Some want kowtowing to a minority of people who refused to vote for clinton.

[boston bean]

That is a failed strategy. Go ahead and keep telling the majority to shut up. Keep telling us we are wrong to point out wrongs all the while being attacked by those who claim to be democrats.

A lesson is going to learned the hard way if they think we are just going to forget the wrongs done in 2016. We won't forget. And we will not allow history to be rewritten.

Us little ladies and brown persons are fed the fuck up. Ok??

[Orrex]

2. I used to go cow towing in college

Oh, those zany days!

[boston bean]

4. I thought that was how it was spelled!! Haha!

[Orrex]

8. LOL

[TubbersUK]

5. LOL ! N/T

[cwydro]

16. Lmao!

Well played!

[Weekend Warrior]

3. Well said.

This majority you mention extremely well represented by minorities and the oppressed. Just like Republicans they fear this aspect. That is what they are opposing. They do so at the risk of all of us. We are currently paying a price for what is in part their ignorance. You might want to correct the op. They might not be able to do math but they seem to be grammatical professionals(Simply a tool to divert from their role).

[Podkayne K]

23. You Say Ingnorance

I say arrogance. Tomato, tamatoe, unfortunately, we can't call the whole thing off.

[brush]

31. Very nice, Gershwin lover.

[mcar]

6. Thrown the base under the bus

to try to appeal to 3rd party voters? Yeah, that's a good strategy.

[delisen]

15. Exactly. Third party voters are what they are.

Committed third party voters have bought the argument that there is no difference between the major parties, or they believe there is a difference but are willing to take the risk that if they vote third party the worser of the two major candidate will win.

In 2000 and in 2016 they succeeded in getting those worser candidates elected.

If the third party voters of 2016 need to be wooed by Democrats, after experiencing 8 months of all-Republican government, they are never going to be voters we can count on.

[wasupaloopa]

22. I could never understand the "burn the house down" mentality.

We watch as Trump destroys everything good about Obama's years in office knowing we could of had some nice things if enough of us voted for Hillary.

But it seems to me third party voters don't really want nice things because the logic of their actions does not lead to nice things.

They are self righteous fools just as the Trump voters are.

[clu]

96. do you mean to say third party

or third way?

[Orrex]

7. k/r

Some seem to embrace a strategy of huge investment for minimal return, e.g. "we have to reach out to those few Trump voters who'll switch to Democrat" rather than "we should end the disenfranchisement of thousands upon thousands of Democratic voters."

It baffles me, and I see it repeated on DU again and again. Whatever we do, we absolutely mustn't cause any hurt feelings among those who chose to shit on Clinton before, during and after the election. It is imperative that we not remind these Principled™ voters of the role they played in helping to elect Trump, because.... Why, exactly?

Oh, yeah! Because if we don't coddle them now, they might adopt another Principled Stance™ the next time around and help to elect the Republican once again.

[Jim Lane]

47. Why does it have to be "rather than"?

You write that unspecified "Some" are calling for reaching out to Trump voters "rather than" working on the disenfranchisement problem.

I don't see these things as inconsistent. It wasn't just a "few Trump voters who'll switch to Democrat" in light of how many of the Trump voters had voted for Obama. They're not hopeless cases. Jill Stein picked up about a million more votes in 2016 than she had in 2012, so there are some votes to be gotten there that aren't hard-core Greens. There's certainly disenfranchisement. Then there are millions of people who aren't disenfranchised and who could have voted, but don't. Finally, getting all the votes we can may not be enough, because of the big problem of whether the votes that are cast are counted accurately.

There's no reason to exclude any of these opportunities. They're all worth pursuing.

[bettyellen]

56. I honestly think it feels that way because the media focused so much on those WWC voters

With all the forums and the trips to the rust belt it was endless. As of last year the "angry white man" hadn't already been placed at the center of the universe. It's been bizarre and alienating to watch the base be ignored to such a large extent.

[Jim Lane]

57. It's natural and proper to focus on how to improve.

In the popular vote, Clinton won a narrow victory in what should have been a big win. We lost the Presidency. If we want to win the Presidency, it just won't work to say "We don't care about anyone who voted for Trump, we don't care about anyone who voted third party." We need to care about those people AND about the base.

Focus on any group that didn't vote Democratic isn't a problem unless it undercuts the base. We could probably appeal to some of the Trump voters by moving toward racism and xenophobia, but I don't think anyone of any importance is suggesting that.

[bettyellen]

61. Basically those were anti-immigration voters, so yeah they undercut the base...

They didn't have a problem with Trumps obvious racism.
And if you didn't notice, everyone in the media chased them for interviews again and again for months while ignoring Dems, women and POC completely.

It was disturbing to see the media not learning a lesson, but continuing to elevate conservative xenophobic morons over the rest of the electorate. Even when polls showed that HRC had more voters concerned about jobs and the economy - and those Trump folks were more nationalist than populist they ignored those facts because they'd kissed their asses so long and soooo hard. Anything to give them cover for supporting a blatant racist.

When I think of the months of that crap, and see HRC can't write a stupid book (like everyone else) without catching hell.... the bias is clear.

[Jim Lane]

66. That's far too simplistic.

Basically, Trump's voters were Republicans and Clinton's were Democrats (in both cases, including self-identified independents with a strong party lean). I haven't seen any hard data, but I'm sure the vast majority of people voted for the same party they had voted for in 2012. That would include a lot of anti-immigration voters supporting Trump, because they've been voting Republican for years now. Nevertheless, you can't just say "anti-immigration" and explain more than 60 million individual choices.

Most notably, there were Obama-Trump voters. They're worth paying attention to. Just today, Politico had a valuable article: "Poll: Obama-Trump voters drifting away from the president". Key excerpts:

Sixteen percent of these Obama-Trump voters said they regretted their choice in last year's election — a small but significant number that again outpaces the 6 percent of all Trump voters who regret voting for him.

. . . .

Very few Romney-Clinton voters want do-overs on their 2016 votes. Only 3 percent said they regretted their vote — far less than the 16 percent of Obama-Trump voters who said the same.

I certainly don't think we should appeal to Trump voters by trying to outdo him in racism (or misogyny or homophobia/transphobia), but we don't need to win over all of them. A big chunk are not hard-core bigots.

As for the role of the media, I was supporting Bernie Sanders in the primary. You don't have to tell me about media bias. Bernie ran a substantive, issue-oriented campaign, but the corporate media largely acted as if he didn't exist.

[bettyellen]

72. Stop relitigating the primary.

[Jim Lane]

88. Read DU just in the last couple days, and you'll see that your admonition comes too late.

By a couple hundred posts, in fact.

[bettyellen]

91. It's against the TOS

[Jim Lane]

95. This is absurd.

In the first place, all I said was that the corporate media didn't give Bernie Sanders fair coverage. That doesn't constitute refighting the primary.

In the second place, DU this week has been rife with threads about Hillary's book, threads in which the OP and most of the responses actually do refight the primary. Go lecture those posters about the ToS.

[Orrex]

58. Because it's about allocation of resources and return on investment of effort

We can bust our asses to try to persuade a handful of Trump voters to switch to Democrat, or we can expend the same effort to restore the voting rights of thousands upon thousands of deliberately disenfranchised Democratic voters.

It doesn't have to be "rather than," but until someone convinces me of a successful payoff, it's simply not worth the effort to try to recruit Trump voters.

There's no reason to exclude any of these opportunities. They're all worth pursuing.

But they are not all equally worth pursuing.

[bettyellen]

62. Also, courting xenophobes is seriously alienating to the real Dem base.

[Orrex]

63. Absolutely correct.

That cannot be overstated.

[Jim Lane]

67. That depends on how we court them.

To try to outdo or even match Trump's xenophobia would be morally wrong, along with being counterproductive because of the effect on the base that you mention.

But people are complicated. Most of them think about more than one factor. It may be inconceivable to DUers, but there are some voters who feel pulled in both directions and are undecided until the last week of the campaign. For example, there are xenophobes out there who are terrified of suffering bankruptcy because of a high medical bill. If we tell them, "We're not going to build that stupid wall but we're also not going to throw you and 20 million other people off the health insurance rolls," some of them will put aside their xenophobia and vote Democratic.

[bettyellen]

71. xenophobes hate Dem values - they hate insurance that covers brown people and abortions....

And that's the only kind of healthcare that's not flat out racist. Obama lost congress because he pushed Obama care and they demonized it. It sure as hell wasnt Nafta that got he rust belt in a tizzy in the midterms.

[Jim Lane]

89. Donald Trump got 62,984,825 votes in the official tally.

Even if we allow for some hacking of electronic votes to inflate his total, it's clear there were a LOT of people who voted for him.

Do you believe that every single one of those people is a hopeless xenophobe who will never vote for a decent candidate? Hell, even Hillary said that the "basket of deplorables" held only half of Trump's supporters.

BTW, I agree with her that the Comey letter cost her many votes. That means those people don't fit the "hopeless xenophobe" model. Either they're xenophobes who were nevertheless willing to vote for her anyway, until the letter came out, or they're non-xenophobes who abandoned her because of the letter.

And of course the Comey letter is only one of many, many factors that influenced the election. Chalking it all up to one factor -- xenophobia -- is no basis for a winning strategy.

[bettyellen]

90. I'm not chalking it up to one factor- but saying the xenophobes are not worth chasing. They hate

Our diversity/ and our diversity is our greatest strength. Doing anything to appease their xenophobia does undercut our base- because they're not white midweatern men.

[Jim Lane]

94. There are two different issues here.

"Doing anything to appease their xenophobia is wrong" -- I agree, see #67.
"{T}he xenophobes are not worth chasing" -- I disagree as to some of them, because they have motivations in addition to their xenophobia.

[clu]

98. thank you for continuing to reply

in a friendly manner

[Jim Lane]

69. Many of these paths require different resources.

Introduce a bill for single payer and hold a press conference about it to get some free media. This reaches some Trump voters who've been told for years that "Obamacare is a failure" but who know people who are happy with their Medicare and who therefore react favorably to "Medicare for all." (I realize that not all Democrats support this policy, but many, probably most, do.)

Support litigation to restore voting rights (and, while we're talking about litigation, we need to keep attacking gerrymandering, too).

Sponsor voter registration drives to recruit new voters who aren't suffering from any disenfranchisement but who just haven't been motivated to register and vote.

Of course, money always helps, but there are other resources, such as volunteer time. Even money isn't just "money". Litigation and voter registration can be done by 501(c)(3) organizations that couldn't buy TV ads for a candidate.

[bettyellen]

73. You don't seem to be up on what Dems have actually been doing....

I guess that's why you think it's easy to accomplish these things.

[Jim Lane]

87. OK, you've won your official Democratic Underground Strawman Badge.

This coveted award is presented to people who post brilliant refutations of what someone else has NOT said.

[zipplewrath]

9. Move On

I suspect what people are suggesting is that the election is over and it's time to move on.

Bernie voters were told to move on. I suspect you are now experiencing the same thing. I understand you feel "wronged". So did they. But nothing anyone is going to do is going to change that. And going forward, you're not going to build future coalitions by focusing on shaming those who you feel wronged you.

"learning lessons the hard way" is roughly what some of the Bernie Bro' crowd were threatening as well. Is that really what you wanna work for going forward? Isn't that exactly the lesson you're trying to teach the Bernie/Stein crowd right now?

[PDittie]

11. Well said

[KTM]

12. +1

There are suddenly a lot of one-way streets at DU.

[Duppers]

18. Double that. +2

Both sides should stfu. We have real work to do coming up.


Doesn't DU have some rules about all these threads?

[Saviolo]

19. Exactly

How is it possible that we're still focused on Bernie vs. Hillary? It's so far behind us now that the orange fog has completely obscured it. Being able to argue points about the primary and infighting is a luxury and a privilege, meanwhile people are actually dying out there because they're standing up to people waving nazi flags, giving nazi salutes, and spouting nazi slogans.

There is a VERY CLEARLY DEFINED enemy that we should ALL be organizing TOGETHER to fight, but we keep picking at old scabs on each other. "He didn't concede early enough!" "She took all that money from Wall St.!" Jesus, enough. There are ACTUAL NAZIS happening in the USA right now, maybe that should be the focus? And they're enabled and emboldened by the people who are currently in power, and guess what: Lots of those white nationalists in Congress and the Senate didn't magically get elected this past election, they've been there for YEARS!

Dammit, focus, everyone!

[wasupaloopa]

29. You don't move forward without first acknowledging the past.

There was only one way that could have stopped Trump from gaining the White House.

That one way was to vote for Hillary Clinton. We know that now from hind site.

So what does that tell us about going forward? Will we try to run third party candidates again? Will we not vote for the Democratic candidate because he/she doesn't meet all our criteria?

We we stay home again?

If you didn't vote for Hillary and you were eligible to vote you helped put Trump in the White House. If that describes you then own it!

But my guess is you will blame Hillary still.

[zipplewrath]

45. I voted for Hillary

I voted for her Husband too. I voted for Obama.

That doesn't mean I have to participate in any "firing squads".

[LanternWaste]

59. I keep reading references to this mythical 'firing squad.'

I keep reading references to this mythical 'firing squad,' yet the allegation of such is based on little more than anecdotal data and post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacies.

I understand we often rely on melodrama and hyperbole to make a point, but when the point is wholly predicated on nothing more than melodramatic editorials, it becomes less a valid point and more a simplistic bumper-sticker.

[Demsrule86]

37. That is already happening with Sanders supported groups like 'Our Revolution' who kicked out a

candidate who said they voted for Sec.Clinton...they have not moved on. They are now involved in purity testing and primarying Democrats they don't like.

[zipplewrath]

43. There's alot of purity testing going on

You'd be hard pressed to find an organization that isn't involved in some purity testing. Even DU has established their purity test.

[haveahart]

55. The only purity test I want is one on Citizens United. Everything else is ok with me.

[LanternWaste]

60. One might go so far as to say the Democratic Party Platform is a purity test

One might go so far as to say the Democratic Party Platform itself is a 'purity test' within the context of its consistent misuse on DU.

[HarmonyRockets]

75. What's wrong with primarying Democrats?

I think that rep that came out in favor of corporate tax cuts needs to be primaried immediately. Trying to get better Democrats through primaries has been going on for a while, look at what Daily Kos did for instance with Donna Edwards years ago.

Now if you think primarying a certain Dem will hurt the chances of winning the seat that's one thing, but using the democratic process to nominate better Democrats is a good thing.

[FSogol]

10. K & R. n/t

[GeoWilliam750]

13. Looking at all of these posts about the 2016 primaries

We should get ready for eight years of Trump

[boston bean]

26. Umm they are about the general election. Not the primary.

[Demsrule86]

38. Yes that is what we are threatened with isn't it?

[n2doc]

14. I want to move forward

Some people apparently don't

[boston bean]

27. Are you on JPR?? Did you take their oath to never vote for Hillary?

I am curious. Not accusing.

[m-lekktor]

40. wow. are you for real?

jesus christ.

[Jim Lane]

51. Do some people take an oath to lie about JPR?

I have more than 1,200 posts on JPR. Some of them, from last fall, were arguments about why people should vote for Hillary. Post-election I've posted about why Hillary would have been better than Trump. There simply is no "their oath to never vote for Hillary".

During the 2016 campaign, JPR, unlike DU, allowed posts on all sides of the what-should-progressives-do question. The plurality of posts supported Jill Stein. There were minorities for writing in Bernie and for voting for Hillary. If the expression of such differences of opinion offends your tender sensibilities, then don't read JPR, but don't lie about what goes on there.

[RhodeIslandOne]

64. Not surprisingly, JAR are kvetching about Hillary's book today

Every post is about Hill this and that. Meanwhile, barely a murmur about the Dreamer repeal by "the guy who's just as bad as Hillary", except a few naive people "genuinely shocked he do that!" and others finding a way to blame Obama (I think they call him "Mr Hope and Change" over there). Great people. Soaking in their privilege. Enjoy!

[Jim Lane]

65. In other words, you can't even begin to defend your absurd smear.

Thanks for the implicit concession. There is no oath.

Beyond that, your dissatisfaction with JPR is duly noted. Good thing there's never any kvetching on DU.

[RhodeIslandOne]

80. I never said there was an oath

But I think they are full of shit.

[Jim Lane]

86. Sorry, my mistake. It's boston bean who didn't defend a lie.

I didn't notice that someone else had jumped in. You're quite right that you said nothing about the alleged but nonexistent oath.

[JHan]

81. typical isn't it. ++++

They're not directly affected.

[RhodeIslandOne]

82. I'm sure it's just "identity politics". n/m

[Maven]

93. Don't you DARE try to normalize that cesspool here.

And that's exactly what it was and is: a cesspool of Hillary hate and anti-Democratic sentiment. We have all seen it. A site whose moderator had LOCK HER UP in her sig line through the election. Oh just a "plurality" of Stein voters you say? Fuck them and fuck JPR.

No one here is buying your rosy picture of JPR as just a place for free thinkers. We know what that place is about.

[Jim Lane]

97. What is this, Straw Man Week on DU?

It's always been a problem with this site but lately it seems to be proliferating.

You write, "No one here is buying your rosy picture of JPR as just a place for free thinkers." I didn't say it was a rosy place. What I actually said was that (1) JPR does not require people to take an oath not to vote for Hillary, and (2) during the campaign, posts advocating a vote for Hillary were allowed there.

Those are both objective facts. If you want to opine that to state those facts is to "normalize that cesspool", you're entitled to your opinion, but it won't alter the facts.

Are there posters on JPR who hate Hillary and oppose the Democratic Party? Absolutely. I of course never said otherwise. I just have this weird, idiosyncratic belief that it's wrong to tell lies, even about people with whom you disagree. On occasion I've even defended Ted Cruz when I thought the truth (he's legally eligible to be President) called for it. And I will DARE to continue to do so.

[WoonTars]

54. "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the communist party? "

Sound familiar?

Enough with the bullshit blame game, it's almost been a year.

We need to focus on winning the 2018 mid-terms, and this infighting and re-litigating of the 2016 election season helps no-one but the republicans, and the last time i checked, they were the ones that were supposed to be the bad guys, right????

[roomtomove]

17. Enough.....!!!!!!!!

Why do we keep self-flagellating about 2016???? Get a life, go out and work for 2018!!!!!!!

[PatrickforO]

20. Too many divisive posts.

We need to be focused on winning elections. This means fighting tooth and nail against any voter suppression measures our state legislatures might come up with. It means getting rid of gerrymandering. It means getting rid of the electoral college, which can be done through the National Popular Vote initiative. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

But it also means having a strong 'kitchen table' platform that reaches out to independent voters. Because they outnumber us and if we want to win any elections we also need to reach them. This is why we need to get unified around kitchen table issues. Most people don't know neoliberalism from cubism and don't care. Most people don't think of the election until a week or so before it happens. What do these people worry about when they are sitting at the kitchen table?

1. Losing their job.
2. Losing their healthcare.
3. How it's getting harder and harder to make ends meet, let alone get ahead.

If they are in their fifties, like me, add Social Security and Medicare, both sacred trusts for the American people. I've paid into both full-boat for over 40 years, and they'd better not be privatized or voucherized or whatever else that punk Ryan wants. Those are not 'entitlements.' They are EARNED BENEFITS.

This is why Clinton's book excerpt and all the divisive posts on here lately have NOT been productive. If the objective is to WIN elections, then why are we still arguing about the primary?

[jalan48]

21. The Democratic Party losses all across the country are due to kowtowing?

Last edited Wed Sep 6, 2017, 11:25 AM - Edit history (1)

[Chakaconcarne]

24. So, if people instead tell you are right to point this out once a day (it seems)

that will somehow make it all better?

I have news for you... it won't.

Our side lost because the election was hacked.

These threads accomplish nothing...

Get it?

[raven mad]

25. I just wish everyone would concentrate on the FACT

that we have a sTrumpet in the White House defiling ALL we stand for.

I don't really care who did what to whom or when or why or where. That's done and over.

We won't have a nation if this keeps up.

[NurseJackie]

28. Thank you! Thank you very much! This group of disloyal non-voters is NOT "the base"...

... as "some" here have tried to argue. In reality, calling disloyal non-voters "the base" is the furthest thing from the truth that there could be.

The "base" are reliable voters, loyal voters, responsible voters. The base doesn't abandon the party on a whim or based on hurt feelings or disappointment. The base supports the party by volunteering or by donations. The base are mature voters who don't pout and who are able to see and comprehend the larger picture. The base aren't concerned about their egos and vanities or needing a special "reason" to vote. The base don't need to made to feel "special". The base don't withhold their votes because they haven't been sufficiently flattered to consider their vote to have been "earned". The base understand that you make a difference by participating with the party, not by "protest votes" intended to "send a message."

So, yes... you're correct! The voters who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton are worthless and and unreliable (they've proven so by not voting for the party's nominee). Our party should NOT cater to their vanities or whims.

[brush]

33. Hear, hear!

[treestar]

48. [phone]

Spot on!

[IronLionZion]

30. In 2008 we had competitive primaries between a lady and a brown person

it worked out well for our party. Not sure why it's a problem in 2016.

The problems are inside the other party.

Either way, we should start preparing for the 2018 elections so we can elect more Dems to office to face a stronger resistance to one big orange problem that threatens all of us.

The 2 candidates who ran for president in our party are respected elder statespeople. The asshole on the other side will be remembered as a bumbling buffoon who no one trusts and he will soon be a pariah in his own party and country.

[Demsrule86]

39. We had economic meltdown in 08 and neither Democratic candidate attacked the party.

[HopeAgain]

32. Trying to pull the party in a more left direction

is politics. Not kowtowing, not bullying, not anything but politics. Telling us we have to stick with a status quo of no power in Washington, all but the most metropolitan State houses, and even the dog catchers, isn't working (in case no one has noticed).

[boston bean]

35. Voting for a republican or not voting or writing in mickey mouse in the GE

Is not pulling the party left. And it is those actions being discussed. Follow along.

[brush]

36. Have you notice gerrymandering, repug vote suppression, vote hacking or Comey's letter?

Last edited Wed Sep 6, 2017, 10:46 AM - Edit history (1)

The repugs cheat to win.

It's a major problem that has to be dealt with.

But please know that every significant social change has come because of the Democratic Party— the New Deal programs — the Wagner Act, Social Security, child labor laws and on and on; the Great Society programs — Medicare, Medicare, occupational safety laws, civil rights laws; the ACA, the Lilly Ledbetter equal pay for women law; and the 2016 platform was the most progressive ever.

Let's concentrate on combating repug cheating to help us win and the party will continue it's history of social change for the betterment of the country and its people.

[treestar]

34. yes I see a lot of "we need them"

but if that is true, we are doomed. They will never compromise and nothing will ever be good enough. We cannot satisfy them.

[NurseJackie]

42. That's their EGO talking. They want us to believe we "need" them...

... but in reality, we don't.

[zipplewrath]

49. Heard this before

Right here on DU there was an infamous post about how HRC didn't "need" some portion of the democratic party.

Then right after the election they were candidate number 1 for the reason she lost.

You can't have it both ways. Either you don't need these people, or they aren't they reason she lost.

[RandomAccess]

74. THANK YOU - excellent point

Either you don't need these people, or they aren't they reason she lost.

[WoonTars]

50. So if you don't need 'them', why do they get the blame for Hillary's loss?

That's simply not logical...

[iluvtennis]

44. ++++ Agree. Well said.

[zentrum]

46. Well, I'm

...a little lady and I sure hope the Dems take the real lesson from 2016 and it ain't Bernie's doing that she lost.

[geek tragedy]

52. Millions upon millions voted for Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the general.

This is their party too.

Just like the party remained the party of people who voted for Clinton in the primary and Obama in the general (twice).

[HarmonyRockets]

77. Yep

[boston bean]

84. Do you understand the definition of "the minority"?

[stranger81]

92. 46% may technically be a minority, but not by much.

Sure you want to double down on ostracizing what amounts to essentially half of your own party?

[MFM008]

53. I think this remains

Under discussion because of the "result" ( maggot in chief) of the election being such a horror.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

68. .

[Madam45for2923]

70. Her book has great timing. We can learn from it in time for the next elections in 2018 & 2020.

Cannot wait to read the whole book.

bostonbean!!!

[samnsara]

76. wtf is kow or cow towing?

[Gothmog]

78. K&R

[R B Garr]

79. K&R

[hughee99]

83. I'm not a fan of kowtowing, but I'd be cool with it if we

Didn't spend next primary season calling people who support any Dem candidates racists, sexists or homophobes or other such names. It's not productive and makes it harder to get their vote when the general election comes around.

[OregonBlue]

85. Could we please give it a rest. It's been done to death and we are all so weary of this childishness