General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy two cents...
I haven't posted anything regarding the Sanders/Clinton divide that so severely split DUers during the primary since... well... the primary. But recently, these tensions seem to have flared up again due to the circulation of excerpts from Hillary Clinton's new book "What Happened?" The most controversial, in this context, being an excerpt where Sec. Clinton accuses Senator Sanders of "paving the way for Trump's 'crooked Hillary' campaign." Long story short I don't like it, and no it's not just "Bernie-bro reflex" . I staunchly supported Senator Sanders in the 2016 primary. I did everything I could to help elect Clinton and Kaine after the primary ended and Bernie made his endorsement. First off, does Mrs. Clinton really believe that the pussy-grabbing man-baby in chief really need Bernie's permission to attack her? The Senator's critique of Hillary, particularly surrounding campaign finance, was overall a well-deserved critique of the entire current political system as a whole. Considering the timing, I don't see the book as being too damaging, but it is divisive within a left/Democratic Party that DESPERATELY needs to unite.
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)monmouth4
(9,664 posts)Response to MrsCoffee (Reply #1)
Expecting Rain This message was self-deleted by its author.
TomSlick
(11,032 posts)It's long since time to get over the primaries. The country faces a real and present danger. I sincerely do not believe it an overstatement to say we are on the precipice of losing our republic.
Let the historians figure out the last election. We need to be laser focused on the present and future.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)we must also realize that the GOP gerrymandered and suppressed to a narrow victory.
TomSlick
(11,032 posts)We need to focus on any and all issues that apply to 2018 and 2020 - just not 2016.
[link:
TexasBushwhacker
(20,043 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Bluepinky
(2,260 posts)And he's absolutely right.
ecstatic
(32,566 posts)supporters made that impossible when it mattered most. Now we have Trump & the GOP dismantling decades of progress.
But I get your point. We will have to get it together and unite if there's any hope of reversing things next fall.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Trump didn't need Bernie's "permission" to attack Hillary He simply expanded on the foundation Bernie had already laid.
As for being divisive, exactly what do you think Bernie is doing every time he attacks the Democratic party - like declaring it "a failure"?
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)I agree with Senator Sanders when he said dems failed to reach out to their working class base in the last election.
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)When he was asked point blank which vote she made that was corrupt he sputtered and had nothing.
IMHO the moment Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine convinced Bernie to attack Clinton's character was the biggest mistake they ever made. Those two jack-asses ruined Bernie's chances at the nomination as far as I'" concerned.
Bernie has never run a negative campaign before and he didn't want to. He was super-uncomfortable about it. It showed in that moment.
I think you should quit while you are ahead.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)He may not have been able to come up with a corrupt vote by Hillary, but do you honestly believe big donors pour millions into elections for no reason?
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)about debates I watched or rhetoric I heard from that incompetent campaign manager who destroyed Bernie's campaign.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... and there are many, where Bernie denigrated HRC and the party.
But you can't discuss that here - because the TOS insists that Bernie be treated with kid gloves, despite the fact that he's divisive, attacks the party, and is a NON-Democrat who, for some reason, thinks he should be running a party he refuses to be a member of.
Luckily, there are other political sites where sainthood has not been conferred on Bernie, and such things can be discussed without interference.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)More Jeff Weaver idiocy no doubt.
We remember 2008,
We remember Hillary conceding when it was clear she was done.
We remember her getting behind Obama ASAP and working her ass off for him.
Never in my life has a primary candidate who is past the probability of winning continued to smear and bloody the front runner.
Just stop with the revisionist history.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... the "but what about her?" card, you've automatically lost the game.
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)HRC won most voters on economic issues.
"In fact, if we extend that out to every state for which we have exit polling, in 22 of those 27 states a majority of people said that the economy was the most important issue. And in 20 of those states, voters who said so preferred Hillary Clinton. In 17, in fact, a majority of those voters backed Clinton."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/in-nearly-every-swing-state-voters-preferred-hillary-clinton-on-the-economy/?utm_term=.5a7035f6c1e1
Most DT voters were not working class, and cultural anxiety drove them - not economic. The Democratic Platform is too progressive to appeal to that particular xenophobic, nationalist, homophobic, anti-reproductive rights, non-college educated demographic that spans the economic spectrum. And saying we should back off of our progressive ideology to appeal to this Demographic will cost us our base, and cost us elections.
In short, the narrative that attributes Trumps victory to a coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters just doesnt square with the 2016 election data. According to the election study, white non-Hispanic voters without college degrees making below the median household income made up only 25 percent of Trump voters. Thats a far cry from the working-class-fueled victory many journalists have imagined.
https://politicalwire.com/2017/06/05/trump-voters-not-working-class/
Controlling for other demographic variables, three factors stood out as strong independent predictors of how white working-class people would vote. The first was anxiety about cultural change. Sixty-eight percent of white working-class voters said the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence. And nearly half agreed with the statement, things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country. Together, these variables were strong indictors of support for Trump: 79 percent of white working-class voters who had these anxieties chose Trump, while only 43 percent of white working-class voters who did not share one or both of these fears cast their vote the same way.
The second factor was immigration. Contrary to popular narratives, only a small portionjust 27 percentof white working-class voters said they favor a policy of identifying and deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally. Among the people who did share this belief, Trump was wildly popular: 87 percent of them supported the president in the 2016 election.
Racism and sexism predicted support for Trump better than economic dissatisfaction.
on the notion that people tend to think that women should behave, but that political leaders ought to be assertive and independent. It may be the case that when a campaign highlights the way in which a female candidate is behaving incongruously, attitudes on sexism may become a stronger predictor of vote choice.
http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)There is no use in arguing with people who think Bernie "paved the way" for Trump's campaign tactics as if the "Hillary as Evil-Doer" concept didn't go all the way back to the 1990s.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)We need something like this:
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,437 posts)Bluepinky
(2,260 posts)I too voted for Bernie in the primary and switched my allegiance to Hillary when she won the nomination. I don't like all the attacks against Bernie that I see on DU, which have been accelerated since publication of Hillary's book.
I agree that the Democratic Party needs to look at the issue around campaign finance. Big money in politics looks suspect, and it's easy for opponents to label a candidate "crooked" who has accepted large sums of money from corporations or individuals.
Trump used this to his advantage during his campaign; he said because he used his own money to fund his campaign, he wouldn't owe anyone any favors, and he would be free to "drain the swamp". Of course, this was all a lie, because he was actually funded by a foreign adversarial country, which is even worse.
Anyway, I think the Democratic Party needs to distinguish itself from the other party, as the party of the people, not the party of big money. That could be our slogan: "Vote Democratic, the Party for the People".