HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Populist Reform of the Democratic Party (Group) » Face it, "Populists&...

Sun May 3, 2015, 11:21 AM

 

Face it, "Populists": a Socialist cannot be elected President

Be real.

It's not as impossible as a black person being elected President in our lifetimes... but close.

It's time to pull together and focus on the possible, not the .

Atten hosts: this is just an observation that "Progressives" are absurd, not a criticism.



46 replies, 2741 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Face it, "Populists": a Socialist cannot be elected President (Original post)
MannyGoldstein May 2015 OP
Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #1
RoccoR5955 May 2015 #4
Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #6
merrily May 2015 #13
merrily May 2015 #9
Jim Lane May 2015 #23
merrily May 2015 #24
Jim Lane May 2015 #25
merrily May 2015 #26
Jim Lane May 2015 #30
eridani May 2015 #42
Jackpine Radical May 2015 #29
Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #31
merrily May 2015 #2
MannyGoldstein May 2015 #7
merrily May 2015 #11
Cosmic Kitten May 2015 #3
RoccoR5955 May 2015 #5
elzenmahn May 2015 #10
merrily May 2015 #12
Enthusiast May 2015 #14
merrily May 2015 #15
elzenmahn May 2015 #16
merrily May 2015 #17
merrily May 2015 #27
elzenmahn May 2015 #33
merrily May 2015 #34
Demeter May 2015 #8
marym625 May 2015 #18
MannyGoldstein May 2015 #19
marym625 May 2015 #20
MannyGoldstein May 2015 #21
marym625 May 2015 #22
Jackpine Radical May 2015 #28
Jim Lane May 2015 #32
merrily May 2015 #35
Jim Lane May 2015 #36
Jackpine Radical May 2015 #39
Jim Lane May 2015 #40
Jackpine Radical May 2015 #41
Jim Lane May 2015 #43
sabrina 1 May 2015 #44
dflprincess May 2015 #37
L0oniX May 2015 #45
Jackpine Radical May 2015 #46
dembotoz May 2015 #38

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun May 3, 2015, 11:23 AM

1. Although, this does bring up another question.

Please tell me Sanders isn't a declared atheist. If that's the case, his run really will be dead in the water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #1)

Sun May 3, 2015, 11:32 AM

4. He is Jewish. and a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST.

 

Not just a plain socialist, but a democratic socialist. There IS a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #4)

Sun May 3, 2015, 11:34 AM

6. Yeah, I know. I'm a Dem Socialist too.

I have to actually change my registration for the primary to vote for him.

I didn't remember he was Jewish, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #6)

Sun May 3, 2015, 01:15 PM

13. Maybe you can help me with my confusion then. Please see my Reply 12, below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #1)

Sun May 3, 2015, 01:00 PM

9. Per wiki, his religion is Judaism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #9)

Mon May 4, 2015, 02:19 AM

23. He's Jewish culturally but not religiously.

 

According to this article from Religion News Service,

Sanders, 74, was born to Jewish parents and identifies as Jewish — though culturally, not religiously. ...

Sanders is the presidential contender most willing to dissociate himself from religion. Though he identifies as Jewish and by Jewish law is Jewish, he has freely acknowledged that he is not a religious person. He scored a solid zero from Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition in its most recent scorecard and a 100 from the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America.


I don't know how he'll answer if (when) he's asked point-blank, "Do you believe in God?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #23)

Mon May 4, 2015, 05:33 AM

24. where is the direct quote from him? Even the reporter's words are

Last edited Mon May 4, 2015, 06:14 AM - Edit history (2)

that he says he is not a a religious person. That is not the same as saying he is an atheist. That's not even the same as saying he's only Jewish culturally, which were not even the article's words, only yours . Many Jews are not observant at all or only high holy days. That doesn't mean they are atheists or Jewish only culturally. Who knows what "not religious: means to the author of that piece.

Ralph Reed's scorecard? That turd? Seriously? What's on that gem? Reproductive choice and gays? Attending services?

A Catholic priest said Kerry should not be given the right to Holy Communion. Who on the left concluded that must mean Kerry is an atheist? Where do you think pro-choice, pro-gay Kennedy stood on the Reed's score card or that of the Vatican? Where do you suppose Obama stands on that scorecard. According to him his church is at Camp David. How many times, aside from Christian high holidays and events like funerals, has he attended services?

You do know, I am sure, Sanders has more control over what wiki says about his religion than he has over a reporter's choice of words--or for that matter, your choice of words.

Besides, it is my very strongly-held view, it's high time Democrats and others on the left stand up for separation of Church and State, instead of pandering to the likes of Rick Warren and Ralph Reed. One thing the Constitution of the United States does say about religion is that there shall be no religious test for the President of the United States. Yet, here we are, foraging around for religious info to use against Sanders, rather than standing firmly for that Constitutional provision.

All that said, frankly, Hillary's connections to the Family/Fellowship are a lot more concerning than how many times a year I might find Sanders in temple. That's a group that believes the laws of neither God nor Man bind those called by God to political leadership positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #24)

Mon May 4, 2015, 11:49 AM

25. You're reading more into my post than is there.

 

A threshold issue is the reliability of the entire piece. I had never heard of Religion News Service. Before posting based on a story from RNS, I did some minimal research by reading its Wikipedia article. According that article, RNS was founded in 1934 and "is owned by Religion News LLC, a non-profit, limited liability corporation based at the University of Missouri School of Journalism." I don't think "based at" means that the university school of journalism supervises the service, but my overall impression was that RNS is legitimate -- not infallible but also not some crank operation. The only controversy mentioned in the Wikipedia article is the allegation by the Catholic News Agency that RNS is pro-LGBT. As a further indication of reliability, I found the RNS story because it also appeared in The Washington Post.

You write that Sanders

says he is not a a religious person. That is not the same as saying he is an atheist. That's not even the same as saying he's only Jewish culturally, which were not even the article's words, only yours . Many Jews are not observant at all or only high holy days. That doesn't mean they are atheists or Jewish only culturally.


* I agree that doesn't mean he's an atheist. That's why I wrote, "I don't know how he'll answer if (when) he's asked point-blank, 'Do you believe in God?'"
* That he's Jewish "culturally" were the words of the article, not my words. I didn't quote the entire thing. The author wrote: "Sanders, 73, was born to Jewish parents and identifies as Jewish — though culturally, not religiously."
* I agree with your concluding statement that many Jews have a very low level of religiosity but are still Jewish in the religious sense. In addition, however, there are many other people who are Jewish under Jewish law (as Sanders is), who identify as Jewish, but whose level of religiosity is zero -- they declare themselves to be atheists or agnostics.

You ask what votes are on Ralph Reed's scorecard. The RNS article includes a link, so you can see for yourself. I hadn't bothered to check the link; RNS was obviously using Sanders's zero score to show that he won't appeal to the fundies and Christofascists. That's a legitimate point.

Prompted by your query, however, I went and checked the link. It's, uh, interesting. Although Reed pitches his "Faith & Freedom Coalition" to religious people, his voting scorecard seems to be a collection of standard right-wing causes (UN funding, repeal Obamacare, etc.). I particularly noted this vote:

9. Ending Full and Open Debate on Presidential Nominees (Roll Call Vote #243, November 21, 2013): This procedural vote, the so-called "nuclear option," prohibits full and open debate on presidential nominees by lowering the threshold required by Senate rules for invoking cloture on most presidential nominations from 60 votes to 51 votes. A “no” vote is a vote for the FFC position. This decision passed with a 52-48 vote.


Who knew that God took such a keen interest in the procedural rules of the U.S. Senate?

You seem to think that I was critical of Sanders for getting a bad score from Ralph Reed. To the contrary, I've often seen good politicians praised by a writer who points to their low score on a right-winger's rating. I'm glad that Sanders, like his colleague Pat Leahy, got a zero for 2013-14. In fact, Leahy also got a zero for 2012, while Sanders got 9%. Now that's a bit troubling -- he voted with Ralph Reed on something? That's it, I'm done, I'm not supporting a right-wing Bible thumper like Sanders. (Note to hosts: The preceding sentence was sarcasm, and if you needed this parenthetical to tell you that, please consider resigning as a host.)

You write that "Sanders has more control over what wiki says about his religion than he has over a reporter's choice of words...." Actually, under Wikipedia rules, he's not allowed to edit his own article. The main point, though, is that the RNS article could be completely correct even if it's not included in Wikipedia.

Your last two paragraphs, like your earlier comments about Kerry, seem to be devoted to answering the argument that Sanders is unfit to be President because he's insufficiently religious. I did not make that argument. I'm an agnostic myself. I'd be quite happy if I had more opportunities to vote for openly non-religious candidates.

There is, however, a serious issue about religion and a candidate's political prospects. IIRC survey results show that millions of Americans report themselves unwilling to vote for an openly atheistic or agnostic candidate -- far more, even, than admit bias against an openly LGBT candidate. If, during the campaign, Sanders is asked if he believes in God, and he says anything other than "Yes" (including "that's none of your business", then that will be a political problem for him. As such, it's a proper subject for discussion in this Group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #25)

Mon May 4, 2015, 11:54 AM

26. Yet not a tenth as much as you apparently read into my post. Wowza.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #26)

Mon May 4, 2015, 12:07 PM

30. If I misunderstood you, I apologize

 

I used several verbatim quotations from your post, so that I was responding as best I could to what you actually wrote. Where I was drawing an inference, I tried to make that clear -- "You seem to think" and "seem to be devoted to". If what I thought you seemed to be saying wasn't what you were actually saying, I'm ready to be corrected.

Contemporary American political culture includes excessive pandering to religion. You and I would both like to see that end. My personal opinion, however, is that it will be a long, hard slog to reach that goal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #23)

Fri May 8, 2015, 02:34 AM

42. The poet and novelist Marge Piercy has a great answer for that

"The way I would put it is that I experience holiness." She practices Judaism, but it not big on a strictly intellectual belief system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #1)

Mon May 4, 2015, 12:05 PM

29. I have never understood why avowed participation

in a culturally sanctified delusional system is a prerequisite for the Presidency.

Ol' Tom Jefferson would be dead in the water today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #29)

Mon May 4, 2015, 12:08 PM

31. Got me, but recurring polls show that huge numbers of Americans say they won't vote for an atheist.

It's worse for a politician's hopes than it is to be Islamic, black, female, or anything else that nonsensically affects voter perceptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun May 3, 2015, 11:25 AM

2. Thank goodness Bernie is not a socialist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #2)

Sun May 3, 2015, 11:54 AM

7. Oh yeah? Whaddya gonna do about it?

 

Get a host to block me?

Good luck with that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #7)

Sun May 3, 2015, 01:05 PM

11. For what? For not knowing Sanders is a Democratic Socialist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun May 3, 2015, 11:26 AM

3. Because Crony Capitalism is what the voters really want!!!11!1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun May 3, 2015, 11:33 AM

5. DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, not Socialist.

 

They are two different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #5)

Sun May 3, 2015, 01:04 PM

10. You're correct - however...

...that's now how the Corporate Media is going to spin it. The masses aren't expected to know the difference, and Big Media is counting on that.

I'm not saying this to be a killjoy. I've already said that I will support HRC if she's the nominee - she's better than any Repub.

But I'd much prefer Bernie.

And I'm just ITCHING to see him go up against her in the primary debates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #10)

Sun May 3, 2015, 01:09 PM

12. It's up to us to contact media every time we see the lie. If nothing else, they'll know we're

watching. FYI, Bernie's wiki says he's been an Independent since 1979, so that should count for something.


BTW, I am fairly clear about the difference between Socialist and Democratic Socialist. What I am not at all clear on is the difference between Democratic Socialist and New Deal Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #12)

Sun May 3, 2015, 01:39 PM

14. I think Democratic Socialist and New Deal Democrat are close to one and the same.

For all practical purposes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #14)

Sun May 3, 2015, 01:46 PM

15. That's how it seems to me. Maybe Eric can correct me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #15)

Sun May 3, 2015, 02:07 PM

16. I don't think a correction is needed...

...in order to save Capitalism (which FDR stated was his greatest accomplishment) a whole lot of Socialism needed to be injected into the economy to get the machine working again.

Personally, I think we're at that stage again. If the private sector won't do it, then Government needs to step in, especially when the very middle class that supported those private industries with their business (and the government with their tax dollars) is disappearing before our eyes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #16)

Sun May 3, 2015, 02:15 PM

17. On the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination, NBC aired an episode of Meet the Press on which JFK

had appeared when running for the Presidency. JFK was asked why anyone should vote for a Democrat, given the economy at the time. He said the same thing: Democrats had saved capitalism.

I saw that as saying that FDR had prevented a revolution. Not that he had simply boosted the economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #10)

Mon May 4, 2015, 11:58 AM

27. How some or all of the corporate media wil spin it is not a response to DUers spinning it.

Third Way Mannie is up to no damned good for his own reasons, having nothing to do with media.

For TWM, assuming he won't enjoy it.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #27)

Tue May 5, 2015, 10:54 AM

33. True, but I think...

...that Big Media will have much, much more influence than Mr. Third Way Mannie. (Sorry, TWM).

I also give DUers much more credit in their ability to separate ice cream from BS then the masses who mindlessly "consume" Big Media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #33)

Tue May 5, 2015, 10:59 AM

34. The msm is a separate issue. There is zero excuse for DUers to lie about it.

No "but" about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun May 3, 2015, 12:04 PM

8. I don't care WHAt Bernie is--I'm not voting for Hillary

 

and that's the absolute truth. Fool me once...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun May 3, 2015, 04:06 PM

18. You cracked me up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marym625 (Reply #18)

Sun May 3, 2015, 06:42 PM

19. Sorry!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #19)

Sun May 3, 2015, 06:49 PM

20. You are 100% correct, it isn't funny

I was talking about your note at the bottom. I assume that you get a vote? If that wasn't intended as tongue in cheek, I apologize

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marym625 (Reply #20)

Sun May 3, 2015, 06:51 PM

21. Tongue in cheek.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #21)

Sun May 3, 2015, 06:53 PM

22. Okay then

You crack me up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Mon May 4, 2015, 12:03 PM

28. We'll never elect a Catholic either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #28)

Mon May 4, 2015, 12:11 PM

32. Or a divorced person.

 

The Catholic influence is strong enough to keep any divorced person out of the Oval Office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #32)

Tue May 5, 2015, 11:00 AM

35. You're a bundle of constant cheer about Bernie. Just imagine if you were a Hillary fan!

You've said you're not, so, of course, I take you at your word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #35)

Tue May 5, 2015, 01:26 PM

36. I think you missed the joke here.

 

Conventional political wisdom has said, at various times, that the American people would never elect a socialist, a black, a Catholic, or a divorced person, because each of these facts about a candidate would trigger animosity from a large segment of the electorate.

The OP made fun of those dismissing Bernie's chances by pretending to agree with them and yet depicting them as ignorant. If they actually said that the election of a socialist was "not as impossible as a black person being elected President in our lifetimes... but close," then they would run up against the fact that a black person was elected President in 2008.

Jackpine Radical continued the joke by writing, "We'll never elect a Catholic either" -- presuming (possibly without justification) that everyone would know we did elect a Catholic in 1960.

I continued the joke further by writing that we would never elect a divorced person. I had less faith than Jackpine Radical did in the historical knowledge of all DUers -- and, hey, Jackpine, I think merrily's post shows that I was right and you were wrong -- so I included a link that, if followed, would tell the reader that we did elect a divorced person in 1980.

Manny, Jackpine, and I were all engaging in to make a point: The political wisdom makes it clear that certain people can never be elected President, and that wisdom is sound and irrefutable, right up until the moment it's conclusively proven wrong, as it was by Obama, Kennedy, and Reagan. The further point, which follows from the first, is that those who dismiss Bernie's chances because of the impact of that "socialist" word are displaying more confidence in their conclusion than is justified by American political history.

As for my attitude toward Hillary, you are not required to take me at my word. You can look at my actual posts, for example this one, in which I blasted her record with regard to the TPP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #36)

Thu May 7, 2015, 10:17 AM

39. Yup, you nailed it.

I gather from Merrily's response that Bernie is divorced(?) thereby eliciting her reaction.

I wanna add, though, that we can all be a little jumpy, and I just made an ass of myself (many would say "revealed myself as the ass I am" the other day on this board by jumping to a misinterpretation of someone's response to something I posted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #39)

Thu May 7, 2015, 05:41 PM

40. My understanding is that Bernie is divorced.

 

From this story in the National Journal, a glimpse of his life before he was elected Mayor of Burlington:

After high school, Sanders attended the University of Chicago, where he joined the Young People's Socialist League and spent very little time studying. After graduating, barely, in 1964, he moved back to New York and worked briefly for Head Start, which had just been created. But the more formative experience may have been the half-year he spent in the mid-'60s on an Israeli kibbutz. "There's a sense of community he likes. He would like to believe people can work together who are opposed against each other by economic forces," {his friend Richard} Sugarman says. "Historically, the socialist Zionism was involved in farming and making things, and that part appealed to him."

Communitarianism, agrarian socialist Zionism, whatever you want to call it, Sanders sought a version of it in Vermont. In 1968, he and his first wife, a college sweetheart whom he would divorce several years later, moved to a small shack near Montpelier. For the next decade he ran repeatedly and unsuccessfully for statewide offices under the banner of the fringe Liberty Union Party. Meanwhile, he made ends meet primarily by traveling the state hawking educational film strips. (A 30-minute Eugene Debs documentary that he put together was his pièce de résistance.)


It would obviously be hypocritical for any Reagan-idolizing Republicans to use this fact against Bernie, but I wouldn't be surprised if they try it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #40)

Thu May 7, 2015, 06:15 PM

41. My Favorite Wingnut has a brilliant response for resolving little conundra like this.

His reply: "That's different."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #41)

Fri May 8, 2015, 11:40 AM

43. In fairness to the Wingnuts, I've seen that response on our side, too. (n/t)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #35)

Fri May 8, 2015, 02:35 PM

44. I think Jim Lane was pointing out all the 'we will never elect a (fill in the blank)' promises that

were broken along the way. JFK eg. Obama. As we have progressed through time, perceived, and to be honest, actual impediments, such as being a Catholic and/or Black were broken down.

Bernie's religion won't be a factor imo. And I trust him to be able to answer any questions about it just perfectly.

We are not a theocracy, and I don't think most Americans want that.

I have a feeling he will knock that question out of the park, reminding people, in fact giving the country a lesson on what freedom actually means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #28)

Wed May 6, 2015, 10:29 PM

37. Especially an Irish Catholic

Seriously, when I was in second grade the area we lived in was heavily Catholic and the Catholics were mostly Polish or Irish. I remember the Polish kids telling us (the Irish kids) that an Irish Catholic would never be president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #28)

Sat May 9, 2015, 09:01 PM

45. JFK was a covert Baptist.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #45)

Sat May 9, 2015, 09:35 PM

46. Sure, if that got out, he'd never have gotten anywhere to start with

in Massachussetts politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu May 7, 2015, 08:44 AM

38. we need to remember to many voters socialist =communist

And GOP supporters will sing that song every day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread