HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Sanders Rallies Against G...

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 06:42 AM

Sanders Rallies Against GOP Health Care Plan at Town Hall

Following a Town Hall meeting in one of West Virginia's poorest counties Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders says the Senate can defeat the House Republican proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act.

March 12, 2017, at 10:21 p.m.


[font color="gray"]U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders talks to some of the 250 people who turned out for a Town Hall meeting about rural poverty in Welch, W.Va., Sunday, March 12, 2017. Following the Town Hall meeting in one of West Virginia's poorest counties Vermont U.S. Sen. Sanders says the Senate can defeat the House Republican proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act with a version he says would provide enormous tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. (AP Photo/S.M. Christman) THE ASSOCIATED PRESS[/font]

Excerpt:

WELCH, W.Va. (AP) Following a Town Hall meeting in one of West Virginia's poorest counties U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders said Sunday that the Senate can defeat the House Republican proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act with a version he said would provide enormous tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

The former Democratic presidential candidate from Vermont received a standing ovation immediately from about 250 people in a high school auditorium in McDowell County, and his call for universal health care as a right for all Americans was greeted with loud applause.

The Republican proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act, which added health care coverage to 20 million people, would throw five to 10 million people off coverage including thousands of West Virginians, Sanders said. At the same time, it would provide an estimated $275 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans over a decade, he said.

"Instead of giving tax breaks to billionaires, I think we need to ask them to pay their fair share," Sanders said. The Republican-controlled Congress doesn't want any scrutiny or hearings on the House proposal, which the American Medical Association, American Hospital Association and AARP all oppose, he said.

He told The Associated Press afterward that West Virginia's Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin will join the vote against the substitute, adding they need Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who has raised concerns about the House plan's effect on expanded Medicaid, which her state has, to join them.

"She can be the key vote," he said. "I think what we've got to do now is defeat it in the Senate and then sit down and determine how we improve the Affordable Care Act and not simply repeal it and make it worse."

Sanders said rural areas all over the U.S have similar issues, have been neglected and need good cell service, broadband internet access and roads and bridges. He advocated a $1 trillion infrastructure program he said would create many jobs.

The meeting hosted by MSNBC to examine the needs of rural America will be broadcast Monday evening.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/west-virginia/articles/2017-03-12/sanders-rallies-against-gop-health-care-plan-at-town-hall

171 replies, 4688 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 171 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sanders Rallies Against GOP Health Care Plan at Town Hall (Original post)
Donkees Mar 2017 OP
democrank Mar 2017 #1
Donkees Mar 2017 #3
democrank Mar 2017 #4
madokie Mar 2017 #2
BainsBane Mar 2017 #5
ismnotwasm Mar 2017 #7
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #8
George II Mar 2017 #13
Blue_Warrior Mar 2017 #29
Cha Mar 2017 #171
Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #46
liquid diamond Mar 2017 #70
lunamagica Mar 2017 #89
msanthrope Mar 2017 #100
uponit7771 Mar 2017 #170
Dustlawyer Mar 2017 #6
Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #48
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2017 #78
Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #148
alarimer Mar 2017 #83
JCanete Mar 2017 #159
hollowdweller Mar 2017 #73
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #9
Donkees Mar 2017 #11
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #14
George II Mar 2017 #16
George II Mar 2017 #23
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #28
George II Mar 2017 #42
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #56
Tom Rinaldo Mar 2017 #57
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #64
Tom Rinaldo Mar 2017 #66
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #69
Tom Rinaldo Mar 2017 #74
George II Mar 2017 #60
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #65
Blue_true Mar 2017 #166
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2017 #80
George II Mar 2017 #15
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #19
Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #49
Name removed Mar 2017 #18
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #21
Name removed Mar 2017 #22
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #26
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #168
Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #51
Name removed Mar 2017 #118
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #10
johnp3907 Mar 2017 #12
Name removed Mar 2017 #24
Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #52
alarimer Mar 2017 #84
Name removed Mar 2017 #116
Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #140
Name removed Mar 2017 #114
Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #138
Name removed Mar 2017 #149
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #25
johnp3907 Mar 2017 #33
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #35
johnp3907 Mar 2017 #38
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #40
LanternWaste Mar 2017 #79
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #94
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #41
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #50
Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #54
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #62
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #59
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #68
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #72
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #77
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #88
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #90
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #101
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #111
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #123
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #127
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #129
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #130
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #134
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #137
LiberalLovinLug Mar 2017 #108
George II Mar 2017 #113
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #121
George II Mar 2017 #124
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #128
Cary Mar 2017 #144
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #154
NastyRiffraff Mar 2017 #150
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #155
JHan Mar 2017 #81
Cary Mar 2017 #169
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2017 #82
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #91
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2017 #96
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #97
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2017 #99
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #104
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2017 #105
George II Mar 2017 #120
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #125
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #109
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #131
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #136
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #141
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #146
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #156
Cary Mar 2017 #87
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #95
Cary Mar 2017 #98
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #107
Cary Mar 2017 #122
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #132
Cary Mar 2017 #143
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #151
George II Mar 2017 #112
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #133
George II Mar 2017 #139
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #145
George II Mar 2017 #147
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #157
George II Mar 2017 #92
still_one Mar 2017 #106
George II Mar 2017 #117
George II Mar 2017 #67
Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #53
TCJ70 Mar 2017 #63
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #85
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #93
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #110
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #119
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #126
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #135
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #142
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #158
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #160
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #161
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #162
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #165
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #167
Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #152
Tanuki Mar 2017 #44
ProfessorPlum Mar 2017 #115
QC Mar 2017 #103
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #17
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #27
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #31
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #37
Tom Rinaldo Mar 2017 #30
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #34
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #39
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #45
bekkilyn Mar 2017 #58
George II Mar 2017 #102
Tom Rinaldo Mar 2017 #43
hollowdweller Mar 2017 #75
JI7 Mar 2017 #164
MineralMan Mar 2017 #20
jalan48 Mar 2017 #32
Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #55
jalan48 Mar 2017 #61
alarimer Mar 2017 #86
Demsrule86 Mar 2017 #153
jalan48 Mar 2017 #163
flamingdem Mar 2017 #36
riderinthestorm Mar 2017 #47
hollowdweller Mar 2017 #71
mvd Mar 2017 #76

Response to Donkees (Original post)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 07:21 AM

1. Looking forward to Chris Hayes' program tonight on MSNBC.

I'm interested in hearing what folks in West Virginia have to say. I bet their problems are similar to those we have in rural Vermont. Rural areas have a lot in common which is one reason Democrats should get serious about a 50-state strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrank (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 07:31 AM

3. Here's a link to a thread of snapshots of that town hall. Bernie is hosting two town halls

in Vermont this week, March 16 and 17.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280218415

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donkees (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 07:45 AM

4. A few years go when I was driving through a village in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom

I saw a hand-written sign on a telephone pole. It went something like this....

Spaghetti dinner with Bernie tonight
Community Hall, 6:00
FREE


It was wonderful. Short presentation by Bernie, then Vermonters spoke about their troubles and concerns. He comes home regularly and talks with us. We couldn't ask for a better representative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donkees (Original post)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 07:26 AM

2. By all rights

This man should be who is in the oval office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 08:45 AM

5. What rights are those?

Divine right? There certainly is no justification under democracy for someone who earned only 12 million votes to rule over a country of 300,000,000. If someone in such a position were to seize power, it would be through a coup. Is that the right you are speaking of? The right of might? Or is it the right where those 12 million judge themselves so inherently superior to the rest of the population that they feel entitled to substitute their desires for the will of a much larger electorate, and in the process abrogate equal rights?

I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like to have so little respect for my fellow citizens to make that sort of comment.










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 08:54 AM

7. Oh bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 08:54 AM

8. How do you figure that?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 09:30 AM

13. I think he was, about a week or two ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:16 AM

29. He was the best choice but he couldn't beat the system,

 

At least he is still out fighting the progressive fight every day!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Warrior (Reply #29)

Tue Mar 14, 2017, 02:11 AM

171. No he wasn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:53 AM

46. You have to win a primary first...and the jury is still out as far as I am concerned.

I think the town hall was helpful-that was a good thing he did...we need to stop the bastards in the house from killing people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:03 PM

70. Nope

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liquid diamond (Reply #70)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:02 PM

89. NO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:17 PM

100. Um, no, says 65 million HRC votes. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 07:55 PM

170. Really?!?!?! This bullshit?!?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donkees (Original post)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 08:52 AM

6. Put that heat on Manchin to vote like a Democrat!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:57 AM

48. He already said he won't vote against the tryan bill

Look consider this... Dems have more risk to lose Senate seats in 2018;we have more to defend...if we lose enough...the F'ing GOP could have 60 in the Senate which would be a disaster...we need to help our conservadems win their seats...and if that means voting for a cabinet person or with the GOP in a vote we can't stop and isn't going to kill people ...so be it. In the important areas like health care they vote with us...and we need them...try thinking about winning instead of purity or we will be the purest most perfect losing party in history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #48)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:26 PM

78. If I was allowed to talk about how stupid it is to vote 3rd party in a 2 party system, I would.

But instead I will sit back and watch the GOP actually pick up seats in both chambers due to this.

Guaranteed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #78)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:37 PM

148. You are allowed to say it is stupid to vote third party in a two party system.

We hate Greens and other third parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #48)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:32 PM

83. He had better not vote for the Ryan bill.

He will be selling out his voters then and the Democratic Party, if he does. What is the point of being in the party if you can't at least do the right thing when they need you to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #48)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 04:12 PM

159. I'm missing something. Isn't the Ryan bill about healthcare? Isn't it going to kill people? How is

 


that voting with us on healthcare? If I got lost somehow let me know, but if we are talking about the same bill, I'm not seeing much worth in helping Manchin to keep his seat. He is only giving cover to the Republican policies here. He isn't helping to educate his constituency at high cost or no. It is important that people in prominence don't cave just to hold a seat that they are going to waste, because there are actual consequences in the messaging when they do this. Better to be right and to get ousted than to aid and abet the propagation of bad policy, because that at least paves a better way for future progressives in that state.

Saving the seat for a hypothetical day when we are the majority again makes little sense to me, especially since once we get there we'll have to water down legislation in order to appeal to this man who's afraid of his voters and either won't speak to them with sincerity, or doesn't have progressive values in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:11 PM

73. He even put the heat on Capito

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donkees (Original post)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 08:56 AM

9. Was this a "red" county? Did this area support Trump?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 09:17 AM

11. Trump received 760 votes, Bernie received 1453 in the primary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donkees (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 09:30 AM

14. I didn't ask about the primary. Do you know how this area voted during the general election?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 09:34 AM

16. Using that logic Sanders should be the father of our country....

.....he got more votes than George Washington.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:06 AM

23. For the record, trump got 93% of the votes in the republican primary, Sanders only 55%...

...in the Democratic primary. But to answer your question, trump got 4,614 in the general election, Clinton got 1,419.

For the life of me I don't understand why some around here are still "fighting the primary".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:15 AM

28. Thank you for the info. Having accurate numbers helps me to understand things better...

... it gives me a better idea of what happened THEN (on election day) and it gives me a little more insight with regard to what's happening NOW.

Looks like many people in West Virginia are now interested in hearing what Bernie has to say.

I wonder if the same people ALSO turned out when Bernie was busy doing rallies for Hillary in West Virginia. (I don't remember the same level of interest.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:45 AM

42. I may be wrong but I don't think he held any pro-Clinton rallies in West Virginia...

...during the general election campaign.

In fact he held very few rallies for her at all anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #42)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:06 AM

56. "In fact he held very few rallies for her at all anywhere." WOW! Well, that's disappointing ...

... I wasn't aware that his support of our party's nominee during the campaign was so tepid. Sigh. Missed opportunities. I hate that. I certainly hope that people take a lesson from that. I hope that we're able to avoid making the same mistakes again in the future.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #56)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:15 AM

57. I saw what you were doing

I thought you were fishing for this but I chose to go with what would more likely lead to a constructive dialog instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #57)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:41 AM

64. With regard to the General Election must it be one or the other? Why not both?

I thought you were fishing for this but I chose to go with what would more likely lead to a constructive dialog instead.
We'll never make any progress if people are too embarrassed to talk openly about facts. Is "constructive dialog" about the General Election only possible when its predicated on ignoring reality or rewriting history?



-----
Hello, Alerter! This message is about things that happened (or didn't) during General Election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #64)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:48 AM

66. Of course not

But in general I prefer it when subjects are addressed directly, and when the points that one feels are important to make are presented in a transparent manner, rather than embedded indirectly into the context of an OP started to share insights about a real time event and its implications moving forward. Of course I'm just expressing my own subjective view point here which, as always, may or may not be off base. I suspect that we might respectfully disagree with each other on this, but that' OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #66)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:01 PM

69. Well that's good to know. Thank heaven for that.

Oh, and the passive swipe at me (and at whatever my "underhanded" motives are imagined to be) has not gone unnoticed. Nicely done! And the irony of it isn't lost on me either... and if you think about it, it's all rather amusing actually that someone would prefer me to be "direct" but at the same time, they would ... well, you know. There's no need for me to belabor it here. It just amusing, that's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #69)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:14 PM

74. I apologize if I was wrong in believing that you already knew the answers to the questions

that you were asking, for your information, others to answer for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #56)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:28 AM

60. His first appearance for Clinton was about a week after Labor Day. Convention adjourned July 28.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #60)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:47 AM

65. Wow. That's 39 days. Over five weeks.

Like I said earlier... there were many missed opportunities. I hope we're able to correct these obvious mistakes and do better in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #56)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 05:59 PM

166. He campaigned very little for Hillary in the General. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:27 PM

80. I dont know why anyone would "fight about the primary" either, makes no sense.

Now, why someone would explain to others how a 2 party system works, that might be valuable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donkees (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 09:31 AM

15. Ummmm, they didn't run against each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donkees (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 09:40 AM

19. If you'd be kind enough to provide a link, I'd like to verify those numbers please. And...

... it may be something I'd like to bookmark for future reference and research regarding how individual counties and states voted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donkees (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:58 AM

49. And those who voted for Bernie said they had no intention of voting for him in the General...

The primary is over...please stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #9)


Response to Name removed (Reply #18)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 09:50 AM

21. Why does that make a difference? Does the answer change depending on my motivation for knowledge?

It's curious to see these people are "suddenly" concerned about these things, but couldn't be bothered to vote for Hillary.

And back during the general election when Bernie was campaigning heavily in West Virginia on Hillary's behalf... were these people concerned about Trump back then? Did they bother to show up to see Bernie and hear the progressive message at a Hillary rally?

They weren't concerned then, but now they are. Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #21)


Response to Name removed (Reply #22)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:08 AM

26. Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 06:44 PM

168. And...So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, adieu (That didn't last very long.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #18)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:00 AM

51. Why wouldn't you share a link...we all do it.

I find this a bit suspicious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #51)


Response to Donkees (Original post)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 08:57 AM

10. Go Bernie!

Wonder where the rest of Democratic leadership is? Are they out there foot to the ground in these rural areas and elsewhere listening to and helping citizens and just not getting the media attention like Bernie, or are they not very visible because they just aren't doing it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #10)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 09:26 AM

12. He's not a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnp3907 (Reply #12)


Response to Name removed (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:02 AM

52. Exactly how is Bernie fighting? Please name other 'fights'.

His comments after the DNC elections were not helpful. He is not a Democrat and while I appreciate the Town Hall...that is a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #52)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:34 PM

84. He's actually standing up for what they allegedly stand for, unlike that turncoat Manchin.

For Manchin, anything apparently is okay.

We'd all be better of if there were 50 Bernie Sanders in the Senate and not a single Joe Manchin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alarimer (Reply #84)


Response to alarimer (Reply #84)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:29 PM

140. Manchin is from WVA. If we lose his seat a GOP will take it and

vote against us 100% of the time. He is allowed to vote with the GOP in ways that don't hurt us (GOP would win anyway) and help him stay in office....the GOP could conceivably get 60 votes in the senate in 18...then look out. Your ideas will make us the most pure losing party in history...and no matter what Bernie believes he is not a Democrat, has interfered with our party (DNC election and other times as well) and criticized it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #52)


Response to Name removed (Reply #114)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:24 PM

138. It does matter. It sends a message to his followers too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #138)


Response to johnp3907 (Reply #12)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:08 AM

25. Knew someone was going to say this...never fails

I said "Democratic leadership" though, not Democrat.

Good thing for Democrats is that there is a not-a-Democrat out there trying to do things for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #25)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:26 AM

33. He's not one of OUR leaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnp3907 (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:30 AM

35. He is currently chair of the Senate DEMOCRATIC Outreach Committee. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #35)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:37 AM

38. You can have him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnp3907 (Reply #38)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:40 AM

40. My thanks. Good luck in 2018. :) (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnp3907 (Reply #38)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:27 PM

79. Your irrelevant non-sequiter certainly illustrates the depth of your context.

Your irrelevant non-sequiter certainly illustrates the great depths of your substantive context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #79)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:09 PM

94. Huh? Non-sequitur? Is that the expression you wanted to use?



Technically, the terms 'invalid argument' and 'non sequitur' are equivalent.

If you wanted to be dismissive by calling that statement a "non-sequitur", then the poster would have had to be making some sort of argument in favor of a particular premise or arriving at a logical conclusion. But that's not the case.

When that poster said "38. You can have him." ... it's pretty clear that he/she is making a simple declarative statement of disapproval.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #35)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:43 AM

41. Is he really the best man for this job? I wish he'd do more actual outreach ...

... instead of the passive-aggressive backhanded trashing of our party. When people trash the Democratic Party and suggest that it's a corrupt organization, that makes "Outreach Committee" work all the more difficult.

Regardless of his personal feelings about the flaws of Democrats and the imperfections of the Democratic Party (there's always room to improve) it seems a bit counter-intuitive for him to spend so much time "highlighting" flaws instead of the things that make us great.

Isn't the goal of the "Outreach Committee" supposed to be one that BRINGS PEOPLE IN to the party rather than one that DRIVES PEOPLE AWAY from the party?

He seems to be conflicted and unable to decide what the best course of action is, and that's why I question whether or not he's the best person for the job.


-----
Hello, Alerter! These are my opinions and personal concerns and questions based on demonstrable truths. Nobody is being attacked by asking if someone else could be doing the job better.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #41)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:59 AM

50. He's been out there tirelessly boots on the ground since the election

Going to and holding town halls, various protests and rallies, states like West Virginia, helping union workers at the Nissan plant in Mississippi all around the country. Practically every day I hear of him being being out somewhere and doing something positive for people. Maybe it's just media bias playing on his popularity, but I don't see much of Democratic leadership doing the same things all around the country hammering and hammering to get the message out. As much as I love Bernie, we need a whole lot of people *like* Bernie out there being active and focusing on policy and message. We can't depend on just one person to do it all.

I can't imagine why Bernie would be the one accused of driving people away from the party when he may be the biggest reason so many people joined the party last year and/or became active in politics in the first place. He's brought in so much energy and excitement. Many Democrats are becoming disillusioned with national Democratic party leadership though, so even Bernie may not be able to keep them from leaving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #50)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:04 AM

54. I know of one protest and can't think of any town halls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #54)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:33 AM

62. Lots of his activities have been posted in the Bernie group here on this site.

And of course other places.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #50)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:26 AM

59. Really?

I can't imagine why Bernie would be the one accused of driving people away...
I can't imagine how anyone believes that calling the Democratic Party corrupt (or using words and phrases that suggest the same thing) is something that would be an attractive message that brings people IN.

Surely it's not an intentional effort on his part. But I am wondering if he bothers to think things through, and I wonder if he has conflicting priorities. On one hand he wants to "reform" the Democratic party (from the outside) by publicly nagging and loudly criticizing and pointing out every thing that he believes is WRONG with the party.

On the other hand, he's been tasked with "Outreach" that would require him to put forth the Democratic Party, and its message, in a positive light... to facilitate communication, to bring in new members, new supporters, etc.

Be honest now... these two things clearly conflict with each other. If he can't tone-down one, then he can't be effective with the other.

Now, I presume he wouldn't have to be so "loud" and "nagging" if he was able to work for change WITHIN the party itself, but that would require him to actually join the party. Sadly, that's not likely to ever happen... so he's crippling his own efforts. He needs to decide what his true priorities are.

Many Democrats are becoming disillusioned with national Democratic party leadership though, so even Bernie may not be able to keep them from leaving.
I don't see any evidence of this.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #59)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:54 AM

68. There's an entire disillusioned progressive wing of the Democratic party

that the party is at risk of losing.

Democratic party corruption is a reason so many have been begging Bernie to start his own party because they see his current attempts at working within the party as futile. I'm still personally on the fence concerning this idea, but will still stick with the Democratic party for now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #68)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:05 PM

72. People keep saying that, but...

There's an entire disillusioned progressive wing of the Democratic party
that the party is at risk of losing.
... but I see no evidence to back it up.

Democratic party corruption is a reason so many have been begging Bernie to start his own party because they see his current attempts at working within the party as futile. I'm still personally on the fence concerning this idea, but will still stick with the Democratic party for now.
Well, Bekkilyn ... thank you for your honestly. I now understand you better than I did before.

Only... I must strongly disagree with you about your assertion that our party is corrupt. Talk like this only weakens our party and drives people away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #72)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:23 PM

77. So either there are no progressives in the party who may leave if nothing changes

Or you just aren't seeing it. I suppose time will tell.

An interesting statistic that has little to nothing to do with Bernie as the poll was in 2015:

Democratic - Republican Identification Near Historic Lows
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx

Wonder what it is today? Maybe if people don't like the job Bernie is doing for the Democratic party, then they need to be out there doing it themselves, hammering home the policies they support every chance they get. Where are they all? Just because someone is a leader of a committee doesn't mean they should be doing all the work and everyone else can just slack off.

If there is no corruption within the party, prove it to people with actions and voting records. Otherwise, it's just all talk and people aren't going to be convinced. I don't need to convince you of party corruption...but you may need to convince people like me that the corruption isn't there and to continue to vote for Democrats.

I may be registered Democrat now but that doesn't mean that I am automatically going to vote for any random person with a D next to their name. They still have to earn the vote. Surely, I'm not alone with that idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #77)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:46 PM

88. So you're saying that the Democratic Party is corrupt?

If there is no corruption within the party, prove it to people with actions and voting records.
So, people should "prove a negative" ... is that right? (Sorry, that's not how it works.)

I don't need to convince you of party corruption...
Actually, yes you do. If you're going to make the accusation of party corruption, then it's up to you to provide evidence.

...but you may need to convince people like me that the corruption isn't there and to continue to vote for Democrats.
Again ... that's not how it works.

I may be registered Democrat now but that doesn't mean that I am automatically going to vote for any random person with a D next to their name. They still have to earn the vote. Surely, I'm not alone with that idea.
Again, I thank you for your honesty. That helps to explain a lot.

I'm different than you. I'm a LOYAL Democrat who understands that in our two-party system it's important to ALWAYS support the Democrat. And that the DEMOCRAT isn't some "random person with a D next to their name". That's a very offensive thing to say, you know?

They still have to earn the vote. Surely, I'm not alone with that idea.
I'm sorry to hear that you don't always support Democrats. That's disappointing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #88)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:03 PM

90. The reason it is up to you to prove these things is

because the party you are loyal to wants my vote. If you can't make your case, then voters will vote for other people, as they did last year and as they've been doing more and more for many years now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #90)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:23 PM

101. That makes no sense at all.

90. The reason it is up to you to prove these things is because the party you are loyal to wants my vote.
So you're still arguing that the Democratic Party must prove a negative? That's not how it works.

And for those who may (falsely) believe that it *is* how it works, then the Democratic Party is very wise to not spend valuable time and resources chasing after voters like that. It's a fool's errand to appeal to those who cannot be convinced and who remain perpetually suspicious.

Or perhaps they flatter themselves by proudly proclaiming that their vote "isn't for sale" or that their vote "must be earned" ... I assume that this is likely because they put themselves above the greater good of defeating Republicans. I could be wrong with regard to their motivations, but what's undeniable is the outcome.

So, for that type of voter, with that type of personality... and who says things similar to what you've been saying... the Democratic Party would be better off going after LIKE-MINDED and RELIABLE voters who'll be LOYAL to the party. It's a waste of time to chase after the fringes or to convince Trump voters or Libertarians or the Greens.

If you can't make your case, then voters will vote for other people, as they did last year and as they've been doing more and more for many years now.
So you're not a loyal Democrat? Is that what you're saying? You'd vote for someone other than the Democrat? WHY??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #101)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:46 PM

111. Like-minded, reliable Democrats are less than 29% of the population, as of 2015

And if there is a large progressive wing within the party, then it's drastically worse than that. Realistically, you're probably going to have to get voters outside of that demographic.

And no, I'm not a *loyal* Democrat. I am currently registered Democrat to better help my county's Democratic party, but before this year, I was Unaffliated my entire voting life. I do typically tend to vote Democrat due to how truly terrible the Republican party has gotten, but a candidate still has to earn my vote. I vote for candidates who I believe will do a good job, and not simply because of party affiliation.

The "greater good" isn't about defeating Republicans, and possibly replacing them with Democrats who may be almost as bad but not-quite...it's about having a great government that truly works for all of us, and quality Democrats would and should be a part of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #111)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 02:21 PM

123. Yes it is. The greater good IS about defeating Republicans. Even if ...

... it means having a less-than-perfect Democrat holding the seat. Wouldn't you love to have an extra 20 "imperfect Democrats" in the Senate right now?

The "D" after the name IS important.

And no, I'm not a *loyal* Democrat.
Thank you for your honesty.

So, the purpose of you "un-registering" as a Democrat will be, what? To passively "send-a-message"? For your own personal satisfaction?

... but a candidate still has to earn my vote. I vote for candidates who I believe will do a good job, and not simply because of party affiliation.
What does this even MEAN? "Earn my vote" ... what are you talking about?

"Perfect" really is the enemy of the good (or the good enough) ... and I see evidence of it here every day. Sheesh!

...before this year, I was Unaffliated my entire voting life.
And this helps, how? Being a political "outsider" give you influence, how? (I think you just like being able to "brag" that you're an "Intellectual Independent" or an "Unwavering Unaffiliated".)

As a side note... and it always makes me chuckle ... but I don't know if it's true... anyway, I've heard that some people who are actually registered as "Greens" or "Libertarians" don't like to admit it because they feel it pigeonholes them, so the bluff and proclaim that they are one of those intellectual independents you hear so much about. I guess it make sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #123)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 02:33 PM

127. It's not about perfection

If there were 20 Republicans in the senate who supported Medicare for all, big money out of politics, public education, science, reproductive choice, etc., I'd have no issues whatsoever voting for them or having them in the senate. The R beside their names would make no difference. It's typically not the case, so more often than not, Democrats get my votes. It's just that it's not guaranteed. It needs to be more than the D.

I'd "unregister" as a Democrat, not out of enmity because I do share many things with Democrats, but simply because I'm not really loyal to any particular political party and being Unaffliated represents me more. Currently though, I'm able to better help in my county by being registered Democrat, so I did.

The reason a candidate has to earn my vote is because they want it and thus have to show me why I should vote for them instead of one of their opponents. Sometimes I do vote because the other person is truly worse, but that's a lousy reason and opponents aren't always worse, especially locally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #127)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 02:41 PM

129. So under the right conditions, you'd be willing to vote for the Republican? Right?

The reason a candidate has to earn my vote is because they want it and thus have to show me why I should vote for them instead of one of their opponents.
In national races, in our two-party system, the candidate who wins the presidency will belong to one of only two parties.

The "D" after that candidate's name is enough for me. It's not enough for you? Why?

Sometimes I do vote because the other person is truly worse, but that's a lousy reason and opponents aren't always worse, especially locally.
This is such an odd thing for you to say. Ever since the General Election ended, people keep saying (particularly Bernie fans) that we need DEMOCRATS in office at ALL levels of government ... from the dog-catcher on up.

So, what you're saying here is that "depending" on who it is, and what your personal feelings are, and if the candidate sufficiently validated you and "earned" your vote or not, you'd support someone OTHER than the Democrat.

Well, that's just a bizarre philosophy (in my opinion).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #129)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 02:51 PM

130. Why is it bizarre?

It's the *person* that counts along with their values and voting records and not what political party they belong to. It's a lot more complex, but I'll use a single issue as an example for the sake of simplicity. If reproductive choice were my number one issue and the Republican candidate was pro-choice (it has happened on occasion) and the Democrat was pro-forced-birth, I'd vote for the Republican. No question. Voting for a pro-forced-birther, regardless of the letter next to the name, wouldn't do a thing for me other than make it more likely for women's health choices to be restricted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #130)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:03 PM

134. Actually ... having the majority is the most important thing. Even if ...

... someone's view on their "pet" issue isn't shared by the Democrat.

Voting for a pro-forced-birther, regardless of the letter next to the name, wouldn't do a thing for me other than make it more likely for women's health choices to be restricted.
The ones in charge set the agenda. It's naive to believe they don't.

What you've described is very short-sighted. It makes no sense to give the strategic advantage to an ENTIRE PARTY (the GOP) who oppose the things that are most important to you, simply because you disagree with ONE person in an ENTIRE PARTY (the Dems) who largely SUPPORT the things that are most important to you.

I'd vote for the Republican. No question.
Thank you again for your honesty. I respect you for that. I complete disagree with your "logic", but I appreciate your honesty.

I vote strategically. Not emotionally. I vote to guide the party, not to punish the party or to "send a message".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #134)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:22 PM

137. I'd rather have the Senate voting for reproductive rights

then lose reproductive rights because the pro-forced-birth Democratic senator voted with the Republicans and does so each and every time. Instead, I vote for the pro-choice Republican who is going to guarantee my reproductive rights.

Again, it's more complex than just one issue, but it's why we need to look at what individual candidates are actually doing rather than just going for whomever has the D. Doesn't mean you can't vote for the Democratic candidate for governor or other Democrats on the ballot, but just going down the ballot and marking all the D's without knowing anything else about these candidates may mean that you've just allowed fracking to come into your state or more standardized tests to be inflicted on students. It's not about voting emotionally...it's about voting for the individual candidates who best represent your values and needs as a voter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #90)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:35 PM

108. How dare you suggest a political party must earn your vote!!!!!!

FYI this post was alerted on. The conservative authoritarian purity police bent in here is flexing their muscles lately, trying to shut out anyone that dare suggest that the Democratic party can be improved upon, and even worse, that Sanders should be one to show the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #88)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:50 PM

113. This is so trumpian, smacks of "trump tower was wiretapped by Obama", now YOU prove it wasn't!!

"If there is no corruption within the party, prove it to people with actions and voting records."

"So, people should "prove a negative" ... is that right? (Sorry, that's not how it works.) "

PS - I wish I could figure out how to do those nice gray highlighted blocks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #113)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 02:19 PM

121. I'm not the one desperately wanting people's votes (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #121)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 02:24 PM

124. You mentioned "Democratic party corruption" and then called on someone to disprove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #124)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 02:41 PM

128. If the party decides they don't want to address the issue

then voters who perceive there is corruption in the party (regardless of whether or not it's true) may just choose to vote for someone else. I'm a voter, not a candidate, so it's not up to me to prove anything for that candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #77)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:31 PM

144. Good grief

I'm really sorry you have yourself worked up like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #144)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:44 PM

154. I'm not worked up

I'm watching a pregnant giraffe.

And I usually don't get pulled into these sorts of discussions here as I don't think they are very productive, but for some reason when I made my earliest posts, I thought I was in the Bernie group and not General and so here we all are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #77)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:39 PM

150. Nobody's going to beg you for your vote

And why should they? It seems some people want to be wooed like potential lovers. For chrissakes, vote how you want. If you hate the Democratic Party which you seem to do because it's supposedly "corrupt" go ahead and quit the party and support a BernieParty. Or whatever.

Oh, and asking people to prove a negative is a time-honored deflection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NastyRiffraff (Reply #150)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:47 PM

155. Candidates should have to woo voters

That's their job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #68)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:30 PM

81. with talk like that we'll get more scalias on the court..

There's a very distinct difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party. I don't even get the whole "Democratic Party is corrupt" spiel. If folks would just think beyond the usual silly slogans they'll know what to fight to make a difference..

All politics has an element of corruption and cravennes - it's simply the nature of the business since power is a corruptive influence.

This will not change with a person - there's no SAINT who will arrive and change everything. It's on us to insist that we shape that change through our choices and the incendiary progressives who couldn't stomach voting Clinton and focused their anger on the democratic party shot themselves in the foot by missing out on an opportunity to get Citizens United reversed and a bunch of a other decisions at SCOTUS which imperiled our politics.

The Democratic Party is NOT the problem. This obsession with corruption and "corporatist" and people in suits and ties and labeling people despite their record ( and I am speaking generally here), is a distraction we don't need right now. It's also a stupid strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHan (Reply #81)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 06:59 PM

169. It's that simple

Vote Democratic!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #68)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:31 PM

82. Wait, where would they go? Do they not know this is a 2 party system and if you vote

3rd party you always, and I mean always and without exception, help the other side?

If they dont understand this basic principle, please let me talk to them, I can explain it to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #82)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:04 PM

91. Unaffiliated/Independent is probably the most popular choice

That's where I'd go back to anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #91)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:11 PM

96. So you are saying if there is a Dem who isnt perfect, so to speak, and a con

and a 3rd party you vote 3rd party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #96)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:15 PM

97. I voted for Democrats, including Hillary, this time around but who knows

what the future may bring. I'll have to see how things are going once we get there. I don't expect perfection, but I do expect a candidate, regardless of party, to share at least some of my values and trust that they will strive hard to do the things they said they were going to do. There's also not currently a 3rd party that I like, so there's that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #97)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:16 PM

99. Sigh, so I was right, there are people out there who simply dont understand

how a 2 party system works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #99)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:28 PM

104. Maddening, isn't it?



This type of behavior reminds me of the "vanity" voter... the Sarandon-style voter.

"Me me me me me! Convince ME! Give ME a reason to vote for you! Prove to ME that you're not corrupt! I'm too intelligent to automatically vote for some random person with a "D" after their name."


Gag me!






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #104)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:30 PM

105. I sincerely want to be allowed to discuss here how a 2 party system works.

Maybe they dont clearly understand it.

I mean maybe they dont know that every single non vote or 3rd party vote helps fascist murderers.

If we could explain it to them, maybe they would stop voting 3rd party or start voting, etc.

I mean the non voters alone, 2/3rds would vote Democratic, how insane is THAT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #97)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 02:17 PM

120. So the only reason you're a "democrat" now is because there isn't a 3rd party that you like?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #120)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 02:25 PM

125. I'm supporting my local (county) Democratic party

Otherwise, I'd probably go back to being Unaffiliated since I don't vote strictly by party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #91)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:37 PM

109. Why? Many do this, but I'm not certain what purpose it serves, other than vanity.

In many states, this type of "protest" action or vanity declaration means that the voter is opting to voluntarily shut themselves out of being eligible to participate in important party activities.

I imagine there must be a great deal of personal satisfaction to be had when someone does this... they're "stickin'-it-to-the-party" because they demand perfection, or they just can't think of any positive way to vent their anger. But, at the same time, by doing this, they've weakened whatever influence they may have had in being able to guide the party.

It's all so silly. And sad too. Mostly sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #109)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 02:53 PM

131. It's not a protest action in my case; it's just what I've always been. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #131)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:17 PM

136. Well, that tells me that you're not really serious about change or improving the party.

There may indeed be things you're serious about, but improving the Democratic Party is clearly not one of them. Defending those who seek to tear down the party appears to be important to you. Getting new voters into the party isn't that important. Keeping (or creating) the majority in the House and Senate, whether state or federal, isn't important to you. Sending a message to the party is important to you.

it's just what I've always been.
So why bother changing now, huh? As much as you keep protesting that it's not about you, it's odd that you come back and say something that totally contradicts what you've previously said. So, now it IS about you, because it's always been that way. Well... Okie-dokie! I think I've heard everything I need.

Thanks again for your honestly. That means a lot to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #136)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:29 PM

141. It's because I'm supporting the local Democratic party in my county

That's why I've changed my registration. I would indeed love to see improvements to the Democratic party in general so that it really does become more FDR party of the people again, but the party needs to acknowledge their current issues before it's going to happen. To get new voters, the party has to actually attract them and they aren't doing that by insisting everything's already fine and dandy, and that anyone who criticizes anything about it is just trying to tear it down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #141)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:36 PM

146. Coal is not coming back. The "FDR" version of our party is not coming back. It's a different world.

but the party needs to acknowledge their current issues before it's going to happen.
Like this "corruption" you keep accusing the party of having? Like voting for the Republican if the Democrat isn't perfect enough?

To get new voters, the party has to actually attract them and they aren't doing that by insisting everything's already fine and dandy, and that anyone who criticizes anything about it is just trying to tear it down.
If that's ALL they're doing, then that's exactly what they're doing. There's no benefit in that. It causes more harm than good. It damages the brand, it doesn't change the brand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #146)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:51 PM

156. I can agree with you about the coal

I'm not sure we're going to come to much agreement here in general though despite that we probably would vote very similarly on many specific issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #68)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:38 PM

87. I think Bernie should start his own party

Don't sit on the fence. Do it.

Buh bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #87)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:10 PM

95. Lots of progressives are begging him to do the same.

So maybe you'll one day get your wish. I'm currently on the fence about it myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #95)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:15 PM

98. I'm sure many people would be pleased

Especially "conservatives."

My wish isn't that "progressives" would leave the Democratic Party. My wish is that enough sane people would coalesce and see fit to enact sane policies. My wish is also to not be held back by people with some other, less functional agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #98)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:35 PM

107. It's a leadership problem

Most people didn't have issue with the Democratic platform itself, even if some didn't think it went far enough. It's not a problem with the voters as people are people and have always been fickle, but the problem is that party leadership isn't making a strong enough case to attract the voters they need. That's their job and they haven't been doing it, and it's unproductive to blame people for not voting the way you wanted them to if you weren't able to convince them otherwise. The party needs *their* votes, not the other way around, so it's the responsibility of the party to get them on their side. Maybe racist, bigoted deplorables are indeed beyond redemption, but they are not the majority, even among people who voted for 45.

The Republican party spreads lies all over the place and is worse in nearly every way, but they don't have the marketing problem that the Democratic party does. People vote for them anyway because the marketing is better. In red states, Democrats are considered weak and not to be trusted. That's a perception that needs to change and you're not going to do that by using the same poor strategies that have already been losing elections over the years.

It's not just about Bernie vs. Hillary. It's much bigger than that. It's about all the state, local, and federal seats that are gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #107)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 02:21 PM

122. I don't see any "leadership problem."

People need to vote Democratic, and too many people are distracted by nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #122)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 02:57 PM

132. Then what is the party going to do to convince unconvinced people to vote Democratic?

While you may not perceive any major problems with the party, many other people do and don't see at all why they "need" to vote Democratic, so how does the party convince them if they want their votes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #132)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:30 PM

143. We are a representative democracy

We elect officials to represent us and we get to boot them out of office at election time. I don't make that up. That's how it works.

You pretty much have two choices. Neither choice is perfect but one is clearly better than the other, which suits me perfectly. My values are pretty much aligned with the Democratic Party and I want Democrats elected.

I don't see any good whatsoever coming from what you're trying to tell me here. None. Zero. Nor do I see any of it soundly grounded in the practical realities, so really I'm not interested. Further I think you do yourself more harm than good and I want no part of that. Yes, I'm making a lot of assumptions about you.

Vote Democratic or you get a Republican and as far as I can tell they're all evil. Every damn one of them is evil. I'm not going to appease them ever again. Evil. Evil. They are evil and nothing you can say can convince me otherwise. Stop appeasing evil. Just stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #143)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:40 PM

151. That strategy hasn't been winning elections though

Voters in general aren't buying that the reason they need to vote for a Democrat is because the other option is worse. The party needs a new strategy. It's not just about me or you or what we specifically think or feel because we probably both voted for Hillary and other Democrats. Apparently, many others chose differently or chose not to vote at all, and the party needs these votes to turn things around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #95)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:47 PM

112. On the fence about what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #112)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:01 PM

133. About a future new 3rd party for progressives

If it turns out the "civil war" within the current Democratic party cannot be peacefully resolved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #133)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:24 PM

139. Well some "democrats" and their standardbearer don't appear to be doing much to quell the civil war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #139)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:32 PM

145. And some other "democrats" aren't doing much either, so there it is. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #145)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:37 PM

147. Why should they? I'm assuming you're referring to long-term Democrats. It's their party....

They have people coming into the party and tell them what to do, with the claim that if they don't do it they'll go elsewhere.

That's pretty much what you've been doing in this discussion today. You say you don't like things about the Democratic Party (even though you've implied or stated outright that you're not a member or a new member) and if what you don't like isn't straightened out you'll look for a suitable 3rd party.

That's not the way to end your claimed "civil war".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #147)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 04:00 PM

157. The party needs new blood and new ideas

if it wants to survive.

I'd just go back to being Unaffiliated if it came to that. Not due to some threat or enmity, but simply because the party didn't represent me. I'd still vote for many Democratic candidates because we would be on the same page with many issues.

It's not really about me though. There's a lot of other voters out there and I'm just one person who got dragged into the argument for today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #68)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:04 PM

92. By all means, please join another party. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #92)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:30 PM

106. The garbage about the "corrupt Democratic party", and then suggesting that is the reason to start

another party is right out of the Jill Stein play book

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #68)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:53 PM

117. "Democratic party corruption"? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #50)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:53 AM

67. And at just about every one of those appearances he criticizes the Democratic Party.

That's not "outreach".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #35)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:03 AM

53. And this is the first 'outreach' I am aware of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #53)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:40 AM

63. That's probably because you don't look into it...

...but that's OK we can't all know everything. Check out the Bernie group. Donkees has been all over Bernie's various appearances:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1280

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #63)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:37 PM

85. Is it fair (or truthful) to characterize those "appearances" as being actual "outreach"?

If half the message could be viewed as being hostile or critical toward the Democratic Party, and the other half as being hostile or critical of the Republican Party ... where's the net gain? Who benefits?

Look, we all want to bring more people and supporters into the Democratic Party. And... I think it's perfectly reasonable for anyone to want to improve and perfect the Democratic Party... but can ONE person wear two hats and be effective at either goal?

Bernie really has a dilemma on how to accomplish both things that he wants to do. Because he's not actually a member of the Democratic party, he's limited in how effective he can be in bringing about change and improvements within the party. As a result, he often ends up being the parent who is "shouting" from sidelines at the coach and players. For many voters (or potential party members) this type of behavior and message does not help create a positive image of the Democratic Party.

Technically, he could join our party and work for change (quietly) from within... and not do (or say) things that make people perceive the Democratic Party as being "corrupt" or "incompetent" etc. --- But he won't do that, I suspect.

Or he could give up his "Outreach" duties and hand it over to someone who's willing to do it "full-time" and who doesn't have any "conflict of interest" (so to speak).

Or he could tone-it-down when it comes to how he speaks about the Democratic party. Or he could focus ALL of his negative messages on the Republicans only.

I'm sure Bernie's a great guy and all... he's certainly passionate... but I honestly do not believe that he's the best person who can achieve the important objectives associated with "Outreach".


-----
Hello, Alerter! These are my opinions and personal concerns and questions based on demonstrable truths. Nobody is being attacked by asking if someone else could be doing the job better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #85)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:06 PM

93. Maybe Bernie is not attempting to outreach "loyalists"

and that's why you can't see the positive aspects of what he's doing. The party's already got you, so he doesn't need to reach you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #93)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:44 PM

110. Huh? What? Who's he trying to bring in to the Democratic Party by "trashing" the party?

93. Maybe Bernie is not attempting to outreach "loyalists" and that's why you can't see the positive aspects of what he's doing. The party's already got you, so he doesn't need to reach you.
You're right, I can't see ANY "positive aspects" about doing that.

You obviously feel strongly about this. Clearly you've thought about this for a long time, so I'm hoping you can share some insight why you feel that he's on the right track?

Who is his target audience? (Please be specific.)
How does his portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light help to BRING IN new members? (Please be specific.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #110)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 02:09 PM

119. Being critical of issues within the party is not the same as "trashing" it

If all he did was go around cheerleading for the party without acknowledging or addressing these issues, who would he attract besides people who were already in the party, especially when there are people who aren't part of the party (or have left it) specifically *because* of these same issues?

Democrats have been losing elections (and apparently members) left and right for *years*....long before 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #119)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 02:32 PM

126. Yes it is. He knows better.

119. Being critical of issues within the party is not the same as "trashing" it
Yes it is. The way he's going about it. It is exactly that.

If all he did was go around cheerleading for the party without acknowledging or addressing these issues, who would he attract besides people who were already in the party, especially when there are people who aren't part of the party (or have left it) specifically *because* of these same issues?
So, you can see why I think he's got some conflicting agendas, right? It appears that you DO understand the point I'm making when I ask if he's truly the BEST person for handling the duties needed for effective "Outreach".

So if someone leaves the party because the party is "too-X" or "not-enough-Z" and Bernie comes along to validate that he also believes that the party is "too-X" and "not-enough-Z" ... it's unclear to me why you think that will bring someone back. It makes no sense at all. It looks to me as if you're just looking for justification to trash the party without being called out on it, without consequences, all while inventing some fictitious benefit.

Which job does Bernie want to do? In my opinion, he's having difficulty finding the right balance. I think he's been doing the former for so long that he can't give it up, and has difficulty in transitioning to the latter.

It's obvious where his passions are. I honestly don't think his heart is really into this "Outreach" thing. In my opinion, he's just phoning-it-in.

Democrats have been losing elections (and apparently members) left and right for *years*....long before 2016.
It's unclear why you felt the need to throw this in. I see no evidence that our party is losing members.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #126)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:12 PM

135. Because as of 2015, party membership is at historic lows according

to this poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx

Again, if the party doesn't want Bernie working with them on outreach or anything else, they can put someone else in his place. I personally think it would be a very unwise thing to do considering how much effort Bernie's been doing all around the country for them since the election, but if that's what they later decide they want to do, that's their choice. Many are sticking with the Democratic party right now because of Bernie, and I think at some level, Democratic party leadership recognizes this and don't necessarily want to get rid of Bernie.

Bernie is definitely not phoning-in anything though. He's out there doing all the things that the rest of Democratic leadership needs to be out there doing. Kudos to any of them who are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #135)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:29 PM

142. The two things he's doing are completely opposed to each other. Trashing the party...

... does not generate interest or members. He's very good at "trashing" the party (or whatever euphemism for "trashing" you want to use) but his "Outreach" efforts are unimpressive.

He's most definitely phoning-it-in with regard to his Outreach efforts.

He's out there doing all the things that the rest of Democratic leadership needs to be out there doing. Kudos to any of them who are.
Clearly you approve of his "trashing" (or your favorite word) of the Democratic Party.

Again, if the party doesn't want Bernie working with them on outreach or anything else, they can put someone else in his place.
I think he's viewing it as a consolation prize. A participation trophy. That's why he's not taking it seriously, in my opinion. Someone else could probably do a better job, in my opinion.

and I think at some level, Democratic party leadership recognizes this and don't necessarily want to get rid of Bernie.
If only he'd "stuck with" the party after the General Election. If he had, I think he'd be much more effective, and he'd be much more respected.

considering how much effort Bernie's been doing all around the country for them since the election, but if that's what they later decide they want to do, that's their choice.
Who is this "them" you're referring to? You mean "us" right?

When it comes to "trashing" the Democratic party, it would be more accurate to describe that as being something that he does "TO" the party, not "FOR" the party. (Just a small semantic detail, but an important one.)

With regard to "choice" ... I believe that Bernie will realize that he's not a good fit for the "Outreach" responsibilities and mission. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't already some quiet pressure and whispered suggestions to him that he pass along those responsibilities to someone else who'd take them seriously. Maybe after he's been there one full year, he'll consider moving on. That way, it looks like it was his decisions (less embarrassment) and not as though he'd been "forced" out our asked to resign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #142)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 04:06 PM

158. I completely disagree with you, but

the Democratic party is free to choose someone else and send Bernie packing at any time.

I personally think it would be a disaster for the party to do so at this point, but I don't think we're going to come to any agreement here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #158)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 04:28 PM

160. You know... when I invite people to a party at my house, I don't trash my place beforehand.

I'll paint, I'll dust, I'll polish, I'll tidy-up. I'll let guests know what we'll have for eats and who else is attending... but I won't go out of my way to point out the crabgrass in my lawn, or the squeaky floorboards, or the draft coming from the attic stairs.

Bernie sees ONLY the negatives. Bernie talks ONLY about the negatives. He rarely (if ever) has anything positive to declare about Democrats or the Democratic party. Even when given a specific challenge, a mission, to do exactly that... to bring in more voters by talking UP our party (rather than "trashing" it) he can't even bring himself to do that.

Or another analogy... imagine if a Real Estate Agent spent all his time pointing out the NEGATIVE things about a home he was trying to sell (or rent). How successful would he be?

A successful Real Estate Agent quietly and privately gets the owner to hire contractors or to make DIY improvements on the property. A successful Real Estate Agent then goes out to seek buyers/renters and talks UP all the benefits and great things about the property. The LOUSY Real Estate agent spends more time showing potential buyers every scratch and dent, every squeaky hinge, every fussy kitchen drawer, and the fidgety toilet.

If the property doesn't have a pool, the LOUSY Real Estate Agent will go negative and trash-talk the property because the lazy good-for-nothing owners couldn't be bothered to install a pool. But the successful Real Estate Agent will point out that there's ROOM for a pool.

The LOUSY Real Estate Agent complains that the trees block the view of the lake. The successful Real Estate Agent brags about how the trees provide secluded privacy and cool shade in the summer.

The way Bernie is handling his "Outreach" mission, in my opinion, is pretty lousy. Either he doesn't WANT to do it, or he doesn't know HOW to do it, or he doesn't have the TIME to do it. Rather than refuse the job, rather than put an important job in more capable hands, he continues to phone it in.

I'm sure it would piss-off the Bernie fans if he was "fired" (or otherwise removed as our party's "Outreach" ambassador) but I think the party itself would be better off if he was just honest about his feelings... about how much he dislikes the position... and if he just stepped aside.


---------
Hello, Alerter! These are my opinions about how the "Outreach" mission is being handled. I believe we can do better, and that's not an attack or smear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #160)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 04:45 PM

161. I don't perceive him as being negative at all

in my view, he recognizes problems and then tries to resolve them. That's why I don't think we can come to an agreement here concerning him or his motives because we're looking at him from different filters. I think your reaction may be because you are "too close" to the party whenever he does have criticisms, and so it seems more personal for you rather than something more objective. It's not necessarily a bad thing because it shows that you care and have a lot of passion for what you believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #161)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 05:07 PM

162. How about the voter who has NO "filters", NO pre-conceived notions? What's their motivation...

... to join the Democratic Party or to vote for Democrats if they only hear the lousy Real Estate Agent constantly harping about only the things that are "wrong" with our "corrupt" party? (Your words, not mine.)

Remember, these people have NO preconceived notions... this is their introduction to the party. Remember also, that there are many many MORE of these potential voters than there are of folks who are of the doe-eyed opinion that Bernie can do no wrong. (ie: The ones who swoon and fist-pump every time he calls another Democrat corrupt.)

It's not necessarily a bad thing because it shows that you care and have a lot of passion for what you believe.
It depends on what his goals are. It depends on what his mission is. What's his mission? Does he even know? What are his priorities?

Is his mission to be the "Outreach" ambassador? If that's his goal, then it's certainly at odds with his "trash-the-party-to-improve-the-party" philosophy.

Is he the "Building Contractor" (whose job is to tell the owner what needs to be repaired), or the "Real Estate Agent" (whose job is to find buyers/renters who'd like to call the Democratic Party their home)?

He can only be one. He cannot be both.

He can try to do both, but he'll fail. He's clearly FAILING when it comes to the "Outreach" mission, in my opinion. I'm certainly not impressed.

Now, it's true... my home can actually (literally) stand for some improvements... but you know... I'd rather meet with the Building Contractor in private and let him convince me what's needed and what will fit into my budget. I'm sure we'd find a way to maximize the amount of work, make it fit in my budget, and make plans for future improvements as well.

On the other hand... the Building Contractor would NOT be very successful at all if he were to stand at the edge of my lawn with a bullhorn telling me what I MUST do, accusing me of being a lazy and corrupt homeowner, and trying to bully me into doing what HE thought best (regardless of my budget, and regardless of what's realistic, and demanding that everything be done NOW!)

I fear that Bernie's just not being very realistic. I'm sure he's totally sincere. But he hasn't though things through very well, in my opinion.

He's got too much on his plate and is too proud to ask for help, it seems to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #162)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 05:34 PM

165. We're simply not going to agree

and we're just going in circles here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #165)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 06:33 PM

167. I thought we were making progress.

Oh well. Goodbye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TCJ70 (Reply #63)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:40 PM

152. Ok...I see many Vermont and TV and of course the old town hall that was cancelled in WVA and the new

town hall in WVA...what do you think is the most significant outreach? Aside from WVA ...which I do know about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnp3907 (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:47 AM

44. He is rallying people against the GOP'S patient-killing travesty

of a "health care" bill. I did not support him in the primary but he is doing something important that will help us all if successful. I applaud what he is doing in trying to inform and motivate groups like this in WV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tanuki (Reply #44)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:51 PM

115. thank you

I cannot figure out all the Sanders hate on this board. The guy is one of the good guys, fighting for the principles we all hold dear. We can applaud the good things that our former primary opponents do, can't we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnp3907 (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:27 PM

103. Skinner disagrees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #10)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 09:38 AM

17. During the General Election, did this many West Virginians come out to see Bernie...

... when he was campaigning for Hillary?

Or are they only just now interested in a liberal message because they're realizing what a mistake they made?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:10 AM

27. Bernie did win the Democratic primary there (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #27)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:20 AM

31. Okay. But that doesn't answer my question, does it? Are you trying ...

... to make some other point? If so, what it is?

17. During the General Election, did this many West Virginians come out to see Bernie when he was campaigning for Hillary?

Or are they only just now interested in a liberal message because they're realizing what a mistake they made?
Any thoughts about these questions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:33 AM

37. My point is that many West Virginians supported Bernie

Or are you only asking about Republican voters? When speaking of West Virginians in general though, his popularity in the primary does suggest that many people there were interested in his message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:16 AM

30. It's a good question. And at this point the more of the latter the better

That would bode well for the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:28 AM

34. What kind of turn-out in West Virginia did Bernie get when he campaigned there for Hillary?

Bernie was quite the "rock star" back then ... I'm surprised that Hillary didn't perform better in that state.

It's good to see the good people of West Virginia are suddenly interested now, but it's a shame that they couldn't be counted on during the general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #34)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:38 AM

39. Even Bernie wasn't able to overcome a lot of the Hillary hate

Many people on both sides of the fence really hate her personally, perhaps unfairly or irrationally due to all the right-wing propaganda over the years, but it seems especially the case in red states. If people believed they couldn't trust anything she said, her message wouldn't really have mattered even if they would have agreed with some or most of the policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #39)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:48 AM

45. I wonder how often Bernie appeared in West Virginia on her behalf...

... you know ... to help convince them that their "Hillary hate" (to use your words) was irrational and not in their best interests. I don't remember hearing a lot about his appearances in West Virginia, but I'm sure it must have been frequent and impressive even though the media probably ignored it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #45)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:21 AM

58. I don't know about West Virginia specifically, but...

He lost some of his popularity once he started backing Hillary even though he was out campaigning for her and the Democratic platform. While most of his supporters did at least hold their noses and vote for her in the general election even if they didn't care for her personally, it's much more difficult with a general population who literally loathes her. I have relatives who support gay marriage, abortion, women's rights, etc. but never vote for Democrats because of 2nd amendment rights and would never, ever, ever, ever vote for Hillary no matter what she claims to support. I don't think some people here really, truly understand just how much many people, especially in the south, hate her, and even someone as charismatic as Bernie with policies and a message that people identify with can overcome that level of hatred and distrust. I'm sure he was still able to sway some people, but people didn't view his efforts with the same amount of sincerity once he started campaigning for Hillary. It's hard to convince people that someone they hate at such high levels isn't just saying all that stuff just to win the election, and then go back to supporting TPP, Wall Street, etc. I voted for her and I don't hate her, but only because I hoped she would stick with the platform and not because I fully trusted she would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bekkilyn (Reply #39)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 01:26 PM

102. trump got 68% of the votes in West Virginia. So you're saying that Sanders...

...would have swayed about 1/3 of all who voted for trump? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #34)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:45 AM

43. I don't know the answer to that, though I agree the answer would be of interest

My simple guess would probably be "not large enough". Of course at that point he was no longer getting the national buzz of being a potential future president. And of course Hillary and Bernie, though overall rather closely aligned, obviously had different strengths and weaknesses, with the result that each one outperformed the other in different states during the primaries.

I have no doubt that Bernie appealed to some West Virginia voters who may always have been more inclined to vote for Trump, but he got their attention and made some good points along the way. The fact that he couldn't "deliver" West Virginia to Hillary certainly came as no surprise to me. I don't think Bernie could have won that state for himself in the general either, though the vote count there would have been a lot closer had he been our nominee. His type of appeal might have helped us more winning crucial votes in the rust belt but who knows, maybe he would have lost a state like Virginia that Hillary won. At this point it is all conjecture.

The good news though is exactly what you said. Events like the one Bernie just held with CNN in West Virginia show that there is the potential to win back and /or over some voters who bought the false Trump bill of goods, who will increasingly become disillusioned with both him and the Republican Party when they realize they were sold down the river by them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:22 PM

75. Hillary is toxic in WV

 

WV voted for Bill Clinton but Hillary is closely allied with gun control here which will doom a democrat. Hillary is a woman and while WV has many women in the legislature we have never elected a woman governor. Clinton has been the target of a right wing smear campaign for 30 years so that works against her. Then the comment she made about coal basically doomed her. When she came here there were actually protestors and local officials telling her no to show up. Bernie is perceived as more of an FDR type democrat and he's male and white which helps him here.

At Sanders rallies here there were a lot of lapsed democrats and independents who there was no way they would support Clinton for the above reasons even if she did the exact same thing as Sanders. She just has a huge handicap due to her political history and the amount of negative propaganda against her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hollowdweller (Reply #75)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 05:15 PM

164. Obama is a lot more toxic in wv

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donkees (Original post)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 09:41 AM

20. Good for him. Other Democratic Senators and Representatives

are doing the same thing in their districts. We need to fight this. I'm glad Bernie is against it. I hope he talks to other Senators and convinces them of that. They're the ones who can block it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donkees (Original post)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:25 AM

32. Bernie's a man of the people. We need more like him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:04 AM

55. I don't know about that.

Bernie did a good thing going to West Virginia...but look how divisive this is for Democrats...just read the posts. I am not sure Bernie can do the Democratic Party much good...and the party is the only way to stop Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #55)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:32 AM

61. Bernie relates well to the voters and he has a good message.

Divisiveness is inevitable in an identity based party. Bernie's message is basically about rich vs. poor and middle class. It cuts across race and gender lines. It's a winning message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #61)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:37 PM

86. Exactly.

They complain endlessly that Bernie isn't a Democrat, though he acts like one more than several I could name. Yet somehow we are all supposed that Joe Manchin is more of a Democrat? Certainly not by his principles (Manchin has none except getting re-elected).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #61)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 03:41 PM

153. I am not sure the message is worse the divisivness.

We need to unify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #153)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 05:12 PM

163. I'm unifying around the message of wealth inequality myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donkees (Original post)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:32 AM

36. Bernie is showing the way, we need to rally to counter Rump's rallies

We need to buy ad time to get the truth out about ACA because as the Republican Rep from Kentucky just now said on msnbc -- they still don't know the difference between ACA and Obamacare and are only NOW realizing they could lose ACA and they love it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donkees (Original post)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 10:55 AM

47. K&R! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donkees (Original post)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:04 PM

71. This is how JFK won WV

 

I loved Obama but he came and gave speeches here in big cities that were basically his stump speech.

It's important to go to rural areas and actually talk to the people and actually hear what their concerns are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donkees (Original post)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 12:23 PM

76. Good for Bernie!

We should go into the rural areas to tell them when Trump does things against their interests - which is all the time. Educated voters like those on DU do not need it, but many voters unfortunately do need informing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread