In 18 years since Naders run, what has been accomplished by attacking the Dem party from the left?

[stevenleser]

I am counting from 1999 to present since Nader declared before 2000.

I've heard a few arguments for attacking Democrats from the left that all seem bad.

Does anyone think the country has been "pushed to the left" by the actions of those trying to do so? Has the Democratic party been pushed to the left?

If you can't answer yes to those questions, isn't attacking the Democratic Party from the left an epic and unadulterated failure?

And why is it that those folks are allowed to attack the Democratic Party from the left but if we respond to them in kind, some folks accuse us of being divisive? Why do some folks here think that is OK?

[JI7]

1. they got what they wanted with Bush and Trump

that was their goal

people need to stop thinking these people actually want liberal policy.

[Kahuna7]

157. +1 nt

[BlueCaliDem]

336. +2 eom

[SusanaMontana41]

379. Rubbish.

1. All Gore had to do to win the presidency was carry his home state of Tennessee. He didn't.

2. The secretary of state in Florida illegally purged some 50,000 voters from the rolls. Most of them were black, almost all were indigent, and they would have voted overwhelmingly for Gore.

3. The hyper partisan US Supreme Court selected Bush.

Throw out any of those variables and Gore takes the oath Jan. 20, 2001.

This is a false meme.

[VOX]

399. Consider Nader's impact on New Hampshire voting in 2000.

Because it doesn't get much attention in the endless diagnoses of the 2000 debacle.

New Hampshire votes in the General Election, 11/7/2000
Bush: 273,559
Gore: 266,348
Nader: 22,198
Gore trailed Bush by a mere 7,211 votes. If a third of the Nader voters had seen the big picture and voted for Gore, then Gore would have won NH's 4 electoral votes and a total of 270 electoral votes for the win, making the Florida mess completely moot.

In 2004, sadder-but-wiser New Hampshire gave John Kerry 340,511 votes to Bush's 331,237 votes, all in a losing effort.

Nader was just one of the things that went wrong in that election, but he played a BIG part in enabling those 8 miserable Bush-Cheney years. By the way, the "Al Gore should have won his home state" of very RED Tennessee was a popular go-to for those on the right when they opined on the 2000 election results. No Democrat could have taken Tennessee by 2000; they likely won't ever again.

[SusanaMontana41]

401. OK. Knock down No. 1 if you like.

That still leaves Florida and the Supremes.


I stand by my statement.

[VOX]

425. I'm in complete agreement with you on those.

Should have mentioned that in my orig. post.

I was merely pointing out one measurable way that Nader screwed up 2000 for Democrats. But of course, there were butterfly ballots, (even Pat Buchanan observed that he (Buchanan) got votes where he shouldn't have. And a dozen other factors came into play as well, including the "Brooks Brothers Riot."

Gore and his team also made a fatal tactical error in not calling for a complete statewide recount.

[Alice11111]

612. !!! Of course, the Dems never want to "look " bad, and it

would have looked like we were bad sports, which the Repubs always accuse us of, even if they win. Obama didn't want to look bad, by exposing the extent of the Russian invasion in the election, until it was over, plus he was intimidated my MM. Mook & the Clinton Campaign didn't want to stir things up and look bad by going after DT in Michigan & Wisconsin.
For God sake, we need to quit worrying about how we look, which is mostly a Republican intimidation tactic, and worry about winning.

[Ken Burch]

446. 50% or it was Nader not seeing "the big picture". 50% was THIS PARTY not seeing the big picture.

It was not a reasonable expectation that the party would hold all the voters who backed it ticket through gritted teeth in '92 and '96 without moving past "The Third Way" and the rigidly anti-progressive platforms of the the '92 and '96 elections.

Why couldn't they say "it's a different era and the time has come to stop treating progressives as a nuisance to be silenced at best or an enemy to be crushed at worst. Let's let them back in and work with them again"?

It wouldn't have had to mean giving the left every single thing it wanted...just opening the door and being willing to listen again, and accepting that there was no need to be just as rigid in policy and party organization in 2000 as we had been in 1992.

[aquamarina]

404. I agree. I am so tired of this bullshit argument.

The horse is dead, it has been beaten into oblivion. I am so completely sick and tired of the left being blamed for every dem loss. Dems have lost for a variety of reasons - most of which have to do with faulty voting equipment, gerrymandering and and voter suppression.

Jeebus Christ enough already.

[Ken Burch]

583. Thank you.

[Alice11111]

607. Plus, 4. SCOTUS, contrary to the Florida SupCrt's legit decision,

stopped the counting of critical votes.
5. Then, thre was also the Nader factor.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

701. They just simply don't give a damn - vanity is of the utmost importance to them.

[Cha]

2. From the "left" with LIES.

[Warpy]

3. What has been accomplished by attacking people who vote Green?

What has been accomplished by the constant whinging of conservatives about Democrats on the left?

Not a goddamned thing in either case but a lot of hard feelings. No one enjoys being insulted.

If you can't consider policy differences in an honest manner, attack the people who promote them. That's what conservatives do, whatever party they are in.

Try to remember this little gem: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." -- Eleanor Roosevelt

Now if there are specific policies you object to, try posting about them some day. I would love to see policy discussions. It would make a great change from the usual fare. This thread will join the others like it.

[DanTex]

15. Hopefully, what is accomplished is informing would-be Green voters of how useless the Green

party is. Of course, some Greens are obviously beyond the reach of logic. But not all of them.

[Demsrule86]

358. +10000

[Gore1FL]

435. More likely it will create another few decades of animosity from people whose support we could use.

But, hey, it feels good to whine about it, right?

[DanTex]

481. For some reason, I don't hear Green apologists use that same argument when it comes to

"neoliberals" or "DINOs" or "corporatists" or anyone else except the far left. Why do you think that is?

[Gore1FL]

496. They aren't trying to build a coalition of voters to support Democrats.

There is a bit of freedom in behavior when you aren't in the coalition-building business. We Democrats don't have that luxury. Stomping our feet and holding our breath has proven not to work in the past. Perhaps we should try something different.

[DanTex]

509. I'm talking about people like you, who are defending the Green party.

You seem to object whenever anyone criticizes the Greens. But if you were truly into coalition-building, you'd also object to any criticism of, say, McKaskill or Manchin, or even Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski.

After all, if the object here is to be nice to everyone and not offend potential Democratic voters, obviously any attacks towards centrists in either party would be contrary to that.

And maybe you actually do stand up for Susan Collins, but I doubt it.

[Gore1FL]

577. I'm not defending the green party. I am defending the Democratic party.

I want to win in the future and find the on-going illogical whimpering and whining to be counterproductive to that purpose.

[DanTex]

587. Well then stop whimpering and whining about the poor Green Party's hurt feelings.

If you are going to whimper and whine, at least have the courage to answer the question I asked in my last post.

[Gore1FL]

622. Well, I'll give you points for trying.

First off, I should point out you didn't have a question in your last post for me to answer. Here is a copy of it. Notice the lack of inquiries and question marks:


<Start Quote>

I'm talking about people like you, who are defending the Green party.

You seem to object whenever anyone criticizes the Greens. But if you were truly into coalition-building, you'd also object to any criticism of, say, McKaskill or Manchin, or even Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski.

After all, if the object here is to be nice to everyone and not offend potential Democratic voters, obviously any attacks towards centrists in either party would be contrary to that.

And maybe you actually do stand up for Susan Collins, but I doubt it.

<Stop Quote>

Secondly, I am not wimpering and whining about it, I am telling you, for the good of the Democratic party, you need to get over yourself and try to win votes. That's how elections work. If that's too difficult for you to Grok you should probably put me on ignore, because I will continue to remind you and others who act like you of the damage you are causing for future elections.

[DanTex]

630. LOL. OK, let me rephrase it for you.

Why should we be nice to Jill Stein but not nice to Susan Collins? Why do you whimper and whine when someone criticizes Jill Stein but not Claire McKaskill or Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski or Joe Manchin?

Let's see if you dodge three times in a row.

[Gore1FL]

641. I am not talking about Jill Stein or Susan Collins

I am talking about the progressive left as a whole.

[DanTex]

693. This OP is about Stien, Nader, the Green Party, and the rest of the far left.

I'm part of the progressive left, so obviously I have no problem with the progressive left. But nutjobs like Jill Stein and Ralph Nader who intentionally help Republicans get elected, I most certainly have a problem with them.

[Gore1FL]

699. Let's find a way to bridge that gap then between Dem candidates and would-be third-party voters.

I am pretty sure daily threads on DU slamming them won't accomplish it.

[DanTex]

705. Let's find a way to bridge the gap between Dems and moderate Republicans.

See how easy that was? Are you going to finally get back to the point?

[Gore1FL]

715. We've been trying that since 1988

"Between the 40 yard lines" has been a long-term failure. I'd much rather become Democrats again than be 1970's Republicans. If I wanted a Republican in the White House, I'd vote for a Republican. I don't and I won't.

I've never left the point which is and always has been that self-sabotage is a bad idea and Democrats should stop practicing it and embrace our natural allies on the left. This isn't really hard to grok.

[DanTex]

719. Not remotely true. The Dems did try it in the 90s (successfully).

But since then the party has moved significantly to the left. Yes, the 2006 takeover of the house was again based on building a moderate coalition rather than going hard left (hmm, I wonder if there's a pattern here). But Obama governed to the left of Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton ran to the left of Obama.

I mean, we had Cornel freaking West on the platform committee. Hillary's platform was well to the left of Obama's in either 08 or 12. And yet the Green Party increased its vote totals this year. Which means that Green voters are not rational human beings who care about progressive policy. Of course, we already knew that, because if the were rational, they wouldn't be voting Green in the first place.

Here's the situation. Neither Jill Stein nor Susan Collins are our allies. Jill Stein is, first of all, a nutcase, and secondly, she has proven time and again that she prefers Republicans to Democrats, which is why she works so hard to help get them elected. As for Susan Collins, she may be less horrible than the GOP as a whole, but if she actually wanted to stop the damage Trump was doing, she'd switch parties.

Still, I think it would be great if the Dems got some Stein voters or some Collins voters to come vote D. I don't really care which ones. But I'm not a Dem politician, I'm a progressive posting on a message board. And the things I post online have utterly nothing to do with why Green or Republican voters vote the way they do. So I'm not going to stop criticizing people who deserve being criticized.

[Gore1FL]

723. If you consider losing the House and Senate "success" I guess we were....

If Greens are "not rational human beings who care about progressive policy" then why do you feel the need to worry about who they vote for? How are they to blame for Clinton not being elected if they weren't going to vote for her? Your logic has mutually exclusive elements.

I'm not going to stop criticizing people who deserve being criticized, either. This includes people who seek to divide the left, like you, like Stein, Like Nader. I don't see insulting the Stein and Nader base as a means to get votes.

[DanTex]

725. I consider winning the house and senate a success. Also winning the presidency.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you totally ignore all evidence that runs contrary to your dogma. But the Dems did, in fact, win the house in 2006 by running moderate candidates in moderate districts. And Bill Clinton's "New Dem" strategy did, in fact, win the White House back after 12 years of GOP. And then Obama did win the presidency, and both houses of congress, by running a center-left campaign.

Hillary Clinton ran the furthest left presidential campaign since 88 at least, and she lost. Bernie Sanders, of course, ran to Hillary's left, but he didn't even come close to winning the primaries. So I don't really see the slightest amount of evidence in favor of your argument that the Dems should tack hard left. Has the hard left ever won anything? Not that I can recall.

And your last paragraph is pretty weird. You are conceding that Stein and Nader are trying to divide the left. And you are also conceding that they deserve criticism for that.

I have to ask, if they deserve criticism, then why do you have a problem when I criticize them (or the OP does)?

[Gore1FL]

727. 2006 wasn't in the 90s. Howard Dean's 50 state strategy deserves the credit

Notice that strategy didn't employ the "LEt's insult everyone who didn;t vote our way last election."

Stein and Nader can be criticiszed, sure. Attacking their voters is a fucking idiotic electoral death wish.

I am not really sure why this is so hard to comprehend. Let's try it this way: People won't vote with you if you shit on them. Say that out loud a few times in a row.

[DanTex]

728. Yes, 2006 wasn't in the 90s. Excellent point.

But taking over the house in 2006 required a lot of centrist candidates. Any 50-state strategy will require this because -- surprise! -- conservative states and districts won't vote for far leftists.

I agree with you about one thing. Attacking voters is a very bad idea for anyone running for office. It was a mistake when Hillary called Trump voters deplorable, even though she was 100% right. It was a mistake when Obama said that voters get bitter and cling to guns, religion, and racism, even though he was 100% correct.

And if I were running for office, I wouldn't say those things. But I'm not running for office, so I can say whatever I want. And, yeah, Trump voters are deplorable. And Green voters are idiots.

[Gore1FL]

730. Don't expect them to listen to you then. And don't expect to make a positive difference.

And if we lose the next election, you can start calling yourself and those with the same tactics names too.

[Demsrule86]

645. Exactly...they are the enemies of Democrats as much as Republicans. In fact Greens prefer

Republicans.

[Gothmog]

654. The Stein people worked with Russia and did their best to help trump

[Demsrule86]

659. They did...I fail to see how some defend them. I can't stand them and get a bit irrational on the

subject due to white hot rage.

[Gore1FL]

677. If so them voting for stein wouldn't have mattered then.

In which case, why does anyone at Democratic Underground care?

[Alice11111]

619. Some are not the smartest, for sure. Their arguments

would often get an F in logic. I don't mean to say, they are all stupid, but unlike Michael Moore & Bill Maher, they didn't learn from the first go round.

[Cary]

25. I'm trying to figure out what it is that you're really saying

Voting together in order to win elections isn't a valid topic of discussion? You don't wish to discuss this issue because...?

I don't get it. Why would you react essentially with an insult?

Look, if we vote Democratic we win. It's that simple.

[stevenleser]

85. Some folks, Michael Moore among them, learn the lesson. He voted Nader. He wont make that mistake

again.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1342182

https://qz.com/669985/i-voted-for-ralph-nader-in-2000-bernie-supporters-dont-make-the-same-mistake-i-did/

[Ken Burch]

344. We can't end the Greens by trying to browbeat Green voters into backing the Dem presidential ticket

no matter what.

That approach doesn't work.

[Demsrule86]

359. It might...we need to up our efforts.

[Ken Burch]

439. We can't win anyone over through spewing bile and assigning blame.

You win them over by making a positive case for why they should try something else.

We COULD have made a positive case to those voters last yaer by emphasizing the great platform, a great blend of ideas from both campaigns, that was created at Philly, and by emphasizing throughout the fall campaign that young progressive activists had made a big difference in what we stood for. Yet every suggestion that anyone made here about trying that was met with derision, sneers, and false accusations of "refighting the primaries".

Why was that?

Why was and is there a preference for trying to win people over by insulting them, when we all know that that doesn't work?

Why insist on doing it the hard way when we don't HAVE to?

That's why I don't understand.

It's not as though there are huge number of Stein voters or disillusioned progressive nonvoters lurking on this site who'd switch to voting for our presidential ticket if only they were sufficiently shamed.

And we wouldn't lose any of the voters we have now if we tried making a positive effort to win people over from other parts of the progressive spectrum by emphasizing the areas where we shared common ground with them.

[Demsrule86]

483. I agree and the Greens and our revolution should shut the fuck up.

I want nothing to do with spoiler greens and those who say they will endorse Republicans because party doesn't matter (Nina Turner, Our Revolution). I don't believe we can win over such voters ...best to try to shine a light on their organizations and show their true intentions...elect Republicans instead of Democrats. Hopefully, organizations formed for the express purpose of trashing the Democratic Party and helping elect third party candidates and/or Republicans such as our revolution will be seen for what they really are...Republican enablers. As for Greens, fuck them. They have provided the GOP so much help...the GOP actually funds them now.

[Alice11111]

613. Yeah, Michael Moore, Sarah Silverman &Bill Maher

were very outspoken about LOOK AT THE FACTS. DO THE MATH. They had voted for Nader and look what happened. Don't make that mistake again.

[Demsrule86]

646. Yes we have to stop pretending that Greens are potential allies...they are not and educate those

voters we can... and that means calling the Green Party out as hopeless spoilers who will never win anything.

[Alice11111]

737. It's worth a try to educate them as Michael Moore &Bill

Maher did. Otherwise, we need to really stigmatize them as electing extreme RW candidates. Send them all MEGA hats and S Saradon too.

[Demsrule86]

741. I agree...I think stimatizing them would help reduce their effectiveness ..no one wants to belong to

a party that sucks. That might persuade some too...who knows.

[treestar]

164. Exactly. People don't like being insulted

by being called toadies of the banksters, the oligarchs, the "establishment Democrats," etc. You really think it's not done by the left? Read the old GDP.

[Warpy]

318. You mean "WAH! He did it too?"

Most of us learned by the age of four or five that doesn't work as a justification for bad behavior.

[Demsrule86]

361. Yes Greens are akin to four year olds...it is true....the third party riffraff has no patience with

Democrats but endless patience for the GOP...of course in some instances they get a paycheck from the GOP for acting as spoilers. Wow those GOP donors sure put their money to good use...helped elect George Bush.

"Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader -- still not on the ballot in a single state -- has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party, an analysis of federal records show.
Nearly one in 10 of Nader's major donors -- those writing checks of $1, 000 or more -- have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign, the latest documents show. GOP fund-raisers also have "bundled" contributions -- gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, who has criticized the practice in the past."

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/GOP-donors-funding-Nader-Bush-supporters-give-2708705.php

[treestar]

380. So the left gets to complain about being insulted,

but the ones they insult don't. One sided, a bit.

[alarimer]

172. It isn't a good way to get independents or non-Democrats to vote for Dems, that's for sure.

Appealing to suburban Republicans, like Ossoff tried to do, DOES NOT WORK. And not standing for anything other than "not them" doesn't work either. It helps to have actually ideas and standing up for them.

As it stands right now, in most places, independents are approximately 1/3 of the electorate and GROWING. To say nothing of non- or irregular voters. Of course, it's hard to appeal to that group when you don't really know what will work.

[Eliot Rosewater]

306. HRC had fantastic ideas and policy points. Hopefully you and everybody else here is familiar?

[Ken Burch]

350. HRC DID have good ideas...and the fall platform(with many Sanders things added)was excellent

The problem was, her campaign didn't talk about those things anywhere near as much as it focused on pointing out that Trump was a scumbag.

It never gained us any votes at any point to call out Trump as a scumbag.

The voters(including every single "moderate Republican woman in the suburbs", kept telling us they didn't CARE that Trump was a scumbag.

We should always run a campaign based primarily, if not exclusively, on talking about what WE will do and making a case for why our approach is better.

Negative campaigns only work for Republican presidential candidates. We have good, strong, popular ideas, so we never need to run negative presidential campaigns in the fall.

[Eliot Rosewater]

353. can t respond without being banned

[Ken Burch]

356. check your pms...we'll talk about it there.

n/t.

[Alice11111]

621. I know that

[emulatorloo]

387. Ken: HRC brought tons of policy to the debates and to the campaign trail. Media minimized policy,

our ideas, and why they are better and went for the melodrama. They did not show her soundbytes on policy. Just the "drama" quotes.

[Ken Burch]

392. The campaign didn't bring them to the ads...the ads were predominately about attacking Trump.

It was a waste of time to run any ads about what HE was like...we knew by mid-September that kind of ad didn't work...they should only have been about what we had to offer.

We should have used the ads and social media solely for positive campaigning. That's the only kind that works for Democratic candidates.

And I say that as someone who wanted HRC to be elected and still wants to see her nominated to the Supreme Court by the next Democratic president. OK?

[emulatorloo]

398. Maybe. OTOH which Trump ads, speeches, debate appearances presented policy

in anywhere near the clarity or detail that the Democratic nominee did?

Who provided an actual road map to achieve policy goals?

Most detailed policy statement I remember from Trump was that Mexico will pay for the wall.

[Ken Burch]

406. I don't defend the Trump ads on policy, and I don't defend the Trump campaign on anything.

His campaign wasn't really about the ads, though. It was about the personal appearances, where he won by spewing bile.

The voters we needed to motivate to get to the polls were the young people who backed the runner-up in the primaries.

These were and are young people whose loyalties hadn't been solidified yet...voters who had valid reasons to feel excluded by the process and the system and justification for their distrust for the party leadership.

We should have treated them as a swing bloc-not that they'd vote Trump, they wouldn't, but that they'd swing between possibly voting for us, possibly voting third-party, or just not showing up.

These were never going to be brought to the voting booth in November by ads calling out Trump's scummitude or by demands that they vote Democratic just because they supposedly owed us their votes. Those kinds of appeals could only alienate them.

And we never needed to use those kinds of appeals to them, because there was actually a lot of good in our platform, a lot of things THEY agreed with, that could have won them over if only we'd reminded them of the role those people had in putting that stuff there.

We needed acknowledge the validity of what they had done, to admit that they had built real support for what they wanted, and that the party needed to be in partnership with them in order to achieve a long-term realignment.

And we easily could have sent that message without disrespecting or abandoning any of the groups that preferred the nominee-groups that never actually disagreed with the idea of a greater emphasis on economic justice, since they had been some of the primary victims of corporate greed-and by blending the social justice message of the nominee with a strengthened economic justice message.

That's all I've tried to say.

And there was nothing negative or destructive in any of the things I've argued for there.

It's all about helping us do better in the future...and NOTHING ELSE.

[Caliman73]

572. I agree.

The negatives on Hillary Clinton were based on distortions and flat out lies, but they were there and the Republicans counted on the long history we have had with both Bill and Hillary to have some effect. The purpose of negative ads is to suppress the vote on the other side. That is what it is designed to do. When the Clinton campaign discussed how "unfit" Trump was, we who were supporting her, certainly knew it was true and we voted, but the 45% or so who didn't vote for anyone, most likely felt that either choice was wrong because of the negative ads from both sides.

I do think however that the media had a much more profound effect than ads necessarily, and they played up the conflict issue rather than policy. Perhaps the ads might have helped in some key states to up participation for those extra 80,000 votes, but we will likely never definitively know.

[Ken Burch]

575. The media played a role...but the media will ALWAYS play a role.

All we can do is to change the things we have control of.

[Caliman73]

576. Agree again.

We do need to energize voters by focusing on policy and results.

[Ken Burch]

582. Thank you. This is the kind of exchange I'm looking for.

n/t.

[Demsrule86]

364. Why, Donnie appreciated the efforts of Green Party voters.

"Donald Trump on Wednesday said he would be happy if people voted for Green Party candidate Jill Stein for president because it would draw votes away from Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

During a rally in Toledo, Ohio, Trump appeared to dismiss candidates outside of the two major parties.
“I think a vote for Stein would be good — that’s the Green Party,” he said. “Because I figure anyone voting for Stein is gonna be for Hillary. So I think vote for Stein is fine.”


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/289554-trump-a-vote-for-stein-would-be-good

[Demsrule86]

484. Neither does nominating liberals in red states like the three candidate Sen. Sanders endorsed. They

all lost.

[Alice11111]

620. Yeah, but most people who call themselves independents

Vote Republican

[Gothmog]

191. The greens gave us the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act

Green voters need to wake up and take responsibility for their votes

[BlueCaliDem]

331. THANK YOU. Green voters are unwittingly (or maybe wittingly) allies of GOP power-grab in the U.S.

But they'll choke before they admit it. And as long as they don't admit there's a problem, they're too dug-in their self-righteousness and there's no reasoning them.

[Gothmog]

348. A vote for Stein was a vote for trump

[BlueCaliDem]

352. Steiners will *never* own up to that.

They consider themselves "political revolutionaries" - ones who vote 'their conscience' (however self-defeating that is in the grander picture) and ones who get zero (always pro-Republicans) U.S. press-coverage if they aren't attacking Democrats.

It astounds me why they never see that.

[Alice11111]

617. Plus, I bet anything she was helped by Putin. Just like

Flynn, she was paid for sitting at the RT table w him.

[BlueCaliDem]

639. No doubt about it. And the fact that she frothed at the mouth whenever she spoke of HRC

told me she's a Putin-lacky, all right. She hates Hillary Clinton probably more than Putin does.

[Alice11111]

736. Her votes made a difference. It is all so obvious.

There were a lot of factors. How are the Republicans not even pissed about this. Guess if it helped get the Repubs elected, they don't care. So much corruption.
No wonder the Ethic Commisioner resigned, although it's too bad. Now, DT will appoint some suck up yes man to be his cheerleader.

[NurseJackie]

207. #Sad

[hueymahl]

230. Thank you

Our party would be better and stronger to follow this advice, and particularly the advice of Ms. Roosevelt.

[Kimchijeon]

240. Thank you so much

I think many can benefit from considering the Eleanor Roosevelt quote you mentioned-

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." -- Eleanor Roosevelt


Such sage advice! It bears repeating. Think I will share this with a few people I know who will appreciate the sentiment.

[crazycatlady]

244. There's a better way to have a 3rd party be effective

Look into the Working Families Party.

[Demsrule86]

485. There is no reason for spoiler third parties in a two party system.

[crazycatlady]

556. WFP is not a spoiler third party

Some states have fusion voting, where a candidate can run on multiple lines. WFP was founded in NY, and endorses (some) Democrats. The line is sometimes responsible for putting the Democrat over the top in November.

[Demsrule86]

647. You say 'some' Democrats...sorry. Democrats are the only vehicle that get progressive policy e

enacted. So the fact that non-Democrats are involved makes it a spoiler party. And generally, WFP is most interested in getting six percent of the vote so they remain on the next ballot. What have they ever accomplished?

[Alice11111]

618. One reason Macron won in France, is the French have an

unwriten doctrine (it has a name, which I'm spacing ) that all of the parties will band together, even if they hate each other, to stop a far right party. He didn't win because he was so will liked. He won because the people are loyal enough to their country to stop a far right candidate. Ironically, he may turn out to be a great world leader.

We need that here. Maybe Michael Moore or Al Gore could start a movement.

[Demsrule86]

648. The left leadership refused to back Macron.

[VermontKevin]

251. If Greens won't vote Dem they are useless to us.

[Demsrule86]

357. Greens are spoilers... they cost Democrats elections...they throw elections to the Republicans

for cash...by speaking out and telling folks who they are, we keep them from being a part of the evil not so big Green empire. Now they side with Putin who stole our election.

[Nevernose]

4. I started to list something really argumentative

But, instead, I'll answer with a rhetorical question: is either the center left or far left happy now? Were we even more than fifty percent happy when the Big O was president?

No. None of us were happy and all of us were trying to progress the national dialogue while playing defense against psychopaths.

How can both groups, who -- like Sanders and Clinton -- agree on ninety-five percent of things, get over our bullshit, win elections, and help the vulnerable?

[Cary]

28. Just do it.

[Demsrule86]

667. Hi Cary. Vote Democratic always!

[Eliot Rosewater]

309. How can any thinking person not vote for any democrat, in any election, as if their

life depended on it, even if that democrat was Satan herself?

[SusanaMontana41]

385. Down ticket, I agree with you.

The party in charge sets the agenda. That's why I always vote straight Dem for Congress. And some of them were real stinkers.

I also vote straight Dem for president. I can't imagine ever voting GOP -- with the possible exception of Ana Navarro, who might not consider herself a Republican anymore. She talks like a Democrat.

[Demsrule86]

486. That is a very good point...

[virtualobserver]

5. the country has been pushed to the left, but since the party was determined to stay center-right....

Trump was able to outflank them to the left (with lies).


Losing 1000 state and federal seats is an epic and unadulterated failure, and you can't blame that on the left.

What has been accomplished by Democrats blaming everyone but themselves for their failures?

[JI7]

12. so Russ Feingold is center right ?

[virtualobserver]

20. I never said that every member of the party was center-right

[JI7]

21. i think the fact that so called progressives/liberals didn't vote for him proves they are not

progressives/liberals.

[virtualobserver]

29. Progressives and Liberals did vote for him.

Vote suppression has been perfected in Wisconsin.

[JI7]

30. i wonder why that is not much of a concern of those who attack the democratic party and use the

losses as proof of something.

[virtualobserver]

32. What I wonder is why it has not been a concern for the Democratic Party.

What I also wonder is why they don't use that fact to attack the Republican Party for what it was doing.

This vote suppression isn't new.

The Interstate Crosscheck Program was started Kris Kobach in December 2005.
and by 2013 22 states were using it.

The fact that the Democratic Party hasn't been dealing with this is part of the reason that they have lost so many seats.

What I am hearing is.....don't criticize us.....don't make demands of us....we know best, so shut up.

[JI7]

35. it is a concern for the party and something the Obama admin and Clinton had worked on

and again, the criticism is never about voter suppression. in fact they downplay it.

but then again i'm pretty sure these people are not from the left as they claim.

California has one of the best voting laws in the country and it's democratic controlled.

yet there are people who want to get rid of the democrats in california.

[virtualobserver]

46. first, they failed.....second, they didn't hang it around the neck of the republican party

That second part is the most important detail. The Republicans stole the 2000 election and Democrats never made them pay the price.

Why was Jill Stein calling out Operation Crosscheck during the campaign while Hillary was not?

[JI7]

49. Jill Stein kept the money for herself . her intention was never about counting the votes

[virtualobserver]

55. Jill Stein was talking about the evils of Operation Crosscheck during the campaign...

long before the vote.

So your assertion fails.




Why weren't Democrats running against this evil?

[JI7]

56. Stein is a troll that kept the money for herself.

[virtualobserver]

59. you avoid my question...why was Jill Stein, and not Democrats attacking operation crosscheck.....

during the campaign.

That is why they lost. Operation Crosscheck

Just like in 2000 when Democrats blamed Nader for losing Florida, but the reality was that SOS Katherine Harris threw 173,000 voters off the rolls.

[JI7]

60. Nader did lie about Gore . democrats need to be in power to get change. Charlie Crist was Governor

in 2008 and one thing he did right was make it easier for everyone to vote even though he was a republican at the time.

democrats control california and are always making it easier to vote.

stein kept the money and they lie about democrats . Nader deserves to be called out on his lies.

[virtualobserver]

62. you still avoid the elephant in the room.....Democratic Party inaction on the REAL reason......

that they have been losing, vote suppression.

Calling out Jill Stein or Nader may be emotionally satisfying, but they were irrelevant in the election. Republican vote suppression was the real culprit.

[JI7]

63. they do deserve to be called out for their lies. democrats in power in california HAVE made things

easier for people to vote.

it matters what is actually being done .

it's not that hard to just talk about being better than others when you have no intention of acctually trying to get things done other than profit from it .

[virtualobserver]

65. California can't win national elections for us.

[JI7]

66. no state can win national elections by themselves . but California sure contributes a lot to doing

it .

[virtualobserver]

69. What is the national party doing?

[JI7]

72. many things, depends on what specifically

there were many impeach trump rallies held across the country recently.

the national party is made up of democrats from the local and state levels.

[virtualobserver]

73. about voter suppression

Putting Kris Kobach in charge of this "commission" provides the perfect opportunity to attack this.

[Demsrule86]

174. We have gone to court...it is very hard to do anything about state elections...when the

states doing this are in Republicans hands. Elections are state run...I would remind you that a court packed with right wingers (courtesy of the Greens) took down the voting rights bill...which allowed Crosscheck. The third party riffraff create the problems by helping elect righties who pack the courts and then whine about how we are not doing enough when they knee capped us during the election...and Jillie is feeling very proud of her efforts to elect Trump based on her MSNBC interview.

[lapucelle]

345. I spent weekends in PA in September and October

helping purged voters to re-register. We also devised election day voting plans to get the working poor to the polls. The DNC sent busloads of out of state volunteers to swing states week after week.

I know what the DNC did. I know what I did in PA. I know people who did the same thing in Ohio and Nevada. It wasn't as much fun as pontificating from behind a keyboard, but we did actually fight the good fight.

[virtualobserver]

349. I pontificate wherever I am...at this moment, I just happen to be behind a keyboard

I just believe that beyond reacting to their suppression, we should demonize what they do, because it is demonic.

I want the national party to run a full ad campaign against this. Make it THE issue.

[lapucelle]

377. The media focuses on what it chooses to focus on.

For whatever reason, voter suppression measures were treated as a niche issue in the run up to the election. It didn't help when the pundits conflated suppression with fraud. Now it's morphed into a "sour grapes excuse" narrative.

But I think it's a mistake to say that the Democrats ignored the issue.

[virtualobserver]

388. I don't believe that Democrats completely ignored it

I just don't thing they handled it in a way that did political damage to Republicans.
Merely reacting to it and trying to mitigate the damage done isn't enough in my opinion.

It is my view that Republicans need to pay a big political price when they step over the ethical line.

[lapucelle]

432. Thanks Ralph! Thanks Susan!

"John Roberts, a young lawyer in the Reagan administration who wrote dozens of memos at the time criticizing the VRA, three decades later authored the majority opinion gutting the law, ruling that states with the longest histories of voting discrimination, like Mississippi, no longer have to approve their voting changes with the federal government."

That was a 5-4 decision. Two of the five were Bush appointees.

Any measure to undo a Supreme Court decision is reactive by its very nature since it requires legislation. It's not as if the Democrats haven't been trying

https://www.thenation.com/article/democrats-unite-on-voting-rights/

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/politics/democrats-voter-
rights-lawsuit-hillary-clinton.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/25/democrats-demand-action-voting-rights-bill/86387790/

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-06-22/house-democrats-move-to-restore-key-provisions-of-the-voting-rights-act

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/politics/voting-rights-act-democrats-file-bill/index.html

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/shelby-county-v-holder/

[Demsrule86]

170. But Jill Stein and other Green riffraff can lose them for us right?

Jill was so worried about Crosscheck that she went to important states and said Hillary was the same or worse than Trump...Fuck Jill Stein...and she lifted money from Dems in her fake recount. She is a Putin /Trump shill.

[virtualobserver]

214. Wow, a politician who criticizes another politician from another party during an election

When did that sort of thing start up in America>

[Demsrule86]

217. There is no such thing as a 'Green Party"...they are Green spoilers...why do you

defend them...you know they have taken money from the GOP to spoil elections? They are Besties...and BFF's with Republicans. They should also be called yellow spoilers...they remind me of yellow snow...And they said Trump was the same or better than Clinton...no going back from that. As time passes, more and more people will realize how toxic the third party riffraff including Green spoilers are and how they prevent true progressives from enacting good progressive policy. These people call themselves leftist, but I don't think they are...libertarians maybe. No true liberal would consider Trump the same as Clinton. Nor would they attack the Democratic Party. The only vehicle for progressive policy.

[bettyellen]

84. Hillary talked more about voting suppression than Stein or any other candidate.

And there were numberous court cases before the election. A couple were won a couple lost. How did people miss all that?

[virtualobserver]

92. She talked about it a little....

Democrats generally should have been pounding away on the issue.

They didn't because they thought that they had the election won, and they didn't want to make unnecessary waves.

[bettyellen]

143. Baloney- she talked about the Russian interference, minorities being targeted by crosscheck and

Onerous voting laws that had been passed. They fought crosscheck in court. The only thing she didn't talk about was that "voter fraud" crap because it was bullshit. And the accusation she didn't talk about this stuff is RW nonsense. That's Trump blaming Dems and you're parroting it. Shame on you.

[virtualobserver]

144. I was here during the election. I wasn't on Mars.

Talking about Russian interference is not the same as talking about Crosscheck.

Also, Hillary talking about it is not the same as having the entire party talk about it.

The Republicans pound away with lies and they get their message through, Democrats have legitimate concerns about vote suppression but they don't pound away with the truth even though the truth is on their side.

[lapucelle]

538. One of Hillary's first major policy speeches

after announcing her candidacy concerned the restoration of the VRA and national procedural standards to ensure equal access to the franchise . She had detailed policy proposals and a plan for their implementation.

People need to start making the distinction between "she didn't talk about it enough" and "I wasn't paying attention".

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/12/hillary-clinton-jumps-back-into-political-fray-with-speech-on-voting-rights/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/hillary_clinton_speaks_out_on_voting_rights_the_democratic_frontrunner_condemns.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/hillary_clinton_speaks_out_on_voting_rights_the_democratic_frontrunner_condemns.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-and-the-2016-election.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/04/voting-rights-still-a-political-issue-50-years-later

https://hillaryspeeches.com/2016/08/06/hillary-clinton-statement-on-the-51st-anniversary-of-the-voting-rights-act/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/matters-voting-rights/

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/voting-rights/

[lapucelle]

383. Hillary had concrete policy proposals

that she unveiled in May 2015.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/hillary_clinton_speaks_out_on_voting_rights_the_democratic_frontrunner_condemns.html

[stevenleser]

97. No, you are hijacking the OP. The question is, what accomplishments can you list from attacking the

Democratic party from the left? That question has nothing to do with voter suppression.

[virtualobserver]

102. OK, the main accomplishment is that people are waking up and seeing that the Democratic Party.....

needs to change. No entity changes without prodding.

Policies like single-payer and $15 minimum wage are starting to be embraced more by some party regulars.

[stevenleser]

103. The same people were saying that 25 years ago.

The same folks who didn't like Bill Clinton and his policies are still saying that. Zero change.

[virtualobserver]

106. no willingness to change among the party upper echelon, but change is occurring nonetheless

you can't wish it away

[stevenleser]

107. Nope, it's not. You can try to wish something into existence that isn't there but it won't work.

And there is a simple reason for that. The electorate is not progressive and most Democrats understand that.

[virtualobserver]

108. the Democratic Party misreads the electorate on a more fundamental level

it doesn't know how to talk to the electorate. In its arrogance, however, it believes that it knows all, and anyone who disagrees with it is naive.

[stevenleser]

111. Or folks who see things like you do fundamentally misread it. On the one hand you have history...

... and in that history the Democratic party made a change in response to being wiped out in three straight Presidential elections. That change caused the Democratic Party to win the popular vote in six of the following seven Presidential elections and be very close in the one they did not win.

The evidence is not in favor of your view.

[virtualobserver]

114. In the elections where a Democrat actually became President, and then was re-elected.....

you had the two most charismatic politicians of the modern age.
They were running during severe recessions against a Bush with low popularity ratings.

That is why they won.

Both had their majorities wiped out in the first midterm.

It was "It's the economy, stupid" episodes one and two.

You are drawing faulty conclusions about the evidence. It certainly does not support more of the same.

You are approaching this like a technician, and you have total faith in the demographic wave.
The problem is, you don't know how to talk to the new voters. Your rhetoric is off-putting or worse.
You have to start treating the new voters with respect.

[R B Garr]

121. It's truly glaring how you are trying to manipulate

the fact that Gore won into yet another slam on Democrats. You aren't even talking about the OP, just more tangents about how Democrats are not good enough -- which is what this OP is about, btw -- the lies that are served up about Democrats.

[virtualobserver]

128. I love Al Gore....I consider him to be heroic....He is funny, he is smart....

but when he is serious, he is not charismatic, and that is why it was so close that it could be stolen from him.
The same is true of Hillary.

My point is that Democrats need to change.

I don't believe that the shift to the right was the reason for Clinton's or Obama's success.

"feeling pain" and "hope" during a time of hopelessness was the reason that they were elected.

[R B Garr]

130. It was all over the news that Nader equated Gore

to be like a Republican. All over the news. That was the main storyline from that election, and that remains the main storyline. Nader took votes away from Gore because of his lies about Gore.

[virtualobserver]

133. What Nader said doesn't matter.

When they recounted all the votes in Florida, Gore won.....and it would not have even been close, if Katherine Harris hadn't thrown tens of thousands of voters off the rolls.

[R B Garr]

138. Nader lied about Gore. He took votes from Gore.

Whatever else happened, Nader siphoned votes from Democrats. What good has come of that.

[Ken Burch]

343. JUST winning elections, by itself, isn't much of anything.

We never needed to blur the differences to win, for that matter.

We just needed the kind of straightforward passion and hope in our national candidates that people like Jim Hightower and Paul Wellstone represented. We lost in the Eighties because our nominees all sounded bleak and depressing-because they all campaigned as though we had no chance of winning the argument and could never dare to defend our core ideals against right wing attack.

[delisen]

460. will you name the "bleak and depressing Democratic candidates

and and explain how they were bleak and depressing?

[betsuni]

461. I guess he's thinking of the scene in The Blues Note bar in a Naked Gun movie.

Michael Dukakis:

[Ken Burch]

462. I did above. The nominees in 1980, 1984, 1988.

They were all good people, they'd all have been better than any GOP candidate they faced., and Carter deserved a second term.

But their whole presence in the fall came off as "eat your spinach".

Each of them would have done far better had their fall effort been a positive call for change...had they offered something that sounded better..."Hope and Change", in other words.

And, despite the myth, none of them ran as liberals IN THE FALL. They all ran as bland, mundanely competent technocrats. This country doesn't elect mundanely competent technocrats. That was the strategy that had already failed twice against Reagan in the California governor's races.

Our nominees in the Eighties presented themselves as backing as conservative-sounding an agenda as possible.

Mondale, in his acceptance speech in 1984, implied that Carter had been to liberal and essentially apologized for that supposed liberalism. He proposed a tax increase, but not to fund anything that would help Democratic voters-only to "lower the deficit"-an issue that nobody cared about in 1984 and that virtually no one who'd even think of voting Democratic EVER cared about.

Neither Carter, Mondale, nor Dukakis reached out to connect with the energy of the activists fighting Reagan(and often stopping him through the mobilization of mass public opposition)on many domestic and foreign policy issues...from factory closures in what was then called the "Rust Belt" to Reagan's barbaric policies towards the people of Central America-issues where the polls showed the public strongly against what Reagan was doing.

It was going to be tough to beat Reagan in any case, and probably tough to beat George Bush with his following Reagan and latching on to the tail-end of Reagan's appeal, but the strategy we chose in each of those campaigns...obsess on looking "centrist" and focus on accusing the other party of extremism...was never going to work.

We needed to sound as though we were not only going to be better, but inspiringly better. When we are called "liberal", we need to actually defend liberal and progressive ideas and make a case for why they are better for the public. And when we are smeared, we need to follow Bill Clinton's example and fight the hell back against the smears.

All of those were things our party's strategists refused to even consider doing in 1980, 1984, and 1988. Their strategy, over and over again, was to have the fall campaign say nothing, express no passion, inspire no hope or enthusiasm, and somehow hope to win by default.

THAT is what failed in the Eighties. Not any supposed "liberalism", let alone any supposed leftism.

[Demsrule86]

649. We lost because the country moved right and we ran left.

Clinton stopped the bleeding and saved us from a right wing court that would still exist today...only with a 7-2 majority...

[Ken Burch]

653. We didn't "run left" in the Eighties.

Our nominees all ran as bland, passionless technocratic centrists who refused to defend the word liberal or any progressive ideals.

They all stressed balanced budgets...Dukakis promised a 6% annual increase in the war budget.

And there were no candidates further to the right of Mondale or Dukakis who'd have had any greater appeal in '84 or '88.

There wasn't even a single such candidate who managed to take most of the "Super Tuesday" states in that era.

And the bleeding wasn't stopped.

Congress was lost and bigger cuts in social services happened in the Nineties than under Reagan. Which was unforgiveable.
The one thing any Democratic president has an obligation to do is to protect and defend the poor when they are under attack from the right wing and the wealthy. Once you desert the poor, what else do you stand for that even matters?

I'm glad we got RBG, but ANY Dem, running a strong, confident campaign that defended the Democratic base, could have beaten #41 in 1992 and appointed her. We could have beaten him by nominating Jim Hightower(who had been repeatedly elected to statewide office in otherwise "red" Texas and who was only beaten in '94 because it was a GOP "wave" year and because he was smeared by ads implying he was soft on flag burning, of all things), or Harkin, or even Brown. We didn't have to repent for ever significantly disagreeing with Reaganomics.

Besides which

If it had been, the Eighties and Nineties wouldn't have seen the election to the Senate of some of the most progressive Dems in U.S. history-Paul Simon, Paul Wellstone, and Tom Harkin,

[Demsrule86]

660. It is interesting that many blamed lefties who supported Gary Hart for Mondale's loss...this left

and centrist thing has been going on for decades and is a big reason why Democrats have fared so badly in getting there agenda through. But Both Dukakis and Mondale were liberals and both went down in a landslide...we had 12 years before Clinton arrived and with a bit of help from Perot and Buchanan got elected president.

[Ken Burch]

668. They ran bland centrist campaigns in the fall.

Mondale, in his acceptance speech, made the absurd claim that Carter's 1980 campaign had been too liberal(it wasn't actually liberal about anything).

And this is the first time I've heard Hart supporters blamed for Mondale's defeat(for the record, I supported Jesse in '84 and '88, and would do so again)

And there was no candidate to their right in '84 or '88 who'd have done better in those years. If there had been, there'd have been polls
showing such a candidate doing better.

Clinton took 43%...that was three points less than Dukakis had taken.

The Senate victories of Harkin and Simon(in states Reagan won going away)were proof that Dems could win on a strong, unapologetic progressive message...or in the case of 1984(when NO Dem was going to win, even Zombie Grover Cleveland)could at least make a respectable, significantly improved showing that could have been the building bloc for victory in the next campaign.

[Demsrule86]

674. Your kidding yourself... Dukakis and Mondale were both liberal and branded as

'commie liberals' by the right. I think it is only worse now.

[Ken Burch]

702. They branded Bill Clinton as a commie liberal, too.

If we ever nominated a candidate they didn't brand as a commie liberal, that candidate wouldn't stand for anything.

Remember, they did it to THIS guy:

[Demsrule86]

722. But he was able to fight back by running to the center...also Perot helped as did Buchanan.

[Demsrule86]

724. Both Mondale and Dukakis were forced to move left...if your read about it...and lost badly.

[Ken Burch]

729. He fought back by having a rapid response team tha stopped the smears before they could work.

And by being the best orator we had nominated since JFK.

And yes, Perot played a role.

But the crucial point is that "running to the center&quot let's face it, it was actually running to the right of center)didn't increase the Democratic vote(Dukakis, whatever else you can say about him, did increase our share by five percentage points on Mondale. Had he actually defended liberal values and his own character when they were under attack, Dukakis would likely have won. The one time he claimed he was a liberal, the Bush lead was cut by half in the daily tracking polls.

It is not as though the 43% Bill received(three points down on the support level Dukakis received four years earlier) was the highest possible vote share a Democratic candidate could have managed. Our share would likely have at least stayed around there, and possibly gone a few points higher, with anyone we could have nominated. Remember, we'd made sizeable gains in the 1990 congressional elections and Bush's popularity had dropped sharply after he used his political capital from the Gulf War to do...well, nothing, really.

Bill's most popular pledges were on healthcare and LGBTQ rights...the only positions where he was to the left of Dukakis. The people who wanted the people on welfare to be punished simply for being on welfare didn't vote for him.

We didn't lose in the Eighties because our nominees ran liberal campaigns...they didn't. We lost because those campaigns made no effort to inspire people-Bill was good at that, and would have been no matter what program he ran on-made no effort to mobilize everyone that Reagan was going to harm or did harm, offered no compelling alternative vision of what the country could be.

If they had run on Bill's 1992 platform, they would almost certainly have done the same.

[Demsrule86]

187. Governor elections are statewide. The GOP is in control ...they have

been since 2010 when the country lurched right. That is a fact and running left in a center left at best country is political suicide.

[virtualobserver]

219. not knowing how to talk about progressive issues in elections is political suicide

[Demsrule86]

239. Oh please, that is totally not true...seriously I weary of this...No matter how you

'talk' about progressive issues in a center left country...you won't win.

[virtualobserver]

246. have you ever read any books by George Lakoff?

[Demsrule86]

255. I read an article he wrote which said we need to give up 'identity' problems...I disagree.

"Give up identity politics. No more women’s issues, black issues, Latino issues. Their issues are all real, and need public discussion. But they all fall under freedom issues, human issues. And address poor whites! Appalachian and rust belt whites deserve your attention as much as anyone else. Don’t surrender their fate to Trump, who will just increase their suffering.

And remember JFK’s immortal, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Empathy, devotion, love, pride in our country’s values, public resources to create freedoms. And adulthood."

https://georgelakoff.com/2016/07/23/understanding-trump-2/

[virtualobserver]

264. so, that's a no, then

[Demsrule86]

271. I read an article but not a book...I wasn't impressed that much with his reasoning. so I didn't

pursue it further.

[virtualobserver]

277. The difference between Republicans and Democrats

Republicans listen to their experts like Frank Luntz.

Democrats do not listen to the experts like George Lakoff who are on their side.

[Ken Burch]

455. If the country is "center left" that means it's open to progressive ideas.

There's no position that is center left but NON-progressive.

[Demsrule86]

480. It also means that centrist ideas will work better

in some states...look at who the governors are at the moment.

[Demsrule86]

178. Wrong again... I hate the Greens ET AL as do most Democrats forced to live under Trump

We are not happy like Jillie with Trump's election...they say anything , I say fuck you and do the opposite ...they have lost the right to say anything to Democrats. It is permanently opposite day as my kids call it with the Green Trash and anyone else who helped Trump or helps him now by attacking the Democratic Party (think Turner and Our Revolution) and if you think there is a silver lining when thousands will die under Trump between health care, heating subsidies, a poisoned environment and war, there isn't. Nothing is worth Trump (think the courts too) and those who defend actions that enabled Trump to win the presidency (with help by cheating, Russians and Comey) saying things like, "well now the Democrats understand"; they are completely wrong.. In fact they are no different than Republicans who are willing to sacrifice the lives of thousand of innocent Americans (perhaps more) for a politically ideology. This sort is as morally bankrupt as any conservative and can offer no worthwhile advice to Democrats. We should ignore them. They mean us nothing but harm.

[virtualobserver]

216. I support Democrats taking responsibility for their current situation.

Blaming everyone else is a losing proposition.

[Demsrule86]

220. Yeah...you have nothing nice to say about Democrats. I get that. You give the Greens

every benefit of the doubt...but Democrats not at all. The fact we had crosscheck which you blame Democrats for in some sort of weird way, Comey and the Russians doesn't influence your complete certainty that Democrats are to blame for 2016...no extenuating circumstances...no mention of the fact we won the popular vote...just a Democrats suck sort of attitude. We are Democratic underground ...not Green Underground. God forbid...so what is your point...after the endless...Greens are great posts Democrats not so much posts?

[virtualobserver]

242. Greens are irrelevant. Republicans stole the elections in both 2000 and 2016.

If Democrats spent as much time attacking Crosscheck and Republican vote suppression as they do Nader, the Greens, "Bernie or Bust" people, they would be much better off.

[philly_bob]

332. Thanks, VO. Sometimes loyal Dems are quick to blame others

without examining their own behavior and strategies in 2016 election.

[Me.]

312. +1 Million

[ciaobaby]

325. +1

[Chevy]

154. That's what they do Steven

they defend their heroes like Stein and Cornel West on DU and try to shine a shiny object to distract from their complicity with the right.

[R B Garr]

127. Wow, another tangent--3rd parties are completely

understood and promoted, but you have nothing but disinformation and deflection about Democrats. Quite a pattern there..

[virtualobserver]

132. I'm not promoting 3rd parties

I would never have voted for Jill Stein, she is no more qualified to be President than Trump.

That does not change the truth of what I said in my post. Show me all of the work that Democrats have done to stop vote suppression.

[R B Garr]

134. You have complete understanding of every 3rd

party talking point and position, most of which consist of diminishing Democrats in their efforts to promote themselves. It's very obvious when people are slamming Democrats.

[virtualobserver]

136. I think that we need a 2nd party that stands up for itself

[R B Garr]

140. Not lying about Democrats is a great way to start.

After 2 disastrous results in 2000 and now, that should be obvious to any thinking person.

[virtualobserver]

142. what is obvious to any thinking person is that we should have been doing a full court press....

on vote suppression long ago.

[R B Garr]

146. A bit of a tangent again. You said earlier that only

Bill Clinton and Obama had enough charisma to get elected, which obviously ignores the Gore win, and the Hillary situation now.

[virtualobserver]

150. neither Gore nor Hillary became President

It is harder to steal an election from someone with charisma.

[JI7]

153. Hillary got a higher percentage of votes than Clinton got both times

[R B Garr]

223. The "swiftboating" of Democrats is not just done by

the GOP.

[R B Garr]

516. What is obvious is your constant promotion

of 3rd party strategies to undermine Democrats.

[virtualobserver]

518. is asking the Democratic Party to stand up and fight on this issue a third party strategy....

designed to undermine Democrats?

[R B Garr]

521. If that is all you can see or acknowledge, then

it's obviously not sincere. Nader lied about Democrats. Stein lied about Democrats. All peeled off votes from Democrats.

[virtualobserver]

526. I just don't care about third party candidates who get 1 or 2 percent of the votes

Democrats look weak when they blame tiny third parties for their problems. I am tired of Democrats thinking of themselves as victims.

[R B Garr]

527. That just doesn't sound genuine in light of all

your efforts to promote 3rd parties. All of your concerns sound like the 3rd party echo chambers about Democrats -- very cliche and always positioned to undermine Democrats and force a reality that fits a bias.

[virtualobserver]

528. I only promote third parties in your world of pure imagination

[R B Garr]

530. Your words and methods promote 3rd parties.

[virtualobserver]

531. no, I promote a courageous Democratic Party

[R B Garr]

532. No, you are simply deflecting so that Democrats are blamed

for the lies that are perpetrated by 3rd parties.

[virtualobserver]

533. you are calling me a liar

[R B Garr]

534. Lol, another tangent.

[virtualobserver]

535. just reality...take responsibility for your words

[R B Garr]

537. More deflection!

[virtualobserver]

539. if you don't have the courage to stand by your words, why are we even talking?

[R B Garr]

542. Ah, yes, make it personal to deflect.

You should take your own advice.

[virtualobserver]

544. you made it personal

I said that I promote a courageous Democratic Party

You said that I am simply deflecting so that Democrats are blamed.

You are not commenting on policy.....you are talking about me personally.

When I call you on it, you accuse me of deflection when in reality it is your accusation that is the actual deflection.

3rd parties are a waste of time. Whining about them is an even bigger waste of time.

[R B Garr]

548. Just look at your dozens of posts in this thread.

Dont blame me for what you wrote.

[virtualobserver]

549. I blame you for misrepresenting what I wrote

[R B Garr]

550. Dozens of your own posts in this thread represent exactly

what you mean -- very dismissive.

[virtualobserver]

552. all of my posts represent exactly what I mean

I want a Democratic Party that takes responsibility for its failures instead of blaming third parties. Republicans are so vulnerable and Democrats don't take advantage of it.

[R B Garr]

553. Blaming Democrats for 3rd party lies is not

"taking tesponsibility". It's forcing a reality bias.

[virtualobserver]

555. "blame Democrats for 3rd party lies" What does that statement even mean?

[R B Garr]

563. Look at your posts. It means what it says.

Blaming Democrats for 3rd party lies is undermining.

[virtualobserver]

574. I knew you couldn't answer it. Just empty accusations.

[R B Garr]

586. Another tangent. What's empty is calling Democrats

"not courageous" i.e., feeble, and not mentioning where you got that line.

[virtualobserver]

588. I said that I promoted a courageous Democratic party in response to your statement....

that I promoted 3rd parties, which I don't. I just expect a lot more from the Democratic Party.


"not courageous" i.e., feeble....those are your words .

I want the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.....who said

"When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck to crush him"

or

Harry Truman who said

“Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home — but not for housing. They are strong for labor — but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights. They favor minimum wage — the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all — but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine — for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing — but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing — so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.”

and . "The country can't afford another Republican Congress."

That is how a courageous Democratic Party speaks.

[R B Garr]

589. Why don't you reference where you are getting

your criticisms of Democrats. They sound familiar. Calling Democrats "not courageous" is another way of saying feeble. Calling Democrats out of touch sounds familiar, too. Where did you get those lines?

[virtualobserver]

593. Show me the post number where I said that Democrats were "not courageous" or "out of touch"

[R B Garr]

595. Show where you are getting your many criticisms

of Democrats. They sound very familiar.

[virtualobserver]

596. so you got nothin'

[R B Garr]

603. Your criticisms sound familiar. You have dozens

of posts in this thread. You admit to criticizing Democrats --on account of courageness. Where are you getting your other criticisms?

[virtualobserver]

605. your story....

[R B Garr]

609. You have dozens of posts in this thread, all of which

show your --- "reframing" as you indicated in another thread that you do to make alternate points. Those alternate points sound familiar. You should share where you got them. Alternate points that support an alternate reality should have substantiation, unlike Nader and Stein who never had to substantiate a single thing they said.

[virtualobserver]

611. You just aren't used to interacting with people who have a different point of view on this site

I call things as I see them.

[R B Garr]

615. Forcing an alternate reality is a strategy.

From your earlier posts, you called it "reframing". At least now you admit your obvious strategy. Where did you pick up this strategy of reframing and to whose benefit? Where did you get your many criticisms of Democrats? They sound familiar.

[virtualobserver]

625. I learned about reframing from books by George Lakoff.

I would like to see Democrats use his strategies in an effort to be more successful.

Are you familiar with him?

My criticisms of Democrats come from being a Democrat for 30 yrs. I'm getting tired of losing.

[R B Garr]

626. Interesting, because this contradicts what you said the other day about

reframing. The other day, you said the reframing had to do with protecting a certain Senator and your commitment to filtering his world view, which is what I meant about forcing an alternate reality. Maybe your commitment to abstract Revolution talking points is where you are getting the criticisms of Democrats. Are you familiar with the Our Revolution talking points?

[virtualobserver]

628. there is no conflict between defending unfair attacks on Bernie, and my hopes for the party

Last edited Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:20 AM - Edit history (1)

Bernie's view is much closer to the traditional view of the Democratic Party.

I'm not interested in groups like Our Revolution, so no, I am not familiar with their talking points.
I believe in their right to exist, and to do whatever the hell they want.

Ex: I believe that they should have the right to exclude people who voted for Hillary.

Since I voted for Hillary, that means that I believe that they should have the right to exclude me.
I wouldn't have known about that fact, if I hadn't read about here on DU.

[R B Garr]

631. This still doesn't match what you wrote the other

day about your motivations to protect Bernie, but it is more honest about why you are trying to force his world views on people. And your comments protecting a "Revolution" group that excluded Democrats also explains your abstract and numerous attacks on Democrats.

[virtualobserver]

632. goodbye

[R B Garr]

635. At least we got to the bottom of the attacks

on Democrats -- which brings me back to my original comments about promoting 3rd parties, lol

[betsuni]

637. Thank you for your service.

[R B Garr]

638. Well, thanks!

I knew I heard all that so-called support for Democrats before....

[Demsrule86]

365. Or taking money from Republicans to spoil elections.

"OK, we’ve done it. We’ve nailed it down: Every single contributor to the Pennsylvania Green Party Senate candidate is actually a conservative — except for the candidate himself."

"The Luzerne County Green Party raised $66,000 in the month of June in order to fund a voter signature drive. The Philly Inquirer reported yesterday that $40,000 came from supporters of Rick Santorum’s campaign (or their housemates). Also yesterday, we confirmed that another $15,000 came from GOP donors and conservatives. Only three contributions, totaling $11,000, remained as possible legit donations.

Today, I confirmed that those came from GOP sources."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/img-src-images-santorum1-jpg-hspace-5-vspace-5-align-left-gop-donors-funded-entire-pa-green-party-drive

[Demsrule86]

179. States are in charge of elections, and you know this.

The states that employ Crosscheck are in Republican hands. Give me a concrete suggestion on how to 'stop crosscheck" in a Republican state. The only way to stop it is to elect Democrats at the state level...of course Jillie ET AL will certainly do all she can to stop that from happening...despite her supposed concern for crosscheck...she knows states control elections so she uses crosscheck as another issue to attack Democrats with...don't get your support for Greens.

[virtualobserver]

218. Very easy....you talk about it nonstop, and run ads condemning the practice.

You make it the major focus of your campaign, nationwide. You accuse them of stealing elections in no uncertain terms, because that is exactly what they are doing.

I don't support the green party. I just think that the Democratic party needs to stop being a victim of circumstance in this particular area.

You can't rely on corporate owned media to do the heavy lifting.

[Demsrule86]

241. This is not an issue that would enable us to win elections.

Those who vote for us are already persuaded...the other sort views it as whining.

[virtualobserver]

248. there are plenty of people who aren't on a side

[Demsrule86]

254. And those voters won't be moved by Crosscheck...or anything really.

[virtualobserver]

263. and you magically know in advance that no voters will be affected by that

what an amazing ability you posess

[Demsrule86]

652. And I don't think anyone gives a damn about this issue in fact it will be viewed as whining.

[virtualobserver]

661. no one cares about people being thrown off of voter rolls?

If you can't make the case against that, you don't deserve to win elections.

[Demsrule86]

663. I don't it is an issue that you can run on...and I think the GOP has convinced their people that

there is massive cheating going on...and it won't work. I would be all for it if it would work...but jobs, economy,healthcare, and reproductive rights seem way more compelling. The GOP is now coming for birth control which is a different sort of issue than abortion.

You might be able to run on this issue in state elections...it would depend on the state.

[virtualobserver]

666. It has do be done correctly, that's all.

If Republicans can convince people of utter bullshit, we can convince them of the truth.

[Demsrule86]

675. No, because they are not open to being convinced and this is not an issue that many other than thos

already voting Democrat care about.

[virtualobserver]

680. you don't know that.

Democrats haven't even tried.

You actually believe that independents don't give a shit if their votes are thrown in the trash?

Jesus.

[bettyellen]

386. The DNC and HRCs campaign had calls for volunteers and court cases in every state where this was

happening- I knew about it and helped- why didn't you know or help-since you claim it's so very important to you?

why should we forgive - or excuse - your ignorance and inaction? Why would we want advice from someone who couldn't be bothered to help? Who doesn't even know about the efforts to combat voter suppression last fall?

[Demsrule86]

168. Jill Stein said Trump was a better choice than Hillary Clinton...Jill Stein went to states where she

could make a difference like Michigan and Wisconsin...How did she know those would be the close states? In my opinion, she was working with Trump, the GOP and Putin...Putins girl...Kremlin Jill.

[virtualobserver]

224. the mighty Jill Stein vs. the poor helpless Democrats

[Demsrule86]

237. Your words not mine...it was a concerted effort Jill,Putin and Trump...with Comey

off to the side.

[Gothmog]

192. A vote for Stein was a vote for Trump

[Demsrule86]

225. Yes it was. And the Greens are nothing but shitty spoilers...don't understand some

defending them.

[BlueCaliDem]

334. Didin't hear her do any of that. But I *did* hear her talk about the evils of Hillary Clinton.

Fuck Putin's other useful fool, Jill Stein.

[virtualobserver]

338. she did a lot of that as well

[Cha]

346. Why was jill fucking stein Lying about Hillary when

she said "Hillary was worse than trump"? 'Cause she's a selfish idiot who owns a chunk of trump now.

[Gothmog]

360. Stein was a russian agent working to elect trump on behalf of Putin

[Cha]

368. Yes, Pawn for putin stein fit right in with

all the gd Liars in this cozy RF table.

Link to tweet

stein wasn't at putin's table be accident.

[Eliot Rosewater]

310. What I am hearing is "give me a reason to vote for that fill in the blank Democrat"

If we still have to give you a reason, we are wasting our time with you.

[BlueCaliDem]

335. TRUTH!! eom

[BzaDem]

77. Interesting. First, you say Democrats blame everyone but themselves. Then you say voter suppression

when confronted with examples that don't support your theory.

So which losses should Democrats blame themselves for, and which losses should Democrats blame voter suppression for? Let me guess... Democrats should blame themselves for all losses other than the ones with clear progressives running, and should blame voter suppression for the ones with clear progressives running?

[virtualobserver]

79. I blame them for not standing up against vote suppression as well.

Almost all of their losses can be blamed on vote suppression.

If only our current situation deserved laughter. It isn't funny.

[BzaDem]

115. Do you have evidence to back up the claim that they don't stand up to voter suppression?

Surely you aren't arguing that the mere fact that Republicans are successful at suppressing the vote ipso facto implies Democrats aren't "standing up" to it?

[virtualobserver]

116. if they were standing up against it, it would be visible

the voter suppression and the actions taken to achieve it are quite visible.

Secretly "standing up" to it does not appear to work.

[BzaDem]

137. Have you tried looking at all? It took me all of three minutes to find the following.

Given how much Democrats are visibly and vocally fighting Republican voter suppression efforts, I'm honestly not sure where you get the idea that they are not doing so.


http://prospect.org/article/qa-how-democrats-can-win-voter-suppression-argument

"Although he lost his race, Kander came within just a few points of Blunt in a state that Trump carried by nearly 20 points. He was quickly tabbed as a rising Democratic star. After the election, Kander, who had served as the Missouri secretary of state for the past four years, admonished state Republican legislators for passing photo ID legislation in 2016. “I know some folks here and across the state try to pretend other elections issues would be solved by a new photo ID requirement, but that’s just not true,” Kander said.

Now, Kander has a new day job. He’s leading Let America Vote, a group launched Wednesday that aims not only to fight voter suppression in the court of law, but also “in the court of public opinion.” The organization’s board includes Martin Luther King III, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, and former Obama press secretary Josh Earnest."


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/30/donald-trump-commission-election-integrity-kris-kobach

"States fight Trump commission's effort to gather voters' personal data"'


http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-voter-fraud-investigation-democrats-react-234161

"Democrats warn Trump's voter fraud investigation will increase voter suppression. Dems are shooting back in an attempt to prove Trump wrong."


https://www.tomperez.org/news/2017/1/10/tom-perez-announces-plan-to-drastically-expand-voter-protections-at-the-dnc

"Today, Tom Perez, candidate for chair of the Democratic National Committee, released his plan to establish a fully functioning office of voter empowerment to proactively expand ballot access, protect the right to vote, and combat Republican voter suppression efforts across the country."


https://votingrightscaucus-veasey.house.gov/about

"The goal of the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus is to educate the public on the current voter suppression tactics in place in their home states, districts, and counties, inform constituencies on their rights as voters, and to create and advance legislation that blocks current and future suppressive and discriminatory tactics that deny American citizens the sacred right to vote."

[virtualobserver]

141. It is a start....

but until I see the full party structure blasting away at Republicans for their undemocratic manipulation, with ad campaigns...I will reserve my judgment.

[BzaDem]

145. I can easily find many times that number of examples. But you want to know what would really help?

Or should I say, you want to know what really would have helped?

A Nader endorsement of Gore 5 days before the 2000 election.

As much as other forces did what they could to ensure a Republican win, NOTHING would have been able to prevent Gore winning in 2000 if even 10% of Nader's 100 thousand votes went to Gore in Florida. There would have been no Supreme Court case, and nothing the Secretary of State could have done, to wipe out a margin that large.

A Gore election would have eventually given us control of the Supreme Court, and we would see most attempts at voter suppression struck down nationwide. Nader could have single-handedly caused that, but decided that it (and all other differences between Gore and Bush) just weren't important enough to him.

And now, instead of acknowledging how much devastation has been wrought by Nader's decision (in a thread entirely about the damage that Nader and his enablers cause), you are blaming *Democrats* of all people. Democrats! Democrats who warned the country about the negative consequences of voting for Nader, and who, despite your claims to the contrary, are fighting very hard with the very limited toolset they have. Of all people you could blame for the current situation, you pick Democrats. Utterly mind-boggling.

[virtualobserver]

148. 1. Gore won the vote in Florida with a full recount. K. Harris threw 173,000 voters off the rolls

But I should blame Nader.

Kris Kobach started Crosscheck in 2005.

That was 12 years ago. By 2013 22 states were using it.
It did not sneak up on us.

I am tired of Democrats claiming to be victims. They need to start kicking Republican ass.

[BzaDem]

149. Interesting how you aren't even disputing that Nader could have single-handedly caused Gore to win.

Of course Gore would have won with a full recount, and of course Katherine Harris threw huge numbers of voters off the rolls. But your two facts conveniently don't even claim to contradict the fact that a Nader endorsement of Gore would have rendered both of those facts irrelevant to the ultimate winner.

[virtualobserver]

151. sure, and Bill Clinton could have gone on the campaign trail for Gore, and swung the election too.

It wasn't Nader's job to win the election for Gore. It is up to Democrats to win elections for themselves.

[BzaDem]

155. There is no evidence that would have helped (and it could have easily hurt). Not so with Nader.

Nader's endorsement of Gore would not have hurt Nader in any way (since he wasn't going to win), but it could have saved the country. Apparently, according to you, actually helping the country was not part of Nader's job description. (After all, the worse the country is, the more Nader and like-minded folks can complain about the state of the country.)

Yet instead of doing something to help his country, such as causing a Democratic Supreme Court that could overrule voter suppression laws nationwide, he chose to not do so (perhaps claiming it "wasn't his job" -- oh poor Nader!). So here we are, 16 years later, arguing about whether Democrats are vigorously fighting voter suppression (spoiler alert: they are, and their lack of success has far more to do with Nader than it has to do with them).

Similarly, Jill Stein couldn't stop talking about money in politics. But rather than devoting her time to explaining the importance of voting for Hillary Clinton, who would fill the Scalia vacancy with the fifth Democrat that would overturn Citizens United, she chose to spend her time arguing that people NOT vote for Hillary Clinton. Low and behold, her vote totals exceeded the difference in all three states. So now, like clockwork, she and her ilk can spend the next 16 years complaining about money in politics.

I wonder how bad things have to get before Nader and Jill Stein defenders wake up.

[Eliot Rosewater]

311. Translation, until we do what you want, 100%, you will punish us and for that

matter the human race by not voting for a Democrat.

So sick of this SHIT

[virtualobserver]

315. No, I have never voted for anyone but a Democrat

the SHIT that I am sick of is Democrats attacking Greens instead of Republicans.

the lack of fight in Democrats is what punishes the human race.

[Eliot Rosewater]

317. Utter and complete nonsense.

Democrats arent the ones who demanded a REASON to vote for you know who.

Democrats arent the ones who said they had to HOLD their NOSES while voting for you know who.

I could go on, do I need to?

Utter fucking nonsense.

[virtualobserver]

320. Democrats are the party that couldn't landslide the most clownish, ridiculous candidate ever

Obama would have beaten Trump 2 to 1.

[Eliot Rosewater]

323. Gee, wonder why Hillary ran up against so much trouble?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/russian-trolls-hilary-clinton-fake-news-election-democrat-mark-warner-intelligence-committee-a7657641.html

"Russia Hired 1000 Anti Clinton bots"

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/31/paid-russians-spread-anti-clinton-fake-news/22020336/

ARMY of Russian Trolls

______________________________________

Not to mention the thousands of posts, millions of comments from ALLEGED progressives like "hold my nose" "give me a reason"

and amazingly, AMAZINGLY she still won by 3 million votes.

Wow

[virtualobserver]

326. they went after Obama too, but he handled it

Hillary had it easy, they were claiming that Barack was the Antichrist, born in Kenya

[R B Garr]

327. Reality is that Trump is a con man, and he stole divisive talking points

from those who also demonized Hillary. Demonizing Democrats seems the default position for lots of folks.

[virtualobserver]

333. Trump isn't a very good con man....

but your point is taken....sometimes con men mix in some truth with their lies

[R B Garr]

337. Divisiveness was what was promoted -- you finally got that part.

And it's not very good news when a con man steals from you...just sayin'.

[virtualobserver]

339. Truth is often divisive

[R B Garr]

342. Fake news is passed off as "truth". It's all the rage now.

[Gothmog]

196. Marc Veasey was the lead plaintiff in the Texas voter id case

[Gothmog]

195. You are so very very wrong

People were standing up in the real world.

[virtualobserver]

235. Not on the big stage.....there the party was not.

You have to convince the general public of the evil of what they are doing....you can't rely exclusively on combating it from the front lines.

[Gothmog]

260. You are totally and utterly wrong

The party did fight voter suppression efforts and did its best to call attention to GOP voter suppression. I was on the front lines and here and I would love to see what more could have been done.

You are ignoring the fact that without Nader's actions, the Voting Rights Act would not have been gutted and the decision in Citizens United would have never been issued. Please deal with the real world.

The real world is a nice place. I live and work in it. In the real world the Democratic Party did its best to fight voter suppression. In the real world, these efforts were made necessary due to the stupidity and arrogance of Nader.

[Gothmog]

194. I trained 200+ poll watchers for Harris County

Democrats did fight the GOP voter suppression. It was the Texas Democratic Party chief lawyer, Chad Dunn, and Congressman Marc Vessey who brought the voter id case that showed that the Texas voter Id law was adopted with the intent to discriminate. In addition to help run a statewide voter protection hotline, I attempted to fight this voter suppression. The tea party election administrator was trying to gut the court ruling in the voter id case and we had poll watchers observe and force the administrator to change "greeting" and other attempts to weaken the ruling in the voter id case. Harris County turned blue this cycle.

Again, none of this would have been necessary if Nader had not given the election to Bush which lead to Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.

[virtualobserver]

227. fighting on the front lines is important

Fighting it in the court of public opinion is also important, and Democrats have done very little of that.

Why do some Democrats imagine that it is the job of tiny 3rd parties to help them win elections?

[Gothmog]

261. Why will people who were so stupid to vote for Nader not take responsibility for their actions?

I am having to fight GOP voter suppression efforts due to the arrogance and stupidity of Nader. Nader's 2000 actions are responsible for the gutting of the voting rights act and for the Citizens United decision. Why will nader supporters not take responsibility for the consequences of their support of an idiot like Nader?

[virtualobserver]

266. no, you are having to fight voter suppression efforts because Katherine Harris suppressed the vote

Democrats are fighting the wrong enemy

[Gothmog]

268. Do you tire of being wrong?

Here are some facts on this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush's Florida 'win']. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush's 'win' in that state]." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.

All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.

[virtualobserver]

273. so, it is the job of third parties to prop up poorly performing major party candidates

you ignore the enormous effect of Katherine Harris and her vote suppression.....you know, that thing that you are fighting so hard against.....


I have heard endless criticism of Nader and no mention of what Jeb and Katherine Harris did.

Kobach's Crosscheck stole the election, but all I hear from Democrats is Mean ole' Jill Stein.

Do you see a pattern here?

[Gothmog]

280. Take responsbiity for the consequences of your vote

We would not be facing such effective voter suppression efforts but for the stupidity and arrogance of Nader. Nader is the reason why we have Citizens United and the reason why the voting rights act was gutted.

The facts show that your amusing but wrong claims are not true. Harris' voter suppression efforts would not make a difference if Nader had not taken financing from Rove in order to give W the win http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader’s campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP’s Laura Meckler headlined “GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads.” She opened: “Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. ... ‘Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,’ Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: ‘What’s Al Gore’s real record?’ Nader says: ‘Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.’” Meckler’s report continued: “A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader’s speeches.” Bush’s people - the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council - knew exactly what they were doing, even though the liberal suckers who voted so carelessly for Ralph Nader obviously did not. Anyone who drives a car the way those liberal fools voted, faces charges of criminal negligence, at the very least. But this time, the entire nation crashed as a result; not merely a single car.....

On July 9th, the San Francisco Chronicle headlined “GOP Doners Funding Nader: Bush Supporters Give Independent’s Bid a Financial Lift,” and reported that the Nader campaign “has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party,” according to “an analysis of federal records.” Perhaps these contributors were Ambassador Egan’s other friends. Mr. Egan’s wife was now listed among the Nader contributors. Another listed was “Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.” Furthermore, Ari Berman reported 7 October 2004 at the Nation, under “Swift Boat Veterans for Nader,” that some major right-wing funders of a Republican smear campaign against Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam service contributed also $13,500 to the Nader campaign, and that “the Republican Party of Michigan gathered ninety percent of Nader’s signatures in their state” (90%!) to place Nader on the ballot so Bush could win that swing state’s 17 electoral votes. Clearly, the word had gone out to Bush’s big contributors: Help Ralphie boy! In fact, on 15 September 2005, John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader, reported that, “A year ago, as the Presidential general election campaign raged in battleground state New Hampshire, consumer advocate Ralph Nader found his way onto the ballot, with the help of veteran Republican strategist David Carney and the Carney-owned Norway Hill Associates consulting firm.”

It was obvious, based upon the 2000 election results, that a dollar contributed to Nader in the 2004 contest would probably be a more effective way to achieve a Bush win against Kerry in the U.S. Presidential election than were perhaps even ten dollars contributed to Bush. This was a way of peeling crucial votes off from Bush’s real opponent - votes that otherwise would have gone to the Democrat. That’s why the smartest Republican money in the 2004 Presidential election was actually going to Nader, even more so than to Bush himself: these indirect Bush contributions provided by far the biggest bang for the right-wing buck.

[virtualobserver]

287. I voted for Gore

It was his job to win the election. I was devastated when he lost.

What you are saying is, Republicans did whatever it took to win.

I love your qualifier "Harris' voter suppression efforts would not make a difference IF (my emphasis) Nader had not taken financing from Rove in order to give W the win"

So you agree...it was the vote suppression that won (or made it close, since actually Gore would have won the full recount)

First Katherine Harris tried to steal the election, then the Republican party fought tooth and nail to stop recounts, Gore asked for only limited recounts, then the Supreme Court lowered itself and stole the election outright.

But you blame Nader, even though it is not the job of any third party to compensate for voter suppression, or a poorly performing campaign.

[Gothmog]

289. No, your attempts at analysis are sad and wrong

Florida was partially bailed in 2000 and there were strong limits on what Harris could do. The number of votes lost due to voter suppression pales in comparison to the number of idiots who voted for Nader. Again, math is simple Look at the math. The numbers show that Nader gave Bush the win. Karl Rove funded Nader and got his money's worth.

I have volunteered in the voter protection area for a very long time. I am amused by your attempt to shift blame away from Nader. It is really funny

[virtualobserver]

295. the suppression was more than enough to shift the election....

so the Nader vote meant nothing.

What you don't seem to understand is that it is the job of Democrats to get votes on their own.

It is also the job of Democrats to hold Republicans responsible for their vote suppression, not merely try to mitigate the damage on election day.

[Gothmog]

270. BTW, I was in Florida for 2004 Kerry Edwards voter protection team

It was not Harris who gave Bush the victory in 2000. The 2004 efforts were designed to fight the issues in the 2000 election. We had 3,000 out of state attorneys in Florida and I got to meet the top Florida election law lawyers. Your claims are false

[virtualobserver]

274. So, many thousands were thrown off the voter rolls in 2000 and it had no effect

Oh, and when the entire state was re-counted, Gore won.

This was Nader's fault.

[Gothmog]

281. Do you tire of being wrong?

Look at the numbers posted. Nader was funded by Karl Rove for a reason. Rove used Nader to win in 2000 and Nader being an asshole took Rove's money. The numbers posted above showed that without Nader, Gore would have won.

Why will you not responsibility for Nader's actions? Without Nader, there would be no Citizens United and the Voting Rights Act would not have been gutted.

[virtualobserver]

288. the Republicans are responsible, not Nader

you should consider blaming the Republicans for a change of pace now and then.

[Gothmog]

293. Nader took Rove's money and Rove got his money worth

Nader was funded by Rove and knew that he was being funded in order to help win. Stein was supported by Russia and attended meetings with Putin. Again, Stein and Nader were tools used to help the GOP steal elections.

The fact that you are trying to shift blame away from Stein and Nader is sad but funny. A vote for Nader was a voter for Bush and a vote for Stein was a vote for Trump

Keep on ignoring the facts. Your attempts to absolve Nader and Stein of their responsibility for GOP victories will not work

[virtualobserver]

297. Only you have a right to a party

Greens don't have a right to choose their own candidate and vote for them.
People don't have a right to other viewpoints. They don't have a right to believe that Democrats don't have the answers.

Anyone who doesn't think as you do is to blame.

Amirite?

[Gothmog]

300. Greens can do what they want so long as they take responsibility for trump

Trump was elected in part due to the fact that Stein was a russian tool. Nader was the tool of Karl Rove. Greenies were used by Rove and Russia to change the election. If you are willing to take responsibility for these consequences, then fine.

Greens need to realize that they are being used by the GOP and Russia to help elect Republican candidates

[virtualobserver]

305. Democrats are the ones who need to take responsibility for Trump

He was the worst candidate in the history of candidates.

Hillary should have defeated him in a landslide....anyone should have.

[R B Garr]

322. Wow, still promoting that 3rd party and still irrationally and

incorrectly blaming Democrats even when proven wrong over and over. Wow.

[stevenleser]

91. Yes, you got it. There is no answer for some folks other than blame Democrats.

Because Democrats aren't catering exactly to what they want, everything that happens is their fault.

[treestar]

169. I noticed that too

blame the "establishment" of the party because Bernie did not win, then if a Democrat does not win it is No One to Blame but Themselves. Kind of transparent double standard, which is very Republican-like.

[R B Garr]

324. Exactly. Very transparent.

[BainsBane]

135. Not as many as voted for Clinton

[virtualobserver]

139. Hillary got 1,382,210 Feingold got 1,380,335

not much of a difference, really.....

[treestar]

165. Isn't that making an excuse?

He should have won if the theory were true. Run a true progressive and they will win.

[virtualobserver]

212. that isn't the theory

the theory is, if you learn how to talk to voters then you will win. Democrats haven't learned that yet.

[treestar]

262. Russ Feingold does not know how to talk to voters?

[virtualobserver]

267. not well enough to overcome the vote suppression

he has lost back to back elections

[Gothmog]

285. I was also part of the Victory Counsel program

The Victory Counsel program was the Clinton volunteer legal team headed by Marc Elias. We had hundreds of lawyers on the ground in Wisconsin and other states. I was running the Texas voter protection hot line and working on the poll watcher program in Texas. In the real world, people did work to fight voter suppression.

These efforts would have been a great deal easier if Nader had not been an asshole and took Rove's funding in 2000 and 2004. If the Citizens United case had not been issued due to Nader, things would have been much easier. In Texas, we miss the Voting Rights Act protection.

Again, the fact that you are not taking responsibility for the stupidity of Nader taking Rove's funding is sad.

[virtualobserver]

290. why should I take responsibility for it? what does it have to do with me?

[Gothmog]

294. You are trying (and failing) to try to shift blame away from Nader and Stein

These efforts are weak and sad. I actually know what was going on with respect to voter suppression and your claims are not supported by the facts.

The real world is a nice place. I like living and working the real world.

[virtualobserver]

299. you think inside the box

you don't believe that there is anything outside of the box

[Gothmog]

301. I live and work in the real world

I like the real world. I have devoted a ton of time to fighting voter suppression in the real world. The real world is a nice place. Come visit.

[virtualobserver]

308. You have devoted that time and you deserve credit for it....

but Democrats have failed.


I'm suggesting a different strategy, and you reject it without discussion.

In the real world....Republicans are suppressing more and more votes .

[Gothmog]

316. Again, your claims are not based on facts and you should consider working in the real world

I have trouble taking your positions seriously. You have no real world understanding of the issues and your claims about voter suppression are so far off that they are sad. You do not have to be a lawyer to volunteer and work to fight voter suppression. Volunteer to work as an election worker. A poll worker can do far more good to protect the vote than a poll watcher. My youngest child has been serving as an election judge since she was 18 and is very good at it. Volunteer to be a poll watcher.

The real world can be rewarding. We turned Harris County blue this last cycle and the success of these efforts have caused the Texas GOP to abolish straight ticket voting starting in 2020. One of the ladies who I trained as a poll watcher in 2012 is now the person in charge of voter registration in Harris County. A person who I worked with at Battleground Texas is now working for Harris County on voter registration efforts.

It is far more rewarding working on voter protection efforts in the real world. Come and visit.

[virtualobserver]

319. this is a battle that needs to be won politically, it can never be won on the ground

[Gothmog]

355. I strongly disagree with your analysis

I will continue to fight GOP voter suppression on the ground and find your theory that you can win here politically to be sad and naive. The GOP will not stop using voter suppression tactics for political reasons in the real world. The only way to fight GOP voter suppression is on the ground and in the courts.

BTW, I am planning on supporting AG Holder and President Obama's plan to fight gerrymandering. https://democraticredistricting.com/ Part of these efforts will be political in terms of trying to retake state houses and part will be in the courts. Again, the best way to fight voter suppression is to do so on the ground in the real world.

Again, I live in the real world and I am far more familiar with the issues here. Your analysis is simply wrong.

Attempting to excuse the actions of Nader, Stein and the Green party through the use of a straw man argument on voter suppression is really weak and does not work. Nader took Rove's money and delivered the 2000 race to the GOP. As a result we got the Iraq War, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act. Trying to divert attention away from these facts with sad but bogus voter suppression red herrings or straw man arguments does not work

[virtualobserver]

363. your belief that.....

The GOP will not stop using voter suppression tactics for political reasons in the real world.....

is why you can't stop it. You believe that it cannot be stopped.

You are defeated before you begin. You are reactive and at the mercy of Republicans.

You can't even conceive of the possibility that you might be wrong.

[Gothmog]

366. I live in the real world and have actually worked on campaigns

The GOP has been engaged in voter suppression for a very long time. Look up "Operation Eagle Eye" to see how deceased CJ Rehnquist got his start in politics. Look up GOP ballot security efforts and the DNC v. RNC consent decree. Here is a great quote from the founder of ALEC and the Heritage Foundation

The real world is where this issue will be fought.

Your efforts to use voter suppression as a red herring or straw man to divert attention away from Nader, Stein and the Green party are sad and will not work

[virtualobserver]

373. I don't need a history lesson. I am familiar with all of that.

I have despised Rehnquist my whole life for what he did in Arizona, and found it galling that "Stripes" Rehnquist was actually Chief Justice of the SC.

The diversion is all yours in terms of Nader, Stein and the Green party.

I don't give two shits about them. Funny how they weren't able to defeat Obama in back to back elections, since they are so powerful.

I don't need to discuss this further with you. You have expressed your belief that we cannot hold Republicans responsible politically for vote suppression. Fine. I disagree.

[Gothmog]

374. Again, attempting to divert the topic with use of straw man arguments is a sign that you lost

I enjoy watching persons attempt to use red herring or straw man arguments to attempt to change the subject or divert attention. Here the facts remain that Nader was the key factor in Bush winning in 2000 and as a result the US had a war Iraq and Bush's SCOTUS appointees gave us Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act

[virtualobserver]

375. have a nice day

[Gothmog]

599. I see that you came up with a different straw man or red herring to attempt to divert attention

Nader is responsible for Bush becoming POTUS and Nader is responsible for the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act. The fact that you have found a different red herring or straw man argument to attempt to divert attention away from Nader is cute but will not work.

[Gothmog]

282. Have you ever worked in a campaign or for a party in the real world?

I have been active in voter protection efforts in the real world since 2004. Your claims are simply false. Why don't you try working on a campaign in the real world and see if your amusing theories hold up.

[virtualobserver]

292. I have, and they do hold up.

I have converted a number of people to my viewpoint.

[Gothmog]

296. Do you really believe this?

Somehow I doubt that this is the case given the weakness of the claims made. Your arguments are not based on facts and do not hold up in the real world

[virtualobserver]

298. So now, i'm a liar....or Delusional!

[Gothmog]

304. No you are wrong in your analysis

The fact that you do not understand how wrong you are colors my impression of your posts.

The real world is a nice place. I like living and working in the real world. This includes working to fight voter suppression in the real world. If you participate in the politics in the real world, you would understand why the facts do not support your claims. I have a far better understanding of voter suppression and voting rights issues due to my efforts in the real world.

[virtualobserver]

313. If your method had ended vote suppression, I would accept your analysis

In what world is losing the Presidency, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, and 34 state houses considered a success.

the all-powerful duo of Nader and Stein did all of this to you?

We seem to be 2 states or so away from a Constitutional Convention.

I have rarely heard Democrats speak of vote suppression....but I have often heard Republicans talk about voter fraud which has been proven to be nonexistent.

They hammer at Democrats with nonsense with ten times the intensity that Democrats hammer them with the truth.

[Gothmog]

321. Do you tire of being wrong?

The GOP has been engaged in voter suppression for a long time. Look up Project Eagle Eye and you will see that deceased CJ Rehnquist got his start in GOP politics as a member of a GOP goon squad in Arizona. In 1981, the GOP used a program called "Ballot Security Squad" to station goons at polling locations in New Jersey. The DNC sued and we have had a cease and desist order in place since 1982 that restricts GOP "ballot security" efforts. That Cease and Desist is in effect for a while longer unless extended.

The fight goes on. The only way to win is by actually participating in the fight. In 2014, the Texas Voter Id law resulted in the lowest turnout in decades. A couple of good Democrats sued and we are close to having that law struck down and Texas bailed in under Section 3 of the voting rights act.

Again Nader is responsible for Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Stein diverted enough votes to help trump win. These are facts. Trying to divert attention from these facts with claims that are not based on facts is sad.

Come work in the real world

[R B Garr]

329. Excellent post, even though you're met with yet another irrational tangent

demonizing Democrats and promoting 3rd parties -- who never win anything. Hmmm.

[Gothmog]

347. I understand the GOP voter suppression efforts

Attempting to use these efforts to divert attention away from Nader, Stein and the Green party make no sense. Yes the GOP voter suppression efforts are real but these efforts do not excuse the responsibility of Nader, Stein and the Green party in helping the GOP win races

Due to Nader's stupidity and arrogance, we have the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act

[R B Garr]

519. Exactly, Gothmog. Your posts are so knowledgeable

and thoughtful. This press being done here to blame Democrats for everything is just more diversion from reality. It's very obviously being done to promote 3rd party strategies, all of which benefit Republicans.

[Gothmog]

559. I actually volunteer a great deal of my time on voter protection efforts

I have run my county war room in the last couple of cycles

[R B Garr]

627. LOL, why would you ask me for a link to one of your posts saying that

Democrats are out of touch when you have dozens of posts like this criticizing Democrats. "Out of touch" equals what you have said here:

"learn how to talk to voters"
"Democrats haven't learned that yet"

Where did you pick up these criticisms of Democrats? Sounds very familiar.

[virtualobserver]

629. George Lakoff, but it isn't a criticism....it's a note

I want that to change.

[R B Garr]

633. I quoted what you wrote that matches similar

criticisms of Democrats by a certain Senator. You have dozens of similar posts in this thread with the same comments, so why ask for a link to what you said. Lol

[virtualobserver]

634. bye, felicia

[R B Garr]

636. At least we got to the bottom of this huge

mystery about where you are getting your criticisms of Democrats. I knew they sounded familiar.

[virtualobserver]

640. They sounded familiar because your imagination produces this sort of nonsense often.

Back when I started on Democratic Underground back in 2002, people didn't project their fantasies on others as you do.

You could actually have a conversation with them on issues where you disagreed.

[R B Garr]

679. You wouldn't have any idea about my imagination, but this is just more

insisting that your reality be accepted based on how one politician describes it. When I look at national voting histories and who I supported, I see that I voted with the clear majority so I get the real issues just fine.

[virtualobserver]

681. In your world, if I express my opinion....I am trying to force an alternate reality onto others

I am supposed to agree with everything that YOU say.

[R B Garr]

682. Parroting a politician isn't expressing an opinion. It is agreeing with that politician.

That is your reality and not others.

[virtualobserver]

683. you aren't making any sense

[R B Garr]

684. You finally admitted who you were protecting, so I made perfect sense.

[virtualobserver]

685. your gibberish amuses you, I'll grant you that.

[R B Garr]

686. You obviously understand very well.

[virtualobserver]

687. I understand the concept of incoherent and contradictory expression....

but your style is awkward, and not entertaining.

[R B Garr]

688. You should quit "reframing" people's posts, then.

That's obviously where you encounter the awkwardness.

[virtualobserver]

689. you should consider refining your material at an open-mike night

sometimes just hearing yourself out loud can help.

[R B Garr]

690. Your posts speak for themselves. You've clearly tried to reframe this entire

thread.

[virtualobserver]

691. that is your mistake....telling the same joke over and over

you will never make it in comedy if your don't expand your routine

[R B Garr]

692. This thread is about attacking the party from the left and those 3rd party

contributions and you have spent dozens of posts trying to reframe it, mostly by blaming Democrats. Your posts speak for themselves.

[virtualobserver]

694. you should reframe your jokes in a funnier way

maybe rhyming more

blame, reframe.....has potential......but you need to come up with new jokes

[R B Garr]

696. Your posts speak for themselves.

Your dozens of posts to reframe this subject speak for themselves.

[virtualobserver]

698. I must exclaim, I'm not to blame

if your jokes are too lame to reframe

[R B Garr]

704. Oh, you're very much involved in reframing

Your posts speak for themselves.

Glad to see you kicking this thread! The subject of 3rd party attacks on Democrats is important and should be visible.

[virtualobserver]

706. Your posts don't speak for themselves....

unless they are a cry for help!

[R B Garr]

707. No worries, you're doing all the reframing

necessary. You don't need to worry about my posts.

You should keep this kicked for maximum exposure.

[virtualobserver]

708. I have to. You are a one trick pony.

A conversation with you is like not having a conversation.

[R B Garr]

709. Your reframing speaks for itself.

Two days and dozens of posts reframing the OP. The OP is about attacking Democrats from the left.

[virtualobserver]

710. You aren't comfortable unless you label people

you have to put them in a box, so you can stop thinking

thinking is hard

[R B Garr]

711. LMAO, moar reframing.

Tangents everywhere.

[virtualobserver]

712. it is reality....you aren't willing to actually discuss things

you only make judgments and level accusations.

You function best in an echo chamber.

[R B Garr]

713. Project much?

[virtualobserver]

714. I tried to actually respond to your posts

all of your responses were simply labeling me.

Prove to me that you can actually respond to a question.

Who was the first person that you voted for in a Presidential race?

[R B Garr]

716. What we could have had:

But even he wasn't pure enough.

===Sure, I'll answer some questions later, but not caring for your reframing this particular one. I don't like being reframed, as the result is just nonsense like this where someone puts words in your mouth. You project a lot!

[virtualobserver]

717. So in your indirect way....are you saying that Gore was your first vote?

[virtualobserver]

718. I guess it wasn't that indirect.....it was simply a more elegant way of expressing it

My first vote was for Michael Dukakis in 1988.

[R B Garr]

734. Al Gore wasn't my first vote, but I've been thinking about him a lot since

his new movie is coming out July 28. It does make me sad that we didn't see what the world could be if we had followed his vision. That was a lot to throw away and look what we got in return.

I'm around the Jimmy Carter loss to Reagan. That huge gap between Democrats made me realize not to throw Democrats like Clinton/Gore away so quickly, and when you see what they were up against, it's clear they were operating within the political realities of their time.

Thanks for asking.

[virtualobserver]

735. on election night when Fox News set in motion the initial cascade of calls that Bush had won....

Last edited Sun Jul 9, 2017, 12:16 AM - Edit history (1)

and I saw George Bush's face as they declared him the winner, it felt like death to me.
What I didn't know at the time was that it would mean actual death for many American soldiers, and quite a few others on planet earth.

As I have watched Republican behavior in the years since, I realize that if 9/11 had happened while Gore was President, it would have been quite a different experience. The difference between the way that the two parties behave could not be greater. Republicans would have impeached Gore at a minimum, and none of the unity shown by Democrats would have existed in Republicans. They would have labeled him a traitor.

Republicans also have no shame when it comes to issuing pardons. That is what worries me the most about our current situation with Trump. No one remembers that on December 25, 1992, as a lame duck, Daddy Bush pardoned former Sec. of Defense Weinberger and 5 others. People don't even remember Scooter Libby taking the fall for Cheney, with the pardon from George W. Bush.

If Obama had pardoned anyone....Hillary for example....for jaywalking in D.C.....Republicans would still be talking about it 20 years from now.

I know that I come on strong with my criticisms of the Democratic Party, but I feel that they do not hold Republicans responsible for their words and actions.

Here are some examples that eat away at my soul.

Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 - This raised taxes and cut spending - Republicans predicted economic disaster and every Republican in Congress voted against it. The quotes that I remember were Republicans saying that this would lead to a expansion in the deficit, and create a new Great Depression.

What actually happened was an economic boom, and an elimination of the deficit...an actual surplus in years 7 and 8.
The 2000 election was then about the $4.6 trillion in projected federal budget surpluses.

2001 and 2003 “Bush” Tax Cuts - The Republicans said that they would create an economic boom.
What actually happened? As Bush left office...the monthly deficit was 1.3 Trillion, and we were losing 700,000 jobs a month...
The same thing was done in 1925.....crash by 1929.

Why would any sane person vote Republican if they knew these details?
Statistics work. ex: 22 million lose health care in Republican plan - 12 percent support in polls.

The contrast between Republicans and Democrats is stark...

I don't propose reframing because I want to harm Democrats....I want them to properly frame issues so that they can destroy Republicans. You have to break their frame to defeat them, and Democrats have been using their conservative language at times which strengthens their frame. I may not convince anyone of this, but I believe it, so I will keep saying it.

[R B Garr]

743. I think the reframing to fit one politician's viewpoints are not the way to go, though.

When you look at how the solidly liberal states voted, it wasn't about socialism, either. It was about solidly Democratic candidates. Part of that reframing must also include a realistic discussion of costs, and the socialism reframing actually hurts that discussion because it dismisses or ignores it. That's why we have to get elected so that we can control the narrative. Republicans understand that and always vote R, no matter what. They control the narrative. That's why Bill Clinton was so effective, overall, because he beat them at their own game.

[virtualobserver]

744. I defend Bernie from attack...

and I love that he speaks from the heart but that does not mean that I agree with every detail of his framing.

As for costs, I was at an anti-war rally in 1990 in DC, and Casey Kasem was speaking and he was leading a audience response
chant of a type. He would list something that Republicans would argue that we could not afford, then the tag line "but we always have money for war" There are a number of different estimates of the cost of the middle east wars, but they are always in the trillions.

I agree less with the standard Democratic Party framing of issues because I believe that they have adopted some conservative language. Sometimes they also express things in an indirect way, which limits the penetration of the idea into the minds of the people .
For example, I think that it is a mistake to talk about your "values". It is better to clearly state what your values are.

I would like to see the Democratic Party adopt the communication strategy of George Lakoff. Forgive me if I already asked you this, but are you familiar with his work?

[R B Garr]

745. No, dont' follow George Lakoff, but a quick Google shows

he talks about "moral" values and communicating them. I'm sure there's more to it; I'm not suggesting there isn't. That sort of turned me off, though. Morals are certainly not objective and you can easily offend people by suggesting that you are superior to them because your morals are loftier. He's from Berkeley, which is a great think tank, for sure. But California still went for the solid Democrat, and California is very liberal. That's what people mean when they talk about reality.

[virtualobserver]

747. Lakoff uses the word "moral" in terms of the differing viewpoints concerning right and wrong....

between Liberals and Conservatives.


***on edit, I wanted to add that Lakoff is a cognitive scientist***

If you take Lakoff's political advice, you would not be communicating superiority.

He divides the population into three parts -the actual label names are mine

1. conservative brains - these people view the world through the The Strict Father Family Model - we will not convince these people of anything....their minds can only be reached through conservative framing.

That is why they can forgive anything that Trump does - the strict father is right and protects the family from danger. Facts don't matter.

2. liberal brains - we view the world through The Nurturant Family Model. We believe in cause and effect. Facts definitely matter. Even through we agree on many fundamental issues, our problem is that we divide up into different groups in terms of which issues matter most.

3. the brains of Middle Earth (definitely my label) - they can can be persuaded with either liberal or conservative framing. they can have a liberal or conservative lean, but can be accessed with the proper liberal framing.

In my opinion, Democrats present the facts to the people in category 3 rather than properly framing issues.....His books are devoted to explaining how to do that.

California Democrats went for Hillary. Lakoff's methods are not designed to preach to the choir. They are designed to influence the non-voter, and the oscillating voter who veers right and left in elections.

[R B Garr]

757. Seems very abstract and impractical. Not sure if attacking Democrats from

the left would be applicable. Attacking Democrats is a bad idea, and that is what 3rd parties have been doing -- Nader, Stein, and others who attack and lie about Democrats -- that is not a productive message and it has had horrible consequences.

[virtualobserver]

758. it doesn't have anything to do with attacking Democrats, from the left or otherwise

It is about how Democrats should approach speaking to the middle persuadable group.

[virtualobserver]

697. Reframe the blame...

but don't out Valerie Plame.

[Gothmog]

754. Nader Elected Bush: Why We Shouldn't Forget

Here are some more facts for the silly Nader supporters to ignore or not be able to understand https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/31/nader_elected_bush_why_we_shouldnt_forget_130715.html#!

The official Florida tally gave Bush the win by 537 votes (48.847 percent to 48.838 percent), while Nader racked up 97,488 votes. The national exit poll asked respondents how they would vote in a two-person race between Bush and Gore. Political scientist Gerald Pomper summed up the results in a 2001 Political Science Quarterly overview: “approximately half (47 percent) of the Nader voters said they would choose Gore in a two-man race, a fifth (21 percent) would choose Bush, and a third (32 percent) would not vote. Applying these figures to the actual vote, Gore would have achieved a net gain of 26,000 votes in Florida, far more than needed to carry the state easily.”....

By looking at the partisan nature of the down-ballot choices made by Nader voters, the two scholars estimated that the Gore-Bush breakdown would have been about 60-40. That’s a slightly smaller ratio than found in the national exit poll, but nonetheless a clear lean toward Gore. Herron and Lewis note this means Nader voters were not all left-wing, yet they still conclude, “Nader spoiled Gore’s presidency only because the 2000 presidential race in Florida was unusually tight.”

The extreme tightness of the 2000 result makes it easy for Green sympathizers to cast blame elsewhere, such as Stein’s point that “many D's voted for greater evil in '00.” That’s a reference to the fact that 11 percent of Democrats voted for Bush, a number many Greens cite in arguing that Gore failed to hold on to his base. But this point ignores that there are conservative Democrats who routinely vote Republican at the presidential level. The same 11 percent snubbed John Kerry in 2004. Even Barack Obama lost 10 percent of Democrats en route to his seven-point 2008 victory.

Anything can be blamed, like Gore’s failure to win Tennessee (a cheap shot, since Gore had shed much of his Southern conservatism by 2000, making Tennessee a reach) or abandoning Ohio late in race, only to lose by a mere 3.5 percentage points.

Lots of factors can be blamed for such a paper-thin defeat. But the fact remains: One of them is Ralph Nader. If he had chosen not to embark on an obviously quixotic campaign, Al Gore would have been elected president.

[Gothmog]

752. Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?

Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency? A Ballot-Level Study of Green and Reform Party Voters
in the 2000 Presidential Election http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf

The 2000 presidential race included two major party candidates—Republican George W. Bush and
Democrat Al Gore—and two prominent third party candidates—Ralph Nader of the Green Party
and Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party. While it is often presumed that Nader spoiled the 2000
election for Gore by siphoning away votes that would have been cast for him in the absence of a
Nader candidacy, we show that this presumption is rather misleading. While Nader voters in 2000
were somewhat pro-Democrat and Buchanan voters correspondingly pro-Republican, both types
of voters were surprisingly close to being partisan centrists. Indeed, we show that at least 40% of
Nader voters in the key state of Florida would have voted for Bush, as opposed to Gore, had they
turned out in a Nader-less election. The other 60% did indeed spoil the 2000 presidential election
for Gore but only because of highly idiosyncratic circumstances, namely, Florida’s extreme
closeness. Our results are based on studying over 46 million vote choices cast on approximately
three million ballots from across Florida in 2000. More generally, the results demonstrate how ballot
studies are capable of illuminating aspects of third party presidential voters that are otherwise
beyond scrutiny.

[virtualobserver]

755. You don't understand how politics works

Our candidate is supposed to convince voters to vote for her or him.
Only those with a victim mentality blame others for their shortcomings.

[Gothmog]

759. It is you who does not understand politics or math

I enjoy laughing at your weak but silly attempts to advance straw man or red herrings arguments to divert attention from the fact that nader and the idiot green party voters are responsible for the iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.

Nader cost Gore 27,000 net voters and there would be no recount without Nader taking the funding from Rove. Math is math. I like math and understand it.

[virtualobserver]

761. Why don't you believe that Democrats have to earn people's votes?

[Gothmog]

766. So you are giving up on your silly clam that the SCOTUS was the reason for bush's win

That claim was a red herring/straw man argument. Why do you approve of the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act?

[virtualobserver]

768. it is Surreal to see you calling the SCOTUS theft of the election as a silly claim.

That decision was an abomination that stained the court forever.

I am just dealing with your silly obsession with Nader, since you won't let it go.

there were Democrats who voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

I'm confident that you hold them blameless, while blaming Nader.

there was a 2004 election that occurred....Roberts and Alito would never have been on the court if Kerry had won.

So blaming Citizens united, gutting the civil rights act on Nader is laughable.

[Gothmog]

769. Your attempt to use a straw man to divert attention was the silly thing

I was headed to Florida on December 12 for the recount. I went to Florida in 2004 as part of the Kerry Edwards voter protection team.

I was commenting on the rather weak use of a red herring or staw man argument to attempt to divert attention away from the fact that due to Nader and the idiot greenies who voted for Nader, we have the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act. It was the use of a red herring argument to divert attention from these facts that was sad.

Again, peer reviewed studies show that Nader cost Gore 27,000 net votes. In the real world, 27000 is more than 586.

[virtualobserver]

772. you blame Nader for the Iraq War but not Democrats who voted for Authorization....

for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

That is beyond silly....

January 21, 2010 was the date that the Citizens United decision went down. The complaint was filed in 2007. The Voting rights act decision occurred in 2013....

and Nader is responsible because he didn't endorse Gore in 2000? Is Nader responsible for everything that occurred on Planet Earth after the year 2000?

I know that you won't answer any of this, because you can't. You will just cut and paste the same thing that you have posted. You are incapable of refuting what I am saying.

[Gothmog]

775. Oh goodie, another red herring or straw man arguement

Is this your fourth or fifth red herring or straw man argument on this thread? Again, your attempts to divert attention away from the fact that Rove bribed Nader, Nader took the bribe and due to the stupidity of greenie voters we have the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act will not work.

[virtualobserver]

776. you clearly don't understand what a red herring is

Based on your logic....Nader is to blame for the IRAQ war and blaming it on George W. Bush would be a red herring.

[Gothmog]

777. I was a college debater and I am lawyer

It is you who is mistaken. I know that it hurts the feelings of the idiots who voted for Nader to point out that their vote gave us the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act. It is time for the idiots who voted for nader to take responsibility for their stupidity

I am amused when laypersons attempt to understand forensic theory. Thank you for the amusement

[virtualobserver]

778. you have picked out one person and one event and declared them solely responsible for an outcome....

when there are clearly direct causes that have nothing to do with Nader, and Gore actually received the most votes.

You would be laughed out of any college debates with that. No Lawyer would argue that Nader was legally responsible.

I won't waste any more time responding to your cut and past nonsense.

Goodbye, Gothmog

[Gothmog]

779. The concept of proximate causation and causation is covered in first year torts

I have a far better understanding of this concept and debate theory compared to a layperson.

I was so looking forward to yet another red herring or straw man argument. I was seeing if others would take bets on what red herring was next.

Again Rove bribed Nader and Nader took Rove's financing. Due to the stupidity of greenies who voted for Nader, we have the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.

[virtualobserver]

780. The fact that you didn't pay attention in law school is none of my concern

[Gothmog]

781. Silly but sad layperson

Being on law review and graduating number one in my class were sufficient for me. It is clear that you did not debate on the college level or attend law school

Again, the use of red herrings and staw man arguments do not work in the real world. I am sorry that you are offended that Karl Rove bribed Nader and that Nader took this bribe. Nader and the green voters who were so stupid to have voted for Nader are responsible for the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act. Pointing fingers at silly red herrings will not change these facts

[virtualobserver]

782. when I encounter a math professor who cannot add or subtract....

their credentials are no longer of any concern to me.

[Gothmog]

783. I love it when laypersons try to use red herring and other silly excuses

Again, attempting to excuse Nader and greenie voters for their stupidity will not work in the real world. Nader took bribes from Rove. Nader took 27,000 net votes from Gore in Florida. 27,000 is greater than 586. Nader and the idiot greenies are responsible for the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act.

Please try another red herring. I was hoping to see you claim the the NASA child sex colony somehow excused Nader.

[virtualobserver]

784. you Scapegoat Nader for SCOTUS decisions that took place 10-13 years later

You blame Nader for SCOTUS decisions in 2010 and 2013 but don't blame SCOTUS for their own decision which stole the election in 2000...I thought that you said that you were a lawyer.

The Supreme court decisions that took place 10-13 years later were engineered by people who were not on the court until after the 2004 election.

You cite your own involvement in Florida in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

I think that I understand now why you so desperately want to blame Nader. You were connected to the team of "experts" who failed in Florida. Gore got the most votes in 2000, but the team on the ground was outsmarted by the Republicans. Rather than admit that you look for a scapegoat.

[Gothmog]

785. You do know that Bush appointed Roberts and Alito?

Roberts and Alito were each more conservative than their predecessors and they were the key votes for Citizens United and the Shelby County cases (Shelby County is the case that gutted the voting rights act). Again if Nader had not taken Rove's bribes and if Nader had not taken 27,000 net voters from Gore in Florida, we would not have Citizens United or Shelby County.

Causation is a concept that is covered in first year torts class. The fact that you disagree with this concept is amusing but meaningless.

Come on, it is time for another red herring. Are you not going to argue that the NASA child sex colony on Mars or the Pizzagate theory also excuses Nader and the greenies from responsibility for the Iraq war, Citizens United and Shelby County? There may be bets being made as to what the next red herring argument will be. We are waiting for the next red herring/straw man argument

[virtualobserver]

786. you do know that Roberts and Alito were appointed in Bush's second term?

Was that covered in first year torts class? Was Nader Responsible for Kerry losing to Bush as well, in your magical causation theory? Of course!....Nader is now responsible for all of human history.

You bring up the NASA child sex colony on Mars and Pizzagate.....that is the classic definition of a straw man.

You can't refute what I actually said about the SCOTUS 2000 theft decision, and Katherine Harris throwing people off the voter rolls.

[Gothmog]

787. bush won in 2004 because he was POTUS during a war he started

If Nader had not taken Rove's bribes and if Nader had not taken 27,000 net votes from Gore. then Bush would not have been in the running to be re-elected. Again causation is a concept covered in first year torts class.

I and others are wondering what the next straw man advanced by you will be. The ones mentioned make as much sense as the ones you have advanced so far. There are pools being formed as to what your next straw man argument will be. Please do not keep up waiting.

Again, I am amused that Greenies and Nader lovers are not willing to take responsibility for the fact that Rove bribed Nader and Nader took Rove's bribes. As a result of Rove's bribes, Nader and the idiot greenies are responsible for the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act. The attempts to use straw man arguments to divert attention from this responsibility is sad

[virtualobserver]

788. Your magic Nader theory always finds a new way to Blame Nader

That must have been one hell of a first year torts class. Did they mention Nader by name in that class?

[Gothmog]

789. The concept of causation is covered in first year torts

The fact that a layperson does not understand this concept does not surprise me. A lawyer on another board is really enjoying your posts.

Are you going to keep us waiting as to your next red herring/straw man argument. You are up to four or five amusing red herrings. Inquiring minds want to know.

It is so very sad that Nader lovers and greenies are not able to accept responsibility for their arrogance and stupidity. Rove bribed Nader and Nader took Rove's money to help elect bush. As a result of Nader's and the greenies' stupidity and arrogance, there was the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act.

BTW, my list pales in comparison to this list https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9306663

[virtualobserver]

790. the fact that you keep bringing up torts is pretty hilarious

As if a third party candidate has injured or wronged another candidate by simply running against them and getting 1 or 2 percent of the vote. The entitlement that you express with that kind of argument staggers the mind.

That lawyer on the other board....was that person a part of your losing experience in Florida 2000 when Republicans outwitted Democrats there?

[Gothmog]

791. Not to a lawyer or someone who debated in college

The lawyer on the other board was a former poster here. He is amused by your posts.

Again, it so very very sad that the Nader lovers and the greenies are completely unable or unwilling to accept responsibility for their efforts that gave the United States the Iraq war, the gutting of campaign finance law by means of the Citizens United case, and the gutting of the voting rights act due to the Shelby County case. It so very sad that Nader supporters are not willing to accept the fact that Nader was funded by Rove and delivered Florida to Bush in exchange for such funding

[virtualobserver]

792. The only sad thing would be if you represent the view of the Democratic Party upper echelon.

A Party that blames others for their inability not only to win the 2000 election, but even the 2004 election.

Why are you unable to take responsibility for the 29 Democrats who voted for the 2002 Iraq War resolution? It is simple...you don't believe that Democrats are in any way responsible for anything.


In your mind, sometimes Democrats are fooled, as in the Iraq war.....other times they are periodic victims to other parties who "take" votes that they are entitled to.

Even if they don't "take" their votes, as in 2004...Democrats are still victims of the previous elections.

I hope to God that your thinking does not represent the party or one more round of victimhood awaits us.

[Gothmog]

793. I was a delgate to the National Convention

I was also in charge of setting up and help run the state party voter protection hotline and i have spoken to town halls given by a local congressman on voter id. I was on the rules committee at the state party convention one year and on the nominations committee another year.

I think that I am fairly active and involved with the state party.

It is so extremely sad and disappointing that Nader defenders and Greenies are not willing to take responsibility for their stupidity and arrogance. Again, Rove funded Nader and Nader took this funding in order to help bush win. Nader wanted bush to win just as BOB idiots and Stein supporters wanted trump to win. Susan Sarandon voted for both Nader and Trump and Sarandon is glad that trump won (something stupid about advancing some idiotic and imaginary revolution). The fact that these idiots are glad that Bush and Trump won is so very sad and disappointing.

Again, due to the arrogance of Nader and the idiotic Green party voters, we had to endure the Iraq war, Citizens United. and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.

[virtualobserver]

794. So you are telling me that we are screwed, then.

You will be complaining about the loss in 2018, and blaming Nader. If Nader dies, then you will begin blaming his corpse for any future losses.

[Gothmog]

795. Only if you believe that Nader and the greenies are not idiots

I am not the only Democrat who believes that Greenies and Nader are idiots who are responsible for the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act. My list is short compared to this list https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9306663

Look at that idiot Susan Sarandon who voted for both Nader and Stein. Sarandon is happy that trump won. I am sorry that the fact that many members of the democratic party think that Sarandon, Stein and Nader are idiots obsets you.

A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush and a vote for Stein was a vote for Trump. Greenies who voted for trump or bush need to accept responsibility for their votes

[virtualobserver]

796. I don't give a shit about what Greenies accept. I am a Democrat.

I am concerned about what Democrats do, and only Democrats can win the Presidency, the House and the Senate.

The victim version of the Democratic Party that you believe in just keeps on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
You are at the mercy of the Republicans who steal elections from you.
You are at the mercy of this tiny, powerless Green party.
I don't believe in the wimpy version of the party that you believe in.

You say that you are not the only Democrat who believes that Greenies and Nader are idiots responsible for the Iraq War.

Do the 29 Democrats in the Senate and the 83 Democrats in the house who voted for the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 believe that NADER is responsible for the Iraq War. Did the ALL-POWERFUL NADER force them to vote for that?

The only person who was smarter than the Republicans was President Obama, and that intelligence did not seem to rub off on the rest of the party.

[Gothmog]

798. If you really are a Democrat, then why are you defending Nader and the greenies?

A vote for Stein was a vote for trump just as a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. the lie by the greenies that the two parties are the same and it does not matter if you vote for the green candidate is the subject of this thread. I agree most of the posters on this thread that nader is an ass and that he hurt the country.

Why are you defending Nader and the greenies?

[virtualobserver]

799. That has been your mistake, imagining that I am defending Nader and the Green Party

I only defend their right to exist. That is democracy.

The difference between us is that I hold Democrats responsible for winning elections, not outside forces.
Attacking the right of those who hold different views than you do to participate in a democracy is a fool's game.

We can't control what the Green Party does. We can't control what the Republicans do. We can only control what we do.

The actual subject of this thread is "what has been accomplished by attacking the Dem party from the left?"

Answer: The Democratic Party upper echelon has been pushed to the left (at least in the party platform) by these attacks, while kicking and screaming of course, which limits my belief that it will lead to a change in policy, but we will see.

Nothing is accomplished by blaming Nader and the Greens except for alienating potential voters.

[Gothmog]

803. Those greenies have the sense to be sorry may be reachable

Idiots like Sarandon, Stein and Nader are not reachable and we should not waste any time on these idiots. I see nothing wrong with pointing out Nader, Stein and many greenies need to be held responsible for their stupidity Pointing out the stupidity of idiots like Nader, Stein and the greenies who are proud of election Bush and Trump is appropriate. Some greenies are teachable. For example Bill Maher is no longer supporting the greenies after 2000. Nader is now persona non-gratis in the Democratic circles that I live in.

As for holding Democrats responsible for winning elections, what the heck do you think the Democrats are doing to lose elections? All of the true Democrats who I know are fighting hard to win. I am working to fight GOP voter suppression in my state including working with some parties on the Texas redistricting case. I was in Florida for the Kerry Edwards voter protection team and have run war rooms for my and other counties in each subsequent election.

The premise of this thread boils down to the simple concept is it worth our time to waste time on idiots like Stein, Nader and Sarandon. People who are proud of election Bush in 2000 (Nader has admitted this) and Trump in 2016 (Sarandon is predicting that this will lead to some sort of revolution) are not worth it. In my case, I am dealing with some local BOB/JPR types who also may not be worth wasting my time on. My son's best friend was a moderator at a Medicare for All event hosted by Democratic Socialists and Our Revolution. I past on this even and my son told me that it was fairly worthless. I am glad that I missed this event. I am working with our local Indivisible group, a spin off of Pants Suit Republic and People Power (the ACLU grassroots group). I will pass on the Our Revolution idiots

Have fun defending Nader and Stein.

[Gothmog]

770. BTW. I really love this post on another thread

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9306663

[JI7]

14. anyone who thinks Trump is to the left is not a liberal at all

they loved the bigotry he spewed.

[leftstreet]

38. The poster said Trump lied to sound 'left'

That's how I read it

And the poster is correct

[JI7]

40. and as i said, anyone who thought he was left, soudned left etc was not left

how the fuck was the bigotry he spewed left ?

[leftstreet]

42. That I don't know

I agree - I was so shocked by his bigoted, sexist, racist antics I thought there was NO WAY he could ever win

And in between the reprehensible words, he spouted JOBS! BETTER HEALTHCARE! blah, blah, blah

How that became a winning combination, I'll never understand

[JI7]

44. i can easily understand it . same reason george zimmerman got away with killing trayvon martin

same reason cops continually are found not guilty even when there is video involved in innocent black pe ople killed.

it wasn't the talk of jobs that appealed to them as much as the bigotry he spewed.

[Demsrule86]

175. He did not sound left at all.

[lovemydogs]

19. Agreed. Democrats need to face some hard things

Pointing fingers at everyone else while avoiding their own problems will not help the party grow.

It is time for the democrats to accept their own failures.
It is time for moderates to look themselves and what they did wrong.
It is time for them to stop holding onto resentments towards people in their own party who want to make it better and modernize it.
Are moderates going to just sit on their hands and nursing their grievances towards their own allies because they don't agree with you 100% and think its time for a makeover

[Demsrule86]

568. Yeah tough decisions...first step throw Nina Turner out if she still calls herself a Democrat tell

her to stop (she now advocates supporting Republicans as head or 'our revolution'), never give money to third party candidates for any reason especially Green traitors, never allow non-Democrats especially Greens to run as Democrats and tell people straight out that voting third party is a waste of a vote and elects only Republicans. Stop 'reaching' out and trying to appease the third party riffraff...we don't need unity that badly...and we won't get it anyway. Accept that they hate us and would rather elect Republicans ...write them off. We need a 50 state solution in order to win the majority and if some object tell them to go pound sand...there not so tough and winning makes it worth it.

[stevenleser]

96. The country has not moved to the left at all. If anything, it has moved to the right.

There are plenty of progressive Bernie clones that run in races all over the country. A massive percentage of them lose and observing Trump and his numbers, it is easy to see why.

35% of the country are so conservative they will support a Republican even if he says he will eat their children. We see that in the Trump numbers. No matter what, 35% support him.

Of the rest of the 65% of the country, we know that 15% of them (50% total) have said they will not support a candidate who identifies as Socialist. That number, 50% of the country not being willing to support a Socialist, has not changed in over 20 years. No movement to the left there.

That leaves 50% of the country as potentially being on some spectrum of the left. Of that 50%, 38% or so are Democrats. About half of them voted for Hillary vs Bernie.

The country has not been moved to the left at all.

[virtualobserver]

231. You cannot defeat all of that data because you don't know how to talk to the voters in the center.

We are a 50/50 nation because Democrats stopped making the progressive case.

[Demsrule86]

171. The party had the most liberal platform in its history.

[Gothmog]

200. You are ignoring the fact that it was Nader who gave us the gutting of the voting rights act

Much of the voter suppression that you discuss is due to Nader and the 2000 election. Due to Nader, W got to appoint the SCOTUS justices who voted for Citizens United and for the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. I am living with the consequences of the gutting of the voting rights act. Texas has one of the nastiest voter id/voter suppression laws that had to be challenged in court by good democrats. Chad Dunn is the outside counsel for the Texas Democratic Party and was the lead lawyer in the Texas voter id litigation. Marc Veassey is a Democratic congressman who was the lead plaintiff in that case.

Even after winning that lawsuit, the GOP tried to suppress the vote. We had GOP appointed election workers greeting voters at polling places and telling them that they had to have photo id. Luckily we had poll watchers observe this and got this practice stopped.

Nader gave us Citizens United and Nader is responsible for the gutting of the voting rights act.

[virtualobserver]

512. Your obsession with Nader as the sole cause is well documented

[Gothmog]

558. The facts bear me out

Your claims are not supported by the facts.

[virtualobserver]

562. since the recount showed that when all ballots were counted in Florida, Gore won....

it is literally impossible for Nader to have been responsible.

and that's a FACT, jack.

[Gothmog]

564. Why do you not want to deal with facts? The facts show that Nader gave the election to W

Without Nader taking Rove's money and taking votes away from Gore, there would be no recount. The math is here is easy and clear. Trying to use straw man and red herrings to divert attention away from the facts will not work

[virtualobserver]

579. You ignore the most basic fact...Gore got the most votes

Are you incapable of understanding that fact?

If Gore got the most votes then Nader did not affect the outcome of the election. PERIOD.

Why don't you want to deal with that FACT? Who got the most votes is the only fact that matters.

[Gothmog]

592. The only reason that there was a recount was due to nader's stupidity

The number of votes that Nader took from Gore made the recount possible. If Nader had not taken Rove's money and then took sufficient votes to force a recount, then Gore would have won. Look at the numbers. Math is not hard. From the article cited in post 268

All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush.

[virtualobserver]

594. Reality is not hard. Gore got the most votes.

Blame the vote counters if they got it wrong.

Blame the Supreme Court for shutting down the recount.


The actual vote count was enough to overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush.

You don't blame the conspiracy of thieves who literally stole the election with a whole series of actions. That makes the Democratic Party look ridiculous.

[Gothmog]

597. The use of straw man and red herring arguments are cute but are not effective

It is somewhat adorable that you think that your red herring argument is valid. I know that you want to excuse Nader for his stupidity but the fact remains that math is math. There would not have been a recount but for the arrogance and stupidity of Nader and the idiot green party voters who voted for Nader. The SCOTUS stopped the recount and W become POTUS. This would not have happened but for the actions of Nader. The fact that another proximate causation factor is involved does not matter when you loo at the 90,000+ voters that Nader took from Gore.

Causation is a not a hard concept.

Again, red herrings and straw man arguments are cute but are not affective.

[virtualobserver]

600. math is math. Gore won the most votes

reality is reality The Republicans STOLE the election.

Your argument is that it wouldn't have been close enough to steal if Nader had endorsed Gore.

It also wouldn't have been close enough to steal if Gore had run a better campaign.

It probably wouldn't have been close enough to steal if Gore hadn't run from Clinton and had put him out on the campaign trail.

It probably wouldn't have been close enough to steal if Clinton had kept his dick in his pants.

My point is, a lot of things went into making this a close election. Gore won, but you don't blame the thieves...you blame the candidate and voters whose votes you feel entitled to.

[Gothmog]

601. Red Herrings and Straw man are cute but not effective

The math is the math and Nader took 90,000+ votes from Gore. Those votes would have eliminated the recount and stopped the SCOTUS from ruling.

The concept of causation is not a difficult concept. The use of red herrings and straw man arguments are a sign that you have lost and have to try to divert peoples attention from the facts. I enjoy laughing at laypersons who try and fail to use strawman arguments to divert attention from the truth. Thank you for the laughs

[virtualobserver]

604. Your focus on Nader is the red herring

Gore got the most votes. You divert from that reality

Republicans stole the election.

And they keep stealing them, with Crosscheck, with gerrymandering

and they will probably keep stealing them....and you will whine about Nader and Jill Stein.

[Gothmog]

606. Look at the OP and the topic of this thread

Look at the math. Nader was responsible for bush becoming POTUS, the Iraq War, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act. It is you who is attempting to divert attention from the premise of the OP. Causation arguments are not difficult and are covered in first year torts. Your attempt to divert attention is not working but is giving me some material to laugh at

[virtualobserver]

608. When Gore got the most votes, did Nader force Republicans to steal the election?

I don't know if you know this or not, but the person who gets the most votes is supposed to get the electoral votes.

[Gothmog]

610. Did Gore become POTUS?

In law school causation is covered in first year Torts. It is not that hard of concept. Here the only reason that there was a recount was the fact that Rove bribed Nader and Nader took Rove's bribe and took 90,000+ votes from Gore. Gore was forced into a recount due to Nader's arrogance and the stupidity of Green Party voters who bought Nader's and Rove's lies.

Red herrings and straw man are weak attempts to divert attention from the facts. I am amused to see multiple red herrings being floated on this thread

[virtualobserver]

623. No, because Republicans blocked the recount

that is the only cause.

If Republicans didn't block the recount, Gore is President because he had the most votes

They stole it.

Nader didn't endorse Gore and yet he still got the most votes. Causation requires that Nader's inaction actually lost Gore the election
and it did not.

Republicans blocking the recount in the Supreme Court fits the definition of direct causation.

Your argument of causation of the recount is amusing. Why do you believe that "stupid green party voters" would have voted for Gore?

If they really were worried about Bush, and weren't so "stupid" that they didn't mind Bush, wouldn't they have voted for Gore anyway.
You have no proof whatsoever that they were Nader's robots and would have voted for Gore.

[Gothmog]

656. Still pushing the red herring/strawman argument

There would have been no need of a recount if Rove had not bribed Nader and Nader had not taken 90,000+ votes from Gore. The recount was due to (i) Rove's bribes,(ii) Nader's arrogance and stupidity and (iii) the stupidity of green party voters who were duped by Rove and Nader.

I like living in the real world were the concept of causation has a meaning. I find red herring and straw man arguments to be a sign of weakness and an admission that you have lost the argument. You want to divert attention away from the fact that Nader and the Greens are responsible for the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Your attempts to divert attention are not working.

[virtualobserver]

664. In your world, Gore got the most votes, Republicans stole the election, and you blame Nader

If Republicans didn't try to steal the election, would Gore be President....Yes. he would.

If Republicans steal the election, would Gore be President, No he wouldn't. and wasn't.

Nader's behavior is the SAME in BOTH instances, so he CANNOT be the cause.
Two different outcomes, the only difference is the behavior of Republicans. Logic 101.

I find it hilarious that you do not blame the Republicans for stealing the election. That must be why they keep stealing them.

[Gothmog]

673. Keep on pointing fingers at other straw man or red herrings

It is really sort of funny now. No one is buying your attempts to divert attention away from Nader and Green party. Rove bribed Nader and Nader delivered Florida to Bush may forcing a recount where the courts could step in.

Laypersons are so amusing when they use straw men or red herring arguments

Nader and the idiot green party voters who voted for Nader are responsible for the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act.

[virtualobserver]

678. No one rational is buying your argument that the Republicans didn't steal the election

Not only did they block recounts, there were clear signs of dirty tricks


First, Katherine Harris throwing people off the rolls - that is well documented

Second - suspicious spoiled ballots in Democratic area.

We know from comparison of census tracts to precincts that 54% of the 179,855 ballots "spoiled" were cast by African-American voters, that is, 97,000 of the total.

Every poll put the Black vote in Florida for Al Gore at over 90%. Reasonably assuming "spoiled" ballots matched the typical racial preferences, Gore lost more than 87,000 votes in the spoilage pile. Less than 10% of the African-American population voted for Mr. Bush, i.e. Bush lost no more than 10,000 votes to spoilage. The net effect: Gore had a plurality of at least 77,000 within the uncounted ballots cast by Black citizens.

http://www.gregpalast.com/florida-by-the-numbersal-gore-won-florida-in-2000-by-77000-votes/

I have a friend in Dallas who voted in that election who was handed a ballot and when he went to fill it out, it was already marked as straight Republican. If he had simply filled it out it would have been a spoiled ballot. It was easy to force spoilage with that form of voting.

3. The Palm Beach ballot change- led to a hyper-liberal county casting more votes for Pat Buchanan than the entire rest of the state. Thousands of votes that would have gone to Gore.

4. The Supreme Court.

Republicans stole this election at least 4 different ways....It was fucking overkill, yet they still had to use the Supreme Court because Gore still had the most votes.

You won't even admit that the Republicans stole the election because of your Nader and Green hate.

[Gothmog]

748. Do you tire of being wrong?

Again, trying to divert attention will not change the facts that Nader gave us the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act. Red herring or straw man posts are really sad and funny. Thank you for the laughs

[virtualobserver]

749. do you tire of using the word tire?

I tire of your straw man constantly dining on red herring. Your straw man should add more variety to his diet.

[Gothmog]

750. Ralph Nader Was Indispensable To The Republican Party

Here are some facts for the silly greenies and nader supporters to ignore http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Ralph Nader was crucial to George W. Bush’s win in 2000 against Al Gore. But Nader turned out to be superfluous to then-President Bush’s win against John Kerry in 2004. Nader was trying to do damage to the Democratic Party, and he succeeded in 2000, but not in 2004. In fact, in 2000, he turned out to be the most indispensable person of all to the George W. Bush “win.” And Nader was secretly ecstatic about that. Here are the details:

NADER MADE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENT.

Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called “Florida and New Hampshire” simply “the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket,” when Cook was writing about “The Next Nader Effect,” in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, “Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush’s Florida ‘win’]. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush’s ‘win’ in that state].” If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States — even more indispensable, and more important to Bush’s “electoral success,” than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation’s chief Ken Lay.

All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn’t even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn’t count in these calculations at all.) Nader’s 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida “victory” for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, “Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?” (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, “We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore.” David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, “Nader to Crash Dems Party?” and he wrote: “In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader’s Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore’s loss.” Nationwide, Harvard’s Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, “Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?” (also on the internet) presented “Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates,” showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader’s voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn’t have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn’t been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida’s Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn’t included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.

[virtualobserver]

753. do you ever tire of blaming voters and other candidates

for the fact that Democrats and Gore couldn't convince enough people to vote for them so that they could overcome what was an obvious theft of the election by Republicans.

Until 2000, I had never heard a party blame voters for their loss. It is as if you don't believe that Democrats have any responsibility to convince people to vote for them.

Ridiculous.

[Gothmog]

760. Why are you afraid to admit that Nader gave us the Iraq War, Citizens United and Shelby County case

nader and the idiot green party votes are responsible for the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act. Nader cost Gore 27000 votes. Math is not that hard. Ignoring these fact will not make them go away.

Again, Nader and the idiots who supported him need to own up and take responsibility for their stupidity.

[virtualobserver]

762. Nader didn't cost Gore anything. Gore did not convince enough voters to satisfy you.

[Gothmog]

763. The peer review studies show that Nader cost Gore 27,000 net votes

That is more than the margin of victory. In my world, 27,000 is larger than 586. Nader was funded by Karl Rove and affirmatively worked to elect bush. You do not want to deal with these facts.

Again, Nader and the idiot greenies are responsible for the Iraq War, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act.

Again, in the real world peer reviewed studies show that Nader cost Gore 27,000 voters which are more than 586 votes. Math is math

[virtualobserver]

764. Gore did not convince the people who voted for Nader to vote for him. That was his job, not Nader's.

In your world, it isn't Gore's job to convince people to vote for him.

Gore did not even convince his home state of Tennessee. In 1990 Al Gore was re-elected to the Senate with 67.72% of the vote.
Clinton won Tennessee in the 1996 election.

Gore still got the most votes in Florida, though.

[Gothmog]

765. In the real world, the peer reviewed studies show that Nader cost Gore 27,000 net votes control

In the real world, 27,000 votes are more than 586 votes. The facts are clear. nader and the idiot greenies who voted for Nader gave us the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act.

[virtualobserver]

767. I don't need a "peer reviewed study" to realize that it is the job of the candidate to win votes

not to expect a competing candidate to help them win.

I'm guessing that you don't blame Democrats who voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,

Also, there was a 2004 election that occurred....Roberts and Alito would never have been on the court if Kerry had won.

So blaming Citizens united, gutting the civil rights act on Nader is laughable.

Did Nader also cause the Yankees to lose to the Red Sox in 2004?

[Gothmog]

771. Karl Rove funded Nader and nader wanted Bush to win

Nader was the tool of Karl Rove and delivered Florida to Rove. That is evidently okay with some.

Again, Nader was bribed by Rove and took 27,000 net votes from Gore. As a result we got the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act. Greenies are evidently proud of their role in these accomplishments

[virtualobserver]

773. You are great at cutting and pasting, but you can't refute my argument

talking to you is like talking to a wooden post.

[Gothmog]

774. A red herring argument is not a real argument

Attempting to divert attention from the real issues works with laypersons but not in the real world. You are attempting and failing to divert attention from the fact that Rove bribed Nader, Nader took the bribe and due to idiot greenie votes we have the Iraq war, the Citizens United case and the gutting of the voting rights act.

The fact that you think that you made an argument is amusing. Red herring or straw man arguments do not count in the real world

[Gothmog]

751. NADER WANTED GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENT.

Nader did his best to help elect Bush http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

There even exists strong evidence that Nader’s chief purpose in his 2000 campaign was to help Bush defeat Gore. On 4 February 2001, columnist Marianne Means perceptively observed: “Nader is desperately trying to rewrite history to clean up his own role, claiming he did not intend to defeat Gore. The claim ignores the crucial fact that in the three days before the election he concentrated his campaign on Florida, where he knew Gore needed every single liberal vote he could scrape up.” That’s proof that Nader was aiming to elect Bush, rather than to be elected himself. Matt Welch, in the May 2002 Reason, bannered “Speaking Lies to Power,” and ripped to shreds Nader’s lies about the 2000 Presidential contest, and Nader’s exquisitely selective citation of the least reliable data to support the conclusion that he hadn’t caused Bush’s “election.”

And why is it that during the closing days of the 2000 political contest, Ralph Nader was choosing to campaign not in states where polls showed that he had a chance to win (which were non-existent), but instead in precisely those states where Gore and Bush were virtually tied and Nader’s constant appeals to “the left” would be the likeliest to throw those states into Bush’s column? That behavior by Nader makes no sense at all unless Nader was trying to ditch Gore’s campaign and “elect” Bush - which he did.

An article by Harry G. Levine on the web, “Ralph Nader as Mad Bomber,” presented overwhelming evidence supporting the view that Nader’s real objective was a Bush victory, and went further to document Nader’s craving for personal revenge against Mr. Gore, who, as Vice President, had cold-shouldered Mr. Nader. Dr. Levine pointed out that, on the day after the election, Nader received with obvious joy the report that Florida was being counted as a Bush win. This was, for Nader, not just Bush’s victory over Gore, but personal vindication in his own 2000 campaign: Nader’s victory over Gore. Revenge would explain Nader’s being happy at that news. Revenge is an honored moral sentiment in Tribal societies, and in Religious societies, but it’s Scientifically not acceptable, because a scientist is concerned above all with future consequences, not with past events, satisfying grudges, a private need to “settle old scores” in a zero-sum game. Furthermore, Nader’s repeated lying to his supporters throughout his campaign was also purely atavistic: Lying, by its nature, runs against the grain of a scientist, because a scientist’s chief objective is truth. As Levine pointed out, Nader’s concentration on Florida during the campaign’s final days made no sense in terms of Nader’s stated strategic objectives for running. Nader had been lying to his supporters. Might he have used those liberal fools precisely in order to slake a personal craving for revenge against Gore?

Or was Ralph Nader, perhaps, actually a Republican mole in American politics, a man who had built his consumerist career precisely in order to infiltrate progressives and so, ultimately, one day - and now the day had finally come - harm the Democratic Party and hand this country over to the Republicans?

Or was he, instead, maybe a Communist, looking to establish fascism in the United States, in the unrealistic hope that fascism, once established here, would be unstable, and would become overthrown in a subsequent Marxist coup? On 31 October 2000, at Slate, Jacob Weisberg presented extensive evidence for this view of Nader’s motivation. Headlining “Ralph the Leninist,” Weisberg observed: “For some time now, Nader has made it perfectly clear that his campaign isn’t about trying to pull the Democrats back to the left. Rather, his strategy is the Leninist one of ‘heightening the contradictions.’ It’s not just that Nader is willing to take a chance of being personally responsible for electing Bush. It’s that he’s actively trying to elect Bush because he thinks that social conditions in America need to get worse before they can [get] better. Nader often makes this ‘the worse, the better’ point on the stump in relation to Republicans and the environment. He says that Reagan-era Interior Secretary James Watt was useful because he was a ‘provocateur’ for change, noting that Watt spurred a massive boost in the Sierra Club’s membership. More recently, Nader applied this logic to Bush himself. Here’s the Los Angeles Times account of a speech Nader gave at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., last week: ‘After lambasting Gore as part of a do-nothing Clinton administration, Nader said, ‘If it were a choice between a provocateur and an anesthetizer, I’d rather have a provocateur. It would mobilize us.’ Lest this remark be considered an aberration, Nader has said similar things before.” This “Leninist Nader” interpretation is consistent with Nader’s main purpose having been to defeat Al Gore. In fact, even the idea that Nader was a closet fascist would be consistent with his having been a Leninist: the only difference would concern Nader’s view of the stability of a fascist government — a Leninist wouldn’t expect a fascist government to be stable; but, obviously, a fascist would. But both communists and fascists would prefer a fascist U.S. over a democratic U.S.

According to each of these three interpretations, Nader supported Bush. The only interpretation that is not credible is acceptance of the truthfulness of Nader’s assertions that his goal was to win, and not to help achieve an electoral victory for Bush.

[Gothmog]

598. This line of reasoning is really funny

DU was formed after Bush was sworn in. Are you now claiming that Gore was actually POTUS? Again, in the real world the existence of one causal factor does not negate the responsibility of the primary causal factor. The math shows that Nader took over 90000 votes from Gore and there would have been no recount or opportunity for the SCOTUS to step in without the stupidity of Nader, the bribes that Rove paid to Nader and the stupidity of Green party voters who believed that there were no differences between the parties.

[LanternWaste]

284. Not too sure which myths you base your inaccurate premise on...

"but since the party was determined to stay center-right..."

The party adopted one of the most progressive platforms in its history in 2016. Not too sure which biases you base your inaccurate premise on...

Platform changes: Criminal justice reform, price on carbon and methane to discourage continued use of fossil fuels, invest heavily in wind and solar power rather than natural gas., fight for a $15 federal minimum wage tied to inflation, urged passage of progressive immigration reform and called for legalization of marijuana, abolish the death penalty, break up too-big-to-fail financial institutions, establish a modern Glass-Steagall Act, end corporate tax loopholes, ban private prisons and expand Social Security.

However, I empathize with the need to ignore or trivialize these changes, as it doesn't really fit your narrative.

[virtualobserver]

513. the platform is a lovely document.....much kicking and screaming in its creation

just for example- Hillary, just supports movement to schedule 2 on marijuana

I worry that Hillary's more conservative stance on a number of issues represent the party upper echelon.

[Demsrule86]

487. Look at who holds the governorship's...the country is not left.

[virtualobserver]

514. My contention is that Democrats have not learned how to talk to voters in the center....

not that the country is left or right.

[Demsrule86]

543. Sure that explains it all . It doesn't really explain the shift in the states to Republican

governors.

[octoberlib]

6. I would suggest that all of them read Al Franken's latest book.

Franken's a progressive who wants single payer and all that stuff but he explains in his book the realities of governing. Like for instance the best chance of getting a bill passed is for it to have bipartisan sponsors which means there will always be crap you don't want in a bill. It's impossible to be pure in Washington.

[virtualobserver]

23. the key though, is to start the negotiations from the left

The Democratic Party in recent years has been starting their negotiations from the center or center-right.

That leads to a compromise that is further to the right.

[Demsrule86]

183. NO, we live in a center left country at best ...if we did this, we could face losses as bad

as the last time we tried it...McGovern or maybe Dukakis.

[virtualobserver]

222. there is a left, and there is a right but there is a huge center, and that center can be persuaded

Democrats have to learn how to talk to the center.

[Demsrule86]

238. There is no evidence that is true...not a bit.

[virtualobserver]

245. there are polls which say otherwise

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

[Demsrule86]

256. There is no center. such as shown..those who are not affiliated with one party or the other

have different reasons. Most voters are affiliated with one party or the other. They may live in non-partisan states or be angry at their former party...they are not persuadable unless they are already in your camp mostly...there is a tiny group that goes back and forth, but by and large, they don't. And those that go back and forth would be moderates...not partisan. So you have a two party system that isn't functioning as it should but there is no way to change it ...third parties have no chance in this system...and the GOP has learned how to game the system...The poll is meaningless for our purposes. Thus it comes down to voting for your own interest...in terms of conservative policy vs. liberal policy...and the GOP has us beat as their voters understand winning is everything and support even unpopular candidates like Trump with an "R" next to his name.

[virtualobserver]

265. you have it all figured out

you are a victim of circumstance and that's that

[Demsrule86]

269. I think we can improve our situation. We have a court case that has a shot at stopping the

gerrymander. And that would help...having a House that unresponsive to public opinion that is assured of victory is dangerous to our Republic. We need to field candidates in all 50 states. We have to get back to the big tent party ....all views are accepted and respected...moderate and progressive. We can't win without all the Democratic constituencies. But you have to see, the Greens and third parties are not Democratic constituencies...and can not influence our party. We need to encourage people to join and participate in the Democratic party and that won't happen by constant complaining about our party. We need to fight crosscheck legally...but we do have limitations...shining a light on their misdeeds might help. However, elections are managed at the state level. That is a fact. We need to win in 18 and 20...and Nina Turner and her ilk won't help us...don't expect it...she is bitter and hates the Democratic Party.

[Gothmog]

286. The Partisan Gerrymandering case is a very interesting case that I am following

I am so happy that Justice Kennedy stayed on the court to hear this case

[Demsrule86]

488. As you know Justice Kennedy has long been opposed to gerrymandering or so he says.

He wanted a mathematical way to determine if a district is gerrymandered. This case has exactly that...I am hoping...I really believe the gerrymander is a threat to our republic.

[Gothmog]

560. Chad Dunn is the outside counsel for the Texas Democratic Party and is a counsel in the Texas case

Chad gave a great presentation to the Harris County Democratic Lawyers Association of the efficiency gap theory. I had been focusing on the Texas redistricting case which is based on racial gerrymandering.

Chad pointed out that Justice Kennedy talked about partisan gerrymandering back in a 2004 or 2006 case. The social scientists came up with the efficiency gap theory to quantify partisan gerrymandering. I have been reading some of the briefs in the Wisconsin case and this will be a fun case to watch

[Gothmog]

561. This makes me smile

[Demsrule86]

651. I love Mark Green!

And I am hoping this case will be Kennedy's legacy.

[Gothmog]

657. So am I

Right now, I am looking forward to the trial in the Texas redistricting case that starts on Monday. This case is on pure racial gerrymandering but is still going to be interesting.

[Demsrule86]

658. Very interesting.

[hueymahl]

232. Al Franken is one of our BEST

We would ALL be well served to listen to him.

[Zen Democrat]

7. The Clintons pushed the party to the right in the '90s. It's time to rebalance.

[R B Garr]

11. 28 years ago, some Democrats wanted to actually win.

And for that, they get slammed.

The GOP had a stranglehold on:
Family values
Military service
Tax cuts painting liberals as tax and spend
ETC.

Socialism would have been laughed off. Political realities and all that.

[lovemydogs]

17. It was a very different time 28 years ago.

Back then it was about conservative ideas. Reaganism. Neoliberalism.
Appealing to the moderates and right was the smart way to go.
But, that was 28 years ago.
It is now 2017.
Things change and people's ideas and moods change.
Ideas that were the newest thing back then have gone on to prove to be failures in this day and age.
Its time to move forward and try something else

[R B Garr]

50. That wasn't the point, though, but yes

things change. It's just disingenuous to not remember those political realities and to judge past successful Democrats as being failures because...socialism or other current fads.

[elmac]

81. It was a mistake for the party to go republican light back then

and we are paying for that mistake now.

[stevenleser]

82. Why, because losing three Presidential elections in a row by landslide proportions wasn't enough?

Or don't you remember/haven't you researched the history?

[BzaDem]

152. So we should run candidates like Dukakis, Mondale, and McGovern?

Our "non-Republican-light" candidates seem to all have one thing in common: massive landslide losses of 40 states or more. (49 states for the latter two.)

I of course reject the framing that Clinton is "Republican-light." But it almost seems that a candidate that doesn't lose in a historic landslide is a candidate that you are not happy with.

[Ken Burch]

453. Dukakis and Mondale didn't run in the fall as liberals.

They ran bland centrist campaigns that never fought back against right wing attack.

They didn't make positive cases for change.

As to McGovern...for the love of God, he ran against the Nixon dirty tricks campaign...anybody facing that was going to lose in a landslide. Look at how easily Nixon's people destroyed Muskie. They'd have destroyed Humphrey or Scoop Jackson just as quickly.

Obama ran by promising to be a lot more progressive than Kerry or Gore. He presented himself as transformational...that's what "Yes We Can" meant.

[Demsrule86]

233. I am sorry that is not accurate. Even with Ross Perot running who took votes from the Pugs,

Bill Clinton never had a majority. Had Perot not run in 92 George Bush I would have been elected...and without Buchanan and Perot running in 96, Clinton would have lost. Bill Clinton never had a majority. He lost the midterms massively because he tried to institute true single payer: a fact that many ignore. I fail to understand why you think the 90's and early 2000's were somehow a progressive moment somehow missed...the facts do not support that view. Bill Clinton saved this country from having two additional repug SCOTUS Justices by winning his elections also.

You all misread the electorate constantly. We are a center left country...look at the states for God's sake. Do you really see any evidence of a new progressive voter block? I don't. I see no evidence the country has moved left, and there is no political reason for the Democratic Party to move left at this moment. It is more like, some are tired of waiting ...and want what they want ...damn the consequences.

[JHan]

340. Smart observations and btw

Can you explain to me why anyone would think that after three terms of republicans - Reagan twice and bush snr, that Clinton gets the blame for "turning the country to the right" . I need someone to explain this "logic"

[Demsrule86]

492. Exactly. Clinton played the only cards he could...the fact he tried for single payer healthcare

showed who he really was...he failed and was abandoned by the left...you want a liberal president, you need a liberal congress. These folks who think they need a savior president don't understand that Congress is probably more important than the presidency...certainly as important...and for God's sake people vote in the mid-terms.

[ehrnst]

275. Right. The most progressive platform in history was "republican light."

Sure.

[shenmue]

257. Not even close

[ehrnst]

276. Can you be more specific on how they 'pushed the party to the right?'

Because I have a different memory of that time.

Was it Hillary's attempt at health care reform? Or was "she" pushing the party to the right by some other means as FLOTUS?

Please share.

[Demsrule86]

489. The country was to the right in the 90's. We barely won with both

Perot and Buchanan acting as spoilers for the GOP. Clinton never had a majority. It was a miracle he won the first time...no well known Dems even bothered to run in 92 as they thought Bush I was going to win. You can't move left if the country is moving or has moved right. Consider the number of Republican governors...clearly the country is center left at best and some say center right.

[Demsrule86]

669. No they didn't...12 years of massive losses pushed the party to the center...and Bill

attempted single payer hardly a righty thing to do. All presidents want to do something...give them Congress and they will be liberals otherwise look out...I love president Obama but there is no doubt in my mind he would have worked with the GOP had the GOP been willing...he put chained CPI on the table! Clinton was a good president who barely got elected with help from Perot...and saved us from eight more years of the GOP ...had he not been elected, the GOP would have been in held the office for 20 years. As for re-balancing...the country has moved right...look at the states so no matter how much you and I want it to be true that the country is liberal, it isn't at the moment...and the balance you speak of would lead to electoral losses just like in the 70's and 80's.

[aikoaiko]

8. Obama

Candidate Obama saw the recent past and responded by appealing to lefties more than the other Democratic candidates.

Hope and Change didn't refer to only the Republicans, but the Democratic party, too.

Of course President Obama was much more pragmatic and less appealing to lefties, but exciting lefties helped him win.

[pnwmom]

22. LOL. The far left attacked Obama as being CENTRIST. He didn't appeal to them.

And Hillary got only 70,000 fewer votes than Obama in 2012; despite the changes in voting rights laws after the 2013 SCOTUS decision -- changes that suppressed millions of votes.

[aikoaiko]

45. Eventually, the far left criticized Obama for shifting to the center.

It wasn't until Obama was leading Clinton in the primaries that those criticisms started taking hold.

[JI7]

47. he didn't shift to the center. obama was the same as he has always been.

[aikoaiko]

51. Maybe. Maybe not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13liberal.html

[JI7]

52. Obama wasn't President in 2008

[aikoaiko]

57. No he wasn't. Did someone say he was?

[JI7]

58. these are the same trolls that always attack democrats. and htis is just proof

of what their intentions are.

Obama was the same as he has always been.

[pnwmom]

68. This proves that even during his FIRST campaign he was being accused of being too centrist.

Thanks for proving my point. The Green left has always criticized him for being too centrist.

[aikoaiko]

71. Yes, after he secured the nomination.

Which was my point that lefties saw something in Obama that they didn't see in the other candidates and supported him to the Democratic presidency, but then the support started to decline a bit as he shifted a bit.

I'm surprised you don't agree.

[pnwmom]

75. They saw that he was black and so they had assumptions about him. But they changed their mind

when they started LISTENING.

[aikoaiko]

76. Hope and Change, pnwmom. Hope and Change.

[pnwmom]

83. Yes. The hope and the change was that he promised to bring people TOGETHER.

After years of acrimony starting with the Clinton impeachment, he promised to help the left and the right come together -- not push everyone to the left.

[JI7]

80. not true, the so called leftists were supporting John Edwards and attacking OBama and Clinton

lets not do revisionist history.

the so called leftists who attacked kerry and other democrats for iwr supported Edwards in 2008 against Obama.

[stevenleser]

87. And Kucinich, don't forget him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich_presidential_campaign,_2008

[pnwmom]

302. No, let's forget him.

[aikoaiko]

90. John Edwards was a good leftie candidate* until January

Last edited Wed Jul 5, 2017, 08:01 AM - Edit history (1)

And then Edward lefties joined Obama.

Most lefties l, but you're right not all, were support lung Obama when he overtook HRC. I'm not saying they were the only ones who made it happen by they contributed because of his rhetoric.

*edited to add an intended word (candidate). It's true Edwards was not a great leftie but he was saying a lot of the right things in the primaries that attracted lefties to the Democratic Party until he faltered and bailed in January.

[JI7]

93. John Edwards was never a good lefty for those who actually care about where candidates stand on

issues and what they actually supported during their time in office.

he co sponsered the IWR and attacked kerry during the 2004 as same ole big govt liberal and attacked clinton on morals for the lewinsky crap.

[aikoaiko]

95. Well I meant to write a good leftie candidate, but I'm going to bed.

I dont think we are going to convince each other of anything tonight.

[JI7]

98. i don't see the difference, he still co sponsered the IWR

and attacked Kerry for being big govt spending liberal and attacked clinton's morals .

[bettyellen]

147. He was never that very lefty - but somehow it didn't hurt him w Uber lefties lol

[aikoaiko]

161. You're right but he was saying a lot of the right things.

I had intended to write "a good leftie candidate" but missed that last word.

[bettyellen]

258. He DID a lot of things that were total non starters though. It's interesting to watch peope

Suddenly up their standards in an extreme way and then claim they're more principled. Very unconvincing, seems more like it's about personalities and looks, honestly.

[pnwmom]

303. No, many supported Kucinich. They were always worried that Obama was too conciliatory,

and too willing to compromise.

[Tom Rinaldo]

193. A whole lot of us supported Dean or Clark in 2004

I never supported Edwards - never trusted him. For 2008 I advocated for Clark again but would have been happy with Feingold or Gore. I considered Biden but he fell flat fast. Then I backed Hillary until late in the primaries when I shifted to Obama (who I never "opposed&quot for the sake of unity. I knew plenty of folks on the left who supported either Hillary or Obama in 2008, though more for Obama I suppose.

[NewJeffCT]

177. agreed

Obama and Clinton were very similar on many issues, and Clinton's proposed healthcare plan was considered slightly to the left of Obama's because it had the mandate.

Obama got a lot of support from the anti-war left because he was on record as being opposed to the Iraq War back in 2003 or 2004, even though he was not yet a Senator and had proposed a troop surge in Afghanistan when running for president.

[pnwmom]

67. He never shifted. He campaigned on bringing both sides together, not on being to the left. n/t

[aikoaiko]

70. I think you're mostly right, except that he retreated from some of the issues that lefties liked.

which is an overall shift toward the center.

Example: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13liberal.html

I suppose we could argue about the reality of did he shift or were the lefties reading into to things that weren't there, but there was a perception of a shift by some lefties.

[Demsrule86]

670. The far left abandoned Pres. Obama and helped the GOP win in 10 because we didn't get single payer.

Thus we got nothing else for the rest of his term.

[JI7]

48. people want to forget what went on through Obama's presidency and the attacks he got

from those claiming to be the left but who ended up supporting trump.

[PatrickforO]

54. Speaking for myself, I must take exception to this.

I love Obama - he was a great president, and is a great father and a great man.

For the first time in my entire life, and I was 50 in 2008, I volunteered and worked for Obama's presidential campaign. I did the same in 2012.

However, because I'm decently educated and fairly well read in economics, I indeed did disagree with Obama on a couple of key issues. I disliked the Trans-Pacific Partnership because it was negotiated in total secrecy by international corporate interests and the top levels of various government, and when it was ready, Obama asked Congress to Fast Track it in spite of the hue and cry about the democracy-killing ISDS provisions.

Obama did govern as a centrist because he is inclusive by nature. That is who he is. And, yes, I'm further left than he is. I'm further left than Warren, as well. I'm about where Bernie is. But that doesn't mean that I'm stupid enough to a) not support a Dem candidate because they are a bit to my right, and/or b) vote for some third party which means basically to throw away my vote, and/or c) not vote. I vote straight ticket Dem, and then I put my state legislators and my US Rep and Senators on speed dial and let them know how I feel about what they are doing and why, if I disagree, I think they should be doing it differently.

That is what it means to be a responsible citizen in a representative democracy, or republic such as ours.

I do not apologize for my political outlook (though the way things are going many people on here might end up with accommodations in the nice private for-profit prison archipelago the Trump administration is setting up to house the detainees ICE rounds up - but, hey, Trump has requested ALL voter information from ALL states and as soon as he gets that, the roundups will begin in earnest). When I disagree with you, I will argue my point.

Where I agree with you, such as the desperate need (you imply) for enough states to pass National Popular Vote legislation so that the electoral college is basically voided out. I also agree that more people did vote for Hillary. However, we got pasted down ticket big time. Part of it is the Russian psy-ops attack on voters in swing states, the hacking, and the voter suppression, all things we should be fighting against with all our being. And the worst part of it is the lack of real news getting through to the right wingers. Fox, Breitbart, Red State, Drudge, and hate-talk radio exist as corporate propaganda organs with the purpose of emptying the treasury and giving that money to corporate profits. We desperately need to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine, and uphold net neutrality. Otherwise, the corporations will completely take over. It is already happening, you know, with the illegal acquisition of numerous stations throughout the USA by Sinclair Media, which is a right wing group - their stated objective is to 'reach' 70% of the voting public.

Lots of problems, and every time I see a divisive thread like this one, I think our failure to unite around common issues and fight tooth and nail for those common issues is destroying everything good this nation stands for.

Because if these right wingers have their way, people like you and me and Steven Leser will end up in the camps. And I shit you not. If you don't think it can happen here, that's the same trap sane Germans fell into in the 1930s. The coup is already in progress and being divided just gives freaks like the Mercers and Koch brothers a good laugh.

Let's scare them by standing up together and not splitting hairs about who is too far left, too centrist or not pure enough. We all stand up and march and the corporate greed that has corrupted everything this nation stands for can be checked in favor of policies that cater to human need and the sustainability of our world.

Sorry for the rant, but these divisive threads aren't doing any of us any good at all.

[nevergiveup]

61. Great post!

[0rganism]

74. +1

i think you could be speaking for many of us PatrickforO, and you do it well

[CentralMass]

173. Excellent post.

[klook]

370. Thread winner - thank you!

Well stated, and I agree with you 100%.

This is what we're up against:
Trump’s Incompetence Won’t Save Our Democracy

"...it is Mr. Trump’s insistence on simplicity that makes him want to rule like an autocrat. Militant incompetence and autocracy are not in opposition: They are two sides of a coin."

[aquamarina]

584. Beautifully stated.

I am so completely sick and tired of these flame bait / divide and conquer posts. Makes me wonder what the OP is really trying to instigate.

[Demsrule86]

671. Great post.

I think it is correct and very sobering.

[Demsrule86]

490. Obama ran as center left. He did not run as a liberal.

I am way more left, but I voted for him anyway...liked him personally, but I vote for all candidates with a 'D' next to their name.

[lunamagica]

9. What was accomplished? The country got pushed to the right, two wars, thousands

of people have died...

Great job, Greens and other "too good to vote Dem" deplorables!

[YCHDT]

10. yeap

[stevenleser]

109. I wonder when they will finally see that. There is a lot of flailing under this OP by some folks

a lot of desperation to try to see some kind of positive accomplishment. It's just not there.

[Ken Burch]

457. We are seventeen years past 2000.

Yes, it would have been better if Gore had beaten Bush, but that fact doesn't mean that we have the right to simply demand that all progressives vote for our presidential ticket no matter how far to the right it gets.

In the last election, we'd have won a lot more of those voters if we'd emphasized that the platform was more progressive and that activist work had made a difference-the approach you call for, simply demanding votes because Trump is a nightmare, wasn't even needed.

We could have flipped a lot of those vote ON THE MERITS OF OUR PLATFORM. Why didn't our campaign even consider trying that?

And why are you focused on calling people out today for what happened seventeen years ago, rather than working for common ground and greater support on positive grounds NOW?

[stevenleser]

465. 18 years since Nader announced his candidacy and started attacking Democrats

And your response is another indicator that you have no good answer to the question in the OP.

More flailing.

[stevenleser]

475. Another non answer to the OP question. nt

[lovemydogs]

13. There is nothing wrong with healthy debate between left and center

But, those who want the party to stay stuck where it was 25 years ago is only asking for it to die out.
Just as society changes, the needs of people and time itself moves on and things change, the party needs to change.
It needs to move on from 1992.
That was all well and fine in 1992 but, it no longer works in 2017.
The party needs to get a face lift and reinvigorate itself. Move on from the early 90s neoliberal ideas, especially since those ideas do not work.

[JI7]

16. so we need to move on from Feingold because he won in 1992 but lost twice after ?

[Demsrule86]

491. I think the country is further right than it was inn 92...not less.

[Demsrule86]

571. Of course not if you are Republican that is...you should encourage it as a means to win every

election...divide and conquer.

[ismnotwasm]

18. Not a motherfucking thing

I swear to god, do some of the so called "political junkies" understand what the Democratic platform is? Or how politics work i.e. How to get to a trade agreement in the first place, or how to pass healthcare reform?

Tossing social issues under the bus in favor of a nebulous "economic justice" meme was one of the most appalling things I've seen done by people who claim the label of Democrat.

Here at least, I have seen thread after thread claiming Democrats a weak sauce--which is such bullshit of such proportions I often think the posters of such threads come from places deep in Reddit. Democrats have been fighting the tide for a long time now.

I don't mind constructive criticism one bit. --improve messaging, explore why we aren't reaching out more to non-voters, how to get people of color the respect and the response they deserve from Democratic leadership in a consistent manner, etc but I can't stand the bullshit. Unfortunately bullshit has been part and parcel of the political arena since forever--I used to think with better opportunities for information we'd have a better informed populace. That's what I used to think. Now I think if information becomes uncomfortable people reject it without examination, and that's really too bad.

[lovemydogs]

24. And why can't Democrats walk and chew gum at the same time?

Why can't they take up for and be allies to social justice as they have been. And address the problem of income inequality and economic hardships at the same time?
I do not get why so many think you have to choose between the two.
They, afterall, are somewhat linked together

[JI7]

26. it's the majority of white people who have a problem with these issues and vote republican because

of it.

why is it only white people that vote republican in such high numbers ? they don't want equality with non whites.

that's hwy they voted for trump.

[wysi]

27. A certain person

Clearly chose between the two. Most thinking Democrats would like both, and if anyone thinks that economic injustice did not feature in the national platform, they weren't reading carefully enough.

[virtualobserver]

34. some people falsely claimed that "a certain person" chose between the two.

That was the campaign strategy of that other person.

[QC]

39. Bingo. n/t

[R B Garr]

252. The certain person built a campaign message that Democrats were ignoring them.

Which was totally wrong and very divisive.

[stevenleser]

105. Yep. A certain person tried to say all racial inequality was economic class warfare.

which basically made social justice a non-issue. And that certain person was defended by many of the folks trying to attack the Democratic party from the left.

[elleng]

31. Sounds like you're being divisive.

Why do such a thing?

[stevenleser]

89. Nope, that's the folks attacking Democrats from the left. But I already said that in my OP. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

209. Steve for the sake of clarity...

Who really are you talking about? Are you talking about the 1,457,216 people who voted for Jill Stein in the general? Are you dismissing the 4,489,221 people who voted Libertarian ten instead as irrelevant to your argument?

Or are you talking about the people who embraced Bernie Sander's message during the 2016 Democratic Primary race, giving him 46% of the elected Democratic delegates to the Convention, and 13,206,428 votes?

The narrative on this thread gets muddied - some of that is due to the replies and not what you initially wrote. Surely you yourself are not suggesting that over 13 million people voted for Bernie Sanders during the primaries in order to "attack the Democratic Party" from the left?

[elleng]

395. THANK YOU TOM,

as always; CLARITY!

(I haven't, and don't plan to read the thread, but a question seemed appropriate.)

[stevenleser]

469. Thank you for more one-sidedness?

Really?

[stevenleser]

468. Tom, for the sake of Clarity, are folks attacking the Democratic Party the only ones allowed

to try to find fault without being labeled divisive?

[Tom Rinaldo]

479. I answered your OP questions below

and put some time into it. got no response. I favor critical dialogue, but you didn't even answer the simpler question I asked right above here. Criticism of the direction of any political party can be constructive. I'm sure you believe the Democratic Leadership Council was being critical, rather than "attacking" the Democratic Party, and was "constructive". I don't agree with all criticism but I acknowledge that Democrats differ on some matters.

[still_one]

33. The false equivalencies only gave more power to the republicans until Howard Dean came around and

said this crap has got to stop, and gave birth to the 50 state strategy.

Unfortunately, because President Obama wasn't "pure enough" for some, people forgot happened in 2000, and now the country is facing the greatest challenge to its democracy since WWII.

[JI7]

37. Dean was right but the fact is the reason we had control then was because many of those democrats

were blue dog , conservative leaning types.

and if we are going to win again it will take those t ypes again to win.

[still_one]

43. Absolutely J17

[betsuni]

36. The same people who claim Dems have been pushed to the left by them also claim

that Dems have moved to the right on economics. I are confused.

[colsohlibgal]

41. Not Much

But is that the fault of those pushing? Money, big money, has corrupted the whole political process.

But we may be ripe, after Chitolini, for a left populist movement. One can hope, we need fewer multi billionaires and more people earning a middle class income.

[Yavin4]

53. The only way to push the Democratic party to the left is through organization and winning elections.

"Attacking" the Dems does little to nothing.

[stevenleser]

110. I think one other thing. Direct outreach to those who disagree.

Instead of attacking the Democratic Party, those who want progressive policies should try to convince the people of the country who disagree with them that their policies are the right ones.

That is difficult however and requires a lot of effort. It's much harder than attacking Democrats.

[Yavin4]

190. No. The only way is to win elections.

No one is going to respect you until you show political strength.

[Doug the Dem]

64. Jack Squat

The only thing I'll say is this: I will unhesitatingly vote for WHOMEVER is on the Democratic ticket in 2020. Ideological purity is not an option!

[YOHABLO]

78. One's definition of ''left'' might mean a whole different thing to another. Define ''left".

[quakerboy]

86. In 18 years since Naders run, what has been accomplished by the Dem party attacking the left?

Two words difference, but far more relevant.

You cant blame a party or a group pushing for what they believe in, and trying to get people to vote for what they want.

You can blame a party or group for failing to convince others to vote for them.

Earn those votes by convincing voters to support you. Or dont. That's how elections will be won or lost.

[stevenleser]

88. It's not a relevant question, it's an attempt to hijack my OP. nt

[quakerboy]

101. Your op is an attempt to hijack discussion

I feel well justified in my attempt to bring us back on task and hopefully move in a direction that will allow us to win future elections. As opposed to trying to further pursue the famous circular firing squad maneuver that your op would seem to be directed towards attempting.

[stevenleser]

104. Not even a nice try. Fail. nt

[quakerboy]

443. Fail is where this thread was bound.

I did what I could to try and pull it back.

I'd rather focus on how to win the next round of elections and put people in place to stop the Republican dominance of nearly every aspect of our government than I would try to flame potential allies into alienation. But I dont insist you have to agree with me. You do you.

[Demsrule86]

493. It is not your thread is it?

[quakerboy]

591. Its a general discussion thread

It would seem that its open to all of us, no?

[melman]

117. Great question

No surprise the OP is unable to answer it.

[treestar]

167. It's not what they do

They spend most of the time blaming "the centrists" for the fact they can't get votes. Look at all the blaming for Bernie losing the primary.

[Demsrule86]

186. The left is not being attacked.

I am left and agree with almost all opinion considered left...what I don't agree with is attacking the only vehicle we have to pass progressive policy...the Democratic Party...and you gain nothing in doing so. You are not a victim of any attack.

[quakerboy]

442. Interesting take on it

I dont come back to DU so often these days. In part because life has gotten very busy. But in part because every time i come here I find a plethora of flame fests aimed at the left, blaming us for our nefarious actions, terrible things like voting for Hillary, but not having much enthusiasm about it.

I dont see anyone here putting the same amount of energy into finding the votes to make sure that we beat trump or whichever Repuublican is running next time as I do in circular firing squad activities. It appears the narrative is controlled by those who would see us disheartened, divided, and powerless. One might suspect Russian infiltration, were one the suspicious sort.

[Demsrule86]

482. Excuse me, but who is attacking whom?

We have the Greens and groups like Our Revolution attacking the Democratic Party... As well as individual 'independents'. I have seen no organizations formed for the express purpose of attacking the left...quite the opposite. Of course this enables the GOP and no doubt a fair number of supporters of these organizations are Russian Trolls and pukes intending to sow division and help Trump and the GOP.

[quakerboy]

590. Who has more to gain or lose by attacking whom?

In actuality, I would say that the attacks, in totality, are pretty much equal. Here on DU, the attacks on the left, at least to my perception, far outnumber those from the left. But in the wider world, I think there is rough parity.

Here's the problem..

Those organizations have every right and reason to come at the Democratic party. Many Democrats believe things much in line with what these organizations believe, and these organizations believe(I am assuming) that the Democratic party is not adequately representing their values. However, they are relatively small, and are not in a position to go out and win elections. So their only path to effectiveness is to pull in enough new people to become influential. Moderating their tone while trying to attract supporters is about the opposite of motivational. So its in their benefit to be strident, and since they are ignored now, they have little to lose.

Flipping that, the Democratic party, while having every right to come at those groups.. has little reason to do so. Frankly, they need those people to come back in the fold, because thats where a lot of the passion lies. The Democratic party has a fair bit of power even in its current predicament. Its within what is actually a small margin of victory. What it needs is more votes to win. They need enough votes to overcome gerrymandering, Russian influence, voter suppression, and the electoral college. Where will they get those votes? I would assert that alienating those who look like natural allies to any outsider is probably not going to be the best course towards getting them to vote for you. Putting together a coalition of voters that can overcome all the obstacles the right will throw at us would seem to start by.. increasing the coalition. Not driving wedges between its factions.

Unless the goal has nothing to do with winning elections or influencing the direction of the nation towards stated Democratic party goals. In which case, continue on the campaign of alienation.

I will give an example. When we were in the recent primary season, I was a Bernie supporter. When I recommended we keep things civil and consider that whichever candidate won, they would need us to come together to support them.. I was told by multiple Hillary supporters to shove it, that come the GE, my vote was not wanted. My vote was NOT WANTED. I voted for her anyway, because, frankly, she was the most qualified person remaining in the race at that time. But I cant help but think that telling voters you dont want them to vote for your candidate is a poor way to go about motivating folks and winning elections.

[Eko]

756. What!??

" So its in their benefit to be strident, and since they are ignored now, they have little to lose. "
Maybe their healthcare?????
But they "feel" ignored.
This right here is the problem. Sheesh,,,,,,

[quakerboy]

800. And for those that DID NOT get health care?

I bought my insurance through the ACA marketplace this year. Its really not great insurance, but it adds a bit of peace of mind that I appreciate. And.. Goodness me, I voted for Hillary. Lookie there.

But not everyone did. And for others the insurance they did get is essentially a black hole (money goes in, no benefit comes out, unless they are hit with catastrophe).

But prattle on about feelings, while people suffer real life issues. I'm sure that will win us lots of votes in the next election.

[Eko]

802. You would have to ask first

why they didn't get healthcare. Would you say that is because of the Democrats or the Republicans? One of those parties wants everyone to have affordable health care and the other doesn't. My mom is on the ACA and has cancer and she is getting life saving treatment, my brother, same state, cant afford it and has back problems so bad that I fear he wont be able to walk in a few years. You know why he cant afford it? Maybe because some republicans didn't do the medicaid expansion in that state? If you guessed that then you would be correct. My dad died in that state pre ACA because he couldn't afford insulin. So I think I know of the real world life issues thank you very much. So, would you say that people who didn't get health insurance is because of the Democrats or the Republicans? Because unless you are saying it the Democrats your argument fails on its merits.

[quakerboy]

804. Noone has clean hands

The bill that was passed made things better for many of us.

It also failed many, and in some ways all. If it had been written better by Democrats, Republicans wouldn't have been able to weasel their states out. If they had provided a public option, it wouldn't matter that Trump is making backroom deals to convince insurers to pull out of markets. Etc.

Like I said. I voted for Hillary. She wasn't my first choice, as my posting history will show, but it came down to the fact she was the most qualified person in the race on election day. The VAST majority of the left that this thread was started to bash did the same thing I did.

But, ya know, keep denying that there's anything wrong, and attacking allies. I'm sure alienating voters will turn out well for all of us.

[Eko]

805. Well, lets look at the big picture.

You probably agree that some left voters felt alienated and either didn't vote at all or voted for Trump. In your opinion, are these people better off now or not due to the election? Would they be better off if Clinton had won?. Would the country be better off if Clinton had won? I'm pretty sure the answers would be they are not better off, yes they would be if Clinton had won and the country would be also. Can they not be adults? Why do we have to treat them like children? There was no third option! It was either Clinton or Trump. This idea that we don't represent them, if you agreed with me that they would be better off if Clinton had won and the country would be also, then you think we do.

[quakerboy]

807. Yes, lets

Are we talking short term or long term? the long term effects of trump have yet to be settled, but they aren't likely to be good, excepting in the potential for a backlash changing the political landscape after he's out. The long term effects of Clinton would likely have been a continuation of the center right policy slide, seeing the lower middle class slipping further into poverty.

Some voters certainly felt alienated. I felt alienated. The vast majority of us still voted for Hillary. That said.. if the goal is to convince those few who stayed home or went to trump to come back to the fold.. How is constant berating and complaining treating them as adults? Do you normally treat adults that way? I don't.

[stevenleser]

94. No one has had a good response to the OP that justifies the attacks on the party from the left yet.

Zero accomplishments. One person made a bizarre suggestion that Nader led to Obama. That's it. Zero accomplishments in terms of turning the country or the party more progressive.

One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. We have had 18 years of this and two Presidential candidates siphoning votes from the Democratic nominee giving us George W Bush and Donald Trump.

It's beyond time for folks supporting those candidates to learn from the mistake.

[betsuni]

99. Also too, I'd like to know where this Neoliberal Establishment Democratic Party is.

The pro-war, pro-Drug War one that doesn't want to get money out of politics and only cares about corporations and Wall St., doesn't have a strong economic message, doesn't care about living wages or single payer health care or unions or social safety nets, or higher taxes, and hasn't changed since 1993.

Where? Clearly, the blue states are doing the best economically and everybody's better off there. Why do I keep seeing continued attacks on something that doesn't exist? Naturally, anyone who believes the Dems are so terrible brags self-righteously about being progressive, left and so on. But it's too weird and annoying.

[stevenleser]

100. Edited: Sorry, misread your post

That is a good followup question

[rpannier]

112. I could turn that 180 and ask you the same set of questions

Has blaming those on the left for failures by the party's more corporate friendly shift (beginning in the late 80's and early 90's) helped the party at all.
Looking at the numbers between 90 and now, I'd say no. (see bottom)
I'd also argue that using the late 80's,early 90's is a much better timeline because it gives us a better picture.

Go to the '88 election. Dukakis got smashed, but the Democrats held up very well across the board. Senators, Governorships, House members, etc. But, all the talk was on how we didn't get the Presidency. That was the only thing that seemed to matter.
The party doesn't really listen well to dissenting voices. Though not a leadership member, you certainly make their case for the leadership side, "It's all the fault of the left. Let's blame the left. But don't talk about the systemic party failures."
(See the fall out from this past presidential election: David 'It Never Should Have Been that Close for It to be a Problem' Axelrod, Hillary 'The DNC was a Shambles Financially' Clinton, Barack “I won Iowa not because demographics dictated that I would win, it was because I spent 87 days going to every small town [in Iowa],” Obama)
There's not a problem at the top? The party does not have serious issues?
What piffle!

You're out here accusing the left of being at fault for the sad state we're in?
WTF ever happened to, "The left is irrelevant." That was a fun meme being bandied about by you and others around here in the Summer of 16. Or, "She's going to be president, so fuck them." Another popular attitude as well. Whatever happened to not needing them?
You don't have to answer. November came and it wasn't what any of us expected.

You're not seriously saying that the sad state of the Party is the fault of the left are you? Because if you are, then you're not as smart as I gave you credit for all these years.
We control what? 5 states!. How many governors do we have? 16.
You're telling me, and everyone reading this, that the paltry 16 governors we have is the fault of the left? Seriously?!
The Democrats fully control 16 state legislatures! 16! Are you telling me that's also their fault?
And let's not forget Washington and New York, where (in NY) it's the Independent Democrats that have been giving control to the Republicans. Two names for you, Hiram Monserrate and Pedro Espada, Jr., look them up. I'll be waiting for your finger wag about their behavior.
When you do write it, ask for blue, I'll be the guy holding my breath waiting

Your claim of attacking is weak on many levels, but more so because you lack any sort of examples to support your claim.
What specifically do you mean by attacking?
Is mentioning the voting record of a candidate attacking? She had many votes, and some I disagreed with. Is bringing them up in discussion attacking? Is bringing up Sanders' votes while in the House and Senate attacking?
Things that any candidate has said, is it attacking, or is it acceptable to you?

Was it acceptable to you (as the author of this piece) for people to be upset about the support shown by the DNC Chairman for Heath Mello in the Omaha Mayor's race? Or was that attacking? Mello was the Democratic candidate, yet many here said they'd never vote for him.
Do you agree with those who said they wouldn't vote for him? You must have an opinion.

I am not going to even pretend that the rancor on the DU was even moderately civil. It was rather pathetic in many cases, akin to a group think assault on anyone that the crowd didn't like -- a 17th century mob armed with pitchforks, tar and torches, was more civil, kindly and independent of thought than some of the people here.
And yes, I admit, that the least civil group by far were the ones opposed to Ms Clinton. It would be silly to say otherwise. The massive group assaults and ridiculously ignorant and childish attacks on not just her, but the personal attacks on her supporters here was nauseating.
And I did and still do acknowledge that.

We have almost zero bench. There are states where we wander in the wilderness with little to nothing in the way of the future. We lose states that for some odd reason we can't seem to get our act together in being competitive. What has the national party been doing since 2010, when we got destroyed? What did the national party, the geniuses in DC, in the DNC, in the DSCC, the DCCC do while we were sinking further and further?
If they're so damned smart, why weren't they on top of this? Where was their strategy?
But, to somehow claim that the sad state of the Democratic Party, both in DC and throughout the country in local elections rests at the feet on any one person or group is ridiculous.
This has been a 30 Year slide. Not a 16, as you would have people believe. We lost senate races in Florida, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania we should have won. We lost in Ohio because some genius thought running former Governor Ted Strickland who was viewed by many in Ohio as a terrible governor was the solution. That died pretty damned fast.
He won 37% of the vote and a whopping 4 counties. 4. But, I'm certain that's the fault of the left.

It's a lot of people's fault. It starts at the top and works it way all the way through to the US Senate and House, the state parties, the local parties, etc. It's fair to lay some of the blame on the left. It's fair to lay some of the blame on people like Manchin. It's fair to blame union leaders. It's fair to blame the party apparatus. To blame people like Joe Lieberman, Bill Clinton, DU, you, me, whatever.

Forgive me, if my previous rantings seemed crude and mean spirited. But...
'Not being Donald Trump' is not an effective long term strategy.
According to several stories I've seen out of Maine, Sen Collins is getting a lot of pats on the back from her constituents for opposing the death bill in the Senate. She isn't Donald Trump.
Lisa Murkowski isn't Donald Trump. Neither is Jeff Flake, or Ben Sasse, or the rest of them. All they have to do is to separate themselves from Trump on enough issues to appease their voters, get re-elected and be Republicans; voting for corporate tax cuts, more money for the military, privatizing everything and so on.

The 'solution' I see in many places are similar to yours, "It's someone's fault, just not mine."
My solution, try the LBJ approach. Get up, get out and talk to people. Listen to what they have to say and find places we bridge with them (specifically the moderates, fence sitters and disillusioned).
You're not going to convince his rabid following, or those who can only see the world as 'The Democrats are evil and will force me into gay marriage.'
Don't try. But, we lost counties like Elliott County, a Democratic stronghold in the mountains of eastern Kentucky that has voted Democratic for over 100 years and it wasn't because of the left, or criticism of the party from the left that lost us that county; a county that voted Democratic for every other office (even the openly gay Democratic nominee for Senate) in the state

To illustrate my point:

1988: Governors 26 D 24 R US Senate 55 D 45 R House US House 267:167 (We even gained 7)
1990: Governors 28 D 21 R 1 I 56 D 44 R 258:176
1992: Governors 30 D 19 R 1 I 57 D 43 R 204:230
1994: Governors 19 D 29 R 2 I 48 D 52 R 226:207
1996: Governors 18 D 31 R 1 I 45 D 55 R 223;211
1998: Governors 17 D 31 R 2 I (All Hail, Jesse 'The Conspiracy Nut' Ventura was elected in Minnesota)

I've said my piece. Flame away good people. Disparage, disagree, whatever. It doesn't change the dynamics of the past three decades.

[stevenleser]

113. You wouldn't if you didn't want to try to distract from the question in my OP. nt

[melman]

119. And if you were seriously looking

for anything but recs and pats on the back from the usual suspects, you'd make an effort to respond to such a thoughtful post.

But obviously you are not.

[stevenleser]

123. If the question is threatening to your views then that's the answer

If not, and you have an answer, provide it.

[Squinch]

371. Long does not equal thoughtful.

[KTM]

378. On the nose

[rpannier]

120. You are making a claim that has an inherent weakness

That is, that you've chosen a specific event that, to many reading, would suggest that the 2000 election was when the problem started
And that would be a falsehood.

The simple answer to your question (and that is what you're looking for because your question is purposely written as such) is 'No.'
But, your question, like Sean Hannity's "Answer yes or no' leaves out any sort of room for engagement in the 'Why'

Example, "Why, for the last 30 years, has the Democratic Party seemed to be losing a larger share of the electorate?"
or "Why has the Democratic Party been unable to get and maintain control of the Senate or House?"
or "Is there a problem with the messaging of the Democratic Party?"
or "Considering most people seemed to think Donald Trump sucked, why was it always viewed as being a close election?"

Your question might seem to be substantive and clever, but I would argue that it's merely an either-or, yes-or-no question that doesn't look at context, trends or anything in a meaningful way.

I would also argue, to ask for a fuller explanation of what has been happening is not a distraction, but rather a clarification and discussion of substance or lack thereof

[stevenleser]

124. As I said to the other poster, if your viewpoint is threatened by the question

That's the answer.

Otherwise respond on point. It's a very simple question.

[rpannier]

125. And a question w/o substance

Much of what Sean Hannity does on his show

As far as being threatened... By what?
A question that has the depth of a 0.5 cm pool of water on the ground?

[stevenleser]

126. You only characterize it thusly because it threatens your entrenched views. nt

[rpannier]

131. Wow!

Now the ad hominem attack
Nice.
You either cannot or will not defend your position.
You either cannot or will not address anything I wrote
But, you're able to throw a weak attack into the discussion

[Demsrule86]

494. That you can't or won't answer...what good has come from attacking Democrats?

I can list page and pages of bad starting with 2000.

[melman]

118. Great post

And as we see the OP is completely unable to respond to it. No surprise there really, but still sort of sad.

[stevenleser]

122. No, it's called threadjacking which is a kind of trolling

I choose not to respond on point to threadjacking attempts

[rpannier]

129. Because you cannot defend your argument

It's a nice try

[stevenleser]

198. I do not enable trollish behavior no matter how you try to frame it. nt

Not a nice try

[rpannier]

431. You're smarter on TV

Either the opposition is that stupid or you're coached
But either way, you're unable to defend your opinions because they're logically flawed

[stevenleser]

467. Says the person who couldn't answer a simple question in the OP

A smart and honest person in your position would simply say "OK, I can't answer that question and since I have supported an effort that has yielded only extremely negative results that concerns me"

[Kahuna7]

156. Accomplished? Dubya and Trump. nt

[Bleacher Creature]

228. This! NT

[beachbum bob]

158. the extreme left is no different than the extrerme right....their ideology has always been the

same "my way or the highway" approach and the extreme left has inflicted so much more damage on America and the world than the extreme has done.....given al of us bush-cheney and now trump-pence

and even worse, they make no apologies. Blood is on their hands

[Vinca]

159. Fox News, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, etc., etc., etc.

The country hasn't been "pushed to the left" because the far right has a major, money-generating industry in radio and television generating hate. The left has a fraction of the impact in media. Go into any business with a waiting room and chances are pretty good Fox News will be on. Travel in good chunks of the country and all you get is a right wing message on the radio. No other choice. Democrats have resisted being pushed to the left because most of the country is listening to Rush Limbaugh. In fact, Dems have inched to the right. That's why Republicans now control everything. Republican voters will vote for real Republicans. And they always vote.

[Foamfollower]

160. The idiot leftist extremists got precisely what they wanted.

They're not liberal at all, they are actually extreme right wingers.

[Demsrule86]

162. The so called left has enabled the GOP and enacted GOP policies...mostly Greens and other

third party riffraff...latest incarnation is 'Our Revolution). Don't be deceived by these folks...they have said they will endorse Republicans (Nina Turner). Give them nothing...not even the time of day. We have had 9-11 where thousands of Americans died thanks to the Greens and Nader. We can also lay United, massive tax cuts leading to income inequality,the Katrina deaths, eight millions jobs sent overseas, dirty water and this culminated in a melt down of our economy...the Greens and Nader out did themselves really. In 2010, so called left (third party riffraff, Greens and who knows?) railed against Pres. Obama because he could not get single payer ignoring reality. We lost the House and the states during the Mid-term in 2010. Thus losing any chance of implementing progressive policy or getting out of recession in a timely manner. We also ultimately had our national credit score lowered as the GOP played fast and loose with the debt ceiling. The poor were literally starved with cruel GOP policies...sequestration. And the worst thing was the resulting gerrymander where even though we had more votes in House elections than the GOP they kept the house. I hear Sen. Sanders wanted to 'primary President Obama in 2012; thank God he was dissuaded by responsible Democratic politicians. I worked 2012 and it was touch and go. We could have lost that election with a divisive primary.

Of course the worst was 2016, where the third party riffraff helped elect Trump...he is a fascist wannabe...and the Green riffraff and others said he was less likely to start wars than Hillary (fucking unbelievable) and over all a better choice...a giant fuck you to all who said this or acted on this by voting for Kremlin Jill, voting for any third party candidate, writing in any candidate, or staying home. You failed your country in a big way and dragged it to the right. We may lose health care, the GOP can now pack the courts and can destroy the environment you pretend to care about at will...You see that is always the case. Kremlin Jill and her merry band of spoilers have never won anything. All they do is give aid and comfort to the enemy...the GOP. Sometimes they are even paid by the GOP to act as spoilers. They drag the country to the right. We had such a great opportunity here with the courts and policy etc., if we elected Hillary, but the third party riffraff completely ruined our chances...so don't speak to me about revolution...the only revolution third party riffraff ( the so called alt-left) create is the GOP version. They spoil elections for Democrats and help the GOP succeed in implementing their policy. One has to wonder who's side they are really on.

[stevenleser]

197. Another response that attempts to evade the question. nt

[Demsrule86]

211. I did answer the question. Elections are run by states...and GOP states are using crosscheck so

what are we supposed to do about it? Democrats have brought it up...I don't believe this is an issue that would influence many voters outside of those already voting Democratic. but if you wanted to stop this from happening, I guess maybe electing Bush wasn't so smart of the Greens since Bush judges took down the voting rights act. Also, I fail to see how 'running on this issue' would lead to a big 'win'...especially as we have no remedy to offer...less now with Trump packing the courts.

[Gothmog]

376. Great post

[Demsrule86]

391. Thank you.

[treestar]

163. It does not work at all

just elects more Republicans.

I wish they would state exactly how a progressive leftist can win the Senate seats of WV, Alaska, Utah, etc. In a very red state, we should give it a try and see if they can prove it that a "real" progressive would win.

[alarimer]

166. Well the Dems have LOST 900+ state seats

Numerous state legislatures, governorships, etc. So the "winning" strategy by mealy-mouthed running to the middle is not actually working.

I'd settle, though, for candidates who actually believed in SOMETHING, rather than being the "not THEM" party.

[Demsrule86]

184. We lost with a gerrymander and because of the alt left often...third party riffraff.

[alarimer]

250. That is only a partial explanation

Obama (and the person he appointed to the DNC) abandoned the 50 state strategy, which was at least somewhat successful.

[Demsrule86]

253. The left generally criticized Dean for that...and were adamant about not having him

head the DNC and recreate it...can't have it both ways.

[fishwax]

525. The left loved Dean

The fact that he was replaced as head of the DNC was upsetting to many on the left (not a few of whom were quite critical of Obama for it, though Dean had always said he was only going to serve one term).

[Demsrule86]

536. Not this year...Dean is establishment now.

Or so they said...Dean would have been great.

[fishwax]

554. it would have been better if he'd stayed on in '09

But, alas, was not to be.

[stevenleser]

202. You did not attempt to answer the question in the OP. nt

[alarimer]

247. Okay, more Dems voted for GEORGE W. BUSH in Florida than Ralph Nader that year.

So, the OP is operating on a false premise to begin with.

[stevenleser]

570. And that means nothing because there is no test for party registration.

I love people who try to make that argument as if it means something.

I lived in Florida for many years including during that time period (2000). I know who most of the panhandle folks are that register Democratic. They register that way because they dont identify as far right as their ultra right neighbors, but they are not Democrats by any standard that anyone on DU would agree with.

Bottom line is, your contention is meaningless.

[YCHDT]

213. Why did you leave out gerrymandering and voter suppression? You think everyone doesn't know by now!?

[mcar]

176. K&R

[Tom Rinaldo]

180. There are millions of people to the left of the Democratic center

Are they all "attacking" the Democratic Party simply by existing with views that are left of centrist Democrats? Should they pretend to believe something other than what they believe? Should they be sent to political reeducation camps until their views cause no discomfort to centrist Democrats? Or should they too be allowed to make the case for what they believe in?

Ralph Nader, for what it's worth, ran against the Democratic Party candidate for President in the 2000 General Election. I opposed that. Jill Stein ran against the Democratic Party candidate for President in 2016. I opposed that too. There are very few Stein supporters on DU. This is a straw man argument here. The Libertarians did much better than the Greens in 2016. The people who supported Bernie Sanders, however, chose to work through the Democratic Party, and the overwhelming majority of them still choose to do so. I am a Democrat. I am not attacking myself when I advocate for my future vision of the Democratic Party any more so than are any who supported Clinton in the primaries or those who may love Senator Claire McCaskill.

So I reject your premise that holding differing views from some other Democrats means one is attacking the Democratic Party

What do people gain through open honest debates on policy priorities? Involvement for one thing, engagement. Democratic Party membership by percentage of the voters had been overall falling for decades. A progressive vision for the Democratic Party has revitalized interest in it among younger generations. Many, myself included, believe that more Democrats in Congress have "grown a spine" in resisting a rightward political drift in this country because of advocacy from it's more progressive base. And this isn't a clear cut Clinton/Sanders dynamic. Many of Hillary's supporters embraced and participated in Black Live Matter for example . Since Bill Clinton left office many Democrats have been pushed to the left on issues like the criminal justice system and the war on drugs. And on privatization, including but not limited to private prisons. Bill and Hillary Clinton have responded as well. A movement toward free public college for the working and middle class has gathered momentum. Clinton and Sanders came together on that in the platform committee - and now New York State is implementing it. Bill Clinton famously once said "the era of big government is over" in 1996 while he pursued deregulation across the board. Since 2000 the Democratic Party left has insisted on a stronger government role in regulating the excesses of the oligarchy, and our party (yes OUR party) has corrected that rightward lurch as a result.

When Obama, whose Presidency I largely admire, first took office he was open to a grand bargain with the Republicans that would have "adjusted" the growth rate of Social Security, arguing that it would not be a "cut" since the amount spent on it would continue to rise. Sound familiar? That is the argument that Republicans now use to defend Trumpcare - which they say does not "cut" Medicaid. The Democratic base vehemently rejected that line of manipulative reasoning when Obama flirted with it, and to his credit he backed off from it and never went there again.

Our Vice Presidential nominee in 2004 was one of the Co-sponsors of the Iraq War Resolution. Our last Majority leader in the House before Pelosi supported it also. But the Democratic base moved left on all of them. I was willing to support Hillary Clinton in 2008 despite her IWR vote, not to mention my vote for her in 2016, but I am glad that the base has held Democratic Party leader's feet to the fire on matters of War and Peace. Obama "attacked" from the left in the primaries on that matter in 2008, if you insist on using that language.

[Demsrule86]

495. I run left but understand the need to elect Democrats...but green riffraff and other third party

spoilers don't. Consider Nina Turner's naive clueless statement that she will endorse Republicans if they can mouth her views...no matter what they say...even if they mean it which most would not ...they still contribute to the GOP majority. There are no organizations that attack the left period...only the reverse...and I say if you attack the Democratic party especially in the age of Trump...then fuck you. (not you ...metaphorically 'you' in the general sense.)

[Tom Rinaldo]

511. "There are no organizations that attack the left period..."

You mean except for virtually the entire political establishment which views even the use of he word "socialism" - even in the context of "Democratic Socialism", to be extreme. Meanwhile other western democracies have frequently had either Socialist governments or Labor governments. How much air time does someone like Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, a serious smart commentator, get compared to someone like Anne Coulter in the major media? The American media constantly belittles the Left in America, and has done so for many decades. And the Republican Party makes a living out of Red Baiting, or at least did before Trump loved him some Putin.

The Democratic Leadership Council for decades explicitly existed to attack the left wing of Democratic politics, read their statement of purpose in case you have forgotten. It was only grass roots Democratic party activism that drove political association with the DLC out of favor for elected Democrats.

Having said all that, I continue to work within the Democratic Party. I appreciate the platform Bernie Sanders ran on, and I appreciate that he forged a unity platform with Clinton for the General Election and backed her in it, as did I and many millions of others who voted for Sanders in the primaries. I am glad Sanders caucuses with Democrats, and maintains good relations with our Senate Democratic leadership.

[Demsrule86]

567. I see it completely different ...I see the Democratic Party under attack from the right and the left

We can' win with those who should have our back stabbing us in the back instead. The attacks will do nothing but elect Republicans. We live in a center left country. I don't like that and you don't like that, but running left will do nothing but lose multiple elections...you talk about Clinton and the 90's. It was the only way we could win...and I don't see much difference now...it might have been different if the alt-left had the Democrat's back in 2000,2010, 2012 and 2016...but it didn't happen. You want a liberal president..elect a Democratic Congress and Democratic President, show up at midterms and don't abandon the president or Congress at the drop of a hat. It is the constant attacks that have brought us to this place.

[Voltaire2]

181. Oh actually we pushed the centrist establishment

kicking and screaming to supporting lgbtq equality, and we are dragging them, again kicking and screaming to support legalization and an end to the wod, and we are dragging them kicking and screaming towards supporting Medicare for all.

We are not going away.

[Demsrule86]

185. You already went away sadly...have you looked at the 2016 election carefully?

[Voltaire2]

411. Right, keep telling yourself that. Keep repeating the same failed formula.

Why not? There is almost nothing left to lose.

[stevenleser]

199. No, LGBTQ organizations deserve credit for LGBTQ equality, not Nader and Stein.

What a ridiculous assertion.

[Voltaire2]

410. nice try. I said nothing about Nader and Stein. You attacked "the left" in general.

[stevenleser]

418. Nope, that is your straw man. My OP was about those who attack Democrats from the left

That is not the same as what you wrote

[NurseJackie]

205. Oh brother!

[Voltaire2]

412. And sisters.

The left pushed social issues way before the centrists decided to pretend that there is some conflict between economic and social justice. But again, the center right democratic establishment has run the party into the ground, perhaps it might be time for a change?

[Demsrule86]

497. I don't care about the third party left or the green riffraff... the Democratic left

gets it and votes Democratic (that includes me)...so a big who cares where the 'independent left' goes (can they really be considered left?)...GOP enablers and spoilers. Fuck them...here is hoping their suffering is greater than those innocent Americans and immigrants they threw under the bus by helping elect Trump and the evil GOP.

[LaydeeBug]

182. God Bless You!! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

Those that want to move the party to the left had better get right about being pragmatic. We are in the midst f a fucking war right now

[Gothmog]

188. Nader gave us the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act

Nader gave us Bush which gave us the Iraq war and the SCOTUS justices appointed due to Nader gave us Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Nader is pond scum

[brutus smith]

189. If we would have moved to left

instead of being Repub lite, maybe we wouldn't be in the position we are in. When people in Ohio go to the polls and see the choices are Repub and Repub lite, they choose the "real Repub". Blaming Nader and Stein gets us nowhere.

[stevenleser]

203. That is not the question. nt

[brutus smith]

229. The question was what has been accomplished

BHO's election in 2008. He ran on the left's principles, but tried to Gov from the center.

[brutus smith]

234. BTW, I don't call trying to bring the party

back to FDR's vision of America attacking. Our party needs to take a good look at itself.

[Demsrule86]

499. FDR put people in camps. That is a fact...and his vision is almost 100 years old

We take the good he stood for and improve upon it... adding things that are important to us. It needs to be relevant for the 21st century. He governed a very different electorate... you understand that Johnson gave us medicare and medicaid? that old folks were left in the halls of hospitals before medicaid to die if the couldn't pay and insurance was not possible beyond a certain age? How did Roosevelt values help with that ? You have to consider the electorate and where the country is at any given time. The country has moved to the right. The evidence for that is the GOP controls the majority of states.

[brutus smith]

566. There was this little thing called Social Security

I'm not sure what history books you read on FDR, but he also was fighting right wing opposition. They tried to overthrow him. He also had this little thing called the New Deal. He wanted a 2nd New Deal which would still go good today. But hell, what do I know.😵

[Demsrule86]

720. The "The New Deal" was only for White folks. And Johnson enacted medicaid and medicare... not

to mention civil rights...I admire Roosevelt. And he was a great man for his time and saved this country no doubt. But it was almost 100 years ago. The country must move into the 21st century...there are other ideas out there that could not have been considered during Roosevelt's time. Roosevelt is admired by some because he worked on economic issues and not social justice issues...these voters believe it is an either/or...and in Roosevelt's time it was , but not now. I will say the "new deal" didn't help many women who found themselves as single mothers as thousands of husband and fathers walked out during the depression. I have read desperate letters from women of color who's sons and husbands were taken and forced into slavery...this was the 1930's. They implored Roosevelt for help...none came. Roosevelt put the Japanese in camps, and while I understand the fear that caused this, I can not approve. I ridicule the right for granting Reagan sainthood...but we do almost the same thing with Roosevelt. We should keep the good and jettison the rest. let's look for solutions for our modern times...not live in the past.

I am aware that the right fought Roosevelt and have never stopped fighting social security and unionization (but Roosevelt was against governmental unions also ). I know all about the "Businessman's revolt"...my Grandmother was the secretary to the Mayor of Chicago...he was shot dead during an assassination attempt on Roosevelt. She married late in life and had my Dad at an age where most women her age were already Grandmothers...very interesting woman. No man or woman is perfect. Every age demands new solutions to new problems or perhaps better solutions to old problems. Let's move forward.

[brutus smith]

731. You have your opinion, I have mine.

[Demsrule86]

732. What I posted was not opinion. These were things that happened under Roosevelt...including

slavery of people of color. For all that, he saved the country and got us back on our feet...he was not a perfect man...he was for a man of his times...a good man. But he is not the be all end all...we need to move forward and figure out how to solve the problems or our times. Roosevelt ideas were based on new things...not a rehash of previous things...we need to do the same.

[brutus smith]

733. Which one of these rights do you disagree with

and why they don't apply now.

Employment, Food, clothing, and leisure with enough income to support them
Farmers' rights to a fair income
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
Housing
Medical care
Social security
Education

[Demsrule86]

738. all of the ones that didn't apply to POC or women...rights are meaningless without equality.

He didn't ask for those rights for all people...and that is the truth.

[brutus smith]

739. You really have a thing against FDR

BTW, I'm talking about the rights that were proposed. Maybe a president trump will help you in that regard.

[Demsrule86]

740. Actually, I adore Roosevelt. He was a great man. He saved this country and was

nearly thrown out of office during the businessman's revolt and was nearly assassinated in Illinois. His new deal gave Americans hope and social security. But you can't say he was perfect and to just hang onto his policies with no consideration for our own 21st century problems is foolish. One could not expect Roosevelt a man of his times to adopt social justice as an issue although Eleanor did to some degree. However, to use his policies to advocate for an economic policy that ignores or minimizes social justice today is wrong. We should use the good Roosevelt did and the lessons that are always learned from great men, but he is not the end all for the Democratic Party. We need to have policies that reflect the 21st century...not live in the past. And my example was to show you that even if you reduce income inequality which Roosevelt certainly did...without social justice it cannot be shared by all. thus income inequality and social justice are linked inexorably for all time.

[brutus smith]

742. I never said FDR was perfect

I believe we still need to have those rights, which haven't been attained yet. What things do you believe we should pursue in the 21st century?

[Demsrule86]

746. We never had all those rights...even if we were white in during those years and POC had no such

rights. Look to the future. Let's solve our problems and perhaps they will call us latest greatest generation.

[hueymahl]

236. Truth

A hard truth that many, many, many to not want to face. But TRUTH nonetheless.

[George II]

283. How is that possible, your first statement?

[Orsino]

201. Pushing from the left helps slow the party's move to the right.

It would be hard to quantify the effect, though, as it would be to measure exactly what Big Money's push to the right has accomplished.

[NurseJackie]

204. LOL!

=========================
"It would be hard to quantify the effect, though,"
=========================
Go figure.

[stevenleser]

206. The burden is on you to prove that.Its much easier to show evidence the other way.

All the nominees for President we have had since Nader have been moderates.

[Orsino]

208. Nope. Evidence would consist of measuring effects.

You're talking a standard of proof before even deciding what it is you want to prove, and I wouldn't know how to measure either effect.

[Nevernose]

243. So moderates have lost 3 out of 5 elections?

Including 2000, moderate Democratic presidential candidates have lost sixty percent of their general elections. So is it your contention that these electoral failings are the fault of "the left?"

[Demsrule86]

502. You consider the election of Trump moving the party to the left or slowing the move to the

right? No, Republican presidents always move the country to the right.

[Orsino]

529. No. n/t

[fishwax]

210. the fostering of divisiveness within the Democratic bloc has done a disservice to us all

That includes both those who have attacked the Democratic Party without measure of reason or pragmatics, as well as those who have attacked all criticism of the party and lumped all critics together, as though there is no difference between criticism from potential allies and criticism from sworn enemies. This, too, has at times been done without measure of reason or pragmatics. And we're all living with the result right now.

[stevenleser]

215. After Nader and Stein, those of us who actually want to stop Republicans from being elected

and enacting far right policies have no choice but to confront this head on.

Stein, after Nader, confirms that there is a small but not insignificant block of folks who repeatedly don't get it.

[fishwax]

291. Yeah, certainly there is a small but not insignificant block of folks who don't get that

There is also a small but not insignificant block who overreact to any criticism, who take a scorched earth policy of defense instead of a controlled burn, who drive people on the fringes out of the party rather than bringing them in. They're not willing to have more people in the tent if those people are not going to be enthusiastic about the tent. They'd prefer a smaller crowd where nobody complains. But smaller crowds don't win elections.

I don't think either of these groups are in the majority among their ideological kin, either here on DU or out in the world. But they're not insignificant, and their behaviors hurt us as a party and as a country in the last election.

[Ken Burch]

452. What do you want, steven?

We can't get progressive votes for our ticket by simply browbeating people into supporting the ticket.

This year, for example, we had a lot of good stuff in the platform...why didn't the fall campaign remind people of that?

Why didn't it run ads in states where the Sanders campaign had done well that emphasized that that movement had scored real victories on policy and had made a difference in national discussion? Why not appeal to THOSE voters by validating them? Doing so wouldn't have driven anyone else away.

Why not campaign on what we were FOR, rather than primarily on warning about how horrible Trump was?

We had nothing to hide. We weren't devoid of ideas. Our unity proposals were overwhelmingly popular.

It's not as though there were votes we could win, but ONLY if the fall campaing pretended no Sanders items were adopted, or only if the Sanders movement was treated as an absolute pointless failure whose supporters should be ashamed of themselves for even trying.

I ask these questions as one of the hundreds of thousands of Sanders supporters who worked like hell for the Clinton-Kaine ticket all fall.

[George II]

221. Good questions. I've been asking a similar question for month, still with no answer:

If our Democratic candidates are losing to republican candidates to the right of them, what would going even further left accomplish?

All I can see is more and bigger defeats.

The only response to this question I've ever had, which I essentially ignored, is the ludicrous idea that in some of our losses the republican candidate was to the left of the Democratic candidate. Pure BS.

[DemocraticWing]

226. The Left is stronger today than in decades. Liberalism is fading away.

We will achieve socialism in our lifetimes. Rejoice comrade, for you too will benefit from our revolution.

[stevenleser]

417. Nope, the opinion of Socialism hasn't changed in 25 years

50% oppose it and will not vote for a candidate who is a Socialist.

[DemocraticWing]

428. You can keep ignoring us if you want, but we'll keep organizing and building

Is Democratic Socialists of America the Future of the Left?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/whats-old-is-new-again-is-democratic-socialists-of_us_58fdd59ee4b0f420ad99c9b4

How Democratic Socialists are Building on Bernie's Momentum?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/how-democratic-socialists-are-building-on-bernies-momentum-w465452

The Next Generation of Democratic Socialists Has Started Winning Elections
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-next-generation-of-democratic-socialists-has-started-winning-local-elections/

Seeing red: Membership triples for the Democratic Socialists of America
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-democratic-socialists-20170308-story.html

And we are a millennial based movement, so we are going to keep coming and coming for the next 50 years.

[stevenleser]

429. Opinion articles won't help you. Statistics show zero movement in the voters' opinion of Socialism.

[DemocraticWing]

430. You're using a poll that compares 2016 to 2010, but modern opinions have shifted post-2000.

Young people today have a higher opinion of socialism than capitalism. The most popular politician in the country is a socialist, and he's got a 60% favorable rating. Membership in the DSA has quadrupled since 2015. More Democrats/Independents are willing to call themselves socialists than they would have been in the past. If you think any of that would have happened 15 years ago, I have a bridge to sell you.

Those of us born after the Cold War don't have the Red Scare mentality anymore. We know American-style capitalism and Soviet-style communism failed the world in the 20th century, but we also have a more nuanced view of how to move forward. Capitalism will kill the world if we don't stop it, and fortunately it contains the seeds of its own destruction.

[Demsrule86]

508. Right that is why had Bush and now Trump because we are so far left...socialist and all.

[Demsrule86]

503. Building what? More Republican majorities?

You have not accomplished anything else from my point of view.

[Ken Burch]

454. In the spring of 2016, the polls showed 55% saying they'd vote for a candidate who said he was.

We don't have to be no-more-than-one-degree left of center to win.

[Demsrule86]

517. Show me an election where a socialist won...it didn't happen in 16.

[VermontKevin]

249. It's called ratfucking.

[bullwinkle428]

259. Did Obama "attack the party (read : Hillary) from the left" in 2008?

Because there were some people making that argument at the time.

[killbotfactory]

351. He opposed the Iraq war like a raving left wing lunatic dove.

And he ran on expanding healthcare, like some utopian left winger wishing for ponies.

Both things the sensible party bigshots knew were electoral poison.

Thankfully he was black and had a Muslim name, which instantly endeared him to a majority of Americans, because the issues he ran on were a complete dead end.

[Tribalceltic]

272. It's Very Simple

Green = Republican
and
Republican = Lies, Voter suppression, Fraud, Espionage , and Assault


No other conclusion is remotely possible.

[JCanete]

278. Yes, of course it has. Because these more left leaning groups offer an alternative to voters. They

are distinguishing themselves from the Democratic Party's priorities or actions on certain issues, and when their message resonates and attracts enough voters, the Democratic Party absolutely must consider those voters and either choose to ignore them or try to court them with the policies and platforms they offer. I certainly hope that the latter occurs, and in recent memory we can see that the Sanders campaign(as a loose example, although this was within the party, the concern was that some Sanders supporters would opt out of the GE) did result in DNC and Clinton platform changes at the end of the convention to accommodate some on the left.

What I don't understand is why anyone would have a problem with the resulting of a more liberal platform. What I don't understand is why we keep being apologetic about our liberal ideals because they "won't play" in parts of the country.


As to what is and is not divisive...that's a matter of tone. Are we discussing strategy and/or different philosophies, or are we bashing the people who have them? Whether it comes from the far left or the mainstream democratic party, when we are bashing the people who vote one way or another, or the politicians who other Democrats might respect and admire here(and it is irrelevant whether those figures are themselves democrats or some other brand of liberal), we are being divisive. OK has nothing to do with it. Would you rather fight amongst ourselves here, or would you rather try to take on a tone that attempts to galvanize us with at least, a common decency towards one another, and an acceptance that whether we think our fellow DUers are wrong or right, their motivations, intelligence, etc. should not be ascribed to them with such disdainful surety. I don't think we can take motives off the table, but too many people don't present them as concerns, they present them as the cookie for the oncoming circle-jerk. Sorry if that's gross, but the tendency is gross.

[Demsrule86]

504. There is no 'alternative' to Democrats...unless you want to elect Republicans.

Either a Democrat wins or a Republicans wins in most cases...and in all cases for presidential elections..so you help the GOP by providing spoiler organizations who siphon off votes from Democrats. Platforms are meaningless if you lose.

[JCanete]

541. the alternative is a vote that tells the Democratic party where you stand. There is no democracy

without more than 2 choices, sorry. If a party can always be assured your vote, it never has to listen to you. People need a way of having their voice heard. If it's meaningless if you lose, that means the democratic party has to be mindful of these voters and make sure it hasn't abandoned their concerns.

I agree that 3rd parties can do little more than to make a statement and to play spoiler. On that front, our system is unfortunately trash, and we won't be seeing either major party fighting for a different means of vote tallying any time soon.

[vkkv]

279. The "attacks" from the left on the Dem establishment do NOT REACH the large majority of the

voting public's ears so that's a moot point.

In other words, only those who actually care, perhaps 5% of all voters, will even know or remember any attacks from the left ON the Dem establishment.

If Dem leaders had done a better job, conservatives would NOT have been able to pull the country TO THE RIGHT - and that force to the right was stronger than the force to the left. In part to 911 paranoia, hate, greed, blaming "illegals"..

Interesting points, but it's all moot.

But this nonsense :: ""And why is it that those folks are allowed to attack the Democratic Party from the left but if we respond to them in kind, some folks accuse us of being divisive? Why do some folks here think that is OK?"""

That question translated into math looks like this: > < = 0

[Demsrule86]

505. That is bs...and the left helped the GOP pull the country right by enabling GOP majorities.

[Me.]

307. I'm Late To This Thread

But still want to say..... well done

[Mike Nelson]

314. We get...

...setbacks. Obama and the Clintons are not "far left," but they're much easier to work with than GWB and crooked Donald. Trump and Clinton are NOT the same... although I see it said. Republicans controlling the Supreme Court and the upcoming census are a long-term disaster.

[R B Garr]

330. A con man stole these divisive talking points and now look how empty they are

when you see in real time how much he despises working people. What a sham. I don't think people will be falling for this again.

[Ken Burch]

341. At the time it happened, progressives were totally silenced and powerless WITHIN this party.

The consequences were bad as a result of those people leaving, but it wasn't entirely reasonable to expect them to just stay in, not ever get anything progressive in our platform(or only get progressive policies on a tiny range of non-transformational issues).

Basically, you're saying they should have stayed in and given up...should have accepted this party never being for a different notion of society again.

Some of the blame for that has to be assigned to those who pushed this party massively and unnecessarily to the right in the Nineties.

That generation of Democratic leaders partially caused the exodus by making it clear that activists would never be heard, that there was no significant space in the Nineties to fight for workers and the poor, that there was no space to work for peace instead of perpetual increases in the war budget.

It's not as simple as saying "they should just have voted Democratic, no matter what".

Progressives never deserved the treatment they got in this party in the DLC era.

[NurseJackie]

369. "Totally silenced and powerless", huh? LOL!

Wheeee! That's a good one!

==========================
"Some of the blame for that has to be assigned to those who pushed this party massively and unnecessarily to the right in the Nineties."
==========================
You do realize that the Democratic party doesn't exist in a vacuum, right? Fact is, during that time, the entire country was tilting right (with a pendulum that hadn't yet begun to track back to the left again) that's the way it was. If the Democratic party shifted hard left (as you appear to believe it ought to have) then it would have become weak and out-of-touch with the reality of the times. Sometimes you have to go with the flow and ACCEPT REALITY and make the best of a situation that's less-than-ideal.

It wasn't "massively" and it wasn't "unnecessarily". Stop exaggerating.

[Ken Burch]

389. In the Nineties, progressives were totally silenced and shut down.

There was no way, in that decade, to fight for the labor movement, for peace, for the preservation of the social welfare state WITHIN the Democratic Party. There was no way to fight for the powerless within this party then. Our leaders had reduced our objectives to winning elections for the SAKE of winning elections, to power for power's sake.

Even if the nominee had had to be further right in 1992-and that's conjecture at best, btw, given that Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis didn't lose running as liberals, they lost running in the fall running as technocratic centrists who put the Wall Street priority on low inflation ahead of the people's priority of a full employment economcy, and who obsessed on balancing the federal budget and reducing the deficit when there was no good reason to put those goals ahead of restoring the services Reagan-there didn't need to be a total silencing of debate within the party in the Nineties, and a total bar on grassroots activists working on change from below. The party did not need to become a left-free zone to beat Republicans.

These are the things I refer to as a massive swing to the right:

A) The unquestioning embrace of the death penalty;

B) The commitment to mass incarceration as a crime policy-a decision that has destroyed two generations of lives in some communities;

B) The refusal to either defend the character and morality of poor when they were under savage(and often sexist and racist)attack,
or to challenge the Republican narrative that welfare fraud, out of wedlock birth and drug abuse were all "black things"-in truth, they were mainly white things;

C) The agreement to maintain a hawkish foreign policy in an era(1992 to 1996) when the Cold War had ended and we no longer had any reason to treat Russia as anything but simply another country, when we easily could have removed at least half of our missiles from Europe-a commitment which did as much as anything else to put Vladimir Putin in power in Russia;

As a trade off to all of that-none of which was necessary in terms of pragmatic public policy-the only mildly progressive things that happened were the defense of choice, RBG on the court, a tiny program for health care for poor kids and the palest green environmental measures. It was an era when the party totally appeased white heterosexual resentment on social issues and hardline hawks on foreign policy. Voters of color were out in the cold on policy, as were LGBTQ voters-there were no significant victories for either group in that era.

We never had to reduce the Democratic agenda to that, and as the 1992 result showed, there's no evidence that the huge swing to the right(and the repudiation of everything the Rainbow Coalition stood for)made any real gains in votes for us. We'd have had that with Tom Harkin. We'd have had that with Jerry Brown. We'd have taken that with a mannequin. And the landslide loss of Congress in 1994 proved that moving right didn't give us any lasting electoral benefits.

In practical political terms, it would have been better if there had been no Nader phenomenon. Obviously.

But it's not as simple as saying "they should have just keep voting for the Dem ticket no matter what".

If we want loyalty from any group of voters, we have to at least, at the very least, treat that group of voters and what they care about with respect. We needed to, at a minimum, find the way of saying "we can't do what you want right now, but if you'll hang in there, we guarantee we'll do at least some of it after the NEXT election". We had no right to demand loyalty to those we were showing no loyalty to. And we had no right to blame the left for our defeats in the Eighties when those defeats weren't their fault in the least, and then to demand that they support our ticket no matter what as if they needed to do penance for the Eighties defeats they weren't responsible for.

BTW, I never wanted the party to go "hard left". It's not hard left to expect the Democratic Party to defend the poor, the labor movement, and the role of activists in public life. It's not hard left to expect the party to stand up to right-wing bullying and right-wing lies. Or to want this party to be a voice for the otherwise voiceless. It's just about wanting us to stand for something.

We can't prosper as a second party of the comfortable and privileged.

[NurseJackie]

400. LOL!

=========================
"BTW, I never wanted the party to go "hard left". "
=========================
Heeeee!

[Ken Burch]

408. What, in any of the things I support, is "hard left"?

Hard left is forcibly collectivizing the Ukraine, or Mao telling kids to turn their parents in to the Red Guards, or the Khmer Rouge.

Not single-payer healthcare, free college, or the end of corporate control of politics.

It's not hard left to want real democracy or to want people who aren't rich to have just as good a chance to win elections as people who are.

And it has never served the Democratic base for the party to be against any of those things. Centrism is only good for rich white people.

[Voltaire2]

413. medicare for all is the new hard left.

[Ken Burch]

415. Does that make LBJ the new Trotsky?

The goatee and pince nez look would definitely not work for him.

[Demsrule86]

506. In the 90's the country was right leaning... and we had not

won a election since Jimmy Carter in 74...we ran liberals in 84 and in 88, and they lost badly. It was a Reagan world. Clinton never had a majority even though he ran for the center...without Perot and Buchanan, he would have lost in 92 and in 94. We need to be realistic about where we are today.

[Ken Burch]

354. It could equally be asked

"In 18 years since Naders run, what has been accomplished by refusing to listen to those who criticized the party from the left?"

If you didn't want that to happen, why not just admit that they had a valid point about the party having gone too intolerably far to the right, and work to engage these people by being open to their ideas?

It was never going to work to just DEMAND that they vote for our ticket.

We aren't owed the votes of everyone on the left side of the spectrum.

[NurseJackie]

362. LOL! (That again?)

Nice try.

[Gothmog]

382. President Obama won twice in large electoral vote victories

President Obama won without adopting your magical but amusing platform.

BTW, there is a thread crying out for your amusing views https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029290503

[Ken Burch]

397. It's always a sign that you are losing the argument when you resort to personal abuse.

If you actually had an argument against what I've said, you would make it.

What is so amusing about the ideas(none of which are solely supported by me)that I talk about?

Single-payer has strong public support in the country-there's no conflict between supporting single-payer as a long-term goal and working to defend the ACA in the present-we are equally committed to doing that.

So does free college-an idea that benefits the entire Democratic base.

So does reducing corporate control over politics, which has to happen if any proposals that actually help the Democratic base are ever to be adopted.

Those ideas weren't actually rejected...a lot of last year's HRC supporters back them...many were accepted by her when she was nominated.

Had she campaigned in the fall by referencing those ideas, we'd have carried the Upper Midwest and not lost any votes anywhere. Instead, those ideas weren't mentioned...even in states where the other candidate did well in the primaries and where it was desperately important to make sure supporters of that candidate were reminded that what they'd done wasn't a total failure and a waste of time, and that this party was going to be a place where they could work for what they cared about.

I'm for social justice AND economic justice(and am just as committed as you are to fighting against voter suppression, as you know full well)...those causes that are distinct, yet related, and they are never in conflict.

It's sad that you think working for a better country and a better world is "amusing".

It's sad that you seem to be so irrationally bitter about people who did nothing you have any reason to be angry about and who weren't responsible for what happened in November.

Please stop refighting the past and please stop fighting to preserve divisions at a time when we need to heal them.

And I say all of that as a life-long resident of "the real world"...a world where most people don't hate and fear the idea of working for real change.

[Gothmog]

402. Go try you amusing theories on that thread

Your concept of personal abuse is so very funny. Disagreeing with you is not personal abuse in the real world.

Again, got try out the thread on platforms. You will find most poster do not agree with you. In the real world, platforms do not matter and Clinton did not lose due to her platform but due to Comey, Russia, Stein and BOB idiots (your friends from JPR).

Please try your amusing theories in the real world. It would be fun to see you run these theories by real persons. Go attend an indivisible or Our Revolution meeting

In the mean time I will be working in the real world to fight the GOP and their voter suppression efforts. We have a trial starting in San Antonio on July 10 and we are still hoping that my county may be added to the claims. A local state representative and the NAACP are attempting to include my county. Texas will turn blue but it will not be due to remaking the party into image of a failed candidate

BTW, it looks like we have a great candidate for a state senate seat to fight a lady who sponsored the Texas bathroom bill. Getting a candidate to run for office is not easy

[Ken Burch]

420. It's personal abuse to claim I don't live in the real world and don't know practical politics.

I've spent decades campaigning for candidates who were too conservative for my personal taste.

I've spent decades compromising on platforms(I helped write a few state Dem platforms in Alaska)

I've spent decades working pragmatically in the short-term.

Living in the real world doesn't require a Dem to be an anti-left centrist.

Nor does it mean assuming only the most conservative Dems can win elections.

So you are not entitled to talk to me as if I have no practical political experience.

A person can be practical and still have ideals, you know.

And Iif you disagree with me, fine-but why are you so obsessed with personally discrediting me?

What is it about what I post that you find so dangerous?

Why is my presence on this board so intolerable to you?

Nothing would be better here if I went away.

As to the ideas I support-please stop calling them "my platform", what I support is backed by tens of millions of people all over this country-what's so horrible about any of them.

Single-payer has majority support in the polls in this country. Nobody has campaigned for it in Texas, so how do you even know it's unpopular there?

So does free college.

So does reducing corporate influence in politics.

We haven't seen a test of those ideas in a fall campaign, so they can't be declared to be failed politics.

BTW...I'd be working for that state Senate candidate in Texas. Will you be working hard for Beto O'Rourke, the real-world Dem who has an excellent chance to beat Ted Cruz for the Senate seat if the whole party gets behind him?

[Gothmog]

424. Dems new pitch to voters: A Better Deal

Ken you are missing your chance to frame the Democratic message. Schumer and Pelosi are not taking your suggestions seriously (assuming that they have heard these suggestions). I like the concepts being discussed http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/05/democrats-trump-congress-better-deal-240150

Democratic leaders are zeroing in on a new mantra for their long-promised economic agenda: the “Better Deal.”

The rebranding attempt comes as Democrats acknowledge that simply running against President Donald Trump wasn’t a winning strategy in 2016 and probably won’t work in 2018 either. The slogan, which is still being polled in battleground House districts, aims to convince voters that Democrats have more to offer than the GOP and the self-proclaimed deal-maker in the White House.

But even as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi prepare a jobs package centered on infrastructure, trade and the minimum wage, some of their most vulnerable members are making other plans.

Several moderate Democrats facing reelection next year told POLITICO that no matter what leadership does, they’re preparing to craft their own pitch to voters. The ideological and political divides that gripped the party during the Hillary Clinton-Bernie Sanders primary wars are far from healed, and leadership may not find universal support for the left-leaning platform, particularly from those trying to defend seats in Trump-friendly states.....

Several lawmakers interviewed by POLITICO said the overarching lesson they learned from the 2016 election is not that Democrats need a more cohesive economic message. Instead, they say, they need to be able to run a strong campaign in spite of the national Democratic platform.

That’s not to say they won’t accept a new party plank if it materializes and fits their districts. But they’re not counting on it either.

[Gothmog]

426. Ken-your posts speak for themselves

Your posts tell me all I need to know about your real world experience. I do not dislike you but I do disagree with your positions strongly. The thread that I linked to has a good discussion of the effect of the platform on the POTUS race. Most posters strongly disagree with the premise of your platform and you should discuss that platform on that thread. As noted above, the Democrats are not listening to your proposals. I personally like the concepts being discussed by C. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

As for Beto, I am waiting to see what happens. I do not think that Beto is viable but he would be a strong contrast to Carnival Cruz. There is still a chance that one of the Castro brothers may change their minds and get into this race. I have met Beto and Beto's own chance is that Carnival Cruz is so unlikable. The fact that you think that at this early stage that Beto will easily defeat Carnival Cruz amuses me.

I have had three different candidates for CD 7 hit me up for money and I am waiting on that race.

In the mean time, there is a great deal to do in the real world.

[Ken Burch]

436. I live in the real world-it's just that I disagree with you on what's possible in this world.

Last edited Wed Jul 5, 2017, 11:09 PM - Edit history (1)

My real world experience is in Oregon, Alaska, and Washington Democratic politics...from 1976 to the president.

In each of those places, I worked to elect both progressive and centrist candidates.

In each of those places, I made short-term compromises on issues.

In each of those places, I worked with people who disagreed with me, to my right AND to my left.

You work in a different political culture than I have...but it's a culture where Democrats have not had a greater winning percentage than Democrats in the places where I have worked, so you aren't entitled to lecture me on practicality or political effectiveness.

And when I have disagreed with you, I've spoken solely on the merits of the arguments you've made, without ever implying that you are lying about your experience or your work and without disparaging you personally at all.

I agree with you on some things...particularly on the need to fight voter suppression. You have no reason to question my commitment to that.

And you have no reason to be so fixated with discrediting me or trying to badger me into ceasing to post on this board. I do no harm here and there is nothing I've suggested that would do any damage to this party, even if I did have some magical power to reshape the party into anybody's image.

I'm just one person supporting ideas that are backed by tens of millions of other people throughout this country. And I know this, because I've lived my whole life in the real world.

[Gothmog]

440. Ken-I strongly disagree with your silly platform because it will not work win the real world

I have been far more involved in politics than you have including going to the National Convention and being on several committees at state conventions. If your proposals are so popular then why have every candidate who used them under performed compared to Clinton's results or lost out right. Even in an all white state, the Sanders platform failed even when the GOP candidate assaulted a reporter (the GOP candidate won election day vote). I want to win in 2018 and I do not think that your platform will work in the real world.

Go ahead and advocate your platform and I am also allowed to disagree with this platform. I note that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are not considering your platform for the party as a whole which is a good thing in my opinion. I am also amused that you are too scared to post on the thread discussing whether Hillary Clinton lost because she went too far to the left. If you really believe in your platform, go defend it on that thread.

[Ken Burch]

441. You have the right to disagree with me on the level of ideas.

(BTW, the OP in that thread rejects the idea that Hillary lost for being "too far left", as do the overwhelming majority of the posters there. She didn't mention any of the left items in the platform during the fall campaign, btw, so how could those ideas have cost us votes?)

You don't need to accuse me of being delusional or of not being involved in real politics to do so, however.

I'm not scared to do anything...I just don't feel obligated to take orders from you.

I want to win just as much as you do...it's just that we can't win by blurring the differences and promising not to disagree with the Right all that much. There's no huge bloc of voters who'd swing to us if only the national party said "fuck the left-we're going back to 1992". Nor did the polls in the spring of 2008 ever show Hillary, who ran to Obama's right in general, doing better against the GOP in the fall.

As to the Montana result...the progressive candidate lost by only six points, compared to the twenty point margin the centrist candidate lost by in 2016. We gained as much ground there as we could(and as much ground as Ossoff gained in the Georgia 6th, for that matter).

And the assault on the reporter happened on election eve-Montana has mail-in voting and by that point most of the voters had already voted.

It was never a seat we were likely to actually gain.

[Gothmog]

445. I am basing my opinion on real experience in the real world

I do not blame you because you are scared to post on the other thread. Your views would have been further discredited by the posters on that thread. Hiding is a good way to not lose an argument.

We can not win by remaking the party into the image of a failed candidate like Sanders. Sanders platform has failed each and every time it was tried outside of vermont. The polling you cite does not help your case because in the real world voters do not vote based on these positions. Sanders policies of focusing on white working class males means giving up on the key groups in the base of the party including Jews, Latinos and African American voters. The Sanders platform only appeals to a narrow segment of the base of the party which is why it has failed. Democrats will not win by trying to convince Romney voters to vote for a Democrat.

The attacks on identity politics and the focus on white male working class voters are not the way to win. The party is better off developing and expanding the base.

I like the start of the platform proposed by Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. Schumer and Pelosi are correct in their focus and I like the start of this platform. I really am happy that Pelosi and Schumer are not following your concepts. Again, like me they know what works in the real world.

Have fun hiding from arguments. BTW, there is a joint meeting of Indivisible and the off shoot of the Pant Suit Republic this weekend that appears to be part of a nationwide set of protests. Please get out into the real world.

[Ken Burch]

448. I'm not scared to post in the other thread. Most of the posters there agree with me.

I don't attack identity politics. I don't support putting white male voters ahead of voters of color(voters of color aren't AGAINST the party being more progressive on economic policy or against single-payer, btw).

And as I've repeatedly proved, I'm not advocating remaking the party in ANY former candidate's image...I want it to be in the image of the rank and file...a group that support social justice AND economic justice.

If you disagree with me, fine...but you have no right to talk down to me, or to anyone else. You are simply one voice among many, and those who disagree with you are just as much part of the real world as you are.

So enough already with the "go away little boy" act. I'm a grown man and you aren't above me.

[Gothmog]

451. The posters on that thread did not agree with you and the fact that you believe that amuses me

Your proposals do reflect the rank and file of the Democratic Party. The polling you cited does not support your claims and the losses of candidates using this platform shows this. Look at Virginia. The sanders endorsed candidate lost and lost badly. Again African American voters in Virginia voted against the Sanders platform. This is not an isolated incident. The sanders economic platform does not appeal to a significant portion of the rank and file of the pardy

I am happy to trusti Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to figure out what the rank and file of the party believes

[Ken Burch]

456. The African-American voters voted against Perriello because he was anti-choice in the far past.

African-Americans are not anti-left, and they are not pro-Wall Street.

[Gothmog]

507. Denial is not just a river in Africa

[Demsrule86]

515. They did not vote for perriello in my opinion because Northam was better established and endorsed

by McAuliffe and other prominent Democrats in Virginia...I dislike Perriello because of his anti-choice votes (social justice issue). Although, it should be noted to be fair that Perriello has rescinded his anti-choice views and apologized for voting for the Stupak amendment during the healthcare fight.

Perriello also had less money than Northam which certainly hurt him. He won the backing of Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and thirty former Obama staffers. The primary was seen in some quarters as a continuation of the 2016 primary fight (Base vs insurgent left). I don't think it was. In this case 'all politics were local'. Northam was a better candidate.

In order to win, Perriello needed new voters (mostly young) to turn out and they didn't. The rallies were well attended but not as many actually voted. Perriello failed to get his vote out. Northam did a better job getting out the vote; established Democratic voters who always vote Democratic (the base) turned out... this enabled Northam to win by almost 12 points .

[Ken Burch]

581. The base aren't centrist

The base wanted emphasis on social justice issues(there was never actually a difference in policy terms between the base and what you call "the insurgent left" on those issues, simply a difference in campaign rhetoric...we'd have a strongly pro-choice, antiracist administration no matter who we nominated, had the candidate been elected). But the base is not against a greater emphasis on economic justice. Most African-American, Latino-American, female and LGBTQ voters are working-class. They are part of the economy, and they are just as much against benefit cuts,. wage cuts, downsizing and outsourcing as what you call "the insurgent left".

They rejected Bernie as a candidate and as an individual, for a variety of reasons...they can't be assumed to be against his entire agenda. And they damn sure aren't on the side of Wall Street against labor.

Hadn't heard about the low young voter turnout. That's a problem the Sanders movement has never fully been able to address, and I'm not sure why.

[Ken Burch]

458. I have posted in that thread, and found a lot of agreement with my views.

(the only reason I hadn't posted there before was that I didn't know of the thread before you mentioned it and because I don't post in EVERY thread on DU.)

You are not the Voice of The Democratic Party. You are just you...one person with one opinion.

I respect and salute you for the work you do fighting voter suppression in Texas. You know that.

There is nothing I and the tens of millions of people who agree with me advocate that threatens that work.

A lot of people to your left are working on it as well-even as we speak.

It's not as though we can only fight voter suppression if the party is viciously anti-left on policy.

Nor is it true that African-American voters are anti-left on economic issues or any other issues. Polls show they are actually social democratic on most of their economic positions, in the country as a whole.

BTW, I assume you are white(is that correct, btw?). If so, why do you act as if you are entitled to speak FOR African-American voters?

[Ken Burch]

459. "Your proposals do reflect the rank and file of the Democratic Party"

Which is my point exactly.

[NurseJackie]

405. "Please stop refighting the past" ... Seriously? OMG! LOL!!!

=====================
Quote: "Please stop refighting the past and please stop fighting to preserve divisions at a time when we need to heal them. "
=====================
OMG! That's funny... especially considering your recent post wanting to fight about how liberals were "silenced" in the 1990's.

Yes, Ken... tell us again how everyone should stop "refighting the past".

GMAFB!

[Ken Burch]

416. You can't seriously argue that progressives had a real say in the Nineties.

We were treated as the enemy...we were blamed for the defeats in the Eighties when none of them were our fault.

[NurseJackie]

422. LOL! See? (The 90's are still in the past!)

LOL! Gee, Ken... why are you fighting the past? I thought you wanted to leave the past behind. You have no good reason to scold people for doing the exact same thing you're doing right now.

What happened to "unity" and "healing"? If you're going to scold people about "fighting the past" then I think you should work harder to set a good example.

We can all agree on that, can't we?



=====================
"We were treated as the enemy...we were blamed for the defeats in the Eighties when none of them were our fault."
=====================
LOL! No you weren't. You just weren't as politically influential as you'd like to have been in the 1990's. You've had plenty of time to get over it. Time to move on. Stop dwelling on the past, Ken.

Which, by the way, is STILL in the past. Why do you want to keep refighting the past? I think we can both agree that the past is in the past.

There are many things happening in the real world, today, that deserve our attention and REALISTIC plans.

[betsuni]

423. So many OMG LOLs. It is almost too much for me.

I'm on the verge of coming out with my hands up and surrendering, pleading for it to stop if only I admit that everything is the fault of Democrats, past and future, forever and ever.

[Gothmog]

447. I am also laughing at these claims

[Ken Burch]

450. Laughing is not disproving.

Other than on choice, the policies were mainly three degrees to the right of center.

People of color were left out in the cold. LGBTQ people were left out in the cold(nothing ever came close to making up for "don't ask, don't tell&quot .

We didn't have to be THAT far to the right.

And it wasn't reasonable to expect everyone to the left of center to just keep voting for the Democratic ticket no matter how far to the right we went. In 2000, the compulsory centrism should have stopped-the country was no longer demanding that of us, if it ever had.

[Demsrule86]

573. More like liberal candidates lost in the 70's and 80's so maybe a centrist might have a chance and

with the help of Perot and Buchanan, it worked.

[George II]

384. Do you mean those who criticized from the left from WITHIN the Party or from outside the Party?

[Ken Burch]

394. Both.

Too many of those who criticized from within(and were always ignored)ended up drifting away from the party because they and what they cared about were kept in the cold.

We never swung over any large bloc of voters to our right in 1992 or 1996, btw. Overall, from 1988 to 1996, our presidential vote increased only from 46% to 49%. Sorry, but that is a trivial gain. And it wasn't enough for us to hold Congress in '94 or take it back in '96 or '98, when we should have been able to do so in at least one of those elections.

Our goal should be to win the support of people we COULD make common cause with-not people who hate most of what we stand for and will only vote for us if we promise to tell everyone else to shut up and go away on their behalf.

[George II]

409. Statistics can be used to present any viewpoint. But your comments are a bit off...

...with respect to the presidential vote count.

If it's raw votes we're talking about (you do speak of "bloc of voters&quot , since 1992 (7 elections) the Democrats have gotten more than his/her republican opponent six times, the one loss was bush over Kerry in 2004. In the other six elections the Democrat has beaten the republican by 5.5, 8.5, 0.5, 7.2, 3.9, and 2.1%. Overall, even including Kerry's loss to bush, Democrats have gotten 3.7% more votes than their republican counterparts.

[Ken Burch]

414. OK, but in tying that to centrism, you have correlation, not causation.

It's just as likely that Bill Clinton won in '92 because of his personal charisma and excellent speaking skills, rather than his anti-welfare, pro-death penalty stands.

And as I pointed out, neither Carter, Mondale, nor Dukakis, actually ran as liberals in the fall campaigns in '80, '84, and '88. Each of them was the candidate of the ultra-cautious party insiders, not the activists. Each of them ran a campaign that was pitched to voters to the party's right...voters we likely wouldn't have taken in '84 if our nominee had been John Glenn, Fritz Hollings, Chuck Robb or Sam Nunn, or in '88 had we nominated Al Gore, who pulled out of the Iowa caucuses that year because he was offended that peace and justices activists would actually have the right to ask him questions on foreign and domestic policy-and each of them, while fully qualified for the office, appeared to the electorate as bleak, depressing figures with no positive vision for the future, which is exactly the sort of challenger that can never defeat any incumbent for any office.

Clinton, by contrast, came off as positive and charming, even fun. He'd have improved on Dukakis' showing on any possible platform-and in fact, his most popular campaign pledge was not any of the conservative proposals he adopted but his promise to introduce universal healthcare-the one proposal Clinton made that was to the left of Dukakis' platform.

Our vote increased that year because voters were moving away from conservatism. If they weren't moving away from that, they wouldn't have defeated ANY Republican candidate. It was that public move away from conservativism, rather than the appeasement of poorbashers and death penalty freaks, that has kept our presidential vote at about 50% since then and pushed it up to 54% in '08 and 52% in '12. Had we embraced Sanders ideals(which we could have done even with our actual nominee)this year in the fall campaign, we would likely have at least stayed at 52% and maybe gone much higher had we done so convincingly enough to boost turnout.

It was the rigid insistence on anti-left centrism that likely depressed our vote in '94(costing us Congress), that held us under 50% presidentially and likely kept us in the minority in Congress in '96(after the government shutdown, we should have been able to count on at least retaking the House in '96), and that at least partially created the Nader phenomenon in '96 and '00.

And I say all of that as a person who wants this party to prosper at the polls-something we are most likely to do by fighting unapologetically and proudly for our core values in the fall campaigns, rather than by saying little, promising little, and hoping to somehow win by default.

[stevenleser]

474. The claims that it's the democrats fault that congressional and state legislative races were lost

A claim I also see a lot by folks on your side of things is an example of correlation without any proof of causation.

The difference in the Presidential race is that we have agreement with your side on the fact that Bill Clinto moved the party toward the center at that exact moment in time. Losses in congress did not ensue until much later.

[vi5]

367. This post will definitely change their minds that's for sure.

Attacking them from the right as many on here like to do has clearly done an excellent and productive job of convincing them they were wrong.

[JHan]

372. "attacking them from the right"

What? Lol

[vi5]

390. Well, I keep hearing about how they are "attacking Democrats from the left"

So if the OP or anyone else is attacking them, that must mean they are attacking these same folks from the right.

If someone doesn't want to be accused of attacking someone from the right, then it helps to not place that person to their left.

[JHan]

403. That's a very literal interpretation though

for instance ...- I am radically liberal but also pragmatic in how I vote- most of the concern I'm reading are from people who probably want the same things but see that attacks on the Democratic Party make it impossible for those things to ever come to fruition.

Or maybe some are moderates, in any case there's a wide spectrum of views on the left.

[vi5]

407. See I'm not radically liberal....

.....and I see their points on a lot of things.

I've been a pragmatic, card carrying, envelope stuffing, letter writing, primary voting, money donating Democrat since the mid-80's. Never not voted for a Democrat in any and all elections. And on economic matters, which is where I find most of these "radical leftists" are coming from, they have valid points which I see get way too easily dismissed on here.

They are told "Work from within the party!". Then they see that "the party" powers that be put their hands on the scale in primaries (and no I'm not talking about for Hillary, I'm talking way more local and regional and state elections). So even when many of them try to work from within the party they see themselves being told to basically cast their vote, shut up, and trust that everything is going to turn out right, by people who supposedly know better.

Now yeah, there are just people on the left who hate the system as a whole and are never going to vote for either of the two major parties and that is that. So why do we even count on them as votes? Why do we expect them to vote for us and get mad when they do, any more than we do Republicans? To me it seems like a lot of this hatred directed at the left since say 2000 seems to lend credence to a lot of their points. If we've gotten to the point where the Democratic party is complaining about criticism from "the left" then I'm sorry, that positions us to their right and as pragmatically liberal as I am, that's not where I want to be.

I've watched as issue after issue has been compromised on because, well pragmatism or whatever other reason.

Maybe it's because of where I live. But I see a lot of people saying "Well this won't play in the south....or in the midwest or with this group or that group." O.K. so yeah. But I live in the NY/NJ area, both of which are deep blue, hardcore blue states. And I have to watch people like Democratic state leader Steve Sweeney cozy up to Chris Christie. I have to watch the party basically leave Barbara Buono out to dry when she ran against Christie. I see Democrats in our state bashing unions....bashing teachers unions. I see Andrew Cuomo the next state over running ads bragging about his "tax incentives" for business and "no income tax for businesses" and any other manner of bullshit he's pulling. I see the "independent democratic caucus" which has people run as Dems and then caucus with Republicans, giving them control of the statehouse, even though there are more elected Democrats.

So.....yeah, I don't know. I see this type of hardcore, third way, economically reagan-esque bullshitright here in the cradle of Democratic stronghold states. And it frustrates the shit out of me and makes me want to throw in the towel with this stupid party that I've pledged loyalty to since I was an adolescent in the late 70's. So I honestly can't really begrudge anyone who sees the same stuff and complains that the differences between the two parties on issues of economics have not gotten smaller and smaller.

Yes, there are social issues and yes that is what causes me to continue voting for the Democratic party. But my point is that if this is how I feel as a pragmatic, hardcore party loyal Democrat in a heavy blue stronghold, who is a political junkie and follows all the ins and outs of everything going on, then I can see where others might feel even MORE frustrated without that sense of pragmatic loyalty.

And not it doesn't mean the party should turn over the reigns to what those folks think and want. But I definitely think we'd be better served listening to them and maybe making overtures to them than we are complaining about them day in and day out. Especially since whatever the fuck our current plan and approach is clearly is not winning us elections.

[JHan]

433. For me personally...

I don't expect much radical change until we deal with the opposition and get the kind of majorities we need to implement the sexy stuff we want- I've already accepted it can only happen incrementally.

Liberals have taken a lot for granted.

In my experience a lot of people aren't aware of how even bills pass the committee stage or who their local congressperson is or the details of policy making. I don't get a lot of substance from the detractors - all I get are a lot of slogans and sophistry.

[Gothmog]

449. There is nothing wrong with incremental changes

[stevenleser]

470. This is the kind of nonsense you get when you ask a simple question

And it really is a simple question.

[treestar]

381. Nothing is going to change their minds

[vi5]

396. Maybe not....

...but it's not exactly endearing a lot of folks to the Democratic party to see blame placed everywhere EXCEPT on ANYTHING the party or it's leaders have done. To keep pointing out that EVERYONE needs to change EXCEPT the Democratic party and it's decision makers.

Every day on here it alternates between:
"Trump voters are short sighted idiots who don't know how reality works are too stupid to vote for our candidates!!"
"Greens/Far Left voters are short sighted idiots who don't know how reality works and are too stupid to vote for our candidates!"

That's leaves us with a pretty narrow stretch of voters, and one that doesn't seem to be winning us too many elections.

So is it that we don't NEED any more voters, or is it that you think we're better off trying to appeal to the Republicans/Trump voters? Because telling both groups to go take a flying leap seems like a pretty narrow electoral needle for us to be threading, so......

[treestar]

478. Blame, blame , blame

that's all they want to do. Not participate and be part of things, but demand and then blame, blame, blame.

[vi5]

498. Who says irony is dead...

[stevenleser]

471. That so many of you find this question so vexing says a lot

I don't care what effort you ever a part of in your life, you should always be asking yourself one simple question.

Is this working.

This is the question so many folks including you seem unable to handle.

This is exactly why folks on my side of things need to be more aggressive. You are exactly wrong when you say pointed comments won't change minds. We're up against people who simply refuse to see what is right in front of their faces. Regular doses of cold hard reality is exactly what is needed.

[vi5]

500. You do realize the same thing could be said about...

...a group of people....let's say a political party........that suffers loss after loss, continued low approval ratings and refuses to believe that they need to change anything at all.

[JCanete]

546. Is what the democratic party is still doing working, is also a valid question that has to be asked,

Last edited Thu Jul 6, 2017, 01:00 PM - Edit history (1)

and given that we've lost like a 1000 down-ticket state and local seats in 30 years, I think we have a serious problem with our approach, don't you?

Of course, strategy is the discussion we should be having. People here, all too often would rather have a discussion about which voters to shit on. That isn't a good strategy because it is divisive, regardless of what side of it you're on, and turns the focus from a discussion of strategy, to one of animosity and distrust. There are people here, regardless of whether this is a sound way to arrive at an opinion of a candidate in the last election, who have publicly stated that it was the posters on the other side who made them reject said candidate. I mean, yeah, that's a sad condition, but this is apparently who we are at DU...people, like anyone else.

So why don't you tell me why its a good strategy to continue to tell people they were stupid or selfish for either voting for, or abstaining from voting for, one candidate or another? Tell me why that kind of language isn't divisive?

[betsuni]

477. "Attacking them from the right"

[DFW]

393. I think there was a father and daughter team that personified Nader, Stein and the like

Here they are:

There is a difference in wanting to participate and wanting to dominate. I doubt many have illusions as to who wanted what.

What was accomplished by attacking? I don't mean contributing to the discussion without being willfully or negligently destructive, but outright attacking? Here is what was accomplished: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Citizens United, Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader, Bonehead and Ryan as Speakers of the House, Trump, Pence and Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.

THAT is what attacks accomplished for us. Some like it, some think we deserve it, some say it's our own damn fault for whatever reason, but that's what attacks from the left accomplished, or at least helped accomplish. In off years, let a hundred schools of thougt contend. In an election year, it's another story altogether, and we don't have Fox Noise's equivalent blasting away at gas stations and truck stops. Had we presented a front as united as what the Republicans put up, especially considering their obviously weak and corrupt offering, the Republicans would have been about as effective as a kid with a water pistol trying to blow holes in the Pentagon.

[stevenleser]

421. Veruca Salt is a pretty good analogy for those who attack Democrats from the left nt

[stevenleser]

419. Still no positive accomplishments listed by anyone. Case closed. nt

[tonedevil]

434. The winner...

by your own admission.

[Ken Burch]

444. We had no right to expect those people to just support our ticket no matter how far right it went.

You can't seriously believe we were just OWED those votes.

What is it about the idea, the idea the party never became open to, of actually trying to engage those people and find common ground with them, rather than simply DEMANDING their votes, that is so inadmissible to you?

And what do you think you achieve by simply shouting "you were WRONG!" at this group of voters, over and over again? History proves that doing that doesn't work.

[stevenleser]

472. More attempts to distract from the question in the OP that is a very simple one. nt

[JCanete]

547. You mean no positive accomplishments that you will accept, but unless you're going to effectively

refute them, your charming declaration of your own "winning" argument is pretty empty.

[vkkv]

565. So, where is the list of positive things Dems have accomplished since Trump took office?

Not just blocked, but accomplished?

We friggin' LOST to DONALD TRUMP !!

It was easy to accomplish things when the POTUS was a Dem..

We friggin' LOST to DONALD TRUMP !!

He put GORSUCH on the SCOTUS !!

We friggin' LOST to DONALD TRUMP !!

[YCHDT]

662. Of course Russia, voter suppression and Comey is left out of this critique because ...

... half truths against dems is what detractors have these days.

Dems no perfect and sure more workable than alternatives

[vkkv]

672. I AM A DEM !!

WTF?

"Detractors" ?

Many of are trying to create a DEM party that WON'T FRIGGIN' LOST TO DONALD TRUMP.

Ah, but you're fine with that, cuz,,, party-status-quo first.

[Blue_true]

427. Sorry, can't add much. I have come to hate the alt-left and everything they are with the heat of

three burning Suns.

[IronLionZion]

437. DU exists

many DUers think this is the site if you want to bury the Democratic Party 6 feet Underground.

The country has been pushed hard right. I don't believe any conservative parties pushed the Republicans towards the right. They had subversive factions shift their party from within, influencing primary elections and taking over state legislatures from the local level up.

The Dems seem to have given up on local races. The green party has won some local races in cities and rural areas. But mostly the Republicans run circles around us at this level, and then gerrymander us out of the house, and pass draconian and openly racist voter suppression laws to win more elections. It's infuriating.

Make people Democrats again.

[Gore1FL]

438. Very little. But not everything from the left is an attack.

It is logically impossible to blame Jill Stein or Ralph Nader for siphoning votes from the Democrats and at the same time deny them as potential allies with a legitimate voice.

Please decide which one they are, and form non-contradictory arguments around that conclusion.

As far as your question, "why is it that those folks are allowed to attack the Democratic Party from the left but if we respond to them in kind" it's because we are trying to get their votes in support to elect a Democratic government. Feel free to sling shit if you want. If you do, please quit whining when your tactics result in electoral losses.

[Demsrule86]

520. They are not allies and win only by demonizing Democrats and our party.

[Gore1FL]

578. If they aren't our allies then don't complain that their votes go elsewhere.

What seats did they win, and how does demonizing them help us win?

[BootinUp]

463. No compromise... EVAH!!!!

[sellitman]

464. I voted for Hillary but

I will never stop trying to move the party left.

Never.

[stevenleser]

466. So you couldn't answer the question in the OP but felt compelled to respond

With what you wrote that really doesn't have much to do with the question.

There is a lot of that. And it is very telling in its own way.

[Gore1FL]

501. In fairness to sellitman, the question was loaded and stupid.

If you change "attack" to "influence," we can answer with things like electoral victories in 2006 and 2008. But of course if we changed attack" to "influence," it would horribly impede the rhetorical trickery you were trying so hard to employ.

[stevenleser]

569. You are 100% wrong. It's a question that should always be asked. I'm surprised I even need to say

this.

I dont care what it is that you are doing, a question that you should always be asking is, is this working.

This isnt complicated. If you dont ask this its really hard to be successful at anything.

[Gore1FL]

580. the question comes down to what you include in "it"

If you only include attacks, then clearly, there is little to discuss. If "it" instead means all influences, the answers are very different.

It isn't complicated. You are correct. But you didn't want answers that could reflect the positive, you wanted to rhetorically beat up potential allies. Unfortunately for you, it was a pretty thinly veiled attempt.

Perhaps future posts should reflect more on the whole picture thereby being less selectively divisive.

[sellitman]

643. I don't equate Nader & Bernie

You obviously do.

Bernie backed Hillary as did I when the primary was over.

Nader did not back the Democrats.

Big difference.

[Demsrule86]

523. My suggestion is to move the country left before the party moves left so we can actually win

and( gasp) pass progressive policy. I know that principles are sacred and all to the alt-left (by the way losing is not a principle) but winning and governing are way more meaningful to the rest of us.

[sellitman]

642. Nice snark

Hope it made you feel better.

[Demsrule86]

644. Thank you. Running candidates who can't win is a waste of time. Primarying Joe Manchin for example

is stupid. He is the best we can do in WVA and has been with us when it counts (ACA) Some think that because they have a particular ideology that deep down everyone agrees with them and if such ideas were presented to the voters properly...why we would win easily. This is wishful thinking that somehow it is how the message is presented and not the message itself that isn't working. I know almost half the country does not agree with my liberal viewpoint. It makes me sad...but you have to live in the real world and work with what you have.

[killbotfactory]

510. Stop blaming the left for centrist democrats blowing elections.

If your campaign needs green party voters to win, you already lost.

[Demsrule86]

522. Th alt- left has blown every election that we lost since 2000.

Greens and third party riffraff.

[killbotfactory]

524. When Hillary was thought to be a sure thing, they were dismissed

But after her loss they became they key to her undoing? Ridiculous.

[Demsrule86]

540. They took their ball and went home...here is hoping they suffer 1000 times more

than those they threw under the bus...the poor, POC, LGBTQ, transgender,women, unions, children...etc. Check your privilege alt-left (third party riffraff)...be part of the solution not and not the problem.

[Act_of_Reparation]

585. "Th alt- left"

[stevenleser]

616. Stop ignoring the fact that the changes that the Clintons brought to the party are why we are

competitive at all.

[Demsrule86]

650. That is so true. I am so so sick of the bashing of Clinton. He tried to get single payer health care

for God's sake.

[R B Garr]

655. Absolutely true. Clinton beat the Republicans at their own game. And they

all knew it. First he dared to get elected, and then he owned them on economic policy. Then he left a surplus. He was focused on the economy, which came at a price with some part of the base, but he turned around the economic policy in Democrats favor. Al Gore was a perfect steward for the surplus. But, no........

What a shame...

[Kali]

545. for the past couple of days this thread keeps showing up at the top of the Latest page

which is my bookmark for DU. I ignored it until now because I saw that it was just another disingenuous flamebait thread blaming the "left" for all Democratic failure. There are several thoughtful replies but you dismiss them, further proving the contention that this OP is flamebait.

I am not sure why I am replying, but I do want to show some support for people that took the time to reply both in opposition to your obvious "when did you stop beating your wife" type of "question" and especially to those that offered reasoned, civil responses to it, despite your clear intentions.

Self awareness and holistic introspection will do more for the party than blaming one faction of it.

[zipplewrath]

557. Yeah, he'll ignore anything that actually happened

The reality is that he can show little effect from these "attacks" from the left. What can be shown is that in the 20+ years that the Clinton wing has run things, the party has ended up in the worst place it's been since reconstruction. It hasn't been just one election. It's been a steady decline at the state and local level as well. But that is somehow Stein's fault, or Nader. Can't be the people who actually RAN the party.

[Lil Missy]

551. It has done more harm than good. They need their own Party that doesn't [

piggy back onto the Democratic Party.

[McCamy Taylor]

602. Nader did not invent it. See 1968. See 1980.

[iamateacher]

614. Try thinking outside the box

Try looking at a new way of governing. What is wrong with interjecting new thoughts?

[Sparkly]

624. "Interject" away.

Just don't INTERFERE with efforts to achieve what they claim to champion.

[Demsrule86]

665. 663 replies...the biggest post I ever remember...

Good job.

[guillaumeb]

676. Surveys show a steady increase in support for very liberal ideas.

Support for single payer, marriage equality, the right of women to make healthcare decisions, and many other positions. SO that tells me that while many politicians have not evolved with the times, the electorate has evolved.

One reason given by constituencies for a lack of electoral participation is the idea that both parties are essentially the same. This refers to the corporatist policies that some say are common to both parties.

And Bernie Sanders popularity is evidence that moving left does inspire people, but overcoming obstacles to participation as well as the blatant gerrymandering and vote suppression will not be easy.

[ZX86]

695. It's making us tough.

Life isn't always fair. Many life changing lessons are learned the hard way. This is true in our personal lives, our professional lives, and our political lives. This song is analogous to the relationship between Ralph Nader and the Democratic Party and the father and son.

Acknowledge your feelings but it's time to move on. We have important work to do. We as Democrats need to focus on the future. Not the past.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

700. 8+years of damage to the environment and extinction & mass killing of wildlife. I will never forgive

the people who are so cavalier about both of these things. The egotism and selfishness of these leaders. And to think they call themselves the Green" Party. What a crock! May they rot in hell!

[AngryAmish]

703. This is a very long thread. Who should I insult?

[Demsrule86]

721. Greens of course...they have it coming.

[YOHABLO]

726. If you're in the center at this point and time, then you're just Rep. Lite.

[Hekate]

797. The thread that will not die. Almost 800 posts.

Well, stevenleser, the topic is obviously still a live wire.

[stevenleser]

808. Illustrative that those who attack the Democratic Party from the left are

Incapable of the most basic introspection and in fact are offended by the idea.

"Is what I'm doing working" is about the basic and most vital question you can ask yourself about anything you are spending effort on. And the answers to that question regarding the OP topic are obvious.

[Fluke a Snooker]

801. It proved that the Republican Party is the ENEMY of HUMANITY

Yes, all Republicans are WORSE than Nazis, WORSE than hordes of Ghengis Khan marauders, and above all, the epitome of how humanity and this planet will BE DESTROYED. There is NO such thing as being "too far left." It is imperative that we treat Republicans as they treat THEIR enemies, with intensity and fortitude. They need to be DESTROYED at the ballot box, DESTROYED in the courts, DESTROYED in public opinion, and finally...DESTROYED PERIOD. I will ALWAYS have that mentality.

No such thing as being "too far to the left."

[stevenleser]

806. We didn't need Nader or Stein for that. There was ample proof for the non-feebleminded before. nt

[Hekate]

809. Fluke a Snooker, u are way over the top in your unthinking hatred of half the people in this country

What should I do with my Republican neighbors, who are kind and good to me and others? Line them up against a wall and shoot them? Think about what you're saying.

If this is how you think Democrats/people on the left are supposed to talk, you should know that round the bend in this particular road is the far far right wing just waiting to join hands with you. There is indeed such a thing as "too far to the left."

Same as with your post that was removed the other day: this is NOT the Democratic Party way. I do not know where your head is at, but it is not a healthy place.