I've, and most of us who have been here for quite sometime realize one thing........

[boston bean]

Left leaning messaging attacking the democratic party from a leftist appearing plank and the movements that messaging builds brought in one way or another, W and Rump.

No thank you to this new 'our revolution' who seems to want to continue the split up along these line, making us weaker and weaker, only helping a malignant party stay in power.

The one other thing that is really weird is these types of movements don't seem as progressive on social issues.. another step backwards, imho.

Please NOTE:

This is NOT ABOUT THE last Democratic PRIMARY, it is about general elections and the Democratic Party's future and very recent events.

[dawg]

1. I hear very little issue advocacy from those folks.

Lots of calls for the Democratic Party to do something "different". Very little substance about what those different things might be.

The fact is that we ran on a very liberal platform and nominated a very liberal candidate, albeit not the one many of the dissenters preferred.

They should rally behind a candidate for 2020 and start promoting that candidate's attributes instead of tirelessly criticizing other Democrats for perceived impurities.

[Jim Lane]

54. If you don't hear it it's because you don't WANT to hear it

* Oppose trade deals like TPP that empower corporations
* Oppose Bill Clinton's Glass-Steagall repeal; reinstate Glass-Steagall along with much tougher regulation of Wall Street
* Support single-payer health care
* Support a $15 minimum wage
* Oppose chained CPI and other attacks on Social Security; support raising or eliminating the cap on income subject to FICA taxation
* Oppose hawkish foreign policy and imperialistic wars of choice

That's a list that I just rattled off without any difficulty. My apologies to my fellow progressives for the inevitable omissions.

I've deliberately omitted matters on which there's general agreement within the Democratic Party, such as opposing Trump's wall and supporting net neutrality.

Some people within the Democratic Party want to dismiss 40-some percent of the party as petulant crybabies who deal only in personalities and pout when they lose a fair fight. People who start out with that preconception and are determined to repel from their minds any contrary facts will find that they don't hear substantive issue advocacy. People who approach the question fairly will have a more accurate picture.

[Demsrule86]

58. We had the most progressive policy in

our history in 16, and apparently it was not enough. You can't get what you want on that list by electing Republicans. Much of what you want will be blocked by the courts that the GOP gets to pack because of the 16 spoiler votes. Elections have consequences and in terms of courts they last for a generation. People will die with the GOP in charge. Of course, those on the alt-left show a curious indifference towards the welfare of the poor, LGBTQ, People of color and women in general.They share this indifference with the hard right and Republicans.

Thanks for the post;the complete lack of concern for the innocent people who will be harmed by the Republicans and the laundry list of what it will take to get the 'vote' from the alt-left( for want of a better term) makes it clear, we won't get the vote so why even bother? I am not even sure I want to deal with folks who are willing to sacrifice their fellow man for what is essentially a laundry list of demands. I notice the one thing not on the list ...is anything having to do with social justice or human rights. President Roosevelt who had deep compassion for the American people was nothing like the Alt-left, and they should not use the word Roosevelt in any of their manifestos...they are nothing like him.

[killbotfactory]

75. The only reason the democratic platform was so progressive was because...

Bernie used his clout to fight for one after the primary.

[dawg]

80. In other words, the system worked.

The Party responded to the large minority of its voters who wanted it to move in a more economically liberal direction.

It's a pity, then, that all of those voters didn't rally around the Party and its nominee. We might be actually putting some of that platform into effect right now had that been the case.

[Demsrule86]

126. Nonsense...Bernie ideas are Democratic ideas and have been held by many Democrats for years.

[demosincebirth]

133. Why is is he not a democrat?

[Demsrule86]

136. Ask him...he does the party a disservice by not joining in my opinion.

[demosincebirth]

182. He doesn't want to be saddled by rules of a party he does not totally agree with

[Demsrule86]

184. There you go...I don't disagree. But to me that means Sen. Sanders should have little say in the

Democratic Party operations and not be in a position of leadership. I support Democrats.

[killbotfactory]

141. Nonsense?

Bernie got endless amounts of crap around here for pushing the party platform left instead of immediately falling in line. The issues he championed weren't even on the radar of most democrats with any powerful positions in the party.

[Jim Lane]

114. That post is so full of straw men it's a fire hazard.

Please look at the context. There was a post that asserted, "I hear very little issue advocacy from those folks." I refuted that post by citing just some of the instances of issue advocacy that had been made by "those folks" (taking that imprecise phrase as referring generally to people who supported Bernie Sanders and/or who sometimes criticize some Democrats as being too conservative).

Your first paragraph is an attack on people who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the general. Take it up with them. I voted for her. Nothing in my post (which refuted a lie about progressive Democrats) suggests otherwise.

That's also the response to the first half of your second paragraph. I state a list of policy preferences. You completely distort that into "a laundry list of demands" and address your comments to people who won't vote for a candidate they deem imperfect. It's become far too common on DU that any assertion of a policy position anywhere to the left of Joe Manchin is immediately assailed as a demand. That's a complete non sequitur.

Finally, you write, "I notice the one thing not on the list ...is anything having to do with social justice or human rights." If you had managed to read my entire post, you would have found: "I've deliberately omitted matters on which there's general agreement within the Democratic Party...." I think that includes most or all of the social justice/human rights agenda. For example, in the past, it wasn't unknown for prominent Democrats to oppose marriage equality on the grounds that marriage was a sacred bond between a man and a woman. By now, fortunately, most of those Democrats have left office or have changed their position.

[Demsrule86]

125. First of all, I disagree with almost eveything you wrote. We are in a fight for

our lives literally and I don't give two shits about 'our revolution' They are spoilers and dead to me. The one thing I will point out is this Nina Turner who now speaks for this sorry group said that we were just going to have accept pro-life...blah blah during the Mello thing and I have heard the some who claim to be progressive leaders state that economics are what is important and that social justice issues take a back seat...sorry no fucking way. From their new fearless leader...Fuck you Nina.

Link to tweet

[Jim Lane]

129. You say you disagree with *me* and then you quote... Nina Turner.

I supported Bernie in the primaries, Nina Turner supported Bernie in the primaries, therefore obviously I must agree with everything Nina Turner says and criticisms of her can be directed at me. Right. Perfectly logical.

[Demsrule86]

134. I am merely pointing out the shortcomings of "our revolution" and why they get two fucks

and no support from me. We need to address social justice issues as well as economic issues...and if you check you can read all about what some leaders said about 'identity politic'.

[Blue_true]

175. You hit the nail on it's head.

The fucking alt-left claim to be so pure of heart. But before the election Trump said that he would attack law abiding immigrants, he said that he would do whatever to go after Muslims, he said that he would repeal the closest thing that we have had to universal healthcare EVER in this country. The alt-left heard this as well as we did and what did they say "Fuck the marginalized, let them eat goddamn cake". I have had my fill with those assholes, they gave us Bush II and now Trump. Fuck them, I will appeal to people that I can count on.

[dawg]

79. Most of what you listed was either in the Democratic Party platform and/or ...

espoused by our party's last nominee for President.

Your side has built a ridiculous strawman universe where mainstream Democrats *want* imperialistic wars of choice, oppose increasing the minimum wage, and fight against achieving universal health care. That universe does not exist, and those mainstream Democrats you oppose do not exist either.

[Jim Lane]

117. I see it differently.

I personally consider the Iraq War to have been an imperialistic war of choice, and it had the support of too many Democrats. The $15 minimum wage is gaining politically but there is still division within the Democratic Party on the point; therefore, those who support it are justified in continuing their issue advocacy (as, of course, are those who oppose it -- I don't agree with attempts to stifle any point of view on policy questions).

As for single payer, that's clearly a matter of division. In the House of Representatives, a majority of the Democratic members have signed on to H.R.676, the single payer bill, but many of the party's top leaders (such as Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer) have not. If you agree with the OP in criticizing a faction "who seems to want to continue the split up along these line, making us weaker and weaker...," then I guess your criticism would be directed at Pelosi and Hoyer rather than at Our Revolution. For my part, I don't agree with the OP. There are Democrats who favor single payer and Democrats who oppose it, and that's a legitimate discussion for us to have. Neither side should be suppressed with charges of causing disunity or aiding Republicans.

[dawg]

120. The point is that you aren't really saying anything all that different from the rest of us.

Virtually no Democrats still think the Iraq War was a good idea. In case you forgot, the President at the time lied and misrepresented numerous threats in order to make that happen.

As for the single-payer bill, it's just tilting at windmills at this point. Democratic Representatives should choose to sign onto the bill, or not to sign onto it, depending on whether or not they think it would help them in their district. I'm certainly not going to demonize a Democrat for not signing onto a bill that is doomed from the start.

[Jim Lane]

127. I was saying something different from your post #1.

BTW, when I say I favor single payer and hope that more Dems will sign on, that doesn't equate to "demonizing" those who don't. Your choice of words illustrates the subtext of much of this thread: the insinuation that any expression of progressive disagreement with any Democrat is illegitimate (that it constitutes a "demand" or "extortion" or "demonizing" those who disagree, etc.).

[dawg]

138. Maybe you aren't demonizing people, but a whole helluva lot of other people are.

If you aren't doing that, then you aren't one of the ones we're talking about here.

FWIW I also favor single-payer health insurance. (And I voted for Bernie in the primaries.)

[stevenleser]

97. Those policies were pushed 10% of the time, attacks on Democrats pushed 90% of the time.

And the results are, George W. Bush and Donald Trump and no furtherance of those policies they are supposedly so interested in promoting.

[Eliot Rosewater]

103. It is almost as if there is an agenda that has NOTHING to do with what they propose.

weird

[stevenleser]

104. Yes, almost as if, right? Very weird. nt

[Jim Lane]

119. Your "statistic" reflects hypersensitivity to criticism.

Suppose I say, "Joe Manchin is too conservative. For example, he voted in favor of most of the CRA bills overturning protective regulations promulgated during the Obama administration." Is that comment pushing a policy or attacking a Democrat? Well, it's both.

I can't escape the suspicion that a supposedly neutral concern about attacks on Democrats and threats to party unity is actually based just on differing policy views. For example, if someone supports the Obama regulations but opposes single payer, then the criticism of Manchin would be seen as perfectly legitimate debate about policy, but criticizing Diane Feinstein for opposing single payer would be seen as an example of the supposed evil denounced in the OP.

[stevenleser]

140. If it was just me it might. When it is almost all the folks who voted Hillary, that's something else

[Jim Lane]

145. More precisely, "*a lot* of the *DUers* who voted for Hillary".

Hillary got 65,853,516 votes. DU is, dare I say it, not a representative sampling of that group.

Even as to DU, I don't think that "almost all" is correct.

[stevenleser]

149. Whatever makes you feel better. But you are wrong. Almost all the Hillary supporters feel similarly.

Just go out there and ask them.

[Jim Lane]

150. LOL. Inasmuch as you've apparently interviewed several million people...

I guess I'll have to defer to your insight.

BTW, Bernie got about 13 million votes in the primaries, and Stein got about 1 million in the general election. Those numbers suggest to me that the overwhelming majority of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary. Did your "go out there and ask them" program include interviewing any of those millions of people? I regret to report that you somehow missed me.

[stevenleser]

152. Don't just ask me, ask Bernie. He and his campaign were sufficiently concerned about it

https://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/the-bernie-bros

to try to take some action.

[Jim Lane]

153. What I said was that your 90% "statistic" was totally bogus.

The article you link says that SOME Bernie supporters in 2015-16 were uncivil, arrogant, sexist, etc. Here's a newsflash for you about our contentious nomination fight -- some of Clinton's supporters weren't exactly models of rectitude either. I could cite some horrific examples just from DU (from both sides!), but in the interest of not refighting the primary, I won't. I'll just direct your attention to the passage on that subject in your own linked article. It doesn't specifically mention DU but talks about "hyper-aggressive digital supporters" as a general problem.

The bottom line is that nothing in the article you linked supports all the post-election smearing of progressives that's going on in this thread, from the OP on down.

[stevenleser]

167. And the point of the link which you glossed over is that

there was sufficient nasty negativity by the part of the left that we are discussing that the campaign was very concerned about it.

This is what you see whenever that portion of the left in this country focuses on someone they feel is riding in on a white horse to save them.

Campaigns don't waste time and effort on things that aren't A big deal and having a big impact. If Sanders' campaign was burning time and effort on this, it was a big deal.

And it was.

[Blue_true]

174. 40% of the party in someone's wildest fucking dreams.

The far far left has shown repeatedly that it represents 1-2% of the Democratic Party and only become meaningful during critical close election. Fuck them and the white horse they rode in on. I would much rather go after moderates, at least they are reliable when you give them a compelling message and define risks, the far, far left, not even fucking close.

Every socalled core issue you listed has been on regular Democrats radars since fucking 1963. To run out this purity bullshit and claim Democrats don't care about those things is infuriating to me, as a matter of fact, it fucking pisses me off.

[mcar]

2. They don't seem to get politics at all

[YCHDT]

3. 100% agree ... They seem more about screaming than making progress

[NBachers]

4. There's a brain-numbingly slow, boring, & detailed behavior in the actual execution of the political

process as it occurs in our Democracy. I don't think any of these "uber leftists" have any idea or inclination to be engaged in that part of it.

[luvtheGWN]

6. I'm curious to know

how much students over the last 20 years or so have been taught about how their government works (or, at least is supposed to function). Is Civics still a high school subject? I suspect the vast majority of young people are getting all their political education via the internet, and what they read depends wholly on what websites they access.

Politics is a messy business, and unless these students are being taught to have some critical thinking skills and some discernment, then I fear for democracy. I remember hearing 3 20-somethings interviewed on NPR a couple of weeks before the election. Two were voting Green and one was voting for Trump. The reasons they gave made no sense (to me, at least) and they simply spouted jargon they'd read on the net.

[brush]

14. Exactly. They seem to want to hang around the Democratic Party and continually bash us with their...

divisiveness. Why don't they just start their own party and be done with us.

We don't need this continued divisiveness going into 2018 and 2020.

Quit us already, Our Revolution, we don't care. Just go.

We'll be okay without your divisiveness.

Don't you want to see how you'll do on your own?

[Blue_true]

177. The alt-left.

Are the type of people that after you have been rolling a big rock up 99 yards of a 10% grade, will stand in the middle of the last yard and hector you for being too slow. And they won't try for a second to throw some back in it to help out.

[ehrnst]

20. "But if I don't understand it, then IT'S CORRUPT! There are EASY ANSWERS

and anyone that tells me otherwise is a CORPORATE SHILL!!!"

Ad nauseum.

[ehrnst]

20. "But if I don't understand it, then IT'S CORRUPT! There are EASY ANSWERS

and anyone that tells me otherwise is a CORPORATE SHILL!!!"

Ad nauseum.

[JHan]

28. ++++++++++++++

[AllyCat]

5. How is this not about the last election?

That's when "Our Revolution" started. That is one place where people are getting information on what actions. There is nothing subversive or splitting about what they are doing. I get the same mailers from the DCCC, all dem candidates, and my state party that I have gotten for years. And where has that gotten us? New ideas are what we need.

[KPN]

31. Yup.

What's divisive is this OP. Not just new ideas though ... a return to some of the old fundamental ideas, and a real commitment to them, not just campaign promises.

[Demsrule86]

59. Our revolution is a terrible organization that bashes Democrats and primaries sitting Democrats.

Think about that...in a time where we have no power...they worry about pure Democrats...we can't even bring a bill to the floor and they go after Democrats and bash the Democratic party. And if they had so much power, than why wasn't Feingold elected? Sorry, fuck them. I gave them money at one time and regret it now. I have blocked them. I don't even want to see their shitty emails.

[mcar]

89. Yes. And it's going on right now

When "Our Revolution" was formed is not relevant to this OP. It is what they are doing and saying now.

All the "Democrats suck" type complaints and the "why are the Dems doing A, B or C?" laments show an ignorance of the political system and a desire to only disrupt.

[Demsrule86]

124. This we don't need.

They need to shut the hell up unless they have a strong desire to elect Republicans.

[LiberalBrooke]

93. I'm still getting their email's

So I can see what they are up to. No money and I boycott their meetings.

[Demsrule86]

123. I went to their meetings, but since I voted for Hillary I suppose I would be unwelcome anyway...but

now I despise them, and they get nothing..

[stevenleser]

100. Not to mention is so orthodox they threw out a candidate who voted Bernie in the primary

because he voted Hillary in the General Election.

To support them you have to either be crazy, or an asshole, or both.

[Demsrule86]

122. I would say most are both.

They recruit non-Dems to run as Dems...WVA is infuriating...if they succeed, we lose that seat...waste of time and money.

[AllyCat]

183. Seems like DU isn't much different. If you voted HRC

In the GE and Bernie in the primary, you are a f*ck as I have been called. I'm sick of the centrist Dem routine that is like the old Republicans. It is not working for the people or our country. We need to go back to real Democratic values and wholly embrace all people. Dems are the majority and we need to act like it.

[AllyCat]

118. When sitting Democrats don't stand up for the people

They deserve to get primaried. The people deserve choices when their voices are not heard. Republicans don't listen to their constituents. Democrats can win by listening and voting accordingly.

[Demsrule86]

121. That is not the case...and it is a waste of time to primary Democrats when we could use the

resources to turn the a GOP seat blue...This organization is dead to me. I would never support ( I used to)them or vote for any of their candidates.

[Blue_true]

179. You keep arguing like you are in the majority.

You aren't, nowhere close to it.

[Voltaire2]

82. I guess if you put a disclaimer on your post

then you get a free pass.

[Blue_true]

178. So fucking propose the "new ideas" along with practical means of achieving them.

I bet you can't put the two together.

[NotASurfer]

7. Some politics is local

Or regional. "Pro choice" means one thing in a liberal state (i.e. it's a difficult choice and it's none of your damn business why) and something else in the Bible Belt (i.e. Grudgingly if rape/incest/mother's life in danger).

We're in a space in DU where different groups come in contact and maybe lose sight of the idea that we really just need to work on moving the needle relative to where we are. Over time that adds up.

[tiredtoo]

8. And yet another divide and conquer thread.

"They don't seem to understand politics at all"
They do know Democrats have been losing elections across the country for the past 30/40 years.
They do know sending the same message year after year has produced a losing situation.
Dems must call for a real change, if they expect to win.
Call for a 30 hour work week with 40 hours benefits/pay. (Jobs are not coming back)
Call for single payer health insurance.
Call for government funded education for all that qualify and desire same.
Call for child care as needed.
There are others that escape my mind at this time but another point to be made is here...

When was the last time you heard a Republican condemn the tea party, the KKK, David Duke or even Roger Stone?
The Republicans welcome the fringes to their fold.
Only difference i see is... They win elections.
Stop this bashing of left wing people or continue watching our party go down the tubes!

[boston bean]

9. Who is doing all this division????

[tiredtoo]

10. the people here that condemn left wing fringe folk.

[boston bean]

11. pointing to facts of some working against the party is dividing who from who??

[tiredtoo]

12. what facts?

[boston bean]

16. exactly what I wrote and is detailed in very specific interview of the president of Our Revolution:

 Nina Turner: It Is Not Our Job to Fit Into the Democratic Establishment

https://www.thenation.com/article/nina-turner-it-is-not-our-job-to-fit-into-the-democratic-establishment/

[tiredtoo]

22. I Read the article provided in link

Actually she makes some good points. "It is not our Job to fit into the Democratic Establishment, it is their job to fit in with us."
I have posted on various threads here. Unless the Democratic party changes it's ways it can expect continuing losses. Fitting in with progressives will be a change for the good.

[boston bean]

25. And if they don't abide by everything NIna Turner says?? It is the democratic party who is divisive

??

This is an exercise in futility and one we have experienced twice thus far. This is not new and each time we got ruled by republicans.

This is not a zero game and it should not be treated as one.

[KPN]

34. Absolutely right. It's not a zero sum game

... yet this OP clearly lays it out as such.

Can we just stop with this stuff?

[boston bean]

35. I invite any single person to vote democratic. That is not what what Nina is saying.

She is saying to that support will be withheld unless.

That is the zero sum game being played by people who seem to not like the democratic party.

[KPN]

43. Keep in mind it's all in the eye of

the beholder. Your invitation doesn't sound inviting when it's perceived as "get in line", " with us or against us", "wait your turn", etc. I and others read the same article and didn't take away the same message from Nina that you did.

Hey, I'm a frigging Democrat, voted D up and down the line every election since 1972 (from Boston area BTW). I'm a local party precinct committee person, have served local central committee secretary. My view: there's a lot of us here that need to develop a thicker skin when it comes to views that dissent from current leaders. There's nothing to be defensive about.

[boston bean]

44. No, my invitation is please join and vote democratic. Have some leverage within the party to make

the changes you seek.

Don't threaten, or extort.

There is a difference here.

[Demsrule86]

60. No its not...they attack Democrats...and demand the impossible...I am done with all of them.

I will vote for none of their candidate...none.

[KPN]

157. Who is "them". Seems like there are plenty of

"them" right here at DU -- including many lifelong, loyal Democrats.

Where is the attack in this? I don't see it. If someone says a candidate doesn't inspire their vote, how is that an attack? Do you really think all the people who aren't happy with the Democratic Party's performance on working poor and middle class issues are going to vote D just because it's not R? Our candidates are going to have to inspire some people's support and vote if the Democratic Party is going to turn the corner and dominate the way the Rs have at every level the past 8 years or so. Maybe we'll regain the House in 2018 just because D isn't R, but that's not going to carry into future years if the Party doesn't perform on the issues that are important to these people. Will the Ds who in 2018 potentially capture current seats held by Rs perform well enough in this regard? Hard for me to imagine they will if they are cut from the neoliberal mold.

[Demsrule86]

159. Not Democrats...I am talking about Green and other third party riffraff.

I am bored with this inspiration nonsense...do you think in every election the R's are inspired. No they do it so they get their agenda in place. Considering that everyone has different expectations...you can't expect a rock star for every damned election...I vote for donate to the person in the General with a 'D' next to his/her name. And I donate to the candidate that I believe has the best chance to win the general in the primary.

[KPN]

172. It is nonsense. But that's what's happened

and is happening. We can either try to tap into those who want to see a different result or not. Many of those people don't vote for a candidate because of the D, and many of them don't vote because of the R or the G. ... But all of this is really beside the point. The real issue is how have we directly affected the lives of poor and working class people in a positive way? Slowing their slide down the socio-economic ladder may be but doesn't feel like a positive to them. Understandably. And maybe patience doesn't seem like a virtue when one is on that slide. That's the issue that underlies this rift in a nutshell. Calling "dissenters" attackers doesn't strike me as helpful. It certainly doesn't win them over. Instead why don't we focus on how best to capture their energy and votes?

[Demsrule86]

185. Elect Democrats and especially in Congress. We need Congress as much

as the presidency. The poor always fare worse under the GOP...and it is no different with Trump. They promise much and deliver nothing. Let's start with a 50 state strategy.

[kcr]

78. Wrong. The simple fact is repeated attacks work.

And groups like Our Revolution are simply another vehicle for them. They are a tool to defeat Democrats. Some people just don't realize they're being used.

[KPN]

155. Not true. You are putting words in her mouth.

She talked about specific goals/issues (Medicare for All, Citizens United -- getting big money out) relative to candidates (regardless of party affiliation) and their positions. This is about issues, not the label Democrat. The Democrat brand has been a loser in the recent past -- at every level.

Personally, I feel like some here are taking dissent, differences in views about positions and priorities (though I would argue it's not really a priorities question) well ... personally, and/or getting hung up by the fact that someone might feel a particular candidate (who may not always be an establishment Democrat or even a Democrat) better represents their views. Having a problem with that is fine unless you want those people to actually vote for the Democratic Party candidate.

In the end, it will be a about voters' perceptions. Is the candidate someone who genuinely is committed to leveling the playing field and improving the lives of the working poor and middle class (and this crosses all groups -- race, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc.)? It's about enthusiasm for candidates. Having the letter D next to the name on the ballot hasn't been enough in the recent past. Why would it be in the future?

Appeals to vote for the D because it isn't the R, because it will be even worse under the Rs, haven't been enough. Yet that's the basic argument being made in threads like this one; essentially, the same thing it complains about -- threats. It's not an effective argument.

[tiredtoo]

50. we have been ruled by republicans for years.

[Demsrule86]

61. That is untrue...we had it all in 08 and then folks who are now in these splinter anti-Democratic

groups had a pout and helped elected a GOP House-but next time Democrats will show up...the purity voters talk (Greens?) much but don't show up at the voting booth...consider Perriello who was counting on these 'new' voters in Virginia. They didn't show up, and he lost decisively. We barely lost in 16 with a divisive primary,Comey and the Russians...some how I think we win without these folks and they continue to make trouble along the edges...of course they have been revealed as spoilers and enablers of the right. Perhaps in time their influence wanes and some turn to actually helping elect Democrats...the only party who can advance
progressive legislation.

[boston bean]

95. For a very short time.

You know how badly the senate rules were used by mcconnell.

[Demsrule86]

131. McConnell is a dick...I mention it only to show that it was that long ago that the GOP was on the

ropes, they came back and we can too especially with Donnie the asshat.

[tiredtoo]

110. "Purity voters"

By that you mean only the people who adhere to the establishment rules and regulations? At least one person here has told me to leave the party because of my questioning attitude. Another asked me if I was really a Democrat. (Not pure enough to call myself a Democrat)
There are indeed some hard core greens that will go to their graves voting for a losing candidate but, I came upon many greens that supported Bernie, Hillary not so much.
I am about done with this debate but will remind all... excluding people from the party because of a different view on one thing or another will result in further losses.

[Demsrule86]

130. As Hillary was the Democratic candidate and the only one who could stop Trump...the Greens that

didn't vote for her can go fuck themselves...the Democratic Party will never be pure enough for Green riffraff and the pure among us...not even Democrats in most cases...and if we lose, it can be laid at the door of the Alt-left, but I think we will win. We won't win by moving sharply left in a center left country...sadly, I wish we could.

[tiredtoo]

154. The greens were NEVER going to vote for Hillary

She lost no votes from the greens. I do know a few republicans that were going to vote for Bernie. Never Hillary. Some voted libertarian, some Trump and some stayed home. But go on blaming the loss on the green party, what do you have to lose?

[lunamagica]

142. "Hillary, not so much". And who was the candidate? See why "purity voters" are despised?

[KPN]

173. Bingo ...

at least it feels that way to some, if not, many.

[juxtaposed]

42. you maybe

[brush]

15. Why not take your list and start your own party?

Stop with clinging to the Dem party and dividing us.

Don't you want to see how you'll do on your own?

Go, already!

[tiredtoo]

23. Sorry my friend, even Teddy Roosevelt could not win as a third party candidate.

You are telling me to get the hell out. that my friend is division.
Carry on with your losing ways.

[stevenleser]

27. You don't even realize how silly your post looks under an OP about Stein.

I'm wondering if you will ever figure it out.

[brush]

29. Dividing the party contributes to the losing. Don't you get that?

Last edited Sun Jul 2, 2017, 01:55 PM - Edit history (1)

2018 is next year and 2020 is not that far away either and people are pitching anti-Dem talking points still.

"Still" from the 2016 campaign — that very divisiveness drove many to vote 3rd party or to write-in in Sanders, or to stay home or even vote for trump.

Looks like a repeat of that is coming and these tactics will contribute to it again.

One other thing, are you a Democrat?

[Demsrule86]

62. This movement or whatever you call it is not about winning.

You can cause Democrats to lose in close elections...but winning? No.

[boston bean]

17. Because they DO NOT WANT TO BE BROUGHT INTO THE FOLD.

[loyalsister]

51. They don't want to be "brought" anywhere

Maybe they want to discuss their own ideas? Maybe they are not going to be beholden to people who they hear about every few yrs when they get a postcard in the mail. Maybe they would at some point like to tell what is important to them rather than be told what they should care about?

[boston bean]

57. They are not novel ideas and many are already represented by democrats.

[loyalsister]

63. Not here

Pretending that something doesn't happen at all because it doesn't happen to you or before your eyes is the exact dismissive, condescending attitude that separates some people from the party.
And it is why talking about not "bringing them in" as if they have no agency is offensive.
If there are people paying real attention to concerns and objections without writing people off because they haven't shown unconditional loyalty in the past, they may actually be able to do some good.

[boston bean]

66. I am not being condescending. Please tell us how bad the democrats are and what you want changed

that isn't or hasn't already been addressed for YEARS?

[loyalsister]

68. Have you visited a rural county?

I mean one in the south or plains states? Or are you operating on a vision of a lofty national platform that does not address local everyday concerns in fly over regions? One need only skim threads promoting stereotypes and directing hate towards voters with a tiny bit of objectivity to consider the possibility that demands for conformity an absolute loyalty have taken a tone that demonizes real people who are angry and don't feel they are represented or valued.

[kcr]

76. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

Dems don't care about real people. They're elitists. Rinse. Repeat. Voila, instant truth!

A playbook the GOP are masters at. Sad to see it on our side. I sure would like someone to explain to me how anyone thinks this helps.

[loyalsister]

98. Perfect example

Except is doesn't always work. I had conversations with people who live in poverty and work more than one job. What do you think they thought about low unemployment and all of the other rosy rhetoric?
I heard and am still hearing that no one even pretends to pay attention to the lives they lead except for every couple of yrs when they are asked to vote for someone whose advocates look down on them. Pretending they don't exist will not make them go away, and it only exacerbates the anger they feel about not being heard.

Telling the lie that they don't exist or that they are all just bigots may give some of the party activists the satisfaction of looking down on people, but it won't win elections.

[dawg]

83. I live in a rural county. A rural county in the deep South.

The majority of the people in this county would be helped by Democratic policies. The county voted for Trump because the majority of its white voters share his racism and xenophobia.

[mcar]

91. Hillary did

I was at her rallies here in Florida. She addressed the solid, well-constructed plans she had to help people get jobs, improve education and healthcare.

The media didn't listen, cause "emails!!11" The unredeemable rural voters were outside her packed rallies screaming "lock her up" because they were sooo concerned about jobs (sarcasm) and the BoB crowd sniffed that she wasn't pure enough (corporatist, turd way DLC argle bargle) and they would vote their conscience.

[loyalsister]

102. Not here

She visited the cities but not the rurl counties. Her campaign focused only on GOTV by directing all attention to Democratic leaning voters, rather than outreach.

[stevenleser]

26. If you didn't support the Dem nominee, you are the one being divisive.

Stein did not support the Dem nominee, she is the divisive one.

[emulatorloo]

30. Anyone who claimed "Clinton is worse than Trump" in 2016 should never be listened to ever again.

I don't care if they claim to be "leftists", they have terrible judgement. They effectively set back the progress the left has made by enabling Trump.

[nikibatts]

67. You win!!!

[KPN]

32. Exactly. Well stated.

This stuff is getting old.

[stevenleser]

39. Terribly stated, unsupportable, and blames the victim for the actions of the perpetrator. nt

[Demsrule86]

64. Nope ...it names those who enabled Trump and have the nerve to call themselves progressive...

They are nothing of the sort. This is the Democratic Party...all are welcome. We need a big tent to get elected and those (Greens?) who can't understand that can go off and have their pout.

[Nevernose]

90. I agree wholeheartedly with your 1st part

And I even agree with part of your second premise -- that the more radical elements of our party be given a seat at the table. We should definitely do outreach.

But anyone who actively worked against Clinton in the general is an asshole incapable of seeing past their own privilege. 95% of them are clearly not reachable. I'd rather spend my time figuring out how to inspire people who don't vote at all (and I'd use the list in your first half to do it).

[Lil Missy]

164. To stop the "divide or conquer, we must expand the left center voters, not the greens or far left.

Stop appeasing the far left- the votes up for grabs are in the middle.

[yallerdawg]

13. We are on the verge of losing the Affordable Care Act...

and now we are being encouraged to promote single-payer as the replacement?

The single-payer candidate lost.

The 'Save ACA' candidate "lost."

The government in DC and across the USA is totally 100% Republican majority.

But...now is the time!

[KPN]

36. At the same time, the current environment

has put us in the strongest position ever to educate people about and promote the benefits of single payer. Same is true for other alternatives that would fix the rising cost and access issues. But I don't hear the Party discussing those. How about the a Party leaders come up with something more than just defense of the status quo -/ because that is the way we are coming across aside from those promoting universal care/single payer/ Medicare for all.

[yallerdawg]

40. You're acting as if this country doesn't know what single payer is...

and hasn't rejected it over and over again.

At some point we have to coalesce around an achievable goal - which at this time is hopefully thwarting the plan to decimate health care, to reverse the Obama/Democratic Party achievements, and now this effort to dismantle of the Medicaid program.

The so-called status quo IS very close to universal coverage and single payer (a Fed/State combo).

Let's work to get the rest of us covered, to make it a universally accepted right, and then - when we all see privatization is unaffordable for coverage and delivery - make it a "Medicare for All" type program we can ALL agree on.

[Jim Lane]

55. You're wrong. The country has NOT rejected single payer. The ruling class has.

You write that "this country {has} rejected {single payer} over and over again."

No, it's been rejected (actually, never even seriously considered) by Congress, which is run by the RWNJs of the Republican Party and more-rational but still overly conservative and cautious Democratic Party.

What of the country? Here's what the people say:

* "Majority still supports single-payer option, poll finds" (2015)
* "Kaiser poll suggests support Medicare-for-all is more than two-thirds" (2016)
* This has been the case since at least 2007 - "Over half of Americans want national single-payer health care, Improved Medicare for All" (multiple poll results)

[Demsrule86]

70. Single payer health care is not possible now. We need a sixty vote majority in the Senate, a House

majority, and a Democratic President...none of that is possible until at least 2020...and unlikely even then with a 50-50 split in the country. The ACA is the only health care we are likely to have for the foreseeable future...support it or many will die. And don't believe, the 'revolution' BS...the GOP will spin this as any national health care will fail and we will have nothing.

[Jim Lane]

112. You've brilliantly refuted an argument I did not make.

As it happens, I'm aware of Republican control of the federal government. It was in all the papers. I don't expect single payer to pass before the 2020 elections, and even immediately thereafter it's far from a sure thing.

Consider Medicare. LBJ didn't just roll out of bed one morning in 1965 and say, "Hey, I've got an idea, let's do single payer for the elderly." There had been work on the subject for years. If we press for single payer now, we won't get it now, but maybe President Castro can sign it into law in 2033.

In formulating our political strategy, we do have to pay attention to facts, one of which is the current political situation. Another fact, though, is that single payer has NOT been repeatedly rejected. In fact, it's consistently polled well.

Obviously, the specifics of any plan will lead to disputes. Still, if you join me in believing we should know the facts, as your post implies, then you should join me in pointing out that the post I answered misstated the facts about public opinion.

[Demsrule86]

128. The point is ...let's not endanger the ACA which we need at least until 2020...and with a 50-50

who knows how long.

[Jim Lane]

132. Uh, why is that "the point"? Is there disagreement?

Legislators who support single payer, such as Bernie Sanders, have also been vigorously denouncing the GOP's repeal bills.

I suppose that somewhere there may be some fruitcake bloggers who hope that ACA will be repealed because the ensuing disaster will speed the transition to single payer. I'm not of that school, and AFAIK there's not a single member of Congress who thinks that way. Support for single payer is not endangering the ACA.

[Demsrule86]

135. Yes there are. Let's not muddy the water with a cry for single payer at this moment.

[Jim Lane]

139. There's where we disagree.

You're implying that anyone who expresses support for single payer thereby increases the danger that the Republicans will be able to pass some kind of repeal-and-replace bill. I don't see that AT ALL. If anything, with a substantial single-payer bloc on one side and a substantial RWNJ bloc on the other, the result is to make the ACA look like a centrist compromise (which, in fact, it is).

Many people have a foolish tendency to assume that, in any dispute, the truth must be somewhere in the middle. The Republicans have used this to great advantage by pushing the Overton window to the right. We can do some of that ourselves but in the opposite direction.

[Demsrule86]

146. That is how I see it.

There is no way to get single payer in the foreseeable future.

[Demsrule86]

147. The GOP will use single payer as a way to get rid of the ACA...just wait until that fight is won...

you won't get it for years and years anyway.

[yallerdawg]

72. I'm wrong.

[Demsrule86]

65. See this is what you don't understand...we have the least chance in our history of passing single

payer. The Republicans are in control. It will never happen. You would need a 60 vote majority in the Senate and a house majority... the ACA is put at risk with such careless rhetoric. I pointed out that putting a single payer bill forward with no way to advance it was a mistake some time ago. We should have advanced a plan to strengthen the ACA. We will end up with nothing if this continues which is pretty much what the alt-left delivers time and time again.

[barbtries]

18. i agree

I plan to cancel my TYT membership because it seems on the rare occasions i tune in anymore, there is more left bashing than party building going on, and i believe that the democratic party is the only viable route to keeping our democracy. I'd love for the party to be more liberal, but it's more important at this point in history to gain some balance and save the country jmo

[dawg]

86. TYT gets a lot of views.

It isn't impossible that they, alone, might have been able to discourage enough potential Democratic voters to have swayed the outcome in a state or three.

[barbtries]

143. that has crossed my mind.

i don't think we can know, but i do think it's possible.

[nini]

19. This isn't much different than the 60s/70s purists

They've got the internet and a 24 hours new cycle now to keep them noticed.

One of my brothers was oh so much better than the rest of us because he was the 'real' liberal. etc etc etc.. He's also the one who worked for the man and made lots of money - but that was different. Everyone else would've been a sellout in his eyes but it was ok that he did it. Nothing wrong with making a good living but if you spoke the crap he did about corporations and people with money it was quite hypocritical.

[MrPurple]

24. As someone who would have supported either Hillary or Bernie

I find these incessant threads of one wing of the party attacking the other tiresome and counterproductive. We have the ultimate unifying common enemy now. We should have a big tent and it's healthy to discuss the direction you feel the party should go. When nominees are chosen, coalesce behind them. There's no point in the threads from either side that just stoke resentment of the other.

[marylandblue]

33. Yes we should coalesce behind the nominee, but we don't

Why don't we coalesce?That's why we have all these threads.

[emulatorloo]

37. I supported Bernie in the Primary, HRC in the general

I continue to admire both.

So similar to you.

We do have the ultimate unifying enemy now.

Where we differ is on allegedly 'left' organizations who continue to engage in divisive rhetoric and demonizing Democrats.

They probable won't get a free pass here, and as far as I can tell they aren't that interested in unfying.

From what I've seen lately they're more interested in purging strong liberals like Pelosi. Or primarying elected Democrats in conservative areas who vote with us 80% of the time, with the end result most likely to be the election of more Republicans who will vote with Trump 100% of the time..

Of course YMMV

[vi5]

38. So again, I ask....

...who are the voters we need to win over?

I hear that we don't need to attract or reach out to Trump voters, meaning rural working class white folk. And I agree with that. I think those people are absolutely unreachable and can just fuck right the fuck off as far as I'm concerned. I don't dispute people who disagree with that assessment of our situation within the Democratic party. Going that route, trying to win those people is a narrow needle to thread and will never get us the kind of coalition that we need to win no matter how much pandering we try to do. A losing strategy all around.

But then I also hear that we're supposed to tell left wing, liberal voters to go fuck themselves if they don't like what we're selling. The message seems to be "The party is what it is. Get on board or fuck off."

O.K......so then which untapped voters are we supposed to be appealing to? Because we need more voters than we are currently getting if we are to win. And yes I know "We won the popular vote!!" O.k. but that wasn't enough.

Again, I'm all ears but it seems to me that saying we don't need to appeal to Trump voters while at the same time saying that we don't need to appeal to whatever you want to call left leaning voters doesn't get us anyone that we don't already currently have on our side.

I'd love for "Vote for us. It's your only choice and if you don't see that, you are a fucking idiot." to be a strategy that worked. But it doesn't.


What we're doing isn't working.

[brush]

41. We need to combat repug/Russian cheating. That's why we lost. We had/have more voters

Hillary was +3M voters.

We need a permanent, standing and well-funded committee of the DNC that employs the best private investigators, attorneys, fundraisers, publicists, media liaisons, social media experts and volunteers to combat Interstate Crosscheck and all the other repug vote suppression tactics that we know work hard to minimize our votes.

We need as concerted an effort to stop their cheating as we put into recruiting voters because the repugs work just as hard to stop our voters as we do to get our voters to the polls.

That seems to be left out of all the threads on what to do.

Hell, we never even hear this from Perez or Elliot who should be spearheading it.

Think about it, if we stop their vote-shaving by just 25%, we will win many more elections.

We know the repugs cheat yet we don't prioritize combating it and letting the public know about their cheating.

[vi5]

45. So......

...don't change in any way that might attract more voters, just count on the Republicans already in power to do something about Russian cheating.

Sure.

The fact is that we first have to win over more voters, to win more offices to be in charge of the mechanisms that control and can fix all of this. And this Russian interference thing is a fairly new phenomenon and we've been on the receiving end of a losing streak (2008 notwithstanding) for a long-ass time now.

[brush]

46. I said as concerted an effort to stop repug cheating as we do to get out our voters

Last edited Sun Jul 2, 2017, 05:30 PM - Edit history (2)

Did you miss that? And who said anything about counting on repugs to help? Come on. We're not stupid.

We have to work on both fronts and through the courts and media. It's a no-brainer. Some blue states have had success oveturning repug vote suppression measures throught the courts already.

If we do that successfully, and again as I said, continue our GOTV effort, we win since we do have a voting edge on them we can maintain — 3 million in 2016.

Stopping a good portion of their vote suppression is a win for us.

[vi5]

52. Right now repugs control.....

....the white house, the Senate, the House, and a majority of state houses and governerships.

If we want to stop the voter suppression efforts right now, then they would have to do it. They will not.

So we cannot stop any of that because we need to win over enough of those offices to tackle that effort ourselves.

In order to do that we need to attract a majority of voters around the country. That 3 million extra voters didn't get us anywhere the last election. Either in terms of the presidency or enough state offices.

My question remains.....how do we do that? It seems like a lot of people on here think we do that by telling a lot of people to go fuck themselves if they don't like what we are currently doing.

That doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me.

[brush]

53. Like I said, we've already been successful in some states through the courts at stopping vote...

suppression measures. Please google if you don't believe me.

That's why we need top legal minds to work on these things.

We have to stop thinking repugs are all-poweful.

They are not.

Top legal help and investigative help can combat some of their cheating in the courts.

Why would we even argue about it? It has already been done in some states.

All I'm saying is invest effort in combating repug cheating, as we continue gaining voters on the GOTV front.

Nothing to argue about.

[tazkcmo]

81. Russia is indeed one reason

Then there's that electoral college you forgot to mention.

[brush]

87. I'd love to get rid of the EC but doesn't that have to be a Constitutional amendment?

The chances of that are pretty remote in this political climate.

I'm thinking if we combat repug/Russian cheating effectively enough we can keep the elections from being close enough for the EC effect to matter.

[tazkcmo]

88. Yes, would require a Const. Amendment.

Hopefully we can throw the large majority of the GOPee leadership in prison which will give us a head start on the rest you mention.

[brush]

94. I would like that. Yes I would.

[KG]

47. this.

[loyalsister]

69. How do you disregard white working class people

And still include people of color working the same jobs who are preoccupied with similar economic concerns?

[vi5]

73. We don't.....I agree with that point and have made it many times...

I firmly believe that the Democratic party has abandoned all but the most superficial and cursory overtures to it's economic message.

We have a strong social message and that is a good thing. We should not abandon that at all. Our diverse base of voters with social concerns should not have this party abandon them at all. We should not appeal to bigots in any way shape or form.

The problem is that too many in our party want to rely ONLY on that social message, and take any attempts to say or suggest we need to get back to our economic roots as saying we need to abandon our social message. That is horseshit.

My family for generations until recently has always been several things: White working class, Democratic, and less than enlightened socially (I'll say it....they are racist).

The fact is that they always voted Democratic because even though they may not have cared about the social message (or even been hostile to it), there was zero doubt that the Democratic party supported unions and the working class over big corporations, big donors, and Wall Street. Once the Democratic party started trying to thread the needle of still getting the working class vote while kissing up to big money and corporate donors and Wall Street, those same relatives became ripe for the picking of the bigoted messaging of the GOP. Their feeling has been "Well, if the Dems don't stand for me socially OR economically then I'll vote Republican". This has only been in the past 10 years or so, so I'm hopeful we can still turn the tide.

So no we don't need to ignore our base of various ethnicities, genders, religions and sexual preferences. We do need to go back to supporting "the working class".....not "the WHITE working class" but the working class in general. Strong support of unions, supporting a strong minimum wage across the board, strong regulations, etc.

The other issue comes with what people mean by "support". Many people on here think it's enough to just have it in our platform and not to expect politicians to talk about it or have to get out there and sell it. That's not going to work. People want to see a politician out there full throatedly speaking about our economic plight and talking about solutions and saying it loudly and proudly. It's not going to work to say "Go to the website" or "Read the platform" or to put out vague platitudes about it. It needs to be clear and unequivocal and right now it's not and that is what is hurting us.

My point was not that we should ignore the white working class, it's that people on here seem to assume that "supporting the white working class" means appealing to bigotry when the reality it means appealing to the economic concerns of all people.

[Demsrule86]

71. In order to appeal to 'leftist' voters, we would have to move way left...and in at best a

center-left country that would be an electoral disaster. There are not enough 'leftist' to win outright. I say this with deep sadness as I am a liberal and would like nothing better. But I am not willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands perhaps millions to advance my ideology...thus I part company with the 'leftists' who are willing to advance their agenda by throwing the poor and the disenfranchised under the bus...Vote Democratic always. It is the only vehicle for progressive policy.

[kcr]

74. You're hearing wrong.

It isn't liberals in general that are supposed to fuck off. Just the ones that want to spoil elections and help get Republicans elected. I consider myself a hard core lefty and I'm sick and tired of the faction that want to spoil everything all the time. A perfect example is Our Revolution. They're also the same crowd pushing the message that we have to attract the Trump voters.

[Voltaire2]

84. And somehow it is the left that is conducting a purity test.

[Demsrule86]

56. Very true. This sort are not progressive and only enable the right. They

empower the right so I don't want to hear their purity bullshit.

[no_hypocrisy]

77. My issue is accurately defining what makes one "left-leaning".

Is it following FDR and his principles?

JFK?

Lyndon Johnson?

Teddy Kennedy?

SDS?

Trotsky?

[vi5]

92. On here it seems to be...

...whatever is convenient for anyone's argument at the moment.

At this point it seems that by many on here even what the Democratic party supported economically in my lifetime (I'm in my late 40's) like strong unions, strong regulations, higher taxes, strongly supporting the social safety net is considered "far left".

And to be honest it seems less based on what someone technically supports in their platform and what they are will to vocally and enthusiastically speak about on a regular basis without splitting hairs or adding caveats.

[spanone]

85. K&R...

[Spider Jerusalem]

96. I've been here longer than you have

and I don't think that "left leaning messaging" was responsible for Bush, or for Trump. Bush had the 2000 election handed to him by the Supreme Court; Trump won in 2016 off the back of voter suppression and racism and assorted other factors (Trump won Wisconsin by far fewer votes than there were voters turned away at the polls under voter ID laws) and there's another extremely large hole in your thesis: Trump's wins in the states that made the difference largely came from 2008/2012 Obama voters who voted for Trump over Clinton. But yes, blame it on "the left", please.

[boston bean]

99. Ummm Nader and if there was no GWB term 1 there was no GWB term 2

[Spider Jerusalem]

105. And?

I think you're deluded if you think Nader voters would have voted for Gore instead. I think you're also deluded if you think Nader is somehow more responsible than the Republicans (for engaging in partisan fuckery over the recount) and the Supreme Court. But keep up that hippie punching if it makes you happy, I guess.

[stevenleser]

108. We dont have to guess. 40% of Nader voters would have voted Gore, 20% Bush

and 40% would not have voted if Nader hadn't run.Those were the poll numbers that came out at the time. More than enough to swing Florida to Gore right off the bat regardless of chads or voter suppression.

[Spider Jerusalem]

111. And Gore would likely have won had the Supreme Court not stopped the recount.

(Also, 308,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush.) Do you have some sort of actual point other than "I don't really care much for this democracy thing, actually, also I have ancient grievances!"?

[stevenleser]

113. No, unfortunately he wouldn't. Florida's legislature had voted to give Florida's electors to Bush.

And that happened the morning of the SCOTUS decision.

That guaranteed that Bush's electors would have shown up to vote at the vote of the electoral college. If the SCOTUS had voted the other way, and the recount showed Gore had won, two sets of electors would have shown up at the vote. That conflict would have, per procedure, caused Florida's electors to be thrown out of the vote. Without Florida's electors, neither candidate would have had 270 electoral votes and that would have thrown the election into the House where the GOP controlled the delegations and thus would have voted for Bush.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/13/news/mn-64909

[boston bean]

115. This person is too busy attempting to refute a point I made but doesn't realize

They are actually reinforcing it.

[stevenleser]

116. That is generally what happens with these folks. Their logic sounds good superficially and if

you don't have a strong understanding of the issues but when you dig in, they are completely wrong on almost every contention they make when attacking Democrats and actually makes the opposite argument from what they intend.

[G_j]

162. That dead horse you're beating

Is not only dead, it has decomposed...

[stevenleser]

165. I'm not sure you know the meaning of that idiom.

This is one of the few times I've seen the FLorida Legislatures decision discussed.

[WoonTars]

101. A-fucking-men...

This constant back-biting of 'the left' benefits no-one but the gop. Have none of you learned that yet?

Time for new ideas that we can ALL get behind...

[stevenleser]

109. There are so many flaws with your analysis its hard to know where to start

but lets start with this:

"the difference largely came from 2008/2012 Obama voters who voted for Trump over Clinton. But yes, blame it on "the left", please."

I always laugh at this kind of logic because it means nothing. We don't know who those voters are. They could have been Republicans who initially voted Obama because they didnt like McCain or Romney. They could have been independents. They could have been insane. We don't know.

The same thing was said about Nader. And by the way, even knowing their party ID doesnt mean anything quite frankly because there is no test to register Democratic or Republican. A lot of folks who register Democratic in the panhandle of Florida aren't really Democrats at all and support nothing on the Democratic Platform. But they register as Democratic because they don't identify as being the same as their very far right wing neighbors.

I hear this attempt at a point a lot from Nader and Stein apologists. Its pretty telling about how flawed their reasoning is in general.

[Owl]

166. +1 nt

[Thinkingabout]

106. We need to attract the largest population of voters, go more centrists, attract Independent voters,

perhaps even attract some disgruntled Republican voters.

[beachbum bob]

107. how much of this "messaging" can be traced back to likes of russian type hackers?

I know we saw this action in our primaries in splintering Sanders supporters in supporting our nominee in the general election. Misinformation was galore in DU.

[wryter2000]

137. Reinforcing this is not about the last primary

This "our revolution" stuff is going on right now. I just unsubscribed from their e-mails.

[Tom Rinaldo]

144. I've been here since 2003 myself

I've seen how divided DU becomes during contentious presidential primary seasons, and I've seen how the DU community typically mends those divisions in the months that follow. Whatever one thinks of the two most recent Democratic Party Presidential nomination finalists, each won well over ten million Democratic primary votes; Hillary Clinton winning 16,914,722 popular votes, Bernie Sanders winning 13,206,428. While Clinton was the clear victor, Sanders was far from being a fringe candidate.I have never before such consistently little concern shown here about ensuring that all our Democratic voters feel welcome and appreciated by this community in the wake of any bruising primary season. Our unity going forward is critical to future successes, I am not focused on the last primary, rather on winning future general elections.

I note that your OP discusses dynamics that took place during the last presidential campaign and assigns blame for the results of it based on ideological differences you believe existed at that time. There are always shades of opinions within any major political party. Whatever you might think of those who voted in support of the loser of the last primary, we are still politically active, and our votes are still, for the overwhelming percent of those 13,206,428 voters, a part of the Democratic Party going forward- at least until any efforts succeed in alienating many of us from continued participation in the Democratic Party. My home has long been within the Democratic Party, but sometimes it seems as if some would rather that voters like me abandoned it for the Greens or some other third party that could form in the future.

I, like millions of others who voted for a losing candidate during the Democratic primaries and then voted for our nominee during the General elections, still hold the same political views that I always have. I am on the left and I am progressive on both social and economic issues. I do not regret my primary vote in the slightest, nor do millions more of us. Do you really want us in the Democratic coalition? Scapegoating the left can have unintended consequences. Ive been at this a long time. I can be demonized, I can be ignored, but I will still fight for my values within the Democratic Party. But the 2016 election saw some sharp generational divides forming. I think it dangerous for our Party if we alienate younger generations of voters who often hold views a bit more leftist on a range of issues.

[Jim Lane]

148. Thanks, very well said!

On one point, though, I'd approach it differently. You write, "Scapegoating the left can have unintended consequences."

First, I can't see into the hearts of the people doing this; therefore, the evidence available to me doesn't permit me to conclude that the consequences are unintended. You're being charitable in assuming that.

As against that, the scapegoating here probably won't have severe consequences. Most of the people being smeared are no longer here to read these attacks -- they were PPR'd, or FFR'd months ago and the "review" is apparently still ongoing, or they just left in disgust. Those of us who are still around are those with thicker skins. We aren't going to be driven out of OUR party by a little more vitriol.

[G_j]

161. Thank you for taking the time

to express what a lot of people feel.

[DefenseLawyer]

151. Hillary is never going to be President

The sooner you just accept that sad fact and move on the better off you will be.

[Jakes Progress]

156. Try not to sound so happy about that.

The sooner you just accept that she should be and understand why, the better off you will be.

[DefenseLawyer]

163. Jesus Christ

Nobody is happy about it. But constantly reading through your "enemies list" and rehashing all your grievances isn't going to help elect Democrats. Quite the opposite actually.

[stevenleser]

170. Forgetting what elected Republicans is worse than that of which you accuse the OP

If history suggests anything it's that when Republicans find a tactic that works, they use it again and again until Democrats find a counter for it.

In 2000 Republicans donated to the Nader campaign to increase Naders impact in the race.

In 2016 Stein and her campaign seemed to be pushing the meme that the Russians wanted her to push and the Trump campaign seems to have been colluding with the Russians. In other words, Stein was indirectly working with the Republicans.

Seems to be a recurring theme.

Forgetting that this happened and not preparing for it seems to be a bad plan.

[JHan]

171. ++++ some people haven't gotten the memo yet:

as if it's difficult to understand...

There seems to be a real lack of awareness of the traps that are set for liberals such as:

It is in the GOP's interest to equivocate corporate hegemony with Democrats because if you represent the powerful, as the GOP do, it is in your interest to persuade the electorate that your opponents are just as bad as you are - "Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee"? Yeah the GOP love that shit because their value systems have little to do with utilizing tools of the federal government to to create fairer outcomes and they don't care about enfranchisement for all. It is in the GOP's interest to see Liberals fractured because suppressing votes become easier that way.

It is also in their interests to see Democrats lose touch with moderates of different stripes on the left and the party swerve so much to the left, we can't make a dent incrementally in red districts and lose elections. And I say this as someone who has some pretty radical liberal ideas of my own.

It is in the GOP's interest that Liberals attack effective Democratic Leaders and that Liberals buy into the negative framing of the Democratic Party. A while ago Michael Steele admitted to Joy Reid he had no idea his demonization of Nancy Pelosi would catch fire on the left, but hell it did - and Michael focused on her because they wanted to retake the HOUSE and he didn't care if they lied to do it.

It is also in the GOP's interest to have leftists create a fuss about employees of powerful banks and corporations donating to Democrats - no matter the position of employees in these organizations- because a starved DNC and DCCC means Democrats can't effectively compete in a corrupt system run by money - until we have the perfect solution of public funding of elections and a reverse of citizens united we're gonna have to be a lot more pragmatic than the purists would like.

If the GOP gain anymore ground, we're absolutely and totally fucked and the purists will be fucked also. Like it or not, the imperfect Democratic Party is the only institution standing in the way of the GOP getting all they want.

We have to get our act the fuck together.

[Jakes Progress]

181. Why do you need to defend those who helped elect trump.

Constantly avoiding any condemnation of those who put him in office and rehashing your need for everyone just getting along isn't going to help elect Democrats. Very much the opposite actually.

It doesn't help to invite those who work for the republican party, who try to tear up the Democratic party inside the tent. The shit on the floor, tear up the tent stakes, and laugh all the way to the bank when you can't figure out what happened. Learn to see them. Learn to identify them. Don't let them do it again. Ignoring that it happened or pretending that it didn't happen will just make sure that they do it again in 2018.

[JHan]

169. The OP is pretty clear.

Maybe if you took the personalities out of the equation, the better off you will be.

The OP is about fractures on the left and how it enables the Right Wing.

That is all.

[Jakes Progress]

180. That kind of use of Hillary's name

is just a dog whistle for fighting the old primary.

You are right. The OP didn't make it about persons. The respondent you addressed did.

[G_j]

158. No

There has never been agreement here about Nader and the results of that election. Where have you been?

[PassingFair]

160. This OP is flame bait.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[aikoaiko]

168. I've been here as long as you and I don't think you are correct

...About the effects of lefties in 2000 or 2016, or what most DUers think. Maybe in your cohort it's true.

There is very little reason to think that the lefties who voted for NonDenocrats would have voted for Democrats. Same goes for the other side.

No Democrat can expect all the left of center votes.

[guillaumeb]

176. More finger pointing.

I have read too much of this type post.