of human lives endangered can compete with their anger. We see people certain that their own resentment matters more than anything, that government should channel their EMOTIONS and exact revenge on the those they so despise. That the populations must hurt by their protests votes are overwhelmingly women and people of color gives them common ground (even if only in practice rather than intent) with the right-wing Trump voters who resent the very same people. It is not self-labeling that determines what someone is but their actions. They collaborated with the alt-right to impose a fascist regime, and they succeeded. Fascism is as fascism does.

You have no moral high ground. There is NOTHING moral about the notion that self-important rage justifies inflicting suffering on the most vulnerable. Far from it. It is a worldview based on ego. A public that acts out of narcissism elects a narcissist who manifests their same indifference to human suffering. What matters is self, and that is an approach that shares far more in common with Ayn Rand than leftist ideologies based on community and collectivism.

[JI7]

213. exactly, black members get no recognition

and i think they are enjoying the raids , bans, deportations etc because it's happening to people they see as part of a group that ruined the democratic party .

[pat_k]

223. Re-read my post.

and replies to others.

If you are accusing me off not recognizing the work of the CBC you couldn't be more mistaken.

[pat_k]

215. Congress, and only Congress, can Impeach.

Each and every member of Congress swears to ""support and defend the Constitution." When the Executive is violating the Constitution the ONLY defense is impeachment. Congress, and only Congress has both the power, and the duty.

Under the constitution, treaties, like statutes, are the "supreme law of the land." The Geneva Conventions, a treaty to which we are a party, prohibit torture. Bush and Cheney were torturing in plain sight. Each and every member of Congress had a duty to impeach to defend the constitution against presidential violations of the "supreme law of the land."

Each and every member who refused to join the effort to impeach violated their oath. That the co-conspirators in the Republican party violated their oath is no surprise. That so many of the "good guys" -- the Dems -- refused is tragic. And when momentum for impeachment starting really rolling, the Democratic leadership went all out to stop it before it became unstoppable. They were successful, and that is appalling.

I'll run through the other cases when I have more time. I'm signing off. It's late.

[BainsBane]

222. Your argument still lacks logic

Your claim that Democrats failing to impeach every Republican president in recent history prompted the public to vote for Republicans lacks any semblance of logic. I do believe that you or to whomever you refer may have justified their votes against the Democrats on those grounds, but I don't believe for a minute that it involves any respect for the constitution. It also looks to me like you want a banana republic in which being in the opposition party is criminalized. Democracy can't exist under such circumstances,.

The results of putting the fascist Trump in power were clear from the campaign: to whiten America, to make it safer for rapists and hate crimes, to carry out immigration raids and ban Muslims. To strike down environmental protections and regulation of Wall Street. That is what people voted for in choosing Trump or voting against Clinton. They can tell themselves any number of things for why they chose to plunge the country into fascism. The fact is they chose fascism. They chose White Supremacy. It is those actions that define them.

We were at a crossroads like Germany in 1933. They refused to stand up to the equivalent of Hitler because of anger and hatred. They will forever be defined by that decision to collaborate with fascism. There is nothing leftist about it, and it certainly isn't moral. Every family broken up, every death from a hate crime, every person who dies because of lack of healthcare is on them. It's far worse than the deplorables who believed Trump would improve their lives. These were the actions of people who chose to make America worse, who chose to cause suffering to satisfy their own sense of revenge. Ayn Rand couldn't have wished for better disciples.

[betsuni]

224. Standing ovation

[pat_k]

221. Re-read my post.

I NEVER said Democrats didn't stand up. I said the Leadership didn't.

I was THERE in the chamber Jan 6, 2001. I have been behind the members doing the right thing for decades. I was outside Barbara Boxers office when she issued the announcement that she would stand with Stephanie Tubbs-Jones on Jan 6, 2005.

I don't know who you think you are talking to, but I don't think it is me.

[BainsBane]

225. You are justifying collaboration with the right in electing Trump

You are justifying choosing fascism over democracy, causing suffering of millions because of self-indulgent rage. I'm talking to the person who wrote that justification. I don't give a shit where you were in 2001. I care what you did in 2016 and how you seek to justify it now. NOTHING else matters. That was the moment that defined you, me, and everyone else. I stood up to fascism. I worked to stop Hitler. I don't make excuses for those who helped put him in power. I do not do so because I don't make excuses for hate crimes, for breaking up families with immigration rates, for terrorizing the population and causing suffering. That is in effect what you are justifying. You claim it's okay because of anger. Well it isn't. Your anger isn't worth more than the lives of the millions who will suffer.

You are right about one thing. It wasn't the left that voted against Hillary. It was the self-entitled bourgeoisie, most of them white, comfortable in the knowledge they would never experience the suffering they willfully imposed on the subaltern.

.

[pat_k]

226. The hell I am.

[delisen]

239. Your phrase "self-entitled ourgeoisie" to describe the "left" who voted against Hillary

seems accurate.

I'll never forget the image of Susan Sarandon's standing menacingly over Delores Huerta and and lecturing her on the evils of Clinton.

Sarandon votes in her own perceived self-interest, tries to bully everyone else to vote in Sarandon's interests, makes a major mess, and then tries to lecture us on why her mess is a good thing---presumably because it gives the rest of something positive to do in cleaning it up.

Sarandon: My mess is your opportunity.

[pat_k]

284. Please quote something I said that does any of the things you claim I'm doing.

[nolabels]

230. Nixon was forced from office

We were not lucky enough to see him go to jail because the Constitution actually has several ambiguous clauses that favor the class of people who wrote it. The two kinds of justice we have here, of the haves and have-nots was never much different than that of King's of England.

I would agree with you about the leadership in congress but would add it's only par for course historically for most human endeavors
Sure there are some high minded people in government, yet to notice, they are often the ones that get pushed aside. You can even see the concept at work right in front of our screen at this moment. The ones that think they own the moral compass and invest a lot time here a DU or anywhere else. They will also continue to peck at you just because they want to let you know (think) that they control the conversation. It is more important for those in that certain click to control the conversation than to acknowledge logic or let another's point that has gotten notice stand unaltered.

Yes, don't tell them about observations that you have had that might differ from them because it seems to scare them to think someone might know something that they do not. Often I find it easier just plant some seeds and go around them. No indictment but more of just the way things are

[pat_k]

281. I don't usually. . .

. . . engage so directly with flamers. But I've never been great at subtly. (Although I much more "diplomatic" when I'm lobbying, and probably do a better job at "planting seeds and moving on.&quot

I do find the little mutual congratulation society vilifying me for being this or that thing amusing.

[nolabels]

312. Eight or ten years ago things were much more worthwhile at DU

It was actually kind of fun even. I would spend hours upon hours here finding out all kinds of things. Great history lessons that were never taught in school. Nowadays it seems that this is just a spot people are using to sell some kind of agenda. There are good people that show up here but I am sure you already have figured out who some of the others are. Thank you for your posts and thank you for all that other representative work you have been doing.

[pat_k]

332. Yes, "back in the day"...

...DU was quite a different place. It was more than a "discussion" group. The discussions translated into action. Somehow, I don't think we'll be seeing gatherings of DUer's in DC like we did "way back when."

At DA's RFD Jan 6, 2005
photo link

(That's just one table of many that DUer's, folks from democrats.com, and other online activist communities occupied that night.)

Tragically, we have lost too many DUer's from that time. Three of the people in the photo are no longer with us: Andy Stephenson, Dusty Kiegel ("Senator" on DU), and Karen Altman ("KaryninMiami" on DU)

[treestar]

228. [phone]

Awesome post.

[mcar]

248. Thread win!

Nothing more need be said here.

[emulatorloo]

252. Excellent series of posts.

Thank you for cutting to the heart of the matter. Those who enable Trump to hurt the most vulnerable people among us are not left or progressive in anyway.

[ProfessorPlum]

261. your response is cowardly

What voters value and reward, in addition to policies that make their lives better, is STRENGTH.

FIGHTING for what you believe in demonstrates STRENGTH.

And the Democrats never do it, never do it enough, never do it loudly.

For the most part, they are quiet, meek, sit down and shut up when they are told to by the GOP and the media.

I want this party to stand up and FIGHT!!!!! Demonstrate to the working white males that there is a team that they can count on to go to the mat for them.

[JI7]

292. mostly white men who see attacks on minorities as strength

[ProfessorPlum]

295. that's bull

fighting against the corporations that want to poison them and rip them off would also be seen as great strength if A) the Democrats did it and B) they shouted it to the roofs and framed it smartly

[JI7]

319. lol. they do and white men mostly go for the bigots. thats why they still approve of trump

Even though he appointed big business corp types.

Because he is going after minorities which is what they love.

[ProfessorPlum]

357. What they respond to is STRENGTH

Standing up for what you believe, actually fighting, trying to really make the changes and telling the reasons why it is important to do so.

There are many Democratic politicians who I suspect have this kind of fight in them - some of them demonstrate quite a lot of it, actually. And some of them fight a little bit sometimes. But the person who could frame the message and take it to the voters - to be strong in his or her defense of the American people - would really have something worth rallying behind.

And they would be hated by the elite. It's a dangerous position to take. Elite regimes tend to kill popular reformers who try to make life better for most people. But that is the kind of strength it would take.

[BainsBane]

362. What does Donald Trump believe?

Is narcissism now elevated to ideology?

Did it escape your attention that the Democratic Party is one of only two major parties in the US? Of course they are the elite. They have always been, from the time the party was dominated by slaveholders.

Revolutionaries do not come from major political parties. I'm guessing your "professor" moniker is not related to the discipline of history, because you show a rather bizarre conception of the American state. As badly as you may want to emulate a country like Colombia, that is not the nature of this nation.

[ProfessorPlum]

416. I'm not talking about revolutionaries

I'm talking about our party leadership. And of course they are among the elite. Some of our most important reformers have been patricians who fought to make life better for citizens (TR, FDR, JFK), and against the forces that would swindle, poison, impoverish, and sicken them.

I would put my knowledge of history up against yours any day of the week.

[JI7]

369. yes, they agree with hating and attacks on minorities. that's what matters to them . Trump is strong

for kicking out the hispanic mother and taking her away from her kids.

that appeals to those white supporters of trump.

Trump has appointed corporate people and he is deporting mothers and banning refugees. and they continue to approve of him.

[ProfessorPlum]

413. Strength doesn't have to be tied to racism

Look at the way RFK framed the problem of poverty. Look at the way FDR framed the issues with banks before the fdic and reforms. Look at the way MLK framed issues of social justice. Look at the way Elizabeth Warren talks about consumer protection. Look at the way LBJ framed the issue of poverty.

Hell, look at the way Alan Grayson talked to Republicans. Look at the Anthony Weiner took the fight to them. Look at the way Sanders talked about income inequality.

Strength is truth, spoken with conviction, framed in a moral matrix, and backed up by action

[JI7]

430. if strength is truth than trumps bigotry is truth

According to your logic and excuses for white people voting for and openly racist sexist piece of shit.

[ProfessorPlum]

434. Keep fighting that strawman.

[JI7]

438. they voted for an openly racist candidate and continue to support him

And his deportations and muslim bans.

[ProfessorPlum]

439. and what does that have to do with Democrats fighting hard

and framing their arguments in a smart, and strong, way

[JI7]

440. because it's important to know where voters stand if you want their votes

[ProfessorPlum]

441. right. And your thesis is that racism is more enticing than strength/dominance behavior

in attracting voters? Just trying to make sure I understand your argument.

[JI7]

442. in their case it's about racism. many who voted Hillary saw her as strong

Large majorities of non white people supported her.

[ProfessorPlum]

446. I saw her as pretty strong myself.

But I think if racism were really the thing, we'd have had president Pat Buchanan back in the 90s. Or president Zell Miller. Or heck, why not President David Duke, if that's really the thing that draws votes.


Look, there are a lot of reasons why Agent Orange is sitting in the WH today, and plenty of blame to go around. But the argument being made here is that Republicans keep breaking the law, keep aggressively fighting against citizens' rights, keep behaving in ways that should be punishable. And the Democrats, over and over again, (and of course this is an over generalization) keep letting them do it, and don't punish them, and don't direct the anger of the mass of people that they so richly deserve towards them. Instead, they let the GOP direct popular anger against Democrats, and liberals, and good and kind people who would work for a better world for us all.

There is a reason why IOKIYOR exists as an idea. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. And the GOP is evil, and the Democrats are good men and women who have done a lot of nothing over the last 40 years. And here we are, at the triumph of evil. So, let's collectively (including our elected party officials) start doing something. That is what the OP is advocating for.

[JI7]

451. that was before Obama became president. with non white people

increasing and gaining power in places this is a backlash.

bs about dOing nothing. Things were far worse for non whites in the do called good old days. It's because of democrats that things have improved and especially because increase in non white population

[ProfessorPlum]

454. I'm going to explain this to you one more time, slowly, just in case we can have a meeting

of the minds. I don't think the Democratic politicians have literally been doing nothing. They have good policies and are generally for making life better for people. It's why I'm a member of the party.

But the GOP should be REVILED. What they do hurts people - poisons people, sickens children, makes people go hungry, leaves them maimed, abandons them in their hour of need. Imagine just for a moment what a Republican polemicist could do with such an opponent, if they wanted to win an election against them.

It is the Democrats' job to make the GOP as hated as they deserve to be. to PUNISH them for being so demonic and money worshipping, and only watching out for the interests of the super rich. Make them PAY for the shit they do to people.

And they just don't do it. They go merrily along, oh yes raising polite objections and staying positive and letting Republicans get away with crimes - stealing elections, stealing money, perjuring themselves, being colossal assholish hypocrites, cheating, etc. and generally being the cats paws of corporate power.

People should DESPISE them because of the way Democrats point out how terrible they are. Instead, working class people STILL consider voting Republican, as if it is anything but taking a knife to their own throats.

That is the DO NOTHING behavior that has to stop. That is what is being discussed. I hope we can agree that making the GOP a permanent, and tiny, minority in the government would be a great boon to everyone, and that is what needs to happen for them to lose power - to make them suffer for the suffering they cause.

[JI7]

456. you need to first admit they are bigots then it's not difficult to understand

[pat_k]

466. Of course there are bigots, and reactionaries, and authoritarians...

"out there."

The question is:

What paved the road to the point that the electorate, when faced with such a clear choice between Real American Values vs. Authoritarian/Reactionary rule, went for the later in such UNBELIEVABLE numbers?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8775743

[pat_k]

465. There is "Strong and Wrong" and "Strong and Right"

“When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody that's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right.”
--Bill Clinton

Democrats have earned a reputation for weakness. They may be Right but they are perceived as Weak.

"Strength is truth, spoken with conviction, framed in a moral matrix, and backed up by action" is a wonderful description of what it is to be Strong and Right.

[pat_k]

460. "Strength is truth, spoken with conviction, framed in a moral matrix, and backed up by action"

"Strength is truth, spoken with conviction, framed in a moral matrix, and backed up by action"

This is going on my wall!

[BainsBane]

361. Strength, like Donald Trump?

A strong man is not strength. Justice Souter's remarks apply here.

“I don’t worry about our losing republican government in the United States because I’m afraid of a foreign invasion. I don’t worry about it because I think there is going to be a coup by the military as has happened in some of other places. What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed, people will not know who is responsible. And when the problems get bad enough, as they might do, for example, with another serious terrorist attack, as they might do with another financial meltdown, some one person will come forward and say, ‘Give me total power and I will solve this problem.’

“That is how the Roman republic fell. Augustus became emperor, not because he arrested the Roman Senate. He became emperor because he promised that he would solve problems that were not being solved.

“If we know who is responsible, I have enough faith in the American people to demand performance from those responsible. If we don’t know, we will stay away from the polls. We will not demand it. And the day will come when somebody will come forward and we and the government will in effect say, ‘Take the ball and run with it. Do what you have to do.’

“That is the way democracy dies. And if something is not done to improve the level of civic knowledge, that is what you should worry about at night.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/souter-warned-trump-candidate-prescient-remarks

Additionally, Democrats have fought. They fought for health care, civil rights, women's rights, equal pay for equal work, reproductive rights, voting rights, but those issues don't appear to register with you.

It takes no courage for the self-entitled to turn the country over to a fascist who promised to punish the poor and people of color, strip away women's rights and voting rights, all while the self-entitled risk nothing because they know their privilege means they will never be impacted by the oppression they unleash on others. There is no moral righteousness in jeopardizing the lives of the vulnerable while risking nothing themselves.

So you go ahead a lecture the families currently being held in detention centers about how "cowardly" they are for believing their lives and families matter. Go lecture the victims of hate crimes for being "cowards" for not putting the egos of the self-entitled nihilists above their lowly black, hispanic, and Muslim lives. Tell them how heroic Trump and third-party voters are for choosing to sacrifice the subaltern for their anger at the Democrats AND above all else Democratic voters.

There is a reason Susan Sarandon was booed at a recent Muslim rally. Those people recognized her as the enemy because she willfully chose to promote oppression against them by advocating for Trump over Clinton. She chose white supremacy, and that kind of chicken-hawk activism is both immoral and cowardly. It is akin to Cheney and Bush sitting back on multiple deferments while sending others off to war. The poor, immigrants, Muslims, people of color and women are now at war, only we face two fronts--the Trump administration and deplorables on one front and those who enabled its White Supremacist agenda through the ballot box on the other.

[ProfessorPlum]

414. What in the fucking hell are you going on about?

I'm not lecturing victims of hate, I'm trying to get my party's elected leadership to get more vocal about fighting fascism, and framing it from a position of moral strength.

[BainsBane]

515. They are being very vocal

and aren't making apologies for him like some who pretend to be on the left, who have bent over backward to enable and accommodate fascism. Those who refused to vote for Clinton continue to make excuses for Trump and promote his fascist regime. Jackpineradicals is a key example of where that goes on, as is the lunatic "Sane Progressive." They are collaborators with fascism.

The entire point of this thread is to justify voting against Clinton, which means voting for Trump. You became furious because I pointed out the results of doing so on the lives of actual human beings. You called me a COWARD for pointing out that real human beings lives are being torn apart and jeopardized.

There are a collection of people whose "principles" demanded they vote against the Democrats, either by voting Third Party or for Trump directly. I am pointing out what those "principles" entailed. It meant a myopic focus on self and complete disregard for the lives of the vulnerable. That is a fact, even if they can't bother to think about it because they don't give a shit about those people. I don't expect them to talk about it anymore than I expect bankers to. They focus on what they care about, which does not include the results of their voting behavior on the subaltern.

You insisted that voters respond to STRENGTH. Voters elected Trump. I pointed out that notion of strength is more akin to a strongman and authoritarianism than government in a liberal democracy. As Souter's comments point to, when citizens cease to understand civics, they look for someone "strong" to fix everything now. That is how democracy ends.

[ProfessorPlum]

516. You are objectively pro-fascist

Because you don't want Democratic politicians to fight. Good luck with that.

[Cha]

264. Of course your response isn't "cowardly".. all they have ignornant insults

Your post is principled and caring for those who are going to be devastated by the vicious fascist moron.

[ProfessorPlum]

418. And I'm sure that defending those victims meekly

And in a quiet, polite tone is the best thing for our politicians to do.

[NurseJackie]

231. Oh, good grief!

Until the Democratic leadership really "gets" this, our downward spiral will continue.

[Progressive dog]

233. That OP is an example of the propoganda against Democrats

that defeated Hillary.

[pat_k]

470. No it is not.

______________________________-
On Edit: For those who see this as "bashing" and would call me a "Democrat hater," or who think I am being an apologist for the voters who opted out, perhaps the following posts will help you recognize what I am actually saying: Posts #449 and #274.

An example of what I mean by "driving the policy debate": Post #399

[Progressive dog]

479. I read what you said here.

The intent of that was obvious, apparently even to you.

[pat_k]

483. "Apparently even to you???"

There is a strange "talking past" each other going on here. I am ABSOLUTELY NOT a propagandists that was out to defeat Hillary.

The question we MUST be asking ourselves is

"How did we get to this moment in our history? A moment in which the the number of people openly supporting Authoritarian/Reactionary/Racist/UnAmerican political ideology is in balance with the number openly supporting Democratic/Progressive/American/Multicultural political ideology."

If Clinton had won, I would NOT have heaved some sigh of relief. Answering the question, "How did we get to this moment?..." would still have been critical. A nation that calls itself a constitutional democracy is in serious trouble when forces antithetical to core principles rise to the level we are seeing.

It is a given that were many, many, many "environmental" forces at work -- FOX, Rise of RW radio... could go on and one. And regarding the election itself, it is a given that voter suppression helped tip the balance. And Sure, if every Stein voter had voted for Clinton the balance would have tipped the other way. But all that is irreverent to the core question..

This is NOT about "bashing." It is about taking a HARD look at what REALLY brought us to this point. We MUST understand the irrational rationalizations that motivated the leadership to "sit on" efforts to fight the good fights in the past. We must do it because we must understand those rationalizations if we are to challenge them, transform the thinking "at the top," and enable them to be the effective leaders I KNOW they can be.

[Progressive dog]

502. you wrote "This is NOT about 'bashing'"

Then you go on to bash anyone who doesn't share your views (like most Democrats), and you do it on a site where most people do seem to support Democrats.

[msanthrope]

236. Yeah, um, no. The extreme left gave us Jill Stein. It also gives us calls 2 primary current Dems

In Republican strongholds.

The fact is, more Americans voted for centrism than anything else this election.

[George II]

240. No, that road was paved by presumed "democrats" (not Democrats)....

....who were hell bent on making sure Hillary Clinton was not elected. Many of them were indeed "extreme left", see:

[alarimer]

242. Don't forget the DLC and Third Way nonsense.

Deciding that moderates were the future really drove people away from the Democratic Party. By deciding that real people and their lives were less important than campaign donations from Wall Street.

[HughBeaumont]

253. +1,000.

If we're economically no different than Republicans and start talking "Ponies", we lost the meaning.

[George II]

257. The DLC hasn't been in existence for more than six years. How could they have driven people away...

...from the Democratic Party in 2016?

[Cha]

262. They need to get up to speed with their insulting labels.

[George II]

263. It's all Harry Truman's fault.

[SMC22307]

328. Senator Joe Lieberman (D), 2008 John McCain (R) supporter...

Iraq War cheerleader, and prominent DLC member. Remember when DU was anti-Iraq war? Ah, good times.

"Inveterate liar" and "morally depraved" are good, too. You go, girl!

[Cha]

425. you really should let that go. Hillary won me over just like she

did President Obama.

We've all moved on.. you should try.

[pat_k]

342. Or not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8772516

[SMC22307]

327. Twenty-six years of damage is not easily undone.

And thirdway.org is still around doing its dirty work. That's how.

The DLC should have been burnt to the ground for many reasons -- its support for invading Iraq one of the biggest.

[pat_k]

341. "Third-way" was born out of the leadership's fear of "backlash"..

... and a desire to appease "the other side."

The irrational rationalizations driving the leadership's "go right" strategy have been at work far longer than the DLC. "Third-way" is a symptom of a deeper problem, not a cause.

I am NOT a "Democrat hater" (or "self-hater" as one poster asserted). I am pointing out failures on the part of the Democratic leadership. There are countless Democratic Party heroes, inside and outside the halls of power, who have been fighting the good fights.

My goal is simple: encourage a recognition of how wrong and destructive the leadership's rationalizations for inaction (and for moving right) have been. I think it is vital to expose how counter-productive "can't win, so don't fight" is. That rationalization has derailed battles that would have shown the nation that Democrats have core principles they are willing to go all out for, win or lose. That rationalization has kept them from "going Big" in ways that would have demonstrated the sort of strength the public is desperate for. I think it is vital to point out the extent to which fear of 'backlash' blinds them to the benefits of demonstrating the courage of their convictions. I think it is vital to put up a mirror to help them see how absurd notions like "I opposed Alito by casting a losing No vote on the floor (even though I refused to join the filibuster that would have actually stopped him)" are.

If we can put a "stake in the heart" of the rationalizations that keep them from fighting the good fights, we will either see a whole lot more action (which would bring a whole lot of those "opt outs" back in), or we'll see a new set of irrational rationalizations for inaction crop up (which we'll need to tear down).

It is also critical that for the leadership to make the fight for "free and fair elections" a top priority. For starters, a concerted effort to fight for:

a) zero tolerance for lines on election day (voter suppression through under allocation of resources),
b) legislation that sets minimum standards for what constitutes a "free and fair" election ; and
c) an end to the appalling disenfranchisement of felons.

[DownriverDem]

250. Totally Disagree with you!

How's that working out for ya? No, the ignorant and naïve 3rd party & principle/purity voters have to bare some of the blame for trump. We were all warned by Bernie, Warren, Obama and HRC.

What the hell did you think was going to happen? If you are young, your life is so screwed now more than ever.

[pat_k]

338. Not sure what post you are responding to...

... but it does not appear to be mine.

Sure, if all the Stein voters had voted for Clinton, she would have won.*

And sure, if Republican legislatures and secretaries of state had not been so effective in suppressing votes, Hillary would have won. (I have no doubt that underallocation of resources in "certain areas" created lines so long that at least 1 in 10 to turned around and went home without voting.)

The problem is, the fact that it was close enough for things like that to make a difference is NOT the fault of the "extreme left wing."

If the Democratic leadership had not spent the last few decades immobilizing the party with their fear of'backlash' and policy of "can't win, so don't fight," it would not have been close.

More here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8771920

*The premise that, but for the existence of Stein, those voters would have voted for Hillary is a very shaky premise, but for the purpose of discussion, let's pretend that premise is correct.

[CrispyQ]

255. A lot of people don't want to admit that the dems had any responsibility in this clusterfuck.

If the dems had been a true opposition party for the last 35 years we wouldn't be in this mess. But no. While the dems were running as fast as they could from the word liberal - & liberal policies, the right was funding think tanks to shape the message & then bought up all the radio stations to get it out. And they still ignore hate radio.

[ProfessorPlum]

259. Hear fucking hear

It can't be said enough. The country would rally around them if they just would FIGHT

[pat_k]

337. Thank you so much!

Thank you for engaging with the "You hate Democrats. STFU" posters. I don't like leaving things unrefuted, but just didn't have the patience to "get into it" with the mutual congratulation society that has descended on this thread,. If you hadn't stepped in, I would have felt the need to, and probably would have ended up posting some regrettable things. One of these days I'll have to learn to stop when it becomes clear that there is no getting past the caricature of the "enemy" a poster is projecting onto me.

[ProfessorPlum]

358. glad to be able to help, in some small way

The inherent weakness in the Democratic party is self-evident, and I know exactly what you are talking about. This used to be a completely uncontroversial, universally acknowledged flaw of the party here years ago. What you've said is not only not arguable, but plainly true.

Democrats, we are on your team, and in your party, and rooting for you. Fight, and don't let us down.

[JI7]

372. if they fight to go after black and brown people. Trump supporters LOVE

that.

they love him calling mexicans rapists. they love his attacks on muslims. they love his pussy grabbing talk .

[ProfessorPlum]

417. Do you/others really think that strength equals racism?

Because that's fucked up. Strength can be applied to anything, including racial justice.

[JI7]

373. Grab them by the pussy Strength

[ProfessorPlum]

412. Say what you will about the Oaf of Office

But he displays raw simian dominance. That's his only discernable asset, yet it was enough to garner almost half the vote.

[eniwetok]

267. NONSENSE ALERT!!!

The "extreme left" didn't give us Trump. The path to hell was paved by... the Democratic leadership's refusal to do their duty and defend the Constitution they swore to uphold by fighting, win or lose, for...

My god, what are you talking about... it's our Constitution THAT GAVE US TRUMP. In any other nation with traditional elections HRC, after winning the approval of 3 million more voters WOULD HAVE WON THE ELECTION.

Trump "won" because the Constitution weighs the votes of voters in the states differently. So a voter in WY has a 3.5x bigger vote than someone in CA... and this is compounded by foolish state winner take all EC formulas which combined turned HRC popular vote win into her loss.

And you can thank the Constitution for the GOP controlling the Senate even though Dem senators represent 33 million more people. We have Trump because the Dems have REFUSED to reform an antidemocratic system.

[pat_k]

335. And if more of us...

... in more states had worked to pass National Popular Vote legislation, Hillary would be in the White House.

But that Does Not mean that the thumb on the scales "gave us" DT. Anymore than Jill Stein gave us DT.

It was only close enough for votes lost to Stein, or the electoral college weighting, to make a difference because the Democratic leadership has failed to draw lines in the sand and fight for basic values, and has failed to inspire and engage people to participate to get the "big stuff" done. Had they been demonstrating the sort of strength and vision I KNOW they are capable of over the past decade or two, it would not have been close.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8771920

[eniwetok]

363. if you're blaming the Dems for not reforming the Constitution....

We KNOW that the Right loathes democracy. They want elections to be like the market... those with money prevail. So if there are to be democratic reforms to an antidemocratic system they MUST come from the Dems. But the vast, vast majority of Dems live in cognitive dissonance... that they somehow are the defenders of democracy when they clearly support an antidemocratic system. They maintain this cognitive dissonance by never bothering to define what democratic principles are... and high on that list is civic equality in the vote when it comes to representation.

But the other half of this equation is the Constitution is also almost impossible to reform. With a state based amendment formula, states with 4% of the US population can block any reform. And this is why we have the NPV approach. But there are immense problems with this approach. Congress may reject this compact as it can under Art 1, and the first time a state's EC votes are against how its population voted... there will be hell to pay. NVP is clever... but it's a bandaid over the defects of an antidemocratic and virtually reformproof system... a system protected by a Civic Religion that we mere mortals dare not try to reform what the Framers gave us... (let's sweep under the rug that many of their compromises were cynical in the extreme)

[pat_k]

368. Did you even bother to look at the link??

[eniwetok]

376. I'm well aware of the NPV... what's your point?

It is as I said... a sleazy way of trying to get around the antidemocratic EC. It's an approach with multiple problems... AND it does nothing to change the antidemocratic nature of the system. AND THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE...

You started this thread claiming that the reason we have the Trump Junta was a FAILURE of Dems to defend the Constitution...

The "extreme left" didn't give us Trump. The path to hell was paved by ... the Democratic leadership's refusal to do their duty and defend the Constitution they swore to uphold by fighting, win or lose, for:

1. Impeachment of Reagan for Iran-Contra.
2. Prosecution of Bush Sr. when the extent of his role in Iran contra was exposed.
3. An objection to the unlawfully appointed FL electors on Jan 6, 2001, as was their duty under the electoral count act.
4. Impeachment of Bush/Cheney for torture.

WHAT NONSENSE. The reason we have the Trump Junta... and the reason we're going to lose the ACA... IS BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION IS ANTIDEMOCRATIC. It the presidency and the Senate were elected where every citizen's vote weighed the same HRC would be president and the Dems would control the Senate. Feel free to try some Orwellian rewrite of history to claim otherwise.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

297. Spot on!

And too many here put party before values/actions, exactly what the GOP does.

[Trumpocalypse]

424. Maybe that's why the GOP is winning elections

and we don't.

So the question is do you want to win elections and have an opportunity to change things for the good or would you rather sit on your ideological high horse and continue to let the GOP win?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

426. Your assumption is weak.

Maybe people don't vote at all because they see Democrats letting the GOP get away with everything. When Sanders announced, he electrified the country because they knew he wasn't going to put up with any bullshit. It's when the Democrats become a clear alternative (by perception, at least), that they have a better chance.

[Trumpocalypse]

508. Not an assumption

It's based on your own statement and the fact that the GOP is winning more elections despite Democratic party policies being more popular.

And maybe if people voted instead of demanding 100% ideological purity, we'd all be better off.

[iscooterliberally]

310. I don't know, but to me it sure seems like voter apathy put...

...a dumpsterfire in the oval office. Less than 27% of eligible voters cast their ballots for 'it'. Yes, it's arguable that the electoral college put this load of rubbish in, but really it's the fact that so many people just don't get off their asses and go vote. There are voter suppression laws that kill it for a lot of people, like the fact that you have to register to vote months in advance in some states. I really wish that voting was mandatory....like no tax refund if you don't show up at the polls or something like that. Voter apathy is why we have a republican party in my opinion. Yes you can call me crazy.

[pat_k]

320. In my view...

... the level of apathy is directly attributable to the Democratic leadership's unwillingness to:

1. Demonstrate commitment to core principles by drawing a few lines in the sand (like taking up the fight to impeach Bush to protect was is perhaps the most basic human right -- the right not to be tortured);

2. Get out there and advocate for a few "game changers" like universal health care and free access to college, instill confidence that we can those changes done, and enlist people to vote elect more Dems to state and federal offices make it happen.

I am NOT a "Democrat hater" (or "self-hater" as one poster asserted). I am pointing out failures on the part of the Democratic leadership. There are countless Democratic Party heroes, inside and outside the halls of power, who have been fighting the good fights.

My goal is simple: encourage a recognition of how wrong and destructive the leadership's rationalizations for inaction have been. I think it is vital to expose how counter-productive "can't win, so don't fight" is. That rationalization has derailed battles that would have shown the nation that Democrats have core principles they are willing to go all out for, win or lose. That rationalization has kept them from "going Big" in ways that would have demonstrated the sort of strength the public is desperate for. I think it is vital to point out the extent to which fear of 'backlash' blinds them to the benefits of demonstrating the courage of their convictions. I think it is vital to put up a mirror to help them see how absurd notions like "I opposed Alito by casting a losing No vote on the floor (even though I refused to join the filibuster that would have actually stopped him)" are.

If we can put a "stake in the heart" of the rationalizations that keep them from fighting the good fights, we will either see a whole lot more action (which would bring a whole lot of those "opt outs" back in), or we'll see a new set of irrational rationalizations for inaction crop up (which we'll need to tear down).

And as you point out, there are an enormous number who would get out and vote if we actually had "free and fair" elections. The Democratic leadership must also make the fight for "free and fair elections" a top priority. For starters, a concerted effort to fight for:

a) zero tolerance for lines on election day (voter suppression through under allocation of resources),
b) legislation that sets minimum standards for what constitutes a "free and fair" election ; and
c) an end to the appalling disenfranchisement of felons.

[iscooterliberally]

437. Understood. I actually signed up as a Democrat because or Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren.

I was living in MA back in 2012 and got to vote for Warren in her senate run. I agree that George W Bush should have been impeached, not only for torture, but also for the outing of Valerie Plame. I also hate the fact that the Democratic leadership is complicit in our insane war against drugs. The controlled substances act along with the DEA have got to go. We can't be 'the land of the free' and the land with more people behind bars than any other nation. We have a heroin epidemic because of our drug laws, not in spite of them. I'd like to see some more back-bone from the Democratic leadership too.

[Rex]

311. The OP you are referring to is total garbage.

It was fun shoving all that revisionist history back down the OPs throat. Of course they could do nothing but whine about getting caught.

[Cha]

340. Oh you're wrong, Rex.. dead wrong. There was no "revisionist" history

going on.. just history.

No one is whining, either..

[pat_k]

334. Thanks to all who Recommended!

Keep fighting the good fight!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=10028767017&info=1#recs

[Eko]

343. Of of all the reasons to pick

Fox news, the dumbing down of America, the GOP's willingness to lie and use fear to convince voters, underfunded schools, stupid entertainment, you chose the democratic party. You are so full of it it's not even funny. Total agenda on display and you saying that is was the Democratic party disproves your entire point, you are far left helping the republicans continue to do this. Crazy.

[pat_k]

346. "Strong and Wrong" v. Weak and Right" v. "Strong and Right"

It's a given that all the forces you cite are at work. But those forces are surmountable. Those forces have brainwashed about thirty-percent, and that thirty-percent are likely unreachable. Where the Republican noise machine has been most effective is in bolstering the "Strong" image of the Republican Party. Their efforts on that score would not have effectively moved large numbers their way if the Democratic leadership had not failed to lead at the critical junctures I cite in my post.

As Bill Clinton points out,

“When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody that's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right.”

The Democrats are perceived as weak. They may be Weak and Right, but Strong and Wrong wins out. The leadership needs to transform themselves. They need to let go of the rationalizations that keep them from taking bold action and fighting, win or lose, for core principles.

Had they they been doing that for the past couple decades the "Strong and Wrong" Republicans would be toast. "Strong and Right" is unbeatable. Instead of us "moving right," we would have had the Republicans "moving left."

It is never too late for redemption.

I am being attacked because I "hate Democrats." That is so far off the mark it is laughable. I love this party. There are countless Democrats, inside and outside the halls of power, who have been fighting the good fight. If I did not believe the leadership was capable of getting past the group think that has kept them from taking on the tough fights they must take on if they ever hope to win unbeatable majorities, I would have given up long, long, ago.

Am I 'upset' with them? You bet. When someone you love is doing themselves self-harm, it is extremely upsetting. Like someone whose loved one is an addict, I am compelled to do everything in my power to save them from themselves. You don't give up on 'family."

[Eko]

349. Sure, what you are saying is correct to a point.

But, you are asking us to be wrong in favor of being strong. That is not the Democratic party and to do that would make us Republicans. I will always be right instead of strong and wrong, I will never give up being right to appear strong. You should read some Lakoff if you haven't already. We are not loosing because we are right, we are loosing because people would rather do what you want, be strong and wrong, its the easiest way out. So when you advocate for it you are actually pushing our demise, instead you should be pushing the being right thing. Hence how the far left is helping the Republicans and not the Democrats when they choose this course.

[pat_k]

360. What? Where am i "asking us to be wrong.."??

I'm asking them to be Strong and Right. I can't imagine what you are reading that would make you think otherwise.

[Eko]

352. These people were "weak but right"

And they changed the world.

[pat_k]

359. Are you kidding? Those people are icons of strength!

[Cha]

348. Mahalo, Eko!

Thank you!!!

[Eko]

350. nope,

thanks you Cha!!!!Keep on keep oning.

[Go Vols]

366. This thread has twice the recs

in a day, than the thread that says the opposite gets in 5 days.

Come on in and join us,the waters fine.

[pat_k]

367. Cha and Bravenak, thanks for doing a Great Job keeping the OP kicked!!

Looks like you have more than 60 posts between you. Thanks so much for helping the OP get to the top tier of the greatest page!

[BainsBane]

380. Let me put it to you another way

You claim the "left"* didn't cost Democrats the 2016 or any other election, and then you list a number of complaints against the Democratic party, essentially arguing its their own fault for losing. Let's assume, for sake of argument, that your criticisms are all on point. Why should they matter? The Republicans don't want to see Republicans impeached. You and others had repeatedly argued that the left didn't affect the election results in any way. Why are you so satisfied by what you insist is its political impotence? If the left has no effect on elections, why shouldnt the Dem party tract further to the right to keep up with the electorate whose votes are determinative? The logical outcome of your claims is that your impact is so insignificant that there is no reason for politicians to pay attention to your complaints.

*Note, for the sake of argument I am accepting your conception if leftism, which I have vehemently disagree with elsewhere in this thread.

(I thought I'd kick this thread again since the post above indicates the attention is important to you.)

[pat_k]

384. "You and others had repeatedly argued that the left didn't affect the election results in any way."

I have never made that claim. The opposite in fact.
e,g, #post338 up thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8772464

[Go Vols]

385. Damn the torpedos ...

[BainsBane]

391. That post does not support what you claim

You explicitly say there is no evidence Stein voters would have supported Hillary. You say the closeness of the election was the fault of Democratic leadership, but that the left was not part of what made it close. There and in the OP you make the case for your own irrelevance.

You attribute the closeness of the election-- without evidence that your views are shared by any significant portion of the population--to everything that irritated you dating from Iran contra, but then you claim the left wasn't determinative at all. Either the left helped deliver the election to Trump for the reasons you stated, or they didn't. You can't have it both ways.

[pat_k]

394. No, I said none of that.

Perhaps if you try to find actual quotes of mine (in context) that say what you are claiming I am saying, you will find that they simply do not exist.

[BainsBane]

396. Let's review then

The problem is, the fact that it was close enough for things like that to make a difference is NOT the fault of the "extreme left wing."

If the Democratic leadership had not spent the last few decades immobilizing the party with their fear of'backlash' and policy of "can't win, so don't fight," it would not have been close. . . .
The premise that, but for the existence of Stein, those voters would have voted for Hillary is a very shaky premise

In your OP:

The "extreme left" didn't give us Trump

The bottom line: The party leadership's immoral refusal to stand and fight for the Constitution coupled with their cowardly policy of preemptive surrender paved the road to our current hell.

Your claim is the fault is with the party leadership. In another post you said

I NEVER said Democrats didn't stand up. I said the Leadership didn't.

The point in question is the vote total of 2016. You say it wasn't the fault of the left but the Democratic leadership. You've told us how you think the Democratic leadership lost votes but you haven't specified whose votes. I assumed you meant the votes of the left, since the point of the OP was to defend what you call the "extreme left." Whose votes are you talking about?

[pat_k]

403. Are you kidding?

The adulation of Reagan would not exist if he had faced the impeachment his actions demanded.

Bush Jr would never have been in the running at all if Bush Sr. had been prosecuted.

Those failures alone didn't bring us here. The leadership had another chance to fight for us -- to fight for our right to have our votes counted -- by standing and objecting to the unlawfully appointed Florida electors.

And, even failing that, they had yet another chance to turn the tide by drawing a line in the sand and fighting to impeach Bush to defend perhaps the most basic human right there is -- the right not to be tortured.

When the leadership went all out to stop the momentum that was building for impeachment, the message they sent was crystal clear: "This is not important enough to us. Torturing in the name of the American people isn't really so bad." And that message gave power to the worst of humanity. Their failure to draw lines in the sand at critical junctures allowed lines that should be held inviolable to be crossed with impunity.

How these failures paved the road to our current fate is self-evident.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, this is NOT about "bashing" them. This is not just about "the past." It is about THE FUTURE. All I am attempting to do is encourage a recognition of how wrong and destructive the rationalizations for inaction have been. I think it is vital to expose how counter-productive "can't win, so don't fight" is; to point out the extent to which fear of 'backlash' blinds them to the benefits of demonstrating the courage of their convictions; to put up a mirror to help them see how absurd notions like "I opposed Alito by casting a losing No vote on the floor (even though I refused to join the filibuster that would have actually stopped him)" are. If we can put a "stake in the heart" of the rationalizations that keep them from fighting the good fights, we will either see a whole lot more movement in the right direction TODAY and TOMORROW, or a new set of irrational rationalizations for inaction will crop up (and need to be torn down).

[BainsBane]

406. Non responsive. Nt

[pat_k]

404. P.S.

Do you really expect me to give you a tally of how many votes their failures of leadership have cost them every year over the last three decades?

Really?

As I said, you've got to be kidding.

[BainsBane]

405. I asked a simple question

Whose votes are you talking about? Are the left included? I don't mean numbers. I'm asking what sorts of voters refused to vote for Clinton because of the reasons you listed. Does that mean they voted for Trump because of those reasons?

[pat_k]

407. A request for a tally of votes lost the party over three decades is NOT "a simple question."

It is an asinine question.

[BainsBane]

408. I told you I was not asking for a tally

I want a yes or no response: is your OP talking about why the "extreme left" did not vote for Clinton in the general election of 2016. Yes or No?

[pat_k]

409. No

And I can't imagine how any reading of anything I've said could possibly be construed as touching on the question of "why the 'extreme left' didn't vote for Clinton."

[BainsBane]

410. "The extreme left didn't give us Trump"

And you go on to list a series of greviances with the party that you claim gave us Trump. But now you say those are not reasons the "extreme left" didn't vote for Clinton.

How can you possibly presume to know why anyone but yourself voted as they did without data? If your post isn't about the 2016 defeat of Clinton, why frame it in relation to the election?

[pat_k]

411. This is pointless.

We are talking past each other. What you are reading, and what I am writing, appear to have little relation to each other.

[BainsBane]

415. You have an aversion to logic

You clearly are unwilling to think beyond a rant. You are pissed off at the party. You start by framing it in terms of their responsibility for Trump's election and now evade the most simple questions about whose votes you are insisting they lost because of the failings you cite. Clearly you are arguing the Dem Party deserved to lose because of those failings, but you won't even admit those are reasons for your own vote let alone anyone else's. You insist even asking about votes is asinine, when it is votes that determine electoral outcomes.

You refuse to as much as face your own argument let alone the consequences of what you are justifying. You respond to points about the implications of your argument with weak distractions like "provide quotes where I said that", when it was abundantly clear I was not trying to summarize your point but talk about contradictions in your argument (in my response today) and real-life consequences in my response of two days ago. You refuse to deal with either and resent being asked to do more than emote. Your singular focus on your anger is inadequate. Politics is not about your personal catharsis but the nation as a whole. You condemn the Democratic leadership for lacking the strength to fight, while showing that you yourself lack the of courage of your convictions to deal honestly with your own argument.

[pat_k]

420. You are being intentionally obtuse.

[betsuni]

423. It's a War on Logic.

Carl Sagan's list of fallacious arguments, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection, in "The Demon-haunted World" come to life.

[pat_k]

477. Deleted reply to wrong post

[pat_k]

478. Logic based on erroneous assumptions is fatally flawed.

Last edited Sat Mar 11, 2017, 03:46 AM - Edit history (1)

You have a very narrow question in mind and are attempting to force my posts into the context of that narrow question. The correct context is a broader question. Namely:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8775743

[JCanete]

447. I've never made that claim either, and I've had a few recent conversations with you on this topic.

For instance, in my case, I said focusing on the few percentage points that you or others argue swung the election, versus the 30 odd percentage points that we lose to the GOP courtesy of the corporate media-- an incessant propaganda and noise machine that we do not lift a finger to call out as such--is fighting the wrong battle, and seems pointed at getting people to reject leftism as radical, selfish, and just all around illegitimate.

I also said the far left DID impact the Democratic party platform, which matters. Many of us on the far left voted for Clinton because post convention, she and the party adopted less ambiguous language when it came to taking a stand that was going to be unpopular with certain powerful special interests...the sorts of things the left has been ignored on for a long time.

Like any group of voters, if they can be counted on no matter what, then why fight for what they care about, especially if it is hard? Why put a target on your head as a politician if there is nothing to gain, and for that matter no cover of public support that gives you permission and backup to take on that challenge? Our democratic politicians are the best of the best. They know how to stay in the game, and even sometimes get into office in an incredibly hostile environment, but they know that without populist support they have to use established channels of funding and candidacy propagation. Their strength ultimately becomes their greatest weakness, because it mutes their rhetoric and ties their hands. They get bloodied to a pulp and they have to keep smiling at the media and kissing its ass, because they know what shit-storm challenging it will be.

Republicans...they can challenge the media, and the media won't even fight back. That's all part of the game. If republicans call the media liberal and fake, then it only makes the media's pro-corporate slant more insidious. It makes any truth they have to cover that has a well known liberal bias, suspect, and gives any lie or half-truth or truthiness with a conservative spin the legitimacy of being voiced even by the liberal media. We have got to quit letting them get away with this. They are demonstrably owned by corporations with pro-corporate interests, who have their own far bigger business interests than the likes of CNN or MSNBC, and the funding model of those stations is one that relies on the quid pro quo nature of getting those companies to place ad buys. Access is a thing as well, but I'd venture is used more as a bullshit excuse for poor coverage than the bigger picture.

but sorry about that digression...it just goes to trying to identify some of the ways in which our party establishment is playing a rigged game by those rigged rules, and losing by its design. We need to call out the design, not the lefties who are disgusted by it. Yes, you could argue that they swung the Presidential race because of the percentage they amounted to, or the unknown percentage of them that stayed home, but you'd still be focusing in the wrong place, because that's all small potatoes compared to where we are really getting our clock cleaned.

[BainsBane]

448. Take the hint

And save the ink. I'm not interested.

[JCanete]

452. You don't have to be interested. It's still here if other people are. Personally, I find it

important to be familiar with and to engage with different perspectives on these issues for my own growth. Other people actually read these threads, and may feel the same way.

Anyway, you are saying something is being said that I haven't seen be said, so I was wondering if maybe you weren't interpreting those things differently than I do, and figured I'd use an example of my own previous statements on the matter.

Take care.

[pat_k]

481. I appreciate the post.

There is a strange "talking past" each other going on here. I am being told that I am saying things that I simply have not said.

It is a given that were many, many, many "environmental" forces at work -- FOX, Rise of RW radio... could go on and one. And regarding the election itself, it is a given that voter suppression helped tip the balance. And Sure, if every Stein voter had voted for Clinton the balance would have tipped the other way.

The thing is, in my view, all that is essentially irrelevant. The question we MUST be asking ourselves is "How did we get to this moment in our history? A moment in the the number of people openly supporting Authoritarian/Reactionary/Racist/UnAmerican political ideology is almost equal to the number openly supporting Democratic/Progressive/American/Multicultural political ideology."

If Clinton had won, I would NOT have heaved some sigh of relief. Answering the question, "How did we get to this moment?..." would still have been critical. A nation that calls itself a constitutional democracy is in serious trouble when forces antithetical to core principles rise to the level we are seeing.

I took a shot at re-framing things (Link below). Don't know if it will help anyone get a better handle on what I'm saying. If you have any suggestions on how to "get through" I'd welcome them. if Democrats are not more open to taking a HARD look at their own role in how we got here, I do not see how we can turn the tide. I have no interest in just "butting heads." I want to find ways to get past the knee jerk "You hate Democrats. STFU" response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8775743

[JCanete]

501. that is going to be very hard to do. It just takes continuing to be patient i think, and putting in

the effort to represent yourself fully, while never being blind to the perspectives and personal suffering of the people making those accusations.. I'll read what you've got and try to learn from it, because I clearly don't have a handle on it.

[George II]

457. Takes a lot of work to count up everyone's posts in a thread. But...

....its interesting that the 60 between the two of them is about 20 less than you alone, and your posts in this thread represent about 20% of all your posts over the last 90 days and 20% of all posts in the thread (all in the space of less than two days).

As far as I know, Democratic Underground doesn't penalize members for post count.

[pat_k]

459. Nah. Pull the "index" into a table and sort by poster. Piece of cake.

Having post titles and numbers sorted by name is an enormous help in following who is saying what in long threads. If I need a reminder of post content, I just search for the post number. Saves a hell of a lot of scrolling around. It's also helps in deciding what to reply to (I like to avoid replying multiple times to the same person making the same point 30 times, but usually try to reply to a new person that makes the same point. )

[stevenleser]

534. I want to thank them too, for proving your assertions wrong so all can see. nt

[pat_k]

536. See #532

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8789290

[Ruy Lopez]

379. The "extreme left" was only reason #3 for Trump

Reason #1 was the priority to segmentation of the people by identity (race, sexual orientation,..) over the key issue of how the economy is working for the average Joe.
Trump gave fake answers, but he kept harping on the issue, with Hillary far less audibly so.

Reason #2 was disinformation: Comey + Russia's hackers.

The antics of the fringe "extreme left" (campus intolerance or riots over disputed arrests) came as a cherry on top (and not a decisive cherry)

[BainsBane]

381. Except there is significant overlap

Between some of your points.

[Ruy Lopez]

388. Let me know how

because I do not see the overlap

[BainsBane]

392. The overlap

Is that both groups one and two operated from a worldview framed by their race, class, and gender. The right-wing Trump voters wanted to restore white supremacy. The self-described leftists, overwhelmingly white and male, who voted third party or for Trump decided their own anger at the party was more significant that the oppression against the poor, people of color, immigrants, and roll back of women's rights that would result from a Trump presidency. Ultimately both groups voted for discrimination and oppression of others.

[Ruy Lopez]

528. You must have misread my post

I mentioned 3 categories of reasons, not of people.
My reason #2 was Comey and wikileaks, no mention of groups.

[BainsBane]

530. You mentioned voters motivated by race

Last edited Tue Mar 14, 2017, 08:45 AM - Edit history (1)

and also self-described leftists who voted third party or for Trump. My point was those two groups share some common values.

[Ruy Lopez]

531. I think I see where the misunderstanding comes from

I did not mention voters motivated by race.
I referred to the overemphasis on population segments (sex, race,..) by our side

By opposition to the fact Trump addressed (in his bizarre, clownish way) a really important socio-economic issue = blue collars (regardless of sex or race) left out by globalization.

We were talking at cross purposes, it seems.

[pat_k]

387. Both reasons pale in comparison.

Democratic leadership has failed to draw lines in the sand and fight for basic values, and has failed to inspire and engage people to participate to get the "big stuff" done. Had they been demonstrating the sort of strength and vision I KNOW they are capable of over the past decade or two, it would not have been close.

#post377
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8773335

[Ruy Lopez]

389. Bill Clinton's campaign mantra: "It's the economy, stupid"

Podesta diagnosed that the Rust Belt folks who lost jobs were disenfranchised,
and the Democratic campaign 2016 didn't offer loud solutions,
while Trump offer loud pipe dreams.

[democratisphere]

421. The alt-left certainly did help.

[pat_k]

526. Of course. As did low participation, and many other factors... See Post #525

Post #525
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8783229

[beachbum bob]

427. if stein voters weren't extreme left...then who is?...every vote for her was a vote for trump

get used to the fact

[pat_k]

449. What paved the road to the "balance point"?

What paved the road to the point that the electorate, when faced with such a clear choice between Real American Values vs. Authoritarian/Reactionary rule, went for the later in such UNBELIEVABLE numbers?

And those numbers are truly unbelievable. The few that jumped ship saying "a pox on both your houses" were a minuscule force in the scheme of things. But for the failures of leadership on the part of the "good guys" at the top of the Democratic Party, no attempt to grab the levers of power by such a blatant racist, reactionary, authoritarian, corporatist would have had a shred of a chance of succeeding.

Democratic failures in leadership in driving the policy debate, plus their monumental and immoral failures to draw lines in the sand at critical junctures, brought us to this point.

The adulation of Reagan would not exist if he had faced the impeachment his actions demanded.

Bush Jr would never have been in the running at all if Bush Sr. had been prosecuted.

Those failures alone didn't bring us here. The leadership had another chance to fight for us -- to fight for our right to have our votes counted -- by standing and objecting to the unlawfully appointed Florida electors.

And, even failing that, they had yet another chance to turn the tide by drawing a line in the sand and fighting to impeach Bush to defend perhaps the most basic human right there is -- the right not to be tortured.

Their failure to draw ANY of these lines in the sand allowed a barrier that should be inviolable in a nation that calls itself a constitutional democracy to be crossed with impunity.

When the leadership went all out to stop the momentum that was building for impeachment, it was the "nail in the coffin" (to mix up a few more metaphors). The message they sent was crystal clear:"This is not important enough to us. Torturing in the name of the American people isn't really so bad." And that message gave power to the worst of humanity.

Brick by brick they built the road. It is akin to a city being overrun by criminals when the cops turn a blind eye and stop doing their job. Criminals are out there. They will do destructive things. That is a given. And reactionary, racist, authoritarian, corporatists are out there. They do destructive things. That is also a given. It's when the "good guys" who are supposed to keep those destructive forces in check don't do their job that those forces run rampant.

This is NOT about "bashing." It is about taking a HARD look at what REALLY brought us to this point. We MUST understand the irrational rationalizations that motivated the leadership to "sit on" efforts to fight the good fights in the past. We must do it because we must understand those rationalizations if we are to challenge them, transform the thinking "at the top," and enable them to be the effective leaders I KNOW they can be.

[lapucelle]

482. Exactly what comprises the monolithic "party leadership" circa 1985-2017?

If it's their fault, who are they exactly? This sounds more to me to be about Democrats in general, rather than some hypothetical continuum of "leadership" that has existed for the last 30 years.

I've been a Democrat for over 40 years, and I have no idea who or what you're talking about.

[pat_k]

484. It will take me awhile to dig up quotes from the leadership...

...on iran contra, the stolen election, impeachment of Bush. The reasons for inaction that have been been invoked at every juncture are eerie echoes of each other. And at every juncture there were members of the House and Senate who were pushing for action. The leadership worked against those efforts.

I'd also like to pull together quotes from some of the showdowns on policy ("going big" vs. "going small&quot within the party.

Digging up the concrete examples will be a worthwhile project. It is always best to be as specific as possible.

[lapucelle]

487. Why not simply define what you mean by "leadership"?

What are the criteria for inclusion in that category?

[pat_k]

488. Sorry. Thought that was a given.

Last edited Sat Mar 11, 2017, 12:10 AM - Edit history (1)

House
-----------
Speaker (if in majority)
Majority (or minority) leader
Assistant leader (title may be wrong)
Whip
Caucus chair
Committee chairs/ranking members
Members generally considered most influential

Senate
-----------
Majority leader (or conference chair)
Whip
Assistant leader
Conference chair
Conference vice chair
Committee chairs/ranking members
Senators generally considered most influential

[lapucelle]

490. You forgot "president"

who, of course, is the acting leader of the party.

I imagine that you'd have to include Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Bernie Sanders (who has been both both a committee chairman and a ranking member) given your broad criteria and time frame.

[pat_k]

491. Of course...

Democratic presidents (current or former) and veeps are obviously in the "leadership" of the party, but when it comes to the question of whether to impeach for high crimes, it is the members of Congress who have both the power to impeach and the sworn duty to defend the Constitution. And step 1 falls exclusively to the members of the house.

[betsuni]

428. I feel this thing needs a musical interlude.

And it's the road to hell, not the path, duh.

[treestar]

432. LOL Grieg never knew

He'd have named a work perfect for the 21st century.

[stevenleser]

435. Nope, wishing doesn't make it so. There is no evidence for what you write. You just want it to be

that way.

[pat_k]

450. See Post #449

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8775743

[stevenleser]

532. I saw it. Just more wishing to make it so. All unproven wild assertions. nt

[pat_k]

535. So, it was right to...

... derail efforts to impeach Bush for torturing in the name of the American people? To fail to fight against perhaps the most basic human right there is -- the right not to be tortured? The pattern that led Dems to that failure isn't a problem?

[JudyM]

506. Strong, well-conceived OP. I'd toss in also the bandwidth and high ground our leadership loses

with the extent of currying to big donors. And why the hell have they not made a concerted effort to fix our election system as a top priority.

We need more courage and fewer conflicts of interest. Hopefully the public revolts will continue to inspire and drive that home to them.

[backscatter712]

507. The Democrats lost because they hollowed out their principles.

The OP is exactly right. They stopped fighting for what's right, and ran on the platform of We Suck Less.

Yet they're still desperately trying to claim the "Bernie Bros" and the "extreme left" caused their defeat.

Bullshit.

I said it before - the Democratic Party needs the progressives to win.

Instead, they drove them away, and that made the election close enough to steal.

[Demsrule86]

513. Yes they did...they are spoilers who refuse to face reality and consider winning strategies...they

have f'd up midterms...famously the presidential election of 2000...I sincerely hope those that helped elect Trump which includes Trump voters, Stein voters (Putin's girl)and those who wrote in a gorilla or stayed home suffer terribly and regret what they did for the rest of their sorry lives...they have blood on their hands.

[pat_k]

519. See Post #393

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8773526

[dawg]

517. Every eligible voter who didn't vote for Clinton gave us this.

I don't care if they consider themselves "left" or "right".

U.S. elections are a binary choice, and if they didn't vote for Hillary Clinton they are partially responsible for Donald Trump being president. (Noble and idealistic intentions notwithstanding.)

[pat_k]

520. See Post #393

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8773526

[dawg]

522. Um ... yeah, I already saw that one.

Just another wall of text that regurgitates the flawed logic of the OP.

Want better Democrats? Elect them in the Democratic Primaries!

Want a better government? Elect the Democrats who won those primaries!

I wish we had instant run-off elections, or some other system that would enable a third party to serve a purpose other than that of a spoiler. But we don't.

And Trump is the fault of everyone who could have voted for Hillary, but didn't. (Exceptions made, of course, for people who were unable to vote due to personal tragedies, etc.)

That includes:

Trump voters (obviously)

Stein voters

Johnson voters

Non-voters

[pat_k]

524. Our primaries are great places to start ranked choice.

Last edited Sun Mar 12, 2017, 06:24 PM - Edit history (4)

Since our state parties determine the method, it's a great place to work on implementing ranked choice. Primaries get national attention so it puts the method in the public mind. And the method makes so much sense, having a few irv/ranked choice primaries could kick start the spread.

Obviously, finding and electing great candidates is key. But to me, it cannot end there. Lobbying those who get into office to follow through, or take a bold step, is critical. And sometimes making a case for action needs to involve pointing out some terrible past mistakes as a warning not to repeat them.

On edit:
Given the difficultly with unseating incumbents, many of the people who contributed to those past mistakes being made will be with us for a long time. When we are unable to unseat them, it is critical that we "work on them" to help them be more effective.

[VOX]

529. What manner of absurd infighting is this?

What a great strategy, pitting Democrats vs. Democrats when there's been a coup d'etat by yahoos and their Russian comrades.

Christ almighty, what a sorry state of affairs. Like dingos snarling at each other over some ossified roadkill.

[pat_k]

533. Yes. The beating up on the so-called "extreme left" needs to stop (nt)