Does everyone agree that this is the real split in the Dem party? And at DU?

[LAS14]

Note - I'm not asking which position is right. (Would that constitute re-fighting the primary???? I hope not.) I'm asking if people agree that this is the primary division in our party.
P.S. Neither blockquote nor excerpt seem to be working. Any advice about why???

Clinton supporters were fundamentally happy with the United States of America, the American political system, and the trajectory for people like themselves within it. Sanders supporters, by contrast, were not, and Clinton’s various leftward feints on policy could not address that gap.

That difference makes it much harder to bridge a divide, since it’s hard to split the difference around the question of whether or not establishment politics is fundamentally corrupt. A left-wing economic message can be co-opted by more moderate politicians and can have its rough edges sanded off in pragmatic pursuit of electoral victory. But it doesn’t address the fundamental divide, which is less about concrete policies than about abstract ideas like corruption of politics.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/20/15830316/clinton-sanders-issues-rigged

[hrmjustin]

1. I am a Clinton supporter and I am not...

..."fundamentally happy with the United States of America, the American political system, and the trajectory for people like themselves within it".

[procon]

59. Yeah, I missed that memo, too, so I do NOT agree.

The usual caution about assumptions still apply to the OPs unsubstantiated opinions.

[LAS14]

136. The OP did not express an opinion. It asked a question.

I wish there wasn't such a tendency to interpret every question on DU as a veiled opinion.

[workinclasszero]

69. Same here

Who the hell ever said that OP???

[Hekate]

80. That's weird, isn't it? HRC had an ambitious plan to overhaul the status quo...

...and she got slammed for being "establishment" (like slamming Planned Parenthood the same).

How is an ambitious, detailed, and far-reaching plan for completely changing the status quo -- carrying forward much of what Barack Obama proposed but was blocked from by the GOP as if their lives depended on it -- How is that being "fundamentally happy" with existing systems?

Oh right. She's wonky. She's a girl. She's Hermione, the girl accused of showing off because she works harder than anyone else and knows the answers. So let's make fun of her laugh.

And by all means let's rewrite history to continue to fit a narrative that denigrates Hillary Clinton and her 66,000,000 voters, especially all the minorities and women.

[NastyRiffraff]

91. +1,000

I agree with everything you wrote.

[NurseJackie]

95. It never ends, does it?

[LisaM]

117. No, it doesn't. I am progressive, and was a fervent Clinton supporter in both 2008 and 2016.

In fact, I would argue that anyone who voted for Obama in 2008 and then sat out any intervening election (mid-terms, the 2016 presidential election) was more interested in Obama's persona than his policies, because they clearly didn't feel the need to give him the tools to enact his policies in 2010 and 2014, and weren't interested in the candidate most likely to continue his policies in 2016.

It's very frustrating.

[DFW]

109. VERY weird, inded

It's not enough to want to reform the status quo. She wore a pants suit, so she obviously DIDN'T want to reform the status quo. How do I know? Fox Noise called her a warmonger, and thus so did everyone else, left or right, who thought it sounded catchy. Oligarch, corporatist, lying warmonger, and NOTHING she wanted to do to improve things that need fixing counted AT ALL.

[skylucy]

129. Agree with you +100

[Egnever]

133. Her problem was not what she said this time around

even though shew was dragged to some of it. Like minimum wages or support for gay marriage.

It is her history of being establishment.

Anyone can say anything they want and she has a history of changing positions with the polls. Her problem for many was they do not find her convictions to be solid. Sure in some areas she is rock solid like childrens issues but on many she has a long history of bending to whatever polls well.

On the one hand you had Bernie who has been pretty consistent his entire career and on the other you had Clinton who came to many of her more progressive stances this election season.

[yardwork]

137. That's simply false. That is uninformed nonsense.

[Egnever]

153. Which part

her reluctance to advocate for gay marriage or her unwillingness to support a $15 minimum wage?

Or maybe it's her support for the IWR that she took forever to finally admit was a mistake or maybe its her campaign staff last time around against Obama when it was packed with old establishment folks like Mark Penn.

It's certainly not the fairy tale trying to be sold here but it's certainly not uninformed.

I would much rather have her than trump but the idea she is some kind of progressive warrior is a complete fabrication.

[apcalc]

176. I suppose your view is centered about issues that matter to you.

She is absolutely a progressive warrior for women.

[lapucelle]

169. Here's some data from May 2015

based on Hillary's voting record, fundraising activities, and public statements.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

[Egnever]

170. Well its an article..

Been watching Hillary my whole life almost.

and when the article states


"Obama is also a “hard core liberal,”" It loses its liberal defining cred with me.

Hillary would have been a good president. She is not a hardcore liberal despite what that article pretends.

[lapucelle]

175. While On the Issues.org

concedes that labels can be problematic, it does apply consistent standards across the board and examines the totality of a candidate's record when it makes its "political philosophy" determinations. Media narratives do not factor in.

Similarly, while the 538 article is an opinion piece, that opinion is supported by data, rather than by feelings, impressions, and media spin.

[Squinch]

148. And she did it without telling anyone that their needs had to be shelved until someone else's were

addressed.

[betsuni]

171. +1!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

118. Agree

Though I think we were on the right track with Obama. It seems we've taken a step backwards because some wanted perfection.

[apcalc]

180. + 1

Agree, that statement displays total ignorance of Clinton voters.
most all Clinton supporters I know are fundamentally unhappy with the way things are.

Sounds like the author is describing well fed Republican voters.

Sorry , that statement is ridiculous.

[apcalc]

182. +1

Agree, that statement displays total ignorance of Clinton voters.
most all Clinton supporters I know are fundamentally unhappy with the way things are.

Sounds like the author is describing well fed Republican voters.

Sorry , that statement is ridiculous.

[ismnotwasm]

2. Well.

I'm sure the over 90 percent of Black women who voted for Hillary have a different point of view.

[loyalsister]

28. It was not 90% of black women

It was 90% of black women who voted. Among many of my friends, most of their votes were reluctant and defensive.

People live their lives with measurable concequences of cold political calculations. Saying it was a mistake was admirable, but it was not enough to yield the enthusiasm required to combat a candidate who managed to run a campaign against political compromises that have produced damaging results. It's no accident that black voter turnout was down.

The outrage that took place among liberals who were dismayed and angry about 30 yrs of political compromises in the name of winning is real and worthy of attention as we go forward.

[ismnotwasm]

37. You are right

My point was this is a generic no information article based on generic (white) voters. Still, the article is discussing supporters, or "Voters". I stand by my amended statement "of African American women, of those who voted, 90% voted for Hillary. I'm sure they have a different point of view'.

[loyalsister]

49. That's reasonable

I think it's essential to look at why people didn't vote. I just think deflecting with the 3 million pop. vote win, defensive posturing, and claiming that a significant portion of voters are simply defective individuals without a deeper examination is not going to get us where we want to go.

[ismnotwasm]

55. I think we should go there

As an aside I was raised by bigots--in Seattle, that supposed bastion of progressive values-- and I never underestimate how ultimately defective they truly are from the POV of evolving from a long line of bigots.

That being said, why does half the country not vote? It's nothing new, but why? This article does nothing to address that, the author delights in these kind of childish games.

[loyalsister]

66. I agree

I see a lot of confirmation bias in the perceptions of analyses and arguments about why we lost. It was racism vs. economic insecurity. There seems to be little discussion of how they can play off of each other. It's ironic that while Rs have furthered a narrative that white people lose when black people make progress, some on the left are also pitting people against each other by claiming that there is no economic anxiety.
Pretending they're mutually exclusive seems to stoke division, and not examining people's attitudes towards our political process is dismissive of something worth considering as a tactic.
Rs benefited by frustrating voters about politics and government. Unfortunately, threats of government shutdowns and fighting over the debt ceiling allowed them to paint politics as a direct threat. It takes a callous bunch to make those threats, but those scare tactics worked. Ultimately they are exploiting compassion of Democratic office holders by turning it against them when they are stubborn about not sacrificing lives for a functioning federal government.

They have also sabotaged Obamacare- especially in states that didn't expand Medicaid.
The question I keep thinking of is how do we restore some sense of positive expectations of public servants?

[ismnotwasm]

72. "How to restore positive expectations of public servants" is the crux of the matter

And unfortunately, its 's my opinion (in a nutshell) at this point only fresh, young blood will do this in numbers that matter. Diverse, fresh, younger, if not young.

[KTM]

70. +1

[Hekate]

87. Of course it was "no accident the black voter turnout was down." Rolls were vigorously purged...

...districts were gerrymandered, voter ID laws were instituted that disenfranchised large swathes of typically Democratic voters, too few polling places were opened in minority precincts....

Did I miss anything there?

Right, I missed how unrelatable Hillary is, and how coldly calculating it was to vote for her.

[NurseJackie]

97. Nailed it. (Are you as tired of this shit as I am?)

[Hekate]

106. Exhausted, actually

[loyalsister]

113. Chalking it up to only factors that validate our candidate

is just a talking point that dismisses a whole lot of people who sincerely are not happy with the way politics has been conducted in a win at all costs model. Particularly when they and their families have been sacrificed to that end.

[Hekate]

115. I'll go with provable facts, which my post has in abundance.

[loyalsister]

124. Stick with confirmation bias

And ignore the tragic realities of millions if it makes you more comfortable. Most people seem to.

[Hekate]

126. Keep on keepin' on

[lapfog_1]

3. no - n/t

[disillusioned73]

4. A good conversation to have..

but it won't occur here..

[zipplewrath]

16. Prolly not

Introspection isn't appreciated here.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

5. Yes, there is a split --

that I see between the anti-Big Money wing and the From School wing and to ignore it is dangerous for the future of the Party. I see an attempt being made to address the issue somewhat, but the core difference is so profound and intrinsic to each group I am not sure how it will ultimately be resolved.

[NastyRiffraff]

93. What the hell is the "From School" wing?

Never heard of it. Since it's not "anti-Big Money" is it supposed to be PRO Big Money?

[KTM]

123. Thats Al From - Founder and former CEO of the DLC

Al From played a major role in the elction of Bill Clinton, and his policy ideas formed the basis of DLC/3rd Way politics as we know them. And yes, it was the "Republican wing of the Democratic Party" (Howard Dean's words describing the DLC, not mine) that embraced more centrist (i.e. Big Money) economic policy.

[Demsrule86]

185. There is no Republican wing of the Democratic party and Clinton was elected when it was

not possible to elect liberals...and ...except for blue districts, you still can elect liberal in my opinion. You all refuse to accept we are center left...Clinton saved the court...sick of this shit. Whatever you are referring to was at least 18 years ago...so get over it.

[KTM]

187. I dont need to get over anything

And I sure as hell dont need shit from the likes of you. A fucking question was asked, and I answered it. Get over yourself.

[Demsrule86]

191. Yeah, you answered it ...very revealing answer too.

There is no Republican wing of the Democratic Party. And you are enabling Republicans.

[KTM]

193. Yeah, it tells you I can use Google.

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_From

On that page, you'll find this quote:

"In 1991, the Reverend Jesse Jackson called the DLC “Democrats for the Leisure Class,” and in 2003, former Democratic National Committee Chair and Vermont Governor Howard Dean sharply criticized From and the DLC as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.[14][15]"

Here, I'll even give you the link from THEIR footnote:

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/23/nation/na-dean23

"And, he added, "even the Democratic Leadership Council, which is sort of the Republican part of the Democratic Party ... the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, we're going to need them too, we really are." The Democratic Leadership Council was founded in 1985 by Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, among others, to remake the Democratic Party in a more centrist, competitive mold."

If you've got a problem with that terminology, take it up with Dean and Jackson. All I did was answer RiffRaff's question. I suggest you read the LA Times article... yes, this is 14 year old history now, but it clearly shows that this schism in our party goes back at least that far, and has basically always been the same fight.

Here's another quote you may or may not like: "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people." You can probably research that one on your own.

The only thing I am enabling is informed minds, but hey, you do you.

[Demsrule86]

192. I would remind you that United is the law of the land...so money is essential...

and what is dangerous for the future of the party is having people criticize and tear down the party...

[WhiskeyGrinder]

6. Lol nope.

[RKP5637]

7. I just want a democratic president! n/t

[In_The_Wind]

10. + 1

[delisen]

46. If you could have either a Democratic congress or a Democratic president

but not both ----which would you choose?

[RKP5637]

47. I think a democratic congress would be more effective than just the president. n/t

[delisen]

77. I think I agree.

[Demsrule86]

186. Really because I want a damn Democratic Congress...one man can't do it all.

[RKP5637]

189. Yep, given the choice, a democratic congress is more important and successful. n/t

[Demsrule86]

190. We need it all...but if I had to choose I would choose Congress...

the Senate since we no longer have to give them judges after Garland.

[L. Coyote]

8. No, but I see a lot of effort to promulgate that talking point to significant effect.

One of the effects being trump is president.

[NCTraveler]

9. I think this is one of the most brain-dead statements I have read in awhile.

"Clinton supporters were fundamentally happy with the United States of America, the American political system, and the trajectory for people like themselves within it. Sanders supporters, by contrast, were not, and Clinton’s various leftward feints on policy could not address that gap."

[LonePirate]

17. That statement is indeed pure, divisive propaganda.

[NCTraveler]

22. Using a Romney voter to divide dems. Pretty impressive. nt.

[KTM]

33. Completely disagree

So, I guess the article has a point...

I think we overlap on our lack of happiness with the status quo, but disagree over how to address it. I would have said one side sees merit in the "keep the powder dry" wing of the party, and the other says "pragmatism has failed." Its not about how we feel about the status quo, but how to change it. One wing wants to see some agressive play, the other is worried that would alienate moderates who are needed to win, and thus enact that change. One of the big splits shows in age groups... one wing looks back to McGovern, to Carter, and feels the 3rd Way style of Bill Clinton helped bring moderates on that enabled some wins and at least allowed some slow change. The other sees an entire lifetime of milquetoast middle-of-the-roadism that has allowed a constant slow drag to the right. Some think the prevailing attitudes of the country are the same as they were then, and require the same strategy, while others think the Left has been redeemed by events since and has grown much stronger, and believe it well past time to push hard for a fundamental shift back to the policies we abandoned in the 70's.

As the article said, "Candidate Obama ran on a message promising fundamental change to the way Washington worked. He then proceeded to govern as a fairly conventional inside player who focused on getting things done according to the established rules of the game. The gap that opened up between message and reality very much reflects the gap between the worldview of the Sanders and Clinton camps. And if Democrats get a chance to cover again, the basic choice will arise again — do Democrats want to talk about reforming the system, or do they want to actually do it?"

[NCTraveler]

39. Brain-dead statement from a Romney supporter.

"Clinton supporters were fundamentally happy with the United States of America, the American political system, and the trajectory for people like themselves within it. Sanders supporters, by contrast, were not, and Clinton’s various leftward feints on policy could not address that gap."

Truly ignorant.

Someone had to have been in a cave during the elections to think this. Or simply ignorant.

[KTM]

67. Sure feels like you just called me ignorant.

Regurgitating the quote adds nothing to the discussion of it, and I wont dismiss the ideas expressed therein simply because I dont like the author.

There IS a schism. Look downthread and see someone making an argument about "real" Democrats. Ive been a Democrat my entire life, but I have always thought we could do better. Ive watched our country slowly get dragged to the right, and seen compromise and concession slowly chip away at our vision of what our country will become.

There are many on the left who want to see our side fight harder, be bolder, be more agressive. There are also those who, stung by prior losses, are only willing to take baby steps. Some seem to say "you risk all we have achieved in our lifetime," and others who feel "yet victory wont be achieved in your lifetime, nor our childrens, if we do not fight for what we believe instead of for what we think we can get."

Im done with middle-of-the-road. It's how we ended up here.

[NCTraveler]

74. Sorry about how you took it.

The quote I referenced is blatantly foolish and was written by a Romney supporter. Foolish on face value and written by a known Romney supporter.

[KTM]

83. Who cares about past support ?

If we judged everyone by whomever they've supported in the past, who else do we write off ?

The ideas in the article are not impacted by the author's past, you are just using that past as a way to shout down the discussion. Liz used to be a rightie, let's dismiss her entirely !! Its a ridiculous tactic.

There a lot of people discussing that foolish quote, and it has brought forth several good discussions in this thread. I think the quote misses its mark a bit, but agree that Clinton seems to be tied to the "pragmatic" wing and Sanders to the "fight harder" wing, and in that way one could argue that her supporters are more happy with the status quo - when "status quo" is used to describe the *methodology of changing* the ideological landscape, not the landscape itself.

"Clinton supporters were fundamentally happy with the United States of America, the American political system, and the trajectory for people like themselves within it." - i.e., with the way the current ideological battle is waged, the stability of slow change, and the politics of compromise. It's not saying they were happy with current policies, but with the approach being used to effect change.

"Sanders supporters, by contrast, were not, and Clinton’s various leftward feints on policy could not address that gap." i.e., not happy with the tactics, wanting a more agrresive ideological stance and an attempt to make the case that slow change is not working, thus her "feints" to the left were not enough "red meat" to impress that wing, who saw them as an affect worn primarily to win them over, not as something she would go to the table over.

[NCTraveler]

89. "The ideas in the article are not impacted by the author's past"

That is simply funny. There is an award named after the guy for ratfucking. Exactly what is being done here. Someones base eats it up every time.

[KTM]

102. Maybe you could address ANY of the material argument in my post ?

I get it, you think anything Ygliesias ever does, ever should be thrown away. Got it. All authors and politicians will forever be held to their prior actions and words, and never allowed to change. Understood. If you ever voted for something that in retrospect you would change, GFTO, no change allowed. Got it. If an author has ever said something we disagree with, we will never even bother to discuss their arguments on any other topic. Sounds genius.

Meanwhile, if you're going to ignore the actual substance of the rest of my posts, why bother replying ?

[NCTraveler]

154. I actually did. Sorry you missed it.

What a poor attempt at division this article is. LIV's are easymarks for Romney supporters like this author. This is on par with those who salivated over HA Goodman.

[KTM]

157. So now I am a low information voter ?

Keep slinging those not-so-veiled insults.

Meanwhile, the actual substance of the quote you keep referring to eludes you.

[NCTraveler]

159. Wasn't a shot at you. Sorry you took it personally.

The cornerstone of the argument is flawed beyond repair. I expect nothing less from such a blatantly obvious piece designed to divide.

I suggest going to someone other than a Romney guy if defining Democrats like this is your thing. This article is a train wreck.

[JustAnotherGen]

90. I have to agree

And it seems like it is 'designed' to create a division. We have this thread -

Instead of a thread about our Indivisible Groups' actions/action alerts this week.

They - the press - who really make a living off this nonsense need to get it through their thick fucking heads that we are Indivisible.

And - we are coming for the opposition.

[George II]

99. I particularly found the comment "Clinton's various leftward feints" highly offensive.

[NBachers]

128. That statement is fly- covered horse manure. I'm a Hillary supporter who is far from the status quo.

[KTM]

158. Again, thats not what was said.

It wasnt said that Clinton voters were status quo, nor that they were comfortable with the status quo of the current-day policies in effect in our country. The argument being made is that Clinton's voters prefer the current compromise/consession/slow change model of bringing about changes desired by the left - the status quo of the Democratic party - while Sanders voters preferred someone who argued vociferously for things like single-payer, a fair minimum wage, and affordable college for all instead of starting from a "well, we wont ask for anything we think we cant get" attitude (the status quo of the Democratic party.)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. I can't speak for Sanders supporters

As a Clinton supporter and, I guess, part of the "establishment", I accept the general structure of the country and its institutions but support measures that push us in a more progressive direction. However, I understand and accept the fact that change in this country (or in any large system) generally happens incrementally and that it is unrealistic IMHO to expect the kind of changes advocated by Bernie Sanders or his ilk to be adopted wholesale in a rapid manner, something that is especially difficult when we can't get and keep progressive politicians elected to Congress and the WH and have to keep dealing with Republican obstructionism and attempts to roll back the gains we make after every 8 years in the WH. Democrats can't even seem to get a Congressional Majority for more than 2 years whenever we DO win the Presidency and then they have to spend the rest of their time in office watering down their proposals to get Republicans to pass anything and/or rely on easily reversible Executive actions to move our agenda forward.

[redstatebluegirl]

20. You said it better than I could have. Totally agree with your statement.

I am a Clinton supporter and am not in any way happy with this country, but i don't want to "blow up the system" either.

[Fresh_Start]

32. Agreed whole heartedly

I don't trust radical changes because radical changes results in disasters like Trump
I also don't believe that the democratic party should be anti-business or anti-economic reality or anti-trade.

[Blue_true]

63. I am where you seem to be.

Business or being rich isn't evil, what people do with that power is what makes them good or evil. The undertone that I get from the Sanders segment of the left is that being rich or being a big business is automatically evil, I reject that view.

Across history, change has happened in small increments, even after a massive negative jolt to the existing system. FDR made some progressive change, but did nothing at all for the rights of African Americans, Women, LGBTQ people, change in those areas were done by later politicians. The thing that puts me off most about the Sanders type message is that it seems to bash the historical fact that a base for progress must be built before progress happens.

[Fresh_Start]

174. I agree...I characterize the Sanders message as unrealistic

Many men, my husband included define themselves by their career.
Thats coalminers what to be coalminers, they don't want to be fast food servers.

So anything that attacks traditional business is going to be a failure from the get-go.

Business isn't bad...its the ability of business to control the legislative agenda which is bad.

We need business, we need jobs, we need to work together. Not attack employers.

[NCTraveler]

12. Matthew Yglesias

"Yglesias was a strong supporter of invading Iraq, Iran and North Korea, calling the countries on his blog "evil" and stating that "we should take them all out," although he was critical of the term "axis of evil."

[zipplewrath]

13. Close

"Third Way", "New Democrats", etc. The language said it all. You had people that otherwise might have been attracted to the "Rockefeller Republicans" that suddenly found no home in the GOP, so they came over to the democrats (the only sane party left) and worked to redefine the party. Right or wrong, the result is a continuing divide.

[LonePirate]

14. I don't agree with this assessment at all, which sounds like it came from a Bernie supporter.

The paragraph below (culled from the OP) is remarkably dishonest and reads like it was written by someone on the far left or by a Republican to create dissension among Democrats. I don't know a single Dem - e it a Hillary supporter or a Bernie supporter - who was fond of the status quo. To state or generalize that only Bernie supporters were dissatisfied with the trajectory of this country is a flat out lie.

----

Clinton supporters were fundamentally happy with the United States of America, the American political system, and the trajectory for people like themselves within it. Sanders supporters, by contrast, were not, and Clinton’s various leftward feints on policy could not address that gap.

[Orrex]

84. Absolutely. The framing is rather sharply skewed in Sanders' favor

And the paragraph that you cited is the one that set off my BS detector, too.

[hunter]

15. No, I enthusiastically supported Clinton. I'm not fundamentally happy about anything in the U.S.A...

... but I can do the math and understand the politics.

Obama and Clinton were both centrists, but as we've seen many times now since Reagan was elected, the alternatives are worse, far worse.

Clinton ran on a very progressive platform. Anyone who didn't vote for her, by staying home or by voting for self-aggrandizing grifters like Stein, is partly responsible for this mess.

[Scoopster]

18. Yeah. No.

100% Wrong. The difference is that a candidate from outside the party decided to try for the party's nomination, accused it of underhanded tactics when the reality was that the campaign didn't bother to pay attention to each state party's rules about primaries or caucuses, misinformed its staff & supporters deliberately to cause chaos and questions about the process. Then afterwards that candidate and his supporters gained unprecedented control over the process of writing the party platform and changing the national party rules (which does NOT affect state party rules), and instead of sticking around to work together to effect greater changes they bailed and started attacking once again, and targeting those same state party rules that have to be changed by the states.

[JoeStuckInOH]

19. I would tend to agree...

I think you oversimplify your description of Hillary supporters. You can't distill their position down to "fundamentally happy". Rather, one Dem faction seems to tolerate the status quo of Big Corporate tendencies...or at least hopes to manipulate Big Corporate interests for the sake of accomplishing policy. (ie: playing quid pro quo with Big Corporate to accomplish democratic goals). The Other Dem faction you describe tends to be quite anti-establishment or against Big Corporate interest.


I think the largest driving factor of this schism is:
- An older/wiser electorate that has seen politics play out for decades
- versus
- A younger idealistic (dare I say "naïve&quot electorate that places ideals over practicality


Either way, it's a primary decision because WHOMEVER wins your party's primary should be voted for in the general election by both sides of the Democrat Divide.

[procon]

62. Don't add more unfounded assumptions to this mess.

If you supported HRC then speak for yourself and explain how you "tolerate the status quo of Big Corporate tendencies", but don't presume that your personal opinions can be applied to everyone else.

They do not.

[JoeStuckInOH]

71. I can apply MY personal opinions to anybody I so choose.

My opinions are not dependent on others' feelings, beliefs or experiences. Only my own observations.
Nor do I expect my opinions to significantly factor into the construction of others' beliefs.

That how it works. For everybody.

[procon]

73. Good luck with that, but that wasn't how you framed your response, yeah? nt

[NCTraveler]

21. An award for ratfucking was created using the authors name.

Andrew Sullivan formerly took nominations on his blog for the Yglesias Award, an honor "for writers, politicians, columnists or pundits who actually criticize their own side, make enemies among political allies, and generally risk something for the sake of saying what they believe."

[Starry Messenger]

23. No.

The split is over priorities and how to allocate limited resources--over whether to chase down the WWC voter or to expand voting in the Obama coalition.

The rest of it is window dressing, since policy-wise, there is barely any daylight between Clinton and Sanders. This piece could only be written by someone who was too brain dead to read Clinton's economic plans.

[sarah FAILIN]

24. no.

This will probably be removed for "refighting the primary', but THAT is the divide. Bernie supporters don't like the duper delegate deal that dems have had for years and years. Hilary supporters are tired of hearing from an independent how we stole the dem primary.
My position is in my sig. If you want to ride in my boat, get in and start rowing. Don't stand on the dock complaining to me how it is sinking while you shoot holes in it. It is a row boat, not a pontoon so don't complain or expect me to put a motor on it

[Demsrule86]

25. Two people ran for president...a Democratic nominee was chosen...won by millions.

Sadly, the election was lost ...some who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee helped the Republican asshat Trump win...such folks are not progressive...and I don't give two fucks what they need or want. Now the election is over, and we are fighting for our lives...time to quite obsessing about two people who will never run for president again...one is gone from the political scene mostly (Clinton). The other is in his mid 70's(Sanders) ...nearing retirement. So, let's move on into the future...those who choose can come along for the ride. This means joining the party and working hard to make it what we all want...those who want to be Stein minions,expect to be catered too and are prone to take their ball and run to the Greens can in my humble opinion sit down and shut the hell up!...Greens are spoilers and help only Republicans. Vote Democratic always or face dire consequences folks...being a member of a political party means you vote for the nominee...and one should never be a 'fan' or 'groupie' of any candidate or another ...vote for the Democrat always.

[Hoyt]

26. There is a heck of a lot bigger divide between Trumpsters and Sanders/Clinton Democrats. At least,

At least there should be. I disagree Clinton supporters were fundamentally happy with USA. Maybe they just saw HRC as the best way forward.

[Cary]

27. Good grief

The "difference" is ideological purity.

If you want to move the ball forward and progress, find common goals and work to achieve them. Politics is about taking what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible.

If you want to say "hey, look at me I'm holier than thou" then not so much.

It's simple. It really and truly is simple. Vote Democratic.

[mcar]

94. Well said, Cary

[Cary]

150. Thanks.

Had to edit it though.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

122. Very well said

There was far too much of "hey, look at me I'm holier than thou" on DU during the Obama presidency.

[Cary]

151. Thanks.

It's much easier to criticize and whine than it is to get out there and make a difference.

[delisen]

29. Do not agree.

[seaglass]

30. No. I think it came down to the character and experience of the 2 candidates. n/t

[HopeAgain]

31. I can only speak for myself

But I am interested in having a politician that understands the disastrous future inherent in the disparity of wealth in this country and will speak boldly about it. I am deeply suspicious of politicians who throw bones in that direction while getting paid exorbitant amounts by wall street firms. We can win without their money. I believe that the future of progressive politics right now is not to concentrate on who uses what bathroom, but removing the fundamental unfairness in our political and economic systems that is turning us into a third world, where people are either rich or poor.

All oppression and discrimination is really, in the end, achieved best through economic inequalities.

Classify, characterize, analyze what I believe however you want, but I will donate to, and fight for, the candidate who most closely holds those values.

Sure I'll always vote Democratic in the general election, but I hope people push the party hard to end the obscene distribution of wealth that is going on.

[heaven05]

34. the left can only agree

that trump,pence,ryan and most of the RW means us and america harm.....everything thing else, RACE included, is like two opposing factions in the same army.....to me

[Hortensis]

35. Oversimplified, but in big terms, yes. Note that most left-wing

messages today ARE Democratic Party/liberal ideas, though.

Genuinely radical changes, like yet another extremist experiment in government-forced replacement of capitalism with socialism, have no chance, even within our party alone, because the mainstream left not only far outnumbers the radical and extremist left but is far more functional and stable.

As for corruption, that's what people who want to take power ALWAYS claim about those they want to take it from. Considering all the rampant corrupting influences around these days, Democrats are remarkably dedicated to the democratic principles and policies our counterparts succeeded in establishing our new nation on against great resistance.

Very unlike Republicans, who've become extremely corrupted by extremists and have been warped into abandoning their former conservative political principles, our actions are guided by and never vary far from strong liberal principles that arose with the Enlightenment and were built into our constitution.

But pointing out that great truth -- the greatness and vital importance of liberalism, and thus the people of the Democratic Party, to the wellbeing of our nation -- would "only" benefit the republic for which we stand. Not the archconservatives who've taken over the Republican Party, not Republican voters who've become addicted to their kool-aid, not media profiteers who thrive on sowing and sensationizing dissension, and, sadly, not the frustrated anti-Democrat left who've never achieved power because they intrinsically lack what it takes to form winning coalitions and run a nation founded on liberal democratic principles. (Just check out what John Adams and FDR, as well as many others, had to say about them in their days.)

[David__77]

36. I think the large majority of DU Sanders voters are gone.

I voted for Sanders and at the same time wasn't too impressed by him as a candidate- I don't think he was committed to winning.

Outside the insular world of Democratic/left politics, I think it boils down to the difference between traditional social democracy on the one hand (Sanders) and a model with a much smaller role for state intervention (Clinton). I think that stakeholders who were more comfortable may be more inclined toward the latter.

[nikibatts]

38. I would say that Clinton supporters are more PRAGMATIC and more in tune with recent Dem history.

To say that Clinton and their base are more in tune with the "elite" or the wealthy is really not true. Consider their history from childhood to adulthood. The real problem is the gullibility of many among us to believe the crap they have been fed by the RW media and the alt-right controlled or controlling billionaires like the Koch brothers and others.

When i ask some of my friends why they dislike Hillary, they most often repeat to me some of the most outrageous, unproven, or even disproved talking points from the RW.

[RobinA]

43. I Still Don't Get

this Clinton= elite stuff. I just think it's a right wing talking point that some Dems bought into. It's crazy. "I hate that elite-lover Hillary, I'm voting for faux billionaire Donald Trump." Uh???

[nikibatts]

184. You would be surprised how many voters bought into the bots. See my post on Rachel's show about it.

You have to watch the entire video to get the seriousness of what happened and is happening.

[Adrahil]

40. Do not concur...

I was a Clinton supporter. While I am not "fundamnetall happy" with those things, I believe that Clinton's approach to transformation is more correct that the Sanders'. I felt, and feel, that Sanders subsumes pretty much everything within a class struggle paradigm that I believe is outdated and woefully incomplete.

[delisen]

48. Agree.

[Stinky The Clown]

41. Ah . . . . such a neat, binary, black and white world.

My world is much more colorful.

[ProfessorGAC]

125. Mine, Not So Colorful

But loaded with many shades of gray and less defined lines. And here i thought i had HD!

I concur on your assessment of the OP.

[Foamfollower]

42. Nope, don't agree with that at all.

The divide in the party is between a tiny extremist fringe of idiots and the regular Democrats.

[loyalsister]

44. I'm not sure it is so much a split within the party

But there are some very real differences in the perception of Democrats. Someone with 30 yrs. in politics running against a guy who successfully created an image of himself as a nonpolitician was a perfect storm to validate a perception that everything that was wrong with the Obama administration was the process of "politics as usual." Gridlock, government shut downs, all of the partisan animosity produced during the Clinton years was because of the "establishment" politicians.
The argument that was successful was that he didn't need money from special interests, and he was so much NOT a politician that he didn't monitor his language (just like some of his voters wished they could do). The lack of self monitoring convinced some people that he just didn't care about the input of "special interests."
It's disturbing that so many voters weren't concerned about his character. At the same time, serious character flaws are regularly forgiven in our culture. Particularly if someone thinks they have something to gain by doing so.

[yardwork]

45. This OP is refighting the primary.

And no, your premise is false.

[George II]

50. Some sweeping assumptions there, some not necessarily correct.

(PS - special effects in posting were shut off after the election day hack and haven't been turned on again, which is why blockquotes, bold, italics, etc. don't work)

[pirateshipdude]

51. No. It is an illusion being created that is becoming fact.

That would be the fake news manipulating us. No. The Democratic party is not fractured. Independents, green are working hard to create that. The Democratic base is solid, regardless of what factions state. The Democratic party has singly held back Trump and the Republicans for months.

They are doing their job while those having voted elsewhere or not voted, create an illusion.

[Gothmog]

52. I am Clinton Supporter and disagree strongly with the premise of the OP

[get the red out]

53. I supported both

I voted for Bernie and was HAPPY to vote for Hillary in the GE. I like a lot of Bernie's more progressive ideas, but am very much a realist.

I hope there is room left in the Democratic Party for people who are just pissed off at Republicans.

[nini]

54. There isn't a split with REAL Democrats

But there sure is lots of noise coming from the sidelines trying to divide us.

[tblue37]

56. Since the last DU hack the formatting has been turned off until they can make

sure everything is secure enough.

What I do is use lines or asterisks to mark extended quotes, like this:

***********************
Quote quote quote
***********************

or

--------------------------------
Quote quote quote
--------------------------------

[LAS14]

139. Thanks for the info and the tips.

[hadEnuf]

57. Either Clinton or Sanders were good.

Not everybody would have gotten what they wanted, but everyone would have had enough in common to work together.

The main idea was to keep the fascist bastards out of office that are in there now. We wanted FDR yet we now have Hitler instead.


Differences really need to be put aside and we need to unite against the threat we all now face.


Internal politics can be fixed later.

[stevenleser]

58. No, I am a Clinton supporter and your characterization of us does not describe me. nt

[MedusaX]

60. FFS...The only thing everyone is likely to agree about is that the political system is corrupt...

Unfortunately, people failed to recognize the vulnerability of the existing status of our Constitutional rights, liberties, and freedoms.

We are so used to the civil, controlled, status quo of traditional procedures within which R's & D's banter about the level of fiscal support to allocate toward the existing agencies, programs, etc ...
That the collective electorate never considered the very real possibility that in less than 150 days all of the procedural standards, norms, rules, transparency, and civility could be replaced by
Secret, closed door, single party legislating and the exercising of procedural control to eliminate opposition, review, &/or negotiation.

Those who supported non-traditional candidates because they wanted to blow up/shake up the system failed to consider that the outsider might be far more corrupt than the "system" within which the traditional candidates have been allowed to operate.

Bottom line is that very few recognized the vulnerability of the Constitutional foundation and basic functions of Democracy ....
the majority of people just took those things as a given... so they failed to heed the warnings of those who said to 'be careful of what you wish for'.

[Hekate]

104. +1000

[betsuni]

172. +1

[Lithos]

61. No one I think is happy

I think it's a case of which civil elements you trust (more or less) and where you think the focus for change needs to occur.

L-

[Stuart G]

64. NO...absoulutely not....paragraph 2....hasty generalization.....lie...nt.

[Trial_By_Fire]

65. Yes, there is a fight for the direction the Dems party will follow...

There may be a few different sides but it boils down to those who
want the same-old same-old and those who want to align the party
with the people and progressive policies and positions.

I see it as a good thing. The 'old' way isn't working...

[Wounded Bear]

68. "Clintons various leftward feints on policy"

Did the author really say that? Kind of says who that person is rooting for in their search for "unity."

[NurseJackie]

86. I spotted that too. So blatant. So obvious.

[BainsBane]

75. No, I don't agree

at all. To call the explanation superficial would be a compliment.

Moreover, I can think of little more shallow that attributing a way of thinking based on allegiance to politicians, particularly over a year after the campaign was over.

I find the entire personality-based approached to politics loathsome and that some continue to place fealty for members of the political elite over everything else strikes me as the opposite of democratic.

Data shows that Clinton voters had lower incomes, were more likely to be non-white, and more were women.
Why would people subject to those sorts of inequalities be happier with America?

I think it's pretty obvious the author neither likes or respects the population that didn't vote as they demanded. And I have little doubt the author preaches that we should all be more understanding toward the poor, oppressed white men earning over $100k a year who voted for Trump. But the people who earn under 30k, they're happy with the status quo and therefore the "establishment."

[Eliot Rosewater]

82. And they are going to fuck up 2018 like they did 2016, count on it.

[sheshe2]

138. Thank you Bains.

[MineralMan]

76. Lots of people have commented. I'd be interested in hearing

from you again in this thread. Where'd you go?

[Hekate]

107. Maybe it's not going the way s/he planned

[MineralMan]

111. Or, perhaps it is and there was no intention to actually join

in a discussion. Or, maybe the poster had somewhere to go and posted just before going away from access to DU. I don't know.

I know, though, that when I post an thread-opening post on DU, I try to do it only at times when I'll be able to participate in any discussion that might develop. I consider that to be an important part of posting on DU. I realize that not everyone feels the same way, though.

Frankly, I don't know the OP of this thread very well, so I can't say. I do wish the poster would return to the thread, though, and take up some of the questions that were raised.

[LAS14]

140. It was really a question. I didn't expect it to go one way or another.

I thought it was an interesting article, based on statistical info. I tend to agree with people who say it oversimplifies the Clinton side of things. But I'm also interested in the degree to which DUers affirm our basic institutions (hopefully soon to be populated by different people!)

[Freethinker65]

78. No.

[Skittles]

79. sencond paragraph is crap

Clinton supporters were NOT "fundamentally happy" - they just did NOT see Bernie Sanders as the answer

[Eliot Rosewater]

81. Vote for ANY democrat next year, NO MATTER WHAT

[jalan48]

85. Considering the dangerous mess Obama inherited in 2008 I'd say he did an admirable job.

Had the media continued to frame the issues around the financial crisis of 2008 and how things had improved since then most people would not have been as disgruntled about their position in society. It seems American's want everything right now, not bothering to reflect on how bad it was just a few years earlier. And, the media feeds on controversy.

[Martin Eden]

88. "corruption of politics" is not merely abstract

Overturning Citizens United and putting serious campaign finance reforms into place are concrete issues that profoundly affect our representative democracy. Big money interests do not donate big money without getting something in return, and the Democratic Party is not immune to that because large amounts of cash are needed to compete in the commercial-driven media which frames the narrative.

More than lip service is needed. This needs to be a central theme with an action plan behind it.

The status quo might seem alright to people who are fairly secure financially, but the wealth being generated by our rich economy is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands with more people struggling to get by. In addition to fixing the inherent corruption in our electoral system, we have to reign in the military industrial complex and make a high quality public education a top national priority.

Far too many of our children never really have a fair chance to live up to their potential.

[mcar]

92. "Leftward feints?"

[KTM]

103. Yes. I think people are misinterpreting that quote. (Some intentionally)

In this case, I believe the author used "status quo" to describe the *methodology of changing* the ideological landscape, not the landscape itself. He is not saying Clinton supporters thought everthing was great and no change was needed, but that they were more tolerant of the current process of bringing about change.

"Clinton supporters were fundamentally happy with the United States of America, the American political system, and the trajectory for people like themselves within it." - i.e., with the way the current ideological battle is waged, the stability of slow change, and the politics of compromise. It's not saying they were happy with current policies, but with the approach being used to effect change.

"Sanders supporters, by contrast, were not, and Clinton’s various leftward feints on policy could not address that gap." i.e., not happy with the tactics, wanting a more agrresive ideological stance and an attempt to make the case that slow change is not working, thus her "feints" to the left were not enough "red meat" to impress that wing, who saw them as an affect worn primarily to win them over, not as something she would go to the table over.

[mcar]

131. No misinterpretation

Feint: a deceptive or pretended blow, thrust, or other movement, especially in boxing or fencing.

The writer is saying HRC was only pretending to support liberal policies, which is bullshit.

[KTM]

135. Yet many felt that she was.

It was discussed ad infitnitum during the primaries, which need not be re-fought. There was an *expected* pivot back to the center. Her "gold standard" statement followed by tepid criticism of TPP is one glaring example. Many felt that she was not willing to really go to the matt for things which she showed lukewarm support for.

That seems to be the point of the article - that many belived her to be represntative of the "compromise your way to victory" approach that many of our politicians have taken, and that the schism on the Left is between those who accept that approach and those who felt it had not worked.

(Wasnt saying you misinterpreted the word "feint," but that the misinterpretation was that Clinton's supporters accepted "the way things are" (status quo) in current American *policy*, as opposed to "status quo" in the party's *approach to fighting* for Democratic beliefs.)

[mcar]

141. My post said only "leftward feints?"

You said some misinterpreted that quote. I said nothing about the rest of that nonsense article.

[KTM]

160. And I refer to the body of that quote

From which "leftward feints" was excerpted. The enitre "status quo" quote is, IMHO, being misinterpreted.

[LAS14]

143. Thanks for restating the article's point. A more nuanced reading leads to more interesting...

... discussion.

[beachbum bob]

96. if a fundamental divide allows a trump to be president then those who have an ideology litmus test

on the left need to re-examinre their values..last time I looked Hillary had 3 million more votes than trump...and stein voters gave trump the presidency. its not the "hillary" type of democrat voter that was the issue I hate to say

[Hekate]

108. +1000

[NastyRiffraff]

98. So you're not refighting the primary?

Last edited Tue Jun 20, 2017, 06:20 PM - Edit history (2)

This isn't divisive?

(Begin quote)Clinton supporters were fundamentally happy with the United States of America, the American political system, and the trajectory for people like themselves within it. Sanders supporters, by contrast, were not, and Clinton’s various leftward feints on policy could not address that gap. (end quote)

That is the one of the most simplistic, untrue, alternative-fact-laden, analyses of the two primary candidates' voters I've heard. I was and am a Clinton supporter, and while I support the framework of our democracy, I'm far from "fundamentally happy" with everything in it. I'm a liberal who is for women's, AA, LGBT, Hispanic rights, against the Religious Right's attempts to bring a theocracy to America, for improved health care via the ACA, all of which is achievable if we VOTE DEMOCRATIC. We DON'T have to burn down the house and build anew. Progressive (as in incremental, achievable change that make real differences in lives) change is not only possible, but necessary.

VOTE DEMOCRATIC. There is no excuse...none...not to. Not because you don't like a Democratic candidate, not because he or she isn't pure enough for you. Do it anyway. Nobody cares if you have to hold your nose; just vote Democratic before you pass out or die from lack of oxygen.

[NurseJackie]

152. Excellent reply. Excellent analysis.

VOTE DEMOCRATIC!

[haele]

100. No. The premis is that the Democrats are lockstep in ideology.

As I've observed before, the Democrats are a Coalition of both pragmatists and idealists.

For example - should we believe that Senator Al Franken is the same in both economic and social policy as Senator Joe Manchen?

Do they "accept money" the same way? Do they organize their bases the same way? Do they view the party goals the same way?

These "Real Split" false equivalency comments are arguments that Greens and Republicans make for Democrats - because that's how those parties operate.

Republicans require lockstep actions. There are no liberal or moderate Republicans. No matter what you as a Republican office holder or leader tells your constituents, you either vote with the leadership, wherever you are in the country - or the Party organizes the Pulpits and "Think Tanks" and primaries your ass with some other "yes-person" politically to the right of you.

U.S. Greens have always been fringe Radical/Purists - as in, they believe in "tearing down" to rebuild rather than work within the system. (Canadian and European Greens throw up their hands in despair when they see what the U.S. Greens do in this country...)

Democrats, now...they're going to reflect the mean policy between their constituents and the local political machine that gets them elected.

Democrats operate in ****regional Coalitions****. No one is going to primary them from either the right or the left in their regions. They'll lose when they lose funding.
And that's where the "real split" comments fall apart.

Haele

[Hekate]

112. Well put, Haele

[JHan]

121. on point as usual

[hughee99]

101. I think if you look at the number of long term DU posters from 2 years ago that are no longer

DU posters (either by choice or not), it's hard to say there's no split at DU, and that it's at least somewhat reflective of the party as a whole.

How large that group is and how wide the gap to reconciliation is are certainly matters of opinion, but I'm not sure how anyone can argue that there's no split.

[LisaM]

105. I guess you win the loaded question of the day award.

I think the way you phrased that was leading, ridiculous, loaded, and judgmental.

[LAS14]

144. I probably should have said "Do you" instead of "Does everyone?" nt

[LisaM]

145. I think I win the overreaction award, too - since this was from an article.

Sorry, I just get distressed at the "Hillary isn't a progressive" narrative.

[LAS14]

161. Me too. :-)

[BzaDem]

110. I think Clinton supporters focus less on happiness than Sanders supporters.

If Clinton supporters thought that Sanders could snap his fingers and create a political system that would make them happy, my guess is that they would love to see Sanders become president.

My guess is that most Clinton supporters do not think that Sanders would change our government any more than Clinton (or Obama). I remember during the 2008 primary the unrealistic hopes people had for Obama, and remember the disappointment many here had when their hopes did not come to fruition. I think a Sanders presidency would play out in a similar manner.

Ironically, the "corruption of politics" issues that Sanders focuses on so much are the very reason why a Sanders Presidency would be such a disappointment to his core supporters. This is not to say he would be worse than Clinton or Obama -- he very well could be better. (I think most Clinton supporters would be happier with a Sanders presidency than most Sanders supporters would be.) But Sanders' core supporters' disappointment with the existing state of affairs leads then to develop unrealistically high expectations, which are then dashed due to the very same forces that Sanders railed against.

[Squinch]

149. This is a great post. I agree. And I think THIS might be the real difference.

I do think Clinton would have been the best. I though her plans were more realistic. I never believed all the things people hate her for. (Can't even really ever remember what they hate her for.)

But you are right. Sanders would probably have been fine. I don't think his ideas were as scaffolded and well thought out, and some were just unrealistic, so I though he'd get a lot less done than she would. But I probably would have been fine with him.

And I think your characterization of the reaction of the Sanders voter to the reality of a Sanders presidency is very astute.

[GulfCoast66]

114. Nope

The split, which is way over amplified on sites like DU, is between supporters of a long term Democratic member fighting for long term Democratic values as stated in the party platform and people on the left who decided to follow a politician who has no loyalty to the party and proves his independence by attacking actual or perceived faults with the party.

When members of the Democratic Party fight amoung ourselves there is less residual hostility because we are all on the same team. That dynamic disappears when the leader of one of the factions is not a Democrat.

[lunatica]

116. My split is with the entire Republican Congress and Trumpl

But I don't believe there's a split in the Democratic Party per se. There are differences of opinion but that's always been the case. I don't think Clinton supporters were happy at all. They believed Clinton would be an excellent Democratic President.

[kcr]

119. Nope. For one thing, that is a gross mischaracterization of Clinton supporters.

I think the notion of a divide is a narrative that is pushed by those with an agenda to divide because it helps them politically.

[JHan]

120. Yep +++

[bresue]

127. There is always going to be divisions in any party-whether we allow it to break the party is up

is our determination.

[left-of-center2012]

130. We need to focus on 2018 and 2020

We need to look forward,
and we need to beat the GOP.

What we do not need is a 'circular firing squad'.

[Ccarmona]

132. The Split Is In How the DNC & DCCC

Sticks to Its philosophy that hasn't had the best track record and that the Progressive Wing's feeling it's voice is not being listened to or heard.

[Demsrule86]

155. we are all progressives. We all have a voice...you vote and that is it.

Anyone who is truly a progressive votes Democratic...they are the only avenue for Progressive policy.

[murielm99]

134. I don't accept the premise of this article.

I don't believe that there is a true divide, either.

I am seeing much more activism and presence in real life Democratic politics. This is at the state and local level. Democrats of all types are sitting down and standing up together. There was increased participation when Obama ran the first time. I didn't see this much participation even then. Everyone wants to help. They simply need direction.

I am tired of seeing this type of simplistic crap suggesting a huge divide where none exists.

[Justice]

142. I am sick of people telling Clinton supporters what they think and feel.

[Demsrule86]

156. I agree. She was the candidate and if you didn't vote for her than you are a Trumper...

and I for one won't cater to you.

[sheshe2]

146. No.

As a Hillary support I disagree with this assessment of her supporters and I know many of them. As a woman it offends me and makes me sound like an uninformed voter/citizen and I am neither.

[Squinch]

147. Not even close.

[still_one]

162. Oh yes, that is why people of color overwhelmingly voted for Hillary, because they

are "fundamentally happy with the United States of America"

What a bunch of bullshit

[boston bean]

163. "Clintons leftward feints". Uh no. There were no feints. Dayum!

[KTM]

164. Come on BB....

This was HUGE topic of dicussion during the primaries.... the expected pivot to the center, the argument over whether single payer was possible, the argument over $15 minimum wage, the discussions over TPP... there were clearly plenty of people who felt that Clinton was mostly making a middle-of-the-road argument and that some of her more leftist stances were taken to court the "Sanders wing" of the electorate.

Im not rehashing those arguments, but surely you dont argue that there was not an active discussion as to whether Clinton was being outflanked on the left, and fears within the Sanders wing that this was lip-service to their goals.

Yes, Hillary would have been worlds better than any Republican, which is why so many of us who voted for Bernie in the primary voted for her in the general... but you cant rewrite history and erase the very real feelings amongst many on the left that she was merely courting our vote but would take a more moderate course in the general and in her presidency.

[stevenleser]

166. Yep, more silly revisionist history of the Clinton's in general and

Hillary in particular

[lapucelle]

168. Imaginary feinting spells...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

Hillary Clinton is a Hard-Core Liberal.
http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

[ananda]

165. The Sanders program will win elections ..

.. only because that platform addresses the needs of
real people, not corporations.

If Dems would remain true to their liberal roots, we
wouldn't be sitting here in such a mess of a country.

[stevenleser]

167. Only in the bluest of districts. But we can win those without him. nt

[Trumpocalypse]

177. Yeah, that worked out great in Georgia last night

Requiring ideological purity will be the death of the party.

[Demsrule86]

188. No it won't.

In Georgia, Handel said...people don't need a living wage...she as a republicans was against it and won. Sanders message works for those who are liberals...won't work for any red state.

[betsuni]

173. So it's optimists vs pessismists according to the article.

The optimists have patience, the pessimists need instant gratification. Both are about the same on policy, but the pessimists insist everything is rigged. But now with Trump everyone will be pessimists and agree that politics is rigged and corrupt and horrible. And this will be the new Democratic Party.

Can that be right? Maybe I should read it again.

[SharonClark]

178. No split where I live - we all want to defeat the gop

and advance policies that help the people who need help. That's how it's always been around here.

[bigtree]

181. 'Clinton supporters were fundamentally happy with the United States of America'

...what utter bullshit.

[apcalc]

183. +1