Wait, Hillary can't save us?

[Prism]

I saw this little bit in the midst of policy discussion from SteveLeser:

57. Doesn't matter. With gerrymandered districts, they are going to control the House through Jan 2023

We've already had one election with these districts where the Democratic candidates as a whole got more votes (2012) and it still resulted in a massive Republican advantage in the House.

Face it, no unicorns or magical pixie dust is going to change the realities here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=702247

So, if you elect Hillary, it matters not. There are Republicans in charge, they will always be in charge (for the next 4-5 election cycles) and so we need a figure to symbolically oppose their inevitability.

Say it with me.

Seriously?

Seriously. You (general you), looked at our current economic shitfest, saw the mess, and decided, "Yeah, k, Republicans are ascendant." And then, after that expert analysis, decided Americans needed to be as Republican-lite as possible?

Uhm, ok. Jesus. The Establishment thinks this, people. They think we're all this stupid.

[beam me up scottie]

1. *reads post, blinks*

[virtualobserver]

2. they intend to barricade themselves in the white house until 2022

and hope that they can get moderate SC justices through the Senate gauntlet.

[joshcryer]

8. Pretty much.

It's pretty damn pathetic too. They need to start thinking big on the national level with a 50 state strategy because the Republicans will just gerrymander again in 2020...

[jfern]

3. Rahm, Kaine, Obama, et all really dropped the ball in 2010

Thanks to 2010 being an epic bloodbath, the Republicans got control of a ridiculous amount of legislatures for massive gerrymandering. The 2014 election was even worse. The Democrats have the least control at the state levels since the 1800s. It's time to replace these 3rd wayers who manage are destroying our party with real liberals who can win elections. Their time is over.

[Bonobo]

4. The word "conservative" means something beyond being a political description.

It strikes me that a person that appears on Fox News and sports a flag lapel pin is NOT the voice I would listen to for guidance, nor is it a voice whose opining should be hearkened to by Progressives.

[Prism]

5. Why are you highlighting eight years?!

That's long ago. Like, 2023. Ages and ages ago. How are you, sir! Have you no decency? For this cycle. Until I care anymore.

[AgingAmerican]

6. Defeatism needs to be cast out of the Democratic party

This is the modern 2 party system:

[joshcryer]

7. That's wholly pessimistic.

But the Republicans did gerrymander the fuck out of the country that much is completely true.

We can take back the house relatively easily if we run blue dogs and don't shit on them. 50 state strategy all the way!

[Scuba]

9. We won't win the house back with blue dogs. That's just conservative thinking.

[joshcryer]

11. That's the 50 state strategy.

[Scuba]

13. A strategy doomed to failure.

Even if the blue dogs should win (and they won't) the rest of us would lose.

[joshcryer]

14. Says Rahm.

He was wrong in 2006.

[Vattel]

10. Well, presidents do have veto power and Clinton would use that to block tea party legislation.

Then there is war and foreign policy, where I don't see much of a difference between a Clinton and a Bush in the Whitehouse. If anything I think Bush would be less likely to involve us in war. Then there is SCOTUS, where I would much rather have Clinton doing the nominations than Bush. And as for immigration, I don't trust Clinton, but I still would put my money on her being more progressive than Bush.

[sufrommich]

12. Does Sanders have some secret plan for un-gerrymandering

districts before the next census?

[leftupnorth]

15. High voter turn out can change that. Almost half of eligible voters don't vote.

Republican turnout will be low with the abysmal candidates they have.

This our only real chance to get a real Democrat in the White House, let's not waste it.

[sufrommich]

16. No,it can't,that's the whole point of gerrymandering. Anyone who thinks

republicans will stay home after their party scares the shit out of them with tales of a real socialist in power is dreaming.

[leftupnorth]

17. how is that any different from the last 4 elections? I know a bunch of republicans that will vote for Bernie.

And they will vote against Hillary.

Hillary will be great for Republican voter turn out and bad for Democratic turn out.

Bernie will have the opposite effect due to his crossover appeal.

If there is any hope of retaking these districts before the next census, voter turnout is our only hope, and Hillary isn't going to drive that.

Even still, if neither can do a thing about it, why choose the person who is more likely to stab us in the back and compromise with nut jobs in order to score a political 'win'?

Doesn't make sense.

[Lordquinton]

18. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Tue Oct 20, 2015, 03:14 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Wait, Hillary can't save us?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251704091

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The endless and endlessly boring pile on of stevenleser still hasn't stopped? This entire OP is nothing but a personal attack on another DUer that has been piled on already in thread after thread in this forum. This is not discourse. This is just trolling and abusive.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Oct 20, 2015, 03:23 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster did not attack stevenleser. They used his point of view in opposition to their own. There is a difference.

Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Steven is a public persona, and as per D.U. rules both his posting and his external internet presence are therefore able to be held up to both scrutiny and/or ridicule. In the same vein, while I'm no fan of Meta, the thread raises a semi-valid point worthy of discussion, and discussion is being had to great effect in the overall thread; locking the conversation down at this point seems to be both authoritarian and right-winger-ish. Finally, while I firmly advocate for both civility and good-faith posting on the board, there are times when insanity or overarching stupidity must be highlighted for the overall benefit of the D.U. itself; We don't allow right-wing trolls here, nor should we allow left-wing extremists by the same token. If Steven can defend himself, let him.

In all cases though, I see no reason to submit a Hide vote against this OP. Engage the OP in dialogue and argue your points. If you cannot, don't resort to alerting; stifling discussion simply for the sake of censorship by virtue of disagreement is no mark of a Democrat or a Progressive.

I'm voting to leave it, though I admit a suspicion that it will be hidden.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Calling out problematic behavior is not a personal attack.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Give it a rest. What a shame Sanders supporters don't follow their candidate's lead and not engage in negative attacks. Seriously, get over it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.