It is time to start recruiting candidates to primary

[rateyes]

any superdelegates who vote against the wishes of the people of their state. And, btw, with any luck we will finally be rid of the worst DNC chair in history.

[geek tragedy]

1. that includes Raul Grijalva? nt

[sadoldgirl]

5. I will start with Sen. Bennet for instance.

[ISUGRADIA]

12. 2022

The filing period has closed for this year and he has no Democratic opponent in the primary .

[hellofromreddit]

10. Why not? Raul will survive a primary just fine, so it's no big deal.

Democracy isn't always pretty.

[pangaia]

28. Democracy isn't always denocracy.

[merrily]

53. He was an endorser of Sanders. I'd cut him some slack.

That took a lot of guts when he did it.

[Lord Magus]

82. That says it all really.

Primary any member of Congress who gives their superdelegate vote to the loser of their state...unless they voted for Bernie.

[merrily]

83. I have no idea who anyone voted for. Try reading with what my post actually did

say, instead of pretending it said something else.

[hellofromreddit]

95. I don't cut any politician any slack. They have a job and have to be held to a standard.

It's not mean to primary a politician, it's just a part of the process. Honestly, I think we'd all be better off if all politicians faced primaries every run.

[sadoldgirl]

2. Yes, this is where and when it has to start.

[LuvLoogie]

3. You've got a couple years to hold that grudge and

find candidates who will base their candidacy on revenge.

[merrily]

54. Riiiiight. As if revenge would be the only reason to run. Poster, please.

[YouDig]

4. Including the ones supporting Bernie?

[Hortensis]

6. Love it. Lol! Planning to primary any official

who doesn't promise to switch to Sanders, and of course threatening recalcitrants with it, is right up there with harassing them and then hoping they'll switch. Go to it. Of course, not all are elected, but maybe you can threaten to organize boycotts of their businesses or something.

And some people might wonder why a radical left party has never prospered.

[rateyes]

8. Did u read "switch to Sanders?"

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. LOL ...

No wonder at all.

[merrily]

55. Radical left. LOL!

What's a traditional Democrat to do?

[Hortensis]

59. Keep encouraging them to stay Democrats,

Merrily. If the radical left "populists" ever joined up with the reactionary right "populists" behind a bad leader, they could elect him. Fascism is ultraconservative, but fascist movements historically arise from both the far right and the far left.

This year alone is a big warning flag. Only imagine if Trump had tailored his message to also draw the left's anti-establishment "populists" and Bernie hadn't run, or had lost early. Trump's an incompetent, inadvertently fascistic clown, of course.

Imagine if people like the Kochs, now believed to possibly be as powerful as the GOP, chose a charismatic and competent bad leader and put their billions behind a truly professional effort to get him and others into office. They were able to create the Tea Party after all. That and Trump's shocking national appeal could be very useful learning experiences for them...

[merrily]

62. LOL!

[marions ghost]

87. Laughable

To equate Trump and Bernie tells a lot about your "Democratic" values.

Trump or the Kochs attracting "left populists" EVER is such BS.

Your statement confirms that Democratic traditionalists supporting Hillary DO NOT WANT the votes of Bernie supporters.

[Hortensis]

90. Wish it were. Disaffected "populist" groups

on both right and left are increasingly active in many other nations also. We live in troubled times, and I often think, as I seldom did in the past, how fortunate my family and are to be living in an advanced, stable, safe, wealthy America with a great basic structure.

Btw, is it news to you that both Sanders' and Trump's movements are both considered largely "populist"? A word with various nuances, of course, and not all SBSers, by any means, fit that label by any of them.

In any case, the nice thing about "populist" discontent is that economic improvement, extremely doable in a fantastically wealthy nation like ours will calm most of it down. And we absolutely should redistribute more wealth to those whose work creates it and completely destroy the billionaire class even faster than we enabled its creation. Most "populists" will go home to enjoy their new disposable income and leave the other problems to be addressed by others as usual. (Yes, I've never been a great admirer of "populist" movements and their selfish and simplistic black-and-white us-versus-them resentments.)

How Can Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders Both Be ‘Populist’?

For half a century, most presidential campaigns have featured one or more “populists” from the right, the left or somewhere in between. In 1968, reporters and academics pasted the label on George Wallace, whose campaign literature asked, “Can a former truck driver married to a dime-store clerk and son of a dirt farmer be elected president?” In 1972, Time dubbed George McGovern a “prairie populist” because he had a modest plan to redistribute wealth and hailed from the rural heartland. In 1996, The Atlantic observed that Pat Buchanan’s “hard-right-wing populism ... may be the shape of politics to come.” In 2012, The Hill announced, “Obama cranks up populist pitch” after the president, who previously shied away from us-versus-them talk, called for higher taxes on the rich.

There was a time when “populist” meant something more specific. The word originated with the decidedly left-wing People’s Party that emerged in the Midwest and the South amid the economic turmoil and rampant inequality of the 1890s. Journalists who knew some Latin started calling them “Populists” as a shorthand, and the name stuck.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/magazine/how-can-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-both-be-populist.html

[marions ghost]

96. Thanks for explaining

your anti-"populist" stance. I don't think people these days can be so neatly categorized.

To say that Sanders and Trump have anything in common --other than appealing to a large numbers of unrepresented Americans --is really an absurdity.

We're not populists in the old sense. We're unrepresented Americans.

[Hortensis]

102. Okay. I'm not saying our interests have been

adequately represented, but if one looks beyond the discontented yammering coming from all sides and takes a good look at people in elective office, many can be found who do represent their constituents and really do want to represent them better.

Their and our problem is the conservative/Republican ideology that says government should not be progressive, should not try to advance society, that, for instance, business should pay people whatever it wants even while the laws they got passed make it effectively impossible for most workers to collectively bargain. They are the people who passed the laws that created the billionaire class, on the backs of the people, in an era when liberalism was weak.

Times are changing, though, and this era it is the conservatives who are losing power. In the meantime, my position is that we need to strengthen and enable our elected warriors. You don't discard and start all over when you're already starting to win. We are all together in hoping that the new energy Bernie generated will translate to even more power.

Take a look at this: That point on the low right where all Democratic lines come together shows were the ideology of our Democratic caucus in the House is today -- more or as liberal as it has been in the past century, and unified as never before.

The upward sweep of the blue conservative ideology line far into a bizarre ultra-conservative/wealth-serving land where it has never gone before is why the GOP is currently self destructing. Its caucus represents the extremely wealthy and stopped representing their constituent voters long ago.



Anyway, happy 2016. It's definitely an education for us all.

[marions ghost]

104. Sorry but I think you are dreaming

Two party politics is not working because it leaves so many citizens unrepresented. And I do not think at this point that we can only blame the Republicons for the economic disparity that is killing the country.

"Already starting to win" -- huh? You have got to be kidding.

And the "new energy" Bernie created may not translate to "more power" for the Democratic party. The Democratic party installed the weakest candidate by undemocratic means and that will not engender loyalty. The primaries have been a sham of Democracy. A lot of eyes have been opened. So I don't think your kumbayah effort is going to work.

I think we are at a crossroads for the Dem party--everything we thought the party stood for has come into question. Never mind the lip service, I go by actions. So I will not disparage the Democrats further, but I will be getting out of the way. I have no further faith, nor anything to offer. I respect DU and realize there's no point in arguing here any more. So, by all means, carry on.

A large part of the population will never see any positives from the system whatsoever in their lifetimes unless there are very big changes made very soon. The Democratic party had a chance to be the catalyst for change, but has thrown it away. I know you don't see it that way right now, but I believe you will.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. Actually ... The wiser strategy is stop trying to pick a fight and pick a DAMNED viable candidate .

to face whomever.

And, oh yeah ... you're about 6 months later for the 2018 contest, even with a viable candidate.

ETA: By viable, I mean ... a well socialized person with a well socialized message.

[Hortensis]

15. Well socialized? :) Maybe toss in housebroken too,

in case Trump decides to seek attention as a left-wing anti-establishment candidate another time.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. That's not what I mean by "socialized" ...

I mean ... "known" and has the reputation of "playing well with others."

[Hortensis]

23. Right. I know what you meant, and who.

Nice to see you venturing out a bit more.

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. ???

[Hortensis]

65. Or not. I assumed the reference was to

our cranky socialist democrat.

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. No ... ot at all ...

It's a reference to those that think that the masses of people will magically vote for an unknown, unvetted newcomer with the "right" political message ... message is important, but secondary to history/background and hard damned work.

[Hortensis]

86. Ah. Well, they were my second choice for

socialization issues, but for different reasons.

Agree entirely anyway. They'll never have to find out what the right wing's heavy hitters would have done with him now, so they'll have him, if they choose, until another big leader comes along.

[Marrah_G]

94. He does have a reputation of playing well with others

And perhaps you ought to change your wording to "well known" instead.

[Txbluedog]

21. Your comment made me bust out laughing

I can totally see the orange lunatic losing this election and then trying to challenge Hillary in the dem primaries of 2020 as a non-establishment "progressive"

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. O doubt that the DNC will toy with this, particular.

Experiment,ever again

[Hortensis]

69. Oh, yes. He loves the spotlight.

My guess is he could just restyle his right wing anti-establishment "populist" message to appeal to their counterparts on the left. Easy-peasy for him if he wished. 1Strong's right that the DNC and state parties would do everything possible to fend him off, of course!

Meanwhile, all attempts by Ryan and McConnell to even paper train him seem to be failing...

[aikoaiko]

22. Do you think that was Bernie's problem? Not a well socialized person with a socialized message?

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. The we socialized part was a part ....

25 years in Congress, and still unknown, and not known as someone that plays well with others. But the bigger problem was a message that was not felt by a significant segment of the base.

[aikoaiko]

40. Yes, I can see that. Socialization is an interesting way to frame it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. It's not an "interesting way to frame it" ...

if you work in the fields of HR, Marketing or branding. Maybe, it's industry specific?!?

[aikoaiko]

46. Well I'm not in those industries.

I don't think I've heard someone say a candidate succeeded or failed because of their socialization before.

But then again I probably don't read what you read.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. That is probably true.

[merrily]

56. Your post is the campaign meme story of Sanders, not the reality.

Democrats praised him to the skies until he tried to interfere with the DNC coronation and Republicans said they liked working with him. He worked across the aisle with more success than Hillary. The Brookings Institute even made the way he and McCain worked on their veterans' bill a case study in working across the aisle.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128018753

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/bernie-sanders-is-a-loud-stubborn-socialist-republicans-like-him-anyway/450597/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128027637

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251803489

[1StrongBlackMan]

78. I realize we are/were in primary season; but, ...

Why do folks insist on seeing every damned thing through a HRC/Sanders frame?

My point continues to be, if you want more progressive representation, it is incumbent on you to start by identifying more progressive candidates, and encourage them to run. But before they run, they must get themselves out there so that the people know who they are and their history. Then, separately, get their message out there so that the people are familiar with the message. Then, marry the candidate to the message in the people's eyes.

All of this requires more than one election cycle AND more than one candidate ... and a whole lot of off-election year work. None of which is effectuated by calls to "primary" potential allies ... at least not before doing the other work.

[merrily]

79. Let's see. You said false things about the man that no one said before he seemed a primary threat..

I pointed that out and offered a rebuttal to you comments, with links.

Would you like to deal with the rebuttal, address some of the points my I made or just give another gratuitous, condescending lecture that has nothing to do with the post of mine to which you are supposedly replying, one that is disingenuous in the bargain and begs someone to tell you to get over yourself?

Never mind. Rhetorical question, obviously.

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. Okay ... keep calling for "primarying" those SD that didn't/don't support ...

the candidate you support, despite a majority of Democrats begging to differ, without doing the work. (which was my original point)

It has served progressives so well to this point.

[grasswire]

27. the viable candidate in this race is Bernie.

Obviously.

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. Yes ... Obviously ...

-3,000,000 in popular votes, -200 in pledged delegates, -5 in state elections/,caucuses.

[grasswire]

36. but she's not able to beat Trump. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. Yeah ... Okay. Sadly, you seemed convinced of that ...

despite the polling ... that is useless this far out (by most accounts), or all important (when you are trailing by every current metric)..

[brooklynite]

57. Speaking of which, 10 Berniecrats were running yesterday...how'd they do?

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. Has anyone responded?

[Marrah_G]

93. "well socialized"? really?

What a shitty, back-handed thing to say.

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. You have no idea what you are talking about ...

"well socialized" is a common phrase used in the real world of work. I means "to make stakeholders thoroughly acquainted with to the point of having removed all (most) reasonable barriers/objections."

What did you think it means.

Liberals/progressives have become SOOOOO reactionary.

[Marrah_G]

99. I know exactly what I am talking about

In common speech well socialized means people who know how to behave in social situations, who knows how to play well with others. In my opinion your wording in that post really sucked.

[1StrongBlackMan]

100. You know exactly what you are talking about ...

and then, you show that you don't know what you are talking about ... despite being told what the term means.

[PeaceNikki]

11. Yes, let's getting crackin' on cutting off our noses to spite our faces!! It'll be GREAT!

[rateyes]

13. More like cutting the cancer off our faces before

it kills us.

[PeaceNikki]

16. Oh, fuck that. People like Tammy Baldwin, Tammy Duckworth and the like are not fucking cancer.

And if you think they are, you're part of a big fucking problem.

[Exilednight]

66. you lost me as soon as you threw "fuck" in there.

Little minds use little words.

[PeaceNikki]

67. I "threw it in there" thrice.

And meant it every fucking time.

[Agschmid]

68. ... Whoop Whoop, that's the sound of da word police.

[PeaceNikki]

70. yup, I "lost" that one... as if they would have been sold if not for their delicate sensibilities

[one_voice]

88. Fuck Yeah!!

If you curse a lot, you're smarter than your clean-mouthed counterparts, according to a recent study.

"A voluminous taboo lexicon may better be considered an indicator of healthy verbal abilities,” reads the study, published in the November issue of Language Sciences.
In plain English: The more curses you know, the more words you know

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015-12-17/study-people-who-swear-more-are-smarter-have-larger-vocabulary

[snooper2]

91. You know that is fucking bullshit

Some real smart motherfuckers curse whenever they want to. Like Neil DeGrasse Tyson telling B.o.B that the earth isn't fucking flat


So Take that to the bank

[Brickbat]

14. Get to it! What's your strategy?

[Garrett78]

17. Perhaps folks would be better off focusing their time and energy on local politics.

If you want to help bring about systemic change, that's where it begins.

[PeaceNikki]

18. This ^

[merrily]

61. Or, they could walk and chew gum at the same time.

[apnu]

72. ^^^ gets it ^^^

[Tarc]

20. I love the hypocrisy of "vote against the wishes of the people of their state"

when Sanders is begging the superdelegates to vote against the wishes of the people of their country.

[Lord Magus]

84. And to get enough supers to win, he'd need ones from states Hillary won. -nt-

[stevenleser]

29. Sure punish the people who "went against the wishes of their" state because they didnt overturn the

will of the voters of the country.

Great plan. Great defender of Democracy.

[wyldwolf]

30. What are YOU going to do?

[rateyes]

35. I'm already doing it.

[wyldwolf]

37. posting to a message forum is sure to scare up plenty of good candidates!

[rateyes]

38. That's not what I am doing.

[wyldwolf]

41. your posts here are automated?

[rateyes]

48. This is just what I do in some spare time.

My main task is much more important than this.

[brooklynite]

31. So you want to Primaru Alan Grayson? Good to me

Last edited Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:26 AM - Edit history (1)

[rateyes]

34. Yep. He is an embarrassment.

[bigwillq]

42. Yes. He's terrible (nt)

[merrily]

60. Sen. Harry Reid (D) would likely agree.

[glowing]

63. Lol. I'm planning on voting for him for Senate.

What a crazy ride the Senate would be.. Talk about someone who doesn't give two shits about making nice and tells it like it is... We need a few more spine-ful Dems.

[brooklynite]

64. I see; the idea is to "tell it like it is"; not to get things done?

[glowing]

71. When republicans are in charge, yeah, you need some force

What's Harry do, write strong letters.. Lol. Joke!

[forjusticethunders]

45. I'd primary the superdelegate who is trying to overturn the wishes of the Democratic electorate.

Giordano '18!

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. What would be the point? It wouldn't change the presidential primary result

since Hillary has won the majority of votes, the majority of pledged delegates, and has the majority of superdelegates who has declared their choice.

So you wouldn't be doing anything that, even if they gave in to you, would change the result; you'd just be making their lives comp-licated because they followed the party rules and made a decision about who they wanted as the candidate.

DWS does seem to have screwed things up as far as party unity goes (and her efforts to stop candidates against Republicans in Florida sound awful); I'd think working directly to get her removed as chair would be more productive.

[stevenleser]

50. Even that is pretty pointless, most Presidents choose their own DNC chair. I'm sure Hillary

will thank DWS for her service and appoint who she wants to appoint.

I doubt DWS will want to continue past Jan 20 anyway. I wouldn't if I were her.

[Hortensis]

74. This!

[TrueDemVA]

51. Let's do this!

[merrily]

52. Not yet. It's time to support the down ticket and state candidates who have endorsed Bernie.

Start with Tim Canova, who is trying to primary Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Tim Canova donation link and other donation links here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=9963

Besides, it takes a lot to primary an incumbent, with all the Party support they get.

And after November, work within state parties to end the whole exceedingly undemocratic institution of super delegates, as some state conventions already have.

What a disgrace that our party is more undemocratic than the GOP in this respect.

[Cheese Sandwich]

58. This makes no sense. Primary people who are against some policies that you hate.

[VulgarPoet]

73. Nah... Primary her in 2020 before she gets someone killed with her neocolonial views. eom

[rateyes]

75. That's why I don't want Elizabeth Warren to

Agree to be her VP. We need to keep her from being tainted by Clinton scandals.

[VulgarPoet]

76. Worst comes to worst, we'll have to find someone else.

[amborin]

81. yes, top of my list is my district's city council person

[MohRokTah]

85. Actually, we're working on a challenge to Sanders for Vermont Senate in 2018. eom

[rateyes]

89. I encourage you to do that. The more time you waste

on that effort, the better for us.

[wendylaroux]

101. awww,he hurt your feelings too?

[Marrah_G]

92. Yes it is

[Beacool]

103. Wow........

Talk about divisive.