2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNo, I don't think Hillary and the dem establishment can put the party back together again
And that's on them.
They've screwed that up.
If they wanted to, they could have Now I see they're trying to walk back their hysterical accusations.
Too late.
Good job!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BootinUp
(47,078 posts)
DURHAM D
(32,606 posts)
Spoil sport.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)DURHAM D
(32,606 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Nice. Real nice.
For some reason I don't think you will be consistent on this one. Lol
boston bean
(36,218 posts)codswallop. LOL
merrily
(45,251 posts)This certainly won't help, though.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)First, I'd be surprised if 45% of any group actually makes it to the polls to vote, period, and Millennials are not the group likeliest to make it to polls for a midterm.
Second, Millennials lean left.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/
Third, if true, so what? 2014 was a historically good year for Republicans.
elleng
(130,732 posts)and followed by followers near and far.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)with sexism. Please, tell us what you are talking about.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)You could give a shit a bout sexist comments else you'd address the condescending, sexist one above your post.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Again.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)H2O Man
(73,506 posts)I think that it will be very difficult.
casperthegm
(643 posts)It might be too late for many already. Last straw might be the convention if DWS doesn't work to mend things. And she hasn't shown the inclination or aptitude so far...
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You can't undo a year of "special place in hell", "only there to meet boys", "lazy bums that want free stuff", "stupid kids", and "you're all just racist and sexist men" with a convention speech.
casperthegm
(643 posts)Sounds like many Bernie supporters feel that the party is a lost cause. If it can't be fixed to their satisfaction, what next?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The Republicans are in a trap of their own making - they are dependent on their increasingly-insane base, so they can't turn back. As a result, they will dwindle away.
The Democrats will split. One part of the party will gather up the sane, former-Republicans and conservative Democrats, and take over the historical position of the Republican party (think Eisenhower).
The other party will take of the historical position of the Democratic party (think FDR). We do not know which piece will retain the "Democratic party" name.
This will take around 15-30 years to sort out. And while it's happening, discord among Democrats will allow Republicans to win some, and thus continue to fuck everyone over.
Meanwhile, cities like Miami will literally be consumed by the ocean. Drought, famine and war will plague the planet. Poverty and desperation will soar. And the DLC wing will continue to insist that incremental, small solutions involving large private profit and massive public risk will solve it through the Miracle of Private Enterprise™.
casperthegm
(643 posts)But it doesn't sound all that far fetched either.
Jemmons
(711 posts)view would be that the left wing of the party is decimated by the moderate wing as they claim to represent all and pose as progressives who can get things done. If you look closely you can see signs of it in present debates.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)This is far more thoughtful and reality-based than anything I've read in the media lately.
The media is running a full-court press against Bernie supporters in some vain attempt to get people to stop voting for him (as we saw yesterday, it didn't work), but haven't given too much thought regarding the fact that
A. Hillary is still under an FBI Investigation and,
B. In order to win in November, she would need Bernie supporters to vote for her, which is becoming increasingly unlikely because of the media' assassination.
BTW, OT: Have you read Paul Thompson's Clinton Email Scandal Timeline? It's a doozy. http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline
I thought you might enjoy it since it was you who first told me about unsecure that server was. 
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)+27
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)... and took pains to be as insulting as possible the whole way. Now they'll want us to be good little b****** and vote for her. Many have come to understand that it's infected and festering from the very top and will never believe in the party again. The only option is to form another party that actually has democratic values and supports them or go independent.
This election has been a giant middle finger.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)I might as well just say fuck it, stop stressing, and stop dealing with politics actively until I hear about things changing; because you're right. The Democratic party does feel like a lost cause. So many people who call themselves Dems apparently support the same kind of policy that was 20 years ago, firmly the domain of right-wingers. I'm only 22, and already feel like I'm getting ulcers from this crap because I can see the end coming no matter what happens at this point. It's simpler to just use my GI bill, go back to school, and try to provide for my family as the shit comes down.
Either that, or leave the top ticket blank, and vote down-ticket for Dems in action, and not just democratic lite candidates.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
riversedge
(70,084 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)donkeys connected in the middle with two heads and they were each pulling a different direction. That is what we are facing. Corporate oligarchy vs populist democracy and nothing can make them pull in the same direction.
Some of us may vote against Trump but we will NOT vote for her.
Zorro
(15,722 posts)and you'll be doing your damnedest to make sure it doesn't happen.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)It is quite obvious that Hillary and Co. have no intention of bringing this party together. For me it was the bull shit put out by Jonathan Capeheart regarding Bernie not being involved in the Civil Rights movement.
Now, after the Nevada debacle, it is clear to me that instead of wanting to bring the party together, at any point, they will simply try to "guilt" the Bernie supporters into voting for Hillary because if she looses it will be all our fault.
I am not buying it, if Hillary looses it is because she could not or would not find a way to negotiate peace within her own party.
If she was as smart as everyone tells us she is, she would have pulled DWS aside and told her she was doing more harm than good.
It may be too late, and yes, that is on them.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Scare tactic isn't working, so now they use guilt.
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)It's a realignment to the right, trying to attract disaffected Repubs and create a new governing 'coalition.'
corkhead
(6,119 posts)relegated for the last 35 years or so.
jillan
(39,451 posts)did the same thing to Obama supporters.
Why do they do that?
Bernie talks about his differences with Hillary.
Obama talked about his differences with Hillary.
But Hillary goes after her opposition's supporters.
I've had enough.
Response to jillan (Reply #19)
carolinayellowdog This message was self-deleted by its author.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Clinton, the DNC, and the Third Way occupy a part of the political spectrum previously held by the Republicans before they became reactionaries. The Democratic Party establishment believes in neocon foreign policy and supply-side Reaganism.
The Liberals and Progressives are far to the left of the Party. Ideally the Republicans will flame out spectacularly and the Democrats will become the sane, more reasonable conservative party, leaving Liberals and Progressives to form a new Leftist party.
PADemD
(4,482 posts)Destroy and rebuild
wisteria
(19,581 posts)Bernie has run a good race, but he hasn't been cheated. Rules are rules, and no one just changed them to accommodate Clinton. These same rules tripped her up against Obama in 2008.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)There was blatant rule-changing at the Nevada convention, for starters, and it wasn't in Bernie's favor.
Then there was the debate schedule-- there were 26 debates in 2008, but only 6 were scheduled for the 2015-16 primaries, and none of them were held before the deadline for changing party affiliation in New York had passed. And most of those debates were scheduled during major national or local sporting events.
Then there were the discrepancies between official tallies and exit polling, which were almost always several points in Hillary's favor.
And DWS preventing Bernie from accessing his own data for a couple of days, but backed down after Bernie had threatened legal action.
And the Iowa caucuses which were so loaded in Hillary's favor (the results were even being tallied by a Hillary supporter with an HRC 2016 vanity license plate) that even the Des Moines Register, which had endorsed Hillary, conceded that something was rotten with the process.
Then there was "Bullhorn Bill" Clinton and his entourage in Massachusetts blocking voters from reaching the polls in New Bedford and elsewhere.
And of course, all of the bullshit accusations that the Clinton team has leveled against Bernie and his supporters, the most recent of which was out-and-out lies about Bernie supporters becoming "violent" at the Nevada convention.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)rich moderate corporate republicans replacing the traditional democratic voters. As we've seen over the past six years, this is a very effective coalition for the owning class. They will maintain the facade of two parties and "negotiate" a poverty level minimum wage, small increase to our military budget (especially Israel), ridiculous, cosmetic changes to TPP, fracking only on even numbered days, etc. The Clinton supporters who call themselves democrats will cheer all of it, and anyone who protests will be labelled a sexist communist.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)to try to include Independents as being part of our Party out of the other side.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Being against closed primaries is the same thing as wanting left-leaning Independents to be able to vote in them.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Response to Trust Buster (Reply #30)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)...over the last couple of decades (and with roots back to the Reagan junta). We've been bleeding working class Democrats, leftists of all kinds, environmentalists, professionals, Vietnam vets and others to the "independent" non-party, which now comprises over 40% of the electorate.
Democratic Party "closed" primaries measure only what remains, not the full demographic of progressives. Clinton has an even narrower constituency, the half of the reduced party that buys into her worthless, lying bullshit, unthinkingly, in my opinion.
The other half of the current Democratic base are either young and new voters drawn in by Sanders, some returning leftists and others drawn in by Sanders, and old Democrats like me, who remain Democrats only out of loyalty to ideals that this corporatized party has long since abandoned, or out of nostalgia or family feeling. I'm an o-o-o-o-old Democrat who feels loyalty and nostalgia. I remember my mother making all her kids get down on our knees, on election night 1954, to pray the Rosary for Adlai Stevenson to defeat Dwight Eisenhower!
That's the kind of Democrat that the Clintonites have spat upon with virtually every word and action, along with their spitting upon the young.
Our party is NOT "just fine." It is losing Democrats like me, "born" Democrats, people whose parents and grandparents were New Dealers, people who canvassed for JFK, people who joined the civil rights movement though they were white and relatively privileged, people who did things because they were RIGHT and ETHICAL and MORAL, not because of self-interest and greed, but because they belonged to a "big tent" party and, by God, they were going to expand that "tent"!
I don't think Clinton has any clue what the Democratic Party is about. She doesn't want people like me in it, and many of her supporters seem to have the same attitude (unless they are bots, which we've seen some of here, and for those I feel the same compassion I would feel for any workers who have to do things they know are wrong, in order to keep body and soul together).
Clinton has contempt, also, for the young. She is rigid that way. Dissent annoys her. She wants to stamp it out. She likes controlled venues with small audiences of vetted people. And when she happens to meet a hard question or opposition, you can see her eyes harden with hatred. She is no kind of Democrat, who relishes discussion and new ideas and grants people leave to oppose her, as anyone who believes in democracy ought to. She reminds me of Nixon. She has a lot of his flaws.
She is no leader for the Democratic Party I was born into. Money and ambition are okay, especially for women who have been denied money and access to power, but they are not everything, or even a tenth of everything, or anything at all, if you don't have a base of ethical principles and generosity.
Clinton does not qualify. She has nothing inside of her but desire for money and power. That is not a leader. That is a cypher, whom our financial overlords and war profiteers will use for their own purposes. I've known a lot of strong, ambitious and even well-heeled women in my lifetime, many of whom were or are real leaders due to their ethics and their generosity. They went far, and I'm very proud of them, but they never regarded power as an end itself. Those are the kinds of women who would make great presidents. Clinton is not one of them. She is already a disgrace to feminism, with her actions in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Iraq, and hers and Bill's policies that have greatly increased poverty here. She's hanging out with Henry Kissinger these days. Jeez.
That's not my Democratic Party. And that is not "just fine." It's awful.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)My mother was a Democrat and worked for women's rights in the 60s and 70s. She is an old-school feminist and raised me as such. My grandparents were Democrats. I've been a Democrat since I was born, and registered as one when I turned 18. I've voted a straight Democratic ticket in every election (local and national) since that time, except one candidate in PA years ago who was an anti-choice Dem, and I voted for the pro-choice liberal Repub.
I support Hillary. Her policies are aligned with my beliefs. I believe she is a hard-working public servant and will make an excellent president.
I am not a 1%er, an oligarch, a corporatist (although to be fair I'm not sure what that word even means in the context of DU anymore), a facist, or a warmonger. I am a moderate Democrat, and I will vote Democratic until they put me in the ground.
What you probably don't want to hear is that I suspect there are loads out there just like me. There must be, because Hillary's got way more votes.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)...the Republican Party where it belongs. But that is not my only objection to Hillary Clinton--the half a billion dollars she took from the financial industry for "speeches."
You say Clinton's "policies are aligned with my beliefs." I would ask, do you really know what Clinton's policies are? She whirls around like one of the old toy tops we used to play with. And just when you think you have her pinned down, she jumps out of the jumping jack box with a surprise, like she did with the Colombia/U.S. "free trade" agreement, and will do with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)--both really, really bad trade agreements that will decimate this country while not doing any good for the poor in the other countries. These agreements are "free trade for the rich."
Or like she did with Honduras and Libya, after apologizing for her vote for Bush's Iraq War. She's done this on "free trade for the rich" agreements, on abortion rights, on gay rights, on the minimum wage, on single payer health care, on almost any issue you can name. For it, then against; against it, then for it, depending on how the wind is blowing, and probably on donations to the Clinton Foundation.
And some of these matters are heartbreakers and tragedies--Honduras, for instance, where Clinton, as Secretary of State, supported a fascist coup that destroyed Honduran democracy (she admits it in one of her emails), and where the women leading the pro-democracy and environmental movements there are being systematically raped and murdered by fascist death squads.
One of these women was murdered in her bed just this March. Her name was Berta Caceras, an indigenous woman activist on the environment, winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize, and an anti-coup activist, who named Hillary Clinton as the one responsible for the fascist coup in her country before she was murdered. Clinton's strong support for the fascist government, including funding them with our tax dollars, has encouraged and enabled them to commit these atrocities.
Clinton is all apologies over Iraq, then she turns around and does this to Honduras, and then, in an even worse way, to Libya, where we can be sure that thousands of women are being brutalized, raped and murdered in the chaos there, and with the rise of the IS jihadists in the vacuum of power that Clinton helped to create.
Like a spinning top, she wants credit for apologizing for Bush-Cheney's "shock and awe" bombing of tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq--as if her apologies could erase that horror--but she keeps doing it, inflicting chaos on other lands.
Honduras and Libya are among my main objections to Hillary Clinton. She engineered these disasters. The latter is called "Hillary's War" in Washington DC. But nobody much mentions Honduras. No oil, I guess.
That's why I ask, do you really know what her policies are? I admit it's hard to know, with all her happy talk. But I've gone to some trouble to find out, and it's not good. She now has Henry Kissinger as a friend and advisor (Henry Kissinger!) and Robert Kagan, designer of Cheney-Rumsfeld's blueprint for world domination ("The Project For A New American Century"--the infamous bible of the Neo-Cons).
It may be that you formed your opinion of Clinton early on, before there was much known about her activities as Secretary of State, or about the Clinton Foundation. And I suspect that, whatever you thought Hillary Clinton was, when you first formed an opinion about her, she has changed and changed in a very bad direction. She is a Neo-Con now, a war advocate. And she is basically a Republican now, funded by Big Money and beholden to Big Money.
I presume that you have a good heart and an open mind since you are a "born" Democrat. That's almost my definition of a Democrat, born or otherwise. So I just ask that you do some research, and ask yourself if you really know what Clinton's policies are, and whether or not you really agree with them.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)My great grandfather was a militant labor union organizer, a member of the Molly Maguires. I'm a democrat by birthright and it pisses me off that it's been co-opted by goldwater republicans and brooks brothers Wall Street hedge fund managers.
"The working man" is now an epithet.
Mike__M
(1,052 posts)Thank you.
Paste that into an OP.
And yet, below, we see that you're just a kid who didn't get your way.
They are pathetic.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)
Renew Deal
(81,846 posts)think
(11,641 posts)
antigop
(12,778 posts)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)And a goal of others from the beginning.
We are currently witnessing extremely poor losers throwing temper tantrums like children.
Time will tell. I'm still extremely optimistic about the convention. We have a really strong group of democrats out there. The lineup is going to be great. True progressive democrats leading the way. You will be able to tell no difference from the Trump protesters outside with any other protestors outside. They will all be working for a Trump presidency. The adults inside will be sending a progressive message to the American people and a better path forward.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)adigal
(7,581 posts)Clinton supporters are calling for Bernie to speak out against his supporters doing deplorable things. Where can I find Hillary speaking out against the anti-semitism I'm seeing on the daily kos and other sites? The Hillary supporters calling every Bernie supporter a "Sexist Bros"? Labeling us all violent, misogynistic haters?
If Bernie is held responsible for the ugliness among his supporters, Hillary needs to be, also.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)what am I suppose think
mac56
(17,564 posts)Maybe you're supposed to think that's a skewed poll.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)Forty-four percent of Sanders supporters surveyed said they would rather back the presumptive GOP nominee in November, with only 23 percent saying they'd support Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. And 31 percent said would support neither candidate in the likely general election match-up.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279430-nearly-half-of-sanders-voters-in-west-virginia-would-vote
adigal
(7,581 posts)I heard Trump a few weeks ago talk about corporations sending our jobs out of the country and then selling us back the stuff made, with the corporations paying no price for this. This is powerful rhetoric that people agree with. I'm pretty far left, and I've been saying this for years. He's going to outflank Hillary on the left and sound more progressive than she does on the economy. Hillary's telling us Obama fixed everything, which is crazy cause so many people are still suffering. So maybe that's where that vote is coming from?
BTW, Trump has no plan to fix this, but most people don't listen for the details. He's perfect for our sound bite world.
Response to BlueStateLib (Reply #50)
Name removed Message auto-removed
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)
mmonk
(52,589 posts)mac56
(17,564 posts)Why won't she tell Little Debbie to do the same?
riversedge
(70,084 posts)harassment NOW!
Mike Nelson
(9,944 posts)...most will get together. There is a portion of Bernie Sanders supporters who will "never, never!" vote for Hillary Clinton. And, considering what they think of her, they should not vote for Hillary. When minds are made up with that amount of certainty, they don't often change.
I don't, by the way, consider Hillary any of the evil things being said. She's progressive, but careful and calculating. For example, she was pro-marriage equality before stating such. Her Iraq War vote was partially political. And, so on... Bernie is also quite political - as crafty as Hillary, but he's carved out a different image.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)but DON'T WHINE when america is gutted because your ego prevented you from supporting a democrat and allow trump to be in charge and the lasting effect of his Supreme court justices, the gutting of all things special for all liberals, progressives democrats from EPA to SS and medicare to women's rights, civil rights, etc.....
just DON'T WHINE when that happens becasue you will be as responsible as much as those who voted for trump
take your ball home.....and enjoy your future under trump
Response to beachbum bob (Reply #57)
Name removed Message auto-removed
boston bean
(36,218 posts)And really it's difficult to reason with them. So, it's not really the party's fault that they can't control obstinate conspiracy theorists who think the whole system is out to get them personally.
That would be on the people who wish to believe conspiracy bullshit rather than live in the reality that Trump is a dangerous candidate.
But to each his own. I aint going to try to convince looney toon nutties who won't listen to reason.
Madam Mossfern
(2,340 posts)telling people who are displeased about something that they are just having a 'temper tantrum' (words of the week).
Good luck with that. I am also a life long Democrat who comes from a family that voted Democrat. I don't like Hillary because of her stance on TPP, regime change, campaign finance reform, her poor judgement (and arrogance) on using a private e-mail server...
I'm not having a temper tantrum, I just support Sanders. There are many like me out there. You have just insulted me, and then want me to support your candidate? Trying to scare me because of, you know, Trump? I would never support Trump, but it's getting harder and harder to support Hillary. As far as the Democratic Party is concerned - well maybe things are so bad that they need to hit rock bottom before they start to rise.
The attitude that you don't need Sanders supporters is what will bring the party down, not the Sanders supporters.
apcalc
(4,462 posts)Can't think of one " accusation" Hillary made....
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)His has become a campaign of nothing but "hysterical accusations".
DI Freighter Watcher
(128 posts)I voted for the 1st time in 1979, been a Democrat all my life. Come November I am done, being called names, inaccurate gender biased insults, have made it clear to me the Democratic party does not want nor feels it needs my vote. All that aside, the complete breakdown of any fairness in the nomination process is what has sealed the deal. Good luck democratic party, you will need it!
MisterP
(23,730 posts)they've been so used to losing and blaming the voters that they can't do anything else at this point
JEB
(4,748 posts)Lip service yes, but actual compromise has been rejected.
edit to add:
Blame is the only thing being debated.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)The democratic party, under the Clinton DLC transformation, is now dead. On arrival in Philly. Get smart delegates.
They probably will, come next week.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)If Sanders capitulated and said "go support this establishment candidate", 90% of his supporters would tell him to take a hike.
He's in the position he is in because he is the best available person to represent a broad based grassroots movement. Telling us to support the establishment would abdicate that representative function. He would only hurt his own standing without helping the establishment at all.
The way this party gets back together is with a defeat of the establishment, and a capitulation to our demands that our representatives represent us - not big money donors - and serve us as the public servants they claim to be.
Look at what is happening on the GOP side. Their badly-fractured party is coming together over a defeat of their establishment. They support him no matter how crazy and weird he is because he is not the establishment that f-ed them over time and time again.
If we want unity, that's the template to achieve it.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Liberals and Progressives are unrepresented by today's Democratic Party. It's chasing corporate money with a long-term strategy of displacing the Republicans from the moderate conservative portion of the spectrum. It claims to represent Liberals and Progressives, but it does not listen to them and does not incorporate their ideas into policy.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)n/t
frustrated_lefty
(2,774 posts)Response to cali (Original post)
Post removed
frustrated_lefty
(2,774 posts)Roughly 40% will vote Republican no matter what, they're just that stupid. Roughly 50% of the populace is too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time. That 50% includes democrats. Getting snotty about the "elected party people" doesn't say much when the body politic is so god-damned moronic. It's honestly amazing we get a few good politicians elected at all anymore. We got two terms of W. Some assholes elected Michelle Bachman, John Boehner, Mitch McConnel (sp?), the entire teaparty asshat movement, Rick Scott, Rick Perry, and the list goes on.
You want to talk about "sore losers?" We have some of the most brain damaged people in the world voting. I guarantee Hillary would lose 10-15 points if she didn't have a vagina. Call me a sexist, I don't give a shit. Colleagues have said point blank they're voting because it's time we "have a woman president."
When does our generation get a LBJ or a JFK? Some of us are trying, but you assholes keep pushing the crap of the crop to the front.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)were brought up discussing issues and NOT a party.
I watched my daughter flip from a Republican, grew up in a Republican town, to a Sanders supporter. She made sure to cast a ballot for Sanders, but she might just be too busy to vote for Clinton vs Trump. Now if it was Trump vs Sanders she would make sure to cast a vote for Sanders and she is over 200K in debt for med school.
The Dems do not have a clue what drives the younger generation, they think it is all about free stuff, they just do not understand that while some want to be rewarded for hard work, they still seek a more equitable world for all. All of the speakers at graduation from med school spoke of a more balanced world to HC, the politicians just need to catch up.
Autumn
(44,980 posts)
I have no interest in what they do after this primary is done.