How the extreme left gave us Nixon, Bush and now Trump

[Trumpocalypse]

Democrats have lost elections that they should have won in 1968, 2000 and now last year because too many on the left either didn't vote or voted for a third party candidate with no chance of winning because the Democratic candidate wasn't pure enough for them.

As any political analyst will tell you, most elections are won in the middle, not at the extremes of right or left. Thus, any Senator, Governor, Member of Congress, Mayor or President needs to do is win over enough of these centrist/moderate/independent voters to add to their base to achieve 51% and victory. The larger or more secure the base is, the fewer of these independents need to be won over.

The GOP has had a large & secure base for over 50 years. Thus, they don't need to win over that many moderates in order to win elections.

The same is not true of Democrats. Too often many in the base make the perfect the enemy of the good and abandon the Dems either by not voting or voting for a third party candidate. Thus, the Dems are more and more forced to pander to centrist/moderate voters to get re-elected. Which in turn alienates the base even more and the cycle repeats itself.

Case in point, during the run up to the Iraq war, Tom Daschle was being vilified daily by Rush Limbaugh, FAUX News and others in the right wing media. However, many on the left abandoned him because he wasn't stronger in fighting Bush on the war. In the end Daschle was left twisting in the wind and lost re-election.

The net result is that over the years Democratic incumbents on average have had to become more moderate while GOP incumbents have not.

While no candidate or political party is owed anyone's vote, setting the bar too high on certain issues or looking at the glass as half empty rather than as half full can be damaging overall. Why should any Democratic incumbent stick their neck out on certain issues knowing that in the end they will have to accept some compromise, because that is the way our system works, and then will be abandoned by their base because they accepted said compromise. The safer path it to not take a chance in the first place and just tack to the middle. Many say that Democrats have no backbone but the real problem is that many on the left don't have their backs. In contrast those on the right will defend their candidates against anything.

Therefore, the insistence by some on the left for 100% ideological purity can only serve to marginalize themselves. If the left abandons someone who has a 85%-90% record of voting for progressive legislation, because of the 10% to 15% that they didn't; they why should any incumbent bother to listen to the base. The end result is that the left becomes more and more marginalized because incumbents need to more and more go after the middle to win.

Now to anyone here who either stayed home in November or voted for Jill Stein, do you really think the country is better off now than if Hillary Clinton were President?

[Cooley Hurd]

1. ...

[uponit7771]

2. Russia, comey , voter suppression

[Trumpocalypse]

8. All true

But they wouldn't have made a difference is the Dems had a secure and loyal base.

[2naSalit]

29. ...and rigged election components to make it all moot....nt

[Trumpocalypse]

236. No if more on the extreme left came our and voted

instead of sitting on their ideological high horse, the rigged components would have been moot.

[2naSalit]

256. Riiiight.....nt

[lagomorph777]

281. If Dems refuse to take moral positions, we have nobody to vote for.

And then they lose. They need to decide whether lining their pockets during a short term in office is more important than taking power for the long term.

[Trumpocalypse]

309. Wow

You really missed the point. It is that kind of thinking that is at the core of this problem.

[ehrnst]

321. And let me guess... which candidate is the only one in history to have "moral positions?"

The one that is only a democrat when he needs the cred of a major party. amirite?

[Eliot Rosewater]

402. This is why trump is about to destroy the human race, thanks for your purity

it killed us all

[Eliot Rosewater]

401. 100% accurate.

BTW, they are gonna do it again 2018., there is no chance we survive it twice,.

[ehrnst]

325. I hear that's why Hitler rose to power - the lack of a truly inspirational candidate

in the other party, so the base really wasn't motivated.

[Trumpocalypse]

342. Actually it was a very similar situation

The left split and refused to unify against the Nazis.

[ehrnst]

365. So does history blame Hitler's opponent for being "less likeable" or charismatic for his rise?

The onset of the Great Depression and the economic chaos of the 1930s didn't factor in as strongly?

[Trumpocalypse]

400. Not that I know of

Since the Nazis never won a majority of the votes, the fact that those on the left failed to unite against him has a greater share of responsibility.

[ehrnst]

520. Yeah - 3 million more votes even with voter suppression in key states

The only major demographic that dissed Hillary was white men.

The rest don't really count?

[Gothmog]

92. Stein still played a role

[paels]

238. A meme I made

[Gothmog]

249. A vote for Stein was a vote for Trump

[Beartracks]

303. Exactly: since she COULD NOT WIN it was a WASTED vote. n/t

[Eliot Rosewater]

403. People who understand what a 2 party system is and care about the planet would NEVER

vote 3rd party or stay home.

[Maru Kitteh]

265. That graphic perfectly illustrates Jill Stein and the Unicorn Humpers.

and everything that is wrong with them.

I'm stealing it.

[NurseJackie]

279. I love it AND hate it at the same time. It's dead-on target!

[paels]

278. Dreamers

Dreamers
They never learn
They never learn
Beyond the point
Of no return
Of no return
And it's too late
The damage is done
The damage is done

This goes
Beyond me
Beyond you
The white room
By window
Where the sun goes
Through
We are
Just happy to serve
Just happy to serve
You

efil ym fo flaH
efil ym fo flaH
efil ym fo flaH
efil ym fo flaH
efil ym fo flaH
efil ym fo flaH
efil ym fo flaH
efil ym fo flaH

[Blue_true]

107. All fucking excuses for the far left sticking their heads in the sand.

There was a clear choice to be made between only two people that could
actually become President, many on the far left chose unwisely.

[uponit7771]

142. Facts aren't excuses

[ehrnst]

322. Like the fact Hillary won more votes than any candidate but Obama in '08?

Like that fact?

[uponit7771]

324. Yeap, they like to ignore those little facts too

[Trumpocalypse]

456. Actually, Obama got 50,000 more vote in 12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

[ehrnst]

517. Thank you for the correction. (nt)

[kacekwl]

188. Hillary won by 3 million votes.

Soooo,

[Rex]

439. Why bring up facts?

It is funny watching this small band of Blame Anyone get owned by the majority of lefties on this site. A real joy.

[HAB911]

3. Watch and learn

[rug]

4. Oh, bullshit.

Are you too busy gnawing your own ankle to see how republicans operate?

[demmiblue]

5. +1

[Trumpocalypse]

7. Have to fix your own house first

And over 3 million who voted for Obama stayed home in November or voted for Jill Stein. We have to accept that reality and fix it.

[rug]

9. You don't have to count lifeboats if you see the damned iceberg.

[Trumpocalypse]

13. And you need to focus to see the iceberg

[delisen]

36. One's house will never be perfect, nor one's naval. Time to stop gazing upon it

and focus on winning against an increasing evil opposition.

[Demsrule86]

68. And may they Burn in hell with Stein, Sarandon and Nader.

They are covered in the blood of the innocent.

[MFM008]

71. Exactly

With this "that will show them" attitude.
Has gotten us the biggest shit show in American
History.
Air ,water ,food, values at risk.
That will show Hillary Clinton.

[Demsrule86]

81. Sure will (not)

[NastyRiffraff]

85. But they got to stamp their little feet

and make a "statement."

[Gothmog]

250. Agreed

[Alice11111]

124. How do u fix stupid? Neither Hill nor Bernie were 100pc,

but get behind the nominee most likely to win. A first grader can do that arithmetic.
I call them out, the 3rd party purists.
Some learned from Nader, like Bill Maher, Sarah S, but many give the same tired lines...leaders.
I can maybe understand at the outset, but when the race is down to the wire, and your candidate is under 3 pc, how stupid can u be. Thx to jill stein for hanging in there 4 DT

...maybe there was something to her dinner w flynn and putin.

[Ken Burch]

222. Nobody disagrees about turning those nonvoters into voters.

But if just shouting "you HAVE to vote for us" didn't work in 2016, why would you think it would work in 2018 or 2020?

I get the feeling that the part of the point behind your OP is to shout down people who would argue that November's results mean the party needs to take a hard look at itself and to change. Is that what you mean to be arguing?

Things did not go our way...but it's hard to see how shaming people who didn't vote for us into doing so next time is going to work. Demanding votes has been our mainly-unchanging approach since 1976. The only presidential elections we've won since then were 1992 and 1996(largely on the personal charisma of the Democratic nominee, combined with a split right-of-center vote) and 2008 and 2012, where our nominee asked for voted rather than demanding them and where that nominee made a positive case FOR change, combined with an implicit promise that grassroots activists would get a real say in politics and policy on his watch).

To me, the answer lies in recapturing and more deeply committing to the promise of the Obama moment, only this time with an ironclad commitment not to ditch the grassroots and the notion of transformation.

That promise is what elected Obama in 2008, and in diffused form re-elected President Obama.

If we speak out proudly and without hesitation for what we're about at our best, we can win. If we focus on attacking the other party, demand votes and make our message sound like we're telling people to eat their spinach, we usually can't.

So why stay with what decades of experience has proved not to work?

I say that as someone who wants to win as much as you do.

[Trumpocalypse]

237. Never said 'you have to vote for us'

so don't put words in my mouth. My point is the far left is only marginalizing themselves by demanding 100% purity as the price for their votes.

[Ken Burch]

275. It's not about "100% purity"

It's more like "at least don't be on the other side on any of the big stuff".

[KPN]

305. Exactly!

[Trumpocalypse]

308. Yes it is

It has been a problem for decades and is needs to be addressed not denied.

[Ken Burch]

330. There have been TWO problems:

1) There have been some people who ended up making unreasonable demands from the Democratic Party;

2) There has been an insistence on the part of those running the Democratic Party that no one had the right to expect much of anything from it, that it's intolerable to expect the party to commit to real change on some issues(such as economics and foreign policy/defense), and that everyone should just shut up and take what those on top of the party will give them.

I don't defend anyone's decision to vote third-party this fall. I spent months pleading with those who were planning to do so to support us. At the same time, the way the party approached these people(basically just pounding a fist on the table and demanding their votes, rather than, as I would have done were I in charge of things, emphasizing that there were many proposals from the insurgent wing that were added to the platform, that that campaign had made a difference, and that this was a party in which the insurgence could now work effectively for what they wanted) had no other effect than to reinforce the sense of alienation these people had and stiffened their resolve not to work with us.

I would have said, as I've said since the Seventies, that we should have campaigned FOR, not just campaigned against.

Is there a reason this party can't campaign in the fall as though our ideas could actually win votes and that we could win the argument with voters, rather than going back to the approach we've used in every campaign since the Seventies OTHER than the campaigns that elected President Obama of running against? Why did we go back to the approach that lost for us over and over and over again?

We had proof, in the polls that came out almost daily, that a campaign that focused mainly on attacking Trump was not gaining us votes, that the "moderate Republican women in the suburbs" demographic that was supposed to be won over by those ads simply wasn't working-can you think of any good reason why they stayed with that approach? Why they didn't switch to trying to inspire people or to focusing on OUR proposals?

What we did this fall failed both times with Reagan...it failed both times with #43...what was the point of ever doing that again?

[Jim Beard]

490. Thanks for the reminder about running FOR something. It is so easy to forget.

[Ken Burch]

491. Thanks for the support.

You have no idea how much hostility I've been getting just for talking about that idea here.

[ehrnst]

522. The party didn't seem to worry about losing the white male vote to Romney.

But Obama was the choice of the white straight men in the Democratic party, so it was written off as "racism" and not the problem of Democrats not reaching out to white men.

But when the rest of the party chose Hillary, white straight men in the Democratic party suddenly were blaming our candidate for winning the popular vote by 3 million, and having it stolen from her.

I think the actual crisis in our party is white straight male privilege, and a lot of sexism.

The rest of us got behind her, and didn't see the Democratic party as having failed for choosing her.

[Ken Burch]

525. I got behind her as a white straight man.

BTW, it's bullshit to say that any significant number of Sanders supporters only voted for Bernie because they didn't want to see a woman as president, or because they didn't care about black or brown or gay people.

Hillary carried those demographics Having been campaigning for their support for eight years, she was always going to. The fact that she had their support does not mean Bernie had no business running at all.

I accept that Hillary won, and campaigned for her all fall, but it's finally time to admit that Bernie's campaign was never about sexism or support for white supremacy. The claim that it was always a slur.

Bernie got the votes he got solely because the people who backed him(a lot of whom weren't men, or straight, or white)thought Hillary was too far to the right. There was no other reason. His campaign was not an exercise in white privilege.

If Joe Biden had run and Hillary hadn't, his policies would have been identical to Hillary's, and everybody who voted for Bernie would STILL have voted for Bernie.

The primaries are over. Neither Bernie nor Hillary will ever seek the presidency again. Why are you trying to keep this pointless division between Sanders and Clinton people alive? Both groups are needed if we're to win in 2018 and 2020.

And the issue is not about carrying white voters overall. That's never going to happen and nobody is calling or even secretly wishing for the party to stop speaking out against bigotry. The issue was connecting with working class voters on economic issues, and on getting the people who didn't vote because they thought NO party cared about their situation, i.e., the poor of all races, to believe that we will do something meaningful to help them, and then actually doing that.

It's not about being George Wallace...it's about being Bobby Kennedy.

[ehrnst]

526. I understand, but there was indeed some real sexism on the far left

As there has been for a long time.

I also saw a lot of impatience with "identity politics" being dissed as distracting from the real issue of income inequality, primarily in the "white male working class." Bernie kept repeating that.

Bernie didn't take all straight white men, but his supporters were a majority of Democratic white men.

When women, people of color, LGBTQs and new Americans are dismissed and 'splained to about how they don't understand that solving income inequality and getting single payer health care will take care of all those other "identity issues" then I know it's not about their income inequality.... it's about the white straight guys. And BTW - better incomes and universal health care didn't solve racism, sexism homophobia and xenophobia in Europe, as we have seen.

After the election one midwestern Democratic congressman unintentionally put it so well when he said, "I'm as progressive as anybody, but it seemed like the Party cared more about bathrooms than creating jobs."

That is what dismissing the life-threatening issues of other "non-white straight males" sounds like.

[Ken Burch]

528. And I understand all that you're saying there.

I accept that the Sanders voting demographic skewed white and male-but that this was happenstance, rather than the campaign making a conscious decision to target that demographic.

I think the Sanders campaign's flaws on this were unintentional communications problems, rather than intentional dismissal.

Now, what we need is dialog between those who centered economic justice(most of whom also were strong supporters of anti-oppression politics)and those who centered and continue to center anti-oppression activism(the vast majority of whom are on the left on economic justice issues as well.

We need to stop framing this as some sort of blood feud between people who had been pro-Sanders and people who had been pro-Clinton, have the dialog that finally needs to happen between here, and create a platform for 2018 and 2020, no matter who runs in those years, that gives both sets of issues the importance they deserve and recognizes the links between them.

Like THIS document does:

https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/

Sound good to you?

[ehrnst]

540. Like "happenstance" not going after Black support in the south?

http://fusion.net/story/323539/how-bernie-sanders-lost-black-voters/

No - that wasn't happenstance. When one's message has always been crafted to the interests of a small white, rural, lefty population it takes effort to expand it, and not double down that you have always been right, and always will be, so why change?

I sincerely doubt that the document you posted would get 5 minutes of the Senators' time.

[ehrnst]

323. 54% of white voters went Republican in 2012. I don't recall anyone

saying that we needed to "fix" that reality.

But the Dem candidate then was the choice of white men in the party, so it couldn't be the fault of Dems, could it?

It was racism, of course. Not us.

[Trumpocalypse]

343. We do

No one is saying that we don't.

[ehrnst]

544. I said in 2012 - not currently.

My point was exactly that- we are only suddenly gnashing our teeth about it when the candidate that wasn't the one the straight white men were behind lost the white vote. And only then.

Is that clearer?

[Faux pas]

27. +

millions more.

[matt819]

30. +1

Oh ffs. Give it a rest.

[leftstreet]

57. +1

[Gothmog]

95. Karl Rove funded Nader

Rove funded Nader in 2000 and 2004 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader’s campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP’s Laura Meckler headlined “GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads.” She opened: “Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. ... ‘Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,’ Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: ‘What’s Al Gore’s real record?’ Nader says: ‘Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.’” Meckler’s report continued: “A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader’s speeches.” Bush’s people - the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council - knew exactly what they were doing, even though the liberal suckers who voted so carelessly for Ralph Nader obviously did not. Anyone who drives a car the way those liberal fools voted, faces charges of criminal negligence, at the very least. But this time, the entire nation crashed as a result; not merely a single car.....

On July 9th, the San Francisco Chronicle headlined “GOP Doners Funding Nader: Bush Supporters Give Independent’s Bid a Financial Lift,” and reported that the Nader campaign “has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party,” according to “an analysis of federal records.” Perhaps these contributors were Ambassador Egan’s other friends. Mr. Egan’s wife was now listed among the Nader contributors. Another listed was “Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.” Furthermore, Ari Berman reported 7 October 2004 at the Nation, under “Swift Boat Veterans for Nader,” that some major right-wing funders of a Republican smear campaign against Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam service contributed also $13,500 to the Nader campaign, and that “the Republican Party of Michigan gathered ninety percent of Nader’s signatures in their state” (90%!) to place Nader on the ballot so Bush could win that swing state’s 17 electoral votes. Clearly, the word had gone out to Bush’s big contributors: Help Ralphie boy! In fact, on 15 September 2005, John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader, reported that, “A year ago, as the Presidential general election campaign raged in battleground state New Hampshire, consumer advocate Ralph Nader found his way onto the ballot, with the help of veteran Republican strategist David Carney and the Carney-owned Norway Hill Associates consulting firm.”

It was obvious, based upon the 2000 election results, that a dollar contributed to Nader in the 2004 contest would probably be a more effective way to achieve a Bush win against Kerry in the U.S. Presidential election than were perhaps even ten dollars contributed to Bush. This was a way of peeling crucial votes off from Bush’s real opponent - votes that otherwise would have gone to the Democrat. That’s why the smartest Republican money in the 2004 Presidential election was actually going to Nader, even more so than to Bush himself: these indirect Bush contributions provided by far the biggest bang for the right-wing buck.

[ehrnst]

326. And in 2016.... He funded Hillary's primary rival. (nt)

[Gothmog]

328. Yes Rove did

[Hortensis]

102. Not saying leftish radicals and extremists don't

have a right to their opinions. What's important is that we all realize that we usually overall have very different opinions, very different principles, very different goals, and very different ideas of what means are acceptable in pursuing our goals. Some overlap but...ultimately different.

And especially that we realize the illiberal left normally opposes liberals and the dominant left-wing party, the Democratic Party. There's this silly notion that they are just a variation of liberals who will abandon their passion for "revolution," for a separate party, for purging and taking control of the already large, powerful Democratic Party away from its liberal and conservative members--and will instead support Democratic candidates if only spoken to nicely. Not!

We can agree on that, right?

[Alice11111]

127. Many are same people who think 9/11was an inside job

Far left and far right.

[Hortensis]

145. Yes. Conspiracism common at both extremes.

Sigh.

But let's face it, many of the anti-Democrat left really aren't deluded like that. Yes, some people did totally believe that our candidate was "stealing" elections--and still do, their conspiracies becoming more and more complex as they rationalize new developments into their picture. And others felt both Democratic candidates were basically just corporatist stooges.

Others, though, didn't believe that. But they used it and felt very virtuous in the process. Their characteristic righteousness breeds ruthlessness, normal principles, even potentially the right of voters to choose their candidates, subjugated to what they believe is their great mission. And only theirs.

[Alice11111]

153. Well said.

[Alice11111]

235. especially, righteousness breeds ruthfulness

[milestogo]

243. What exactly is "ruthfulness"?

[Alice11111]

274. Dictionary says, causing sorrow. I would add usually

Deliberately, cruelly, vindictively, and often from a position of power. Distionary is my phone Websters, so not very explicit.

[Hortensis]

337. Ends justify the means, even when that means

abandonment of normal standards of decency and very embedded principles of behavior, and in this case, I meant democracy itself. One of our candidates would have used an available process to set aside a large majority vote for the other candidate if he could. Unfortunately for this ruthless scheme, others held to their good sense, their principles, and their duty to the voters. It actually never came close to succeeding.

What I note is not only the attempt of this leader to overset the democratic process but the willingness of way too many of his followers to follow and approve. Because he is their leader.

[Alice11111]

353. Nailed the problem...those who follow, Congress, Repubs

Trumpsters. He has barely enough support, but he has it...to harm the world.

[Rex]

338. It is funny how the GOP is never at fault for anything.

No, it is always that powerless left wing! Good call. How sad anyone would recommend this very long right wing talking point.

[joshcryer]

371. As if the right wing has never donated to or sponsered the far left...

...and the far left hasn't ever taken or supported their efforts. No not ever.

It's amazing, fucking amazing, how a Democrat can get donations from individuals (NOTE: individual contributions) from people working for say, the banks, but the far left, taking direct paychecks from fascists (anyone who gets paid to go on RT) or who gets paid by the far right (Nader's campaigns), and it's fucking hunky doory.

[Rex]

375. You mean like Bernie getting support from individuals?

Nice try but fail. The left has always been powerless, but you knew that already.

[joshcryer]

394. Sure.

But no one bitched when he got donations from workers from Apple, Kaiser, Microsoft, Google, etc. Because people went out of their way to point out those were individual donations. But if a Democrat, who is in NY, or who comes from the north east, gets donations from people who work in the banks, oh my goodness, it's the end of the world, the sky is falling. They're evil beholden democrats. No mention of donation limits, no recognition that these are individuals who have jobs, lives, actual human beings. Not superpacs like the right wing uses.

And the left, of all people, looks at Trump's media manipulated campaign (with foreign influence) and acts as if it was some kind of populist magic, because he didn't spend as much money. Trump got $5 billion in free media coverage, for fucks sake.

It's a goddamn greek tragedy.

[joshcryer]

370. They thrive on the left eating its own?

[Eliot Rosewater]

405. Not enough of the gop to win unless dumbshits scream "but emails" and vote 3rd party

or stay home.

These so called progressives killed us all.

[demmiblue]

6. Just what are you trying to do here?

[Trumpocalypse]

10. Trying to address

what has become an ongoing problem and weakness of the left.

[Greybnk48]

53. WE SHOULD ALL MOVE TO THE RIGHT!

That's what this is. Never again. That's what got us Bush 2.

[George II]

160. What? How do you see that?

[Greybnk48]

170. My statement was meant as sarcasm.

Since Reagan, the left is always advised that the solution to ANY goddamn problem at all is for us to move right. For years we have stupidly done it to the point of almost destroying our party, UNTIL this past election.

We lost this election because of Russian interference, and possible/probable corroboration with a foreign government by the Republican party. People want the message they were getting from us and it was from the left, NOT the middle or right of middle.

The election was gamed, and it will come out.

[Barack_America]

20. Disrupt.

Our "fancy" friend here is trying very hard to distract us from discussing Trump's implosion.

[unitedwethrive]

33. Most of us are capable of holding multiple thoughts simultaneously.

It's always a good idea to learn from history, so we can try not to make the same mistakes.

[Alice11111]

139. !!!

[QC]

58. Divide, too.

So transparent.

[Crunchy Frog]

268. Looks that way to me too.

Joins just after Dump's "win", studies the "libt*rds" for awhile, then posts some extremely divisive red meat that's guaranteed to have regular DUers at each others throats, while still under 100 posts.

Doing a really good job too. Even has someone proclaiming their desire to stomp on the faces of "leftists". Must be getting a good chuckle out of this.

[QC]

269. Bingo. n/t

[Rex]

339. Good to know who

recs right wing talking points. Even long winded ones.

[QC]

351. No surprises at all in who grabbed up this stinky turd and ran with it.

I tells ya, no freeper ever hated progressives more than our very own Sensible Pragmatic Centrists™.

[Rex]

377. Well what do you expect them to do? Their epic failure by running centrists

has always been a failure and they can NEVER do anything but blame the powerless left!

I'm just glad people are on to their game.

[ehrnst]

539. Yeah, "centrists" like the Congressional Black Caucus and Planned Parenthood....

who were called "establishment types" because you know, they are so in the center....

[Demsrule86]

69. Hopefully...people are too smart of such as he/she.

[Blue_true]

113. The far left will play their purity bullshit again. I want to stomp them in the face

every chance I get. They have helped damage the country during four (68, 00, 04, 16) pivotal elections. I am tired of their shit. I am a childless male who has a good profession, I don't need much at all, I don't need freedom to reproductive choices, I don't need social services that republicans call entitlements, I drink bottled water and cook infrequently, so if republicans fuck up clean water I will get clean water that I need. I don't need schools being childless, I don't get stopped or abused by cops. The few services that I use, republicans never, never talk about reducing or cutting because they need those services too. I don't need to vote Democrat, but I do on every election because I believe in the Democrat's "We are all in this together mindset". I sometimes vote against my maximum interests to vote Democrat, but I vote D regardless and have never had a second thought. I vote Democrat because I know the republican is worst. I am fucking tired of purists getting all pissy because they only got 85-90% of everything they wanted.

[demmiblue]

116. I didn't read past, "I want to stomp them in the face every chance I get."

Reminds me of DTG.

[Citrus]

261. Nice

Perhaps it's time for you to go clean your room.

What kind of person wants to stomp people in the face because s/he disagrees with the other person? Jeez, get some help.

[Crunchy Frog]

267. And then you wonder why our party is losing.

[Eliot Rosewater]

408. I hear ya, i do. It will happen again in 2018, you can see it in this thread.

They dont understand how the two party system works, they simply dont.

[BumRushDaShow]

11. .

[Gman]

12. It's always the same BS stupidity

"There's no difference between the two". Stupider words have never been spoken in the history of this country. They did it in 2000 led by Nader who now has the blood of two wars on his hands. They did it in 2010 by being petulant children who wanted to "teach the party a lesson" over not getting the public option in the ACA. And these complete idiots do d it again last year even joining forces with the lunatic fringe right wing by repeating Russian propaganda lies about Hillary. They are solely responsible for many of our problems because they think they are the smartest people in the room because everyone around them agrees in that liberal version of alternate reality.

[liquid diamond]

135. They are worse than trump supporters in my opinion.

At least trump's minions are honest about who they are.

[Eliot Rosewater]

409. Agreed.

[Alice11111]

138. I have to interact w them. Definitely NOT smartest or

most informed people.
They THINK they are more sophisticated though. They have their own fringe media. Most can't even name many top elected officials.
One was telling me how her good friend (who was really smart and principled), at a restaurant, went over to the table of a veteran and disrupted his family and friend dinner. She was loudly carrying on about his killing people in war. Yeah, that will get us votes.
I said, she would have had a hard time doing that if I were there.

Obviously, this issue hits a nerve with me. Yes, Comey, was the final straw. Yes. It was the Russians, voter suppression , fake news, mismanaged campaign, and many other things that individually or together cost us the election. Still, I'm sick and tired of losing to these corrupt MF Repubs, and one factor that has caused it FOR SURE in 3 or 4 elections is the stupid far left. It is bad enough to have to fight the stupidity of the Repubs, but the extreme left may be equally stupid. So, thanks for putting this out here. We need to keep saying it. Maybe, it will penetrate some of their pea brains.

[joshcryer]

373. They have the same malignancy of the right wing.

They simply ignore the truth. They are basically liars who feed on lies. When they are presented with the truth they deflect with strawmen, lies, and more lies, with no nuance whatsoever.

[truebluegreen]

388. Thank you for your nuanced response.

[joshcryer]

393. Discussing BS stupidity doesn't require it.

It's plain as day and why the left has been losing, around the world, for a long time now.

[truebluegreen]

415. Do what I say, not what I do? Got it.

BTW, I'd say the elites have been fucking up, and are now losing, all around the world. That's how we got Trump, and Brexit. "The left"--uncorrupted by Big Money--hasn't been in charge for a good long while.

[joshcryer]

489. Trump and Brexit are the elites losing?

Trump and Brexit are directly tied to racism.

[truebluegreen]

518. Trump and Brexit are big FUs to the elites.

Here's a guy who can explain it way better than I can (btw he predicted both events)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/18/mark_blyth_global_trumpism_and_the_revolt_against_the_creditor_class.html

[ehrnst]

523. Far left Dogma is rather Maoist in the requirements to conform totally to

the purity litmus tests.

That way went the Nader "revolution."

[Barack_America]

14. What's that, Fancy Bear?

[demmiblue]

16. And some people eat it up.

[milestogo]

19. Looks good.

[lunasun]

80. Looks so yummy now I am hungry and have completely forgotten what this post was about

[Cha]

15. Well, stein did lie to her fans about Hillary.. and sarandon did the same..

snip//

It was Jill Stein who said Hillary might be the greater evil in a Trump matchup (“Hil­la­ry has the potential to do a whole lot more damage, get us into more wars”), a sentiment shared by actress Susan Sarandon, who told an interviewer she believed that Clinton was “more dangerous” than Trump because she was more hawkish and better able to ram her agenda through Congress. In words I suspect Sarandon wishes she could reel back, she discounted the threat level posed by a Trump presidency: “Seriously, I am not worried about a wall being built . . . . He is not going to get rid of every Muslim in this country.” She speculated on another occasion that a Trump win might hasten the revolution. The left’s romance with revolution has always been a reality-blinder, this thermodynamic belief that things need to get bad beyond the breaking point so that people will take the vape pens out of their mouths, rise up, and storm the Bastille. But the history of non-democracies and authoritarian personality cults shows that things can stay bad and get worse for a long time, leaving unhealable wounds. Mao’s China, for example. Putin’s tubercular Russia.

More to the story..
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/why-the-alt-left-is-a-problem

[delisen]

37. Stein, Putin and Trump joined forces against Clinton-she is that formidable

[Gothmog]

96. Stein and Sarandon are two sad people who are proud of their efforts to elect trump

Last edited Sun Mar 5, 2017, 08:30 PM - Edit history (1)

[Cha]

157. Right.. they don't regret shit.

[Gothmog]

158. They are actually proud that trump was elected due to their efforts

[Eliot Rosewater]

412. Yep and they are here on this thread it seems.

Hey, you won guys.

The human race will now be destroyed, you got your wish!

[Gothmog]

524. I agree and I am not happy with this sentiment

[mcar]

105. Anyone who says Hillary was worse than Trump

Is neither a Democrat or a progressive. They are delusional.

[tech3149]

17. You Sooo Funny!

There is no "extreme" left in the US of A. They were driven to the point of extinction by McCarthy and Bircher style demonization.
You're walking out on a very thin limb accusing anyone that considers themselves on the left as being responsible for trump.
Here's the way things broke down in my neck of the world. Mid-sized exurban county, income median $67K. Voting tally? 127K trump, 62K Clinton, 1.5k third party AND write in. This is just one of the counties in one of the states that CLINTON SHOULD HAVE WON. If there were enough of an "extreme" left in this country to make a difference Sanders would be President today.

[Blue_true]

117. There is an extreme left and it is fucking clueless.

98% of people calling themselves Democrats and being proud to call themselves Democrats are progressives, whether you agree or not (not that I care if you don't). Real progressives have made more progress, even in the face of stiff resistance that the extreme left will in it's wildest wet dream.

[truebluegreen]

389. Commies! They're all freaking' commies!

Us real progressives believe in targeted drone strikes, fracking over coal, public / private cooperation and being all bipartisany.

[Eliot Rosewater]

416. They arent actually left at all, but that is what they call themselves, yes.

I am the extreme left and I NEVER vote 3rd party and I NEVER stay home.

[ehrnst]

527. The audience for RT and the Intercept isn't small. (nt)

[Cary]

18. It would be nice to unite against a common enemy

It makes too much sense.

At the very least, could the radical left just stop stabbing mainstream Democrats in the back?

No? Well then how about just owning the fact that you're not our allies and never intend to be anything of the sort?

[mcar]

106. Like those who suggest that certain Ds should primary others

Instead of running against Rs. In the midst of this nightmare, they still want purity tests.

[Cary]

112. Yes, and sowing discord and discontent

And diluting our mission and our message. And making us weaker not stronger.

[mcar]

114. Hillary was correct

We are Stronger Together!

[Cary]

115. But is the radical left to be trusted?

Sure if they would work with us on our common goals we would be stronger. Bit if they stab us in the back and tell us it's our own fault for saying ouch, I'd just as soon set them afloat on their nice iceberg.

[mcar]

120. I have my doubts too Cary

When another 3rd party "savior" shows up in a few years and starts singing the purity and "both sides do it" songs, I presume they will follow along.

[Eliot Rosewater]

420. And you could primary anybody you want but you come together after that, which

they wont do if they dont get their way.

[mcar]

453. Yes, in normal times

Now we shouldn't even consider primarying a Democrat. There are plenty of Republicans to run against.

[milestogo]

21. I always thought that people in this country have the right to vote for whomever they want.

They have the right to vote for third party candidates or not to vote at all.

No candidate is owed votes. Votes have to be earned.

[WhiteTara]

24. Of course. That's why Drumpf earned

the election.

[lillypaddle]

25. and apparently

you voted for trump, whether directly or indirectly. That was your right. Congrats.

[sweetloukillbot]

352. They stared into the face of fascism and said they couldn't be bothered to oppose it... nt

[Gothmog]

376. A vote for Jill Stein was a vote for trump

[treestar]

45. that attitude will make it sure you never

get a progressive government.

You have to vote in your best interests - not sit there and expect to be "courted."

[Cary]

51. Yes, people have the right to stab us in the back

No one ever said the radical left had no right to stab us in the back. That's a straw man.

The point is that the radical left should not be stabbing mainstream Democrats in the back, because they only hurt themselves and help the radical right.

[milestogo]

74. Ah, so its all about us.

All citizens should vote the way WE tell them to. They have no choice in the matter. They owe us.

[Cary]

79. That's really helpful

But of course the radical left are free to be martyrs too.

[onyxw]

204. A tragedy in 2 acts

Act I - The Primaries:

Radical left: We're begging you, don't put up Clinton, we can't support her and she doesn't poll well with independents. We're raising a bunch of red flags that she could lose.
Mainstream Democrats: All your concerns are nothing burgers. We got this, we don't need you.

Act II- Post-Election:
Mainstream Democrats: Where the hell were you guys? How could you stab us in the back like that?

[Cary]

209. It's not that the "concerns are nothing burgers."

It's that this is a democracy and the radical left isn't the majority. Feelings of entitlement don't cut it.

[onyxw]

216. That statement works both ways.

Centrist democrats aren't the majority. Feelings of entitlement to left votes don't cut it either.

Both sides need each other. Simple at that. Whether we all like it or not. So we all better learn to compromise (left) and listen to each other (centrists) or we're going to continue to lose.

[Cary]

220. Then don't evolve.

Don't ever change. Not that I matter one bit, but I wrote off the radical left years ago.

[NastyRiffraff]

87. Nobody's saying people don't have a right

to vote for "whomever they want." Nor that votes don't have to be earned. We're saying those who voted third party out of pique because they didn't get the nominee they wanted are dumb as dirt and are at least partially responsible for the disaster we're seeing now.

Did Stein really "earn" anybody's vote? Please.

[Gothmog]

97. Elections and votes for third parties have consequences

In 2000 and 2004, Karl Rove and the GOP funded nader. Stein was helped by trump's people. They did this for a reason

[Blue_true]

119. You act like you're watching a porn flick, where the actors have to excite you.

Pull your head out of the sand, this is the real world where there is never a "perfect" choice, but where every choice has real consequences. You voted for Trump, whether you own up to it or not, enjoy polluted waters, damaged environment, far more violence in the world, unspeakable brutality, you fucking voted for it (whether you voted for Trump, Johnson, Stein, wrote in and stayed home).

[milestogo]

121. You can't wrap your mind around the fact

that I worked for Hillary Clinton, voted for Hillary Clinton, and still respect the right of other citizens to exercise their own choice in voting. I think Clinton herself would be horrified by the attitudes in this thread.

[Alice11111]

146. !!!

[Trumpocalypse]

241. Never said they didn't

In fact I said "no candidate or political party is owed anyone's vote". But they also must take responsibility for their vote.

[GoneOffShore]

22. Oh, so, you've got all the answers. Cool. Maybe you should be running the party.

Thanks for your concern.

Has the bullshit options market collapsed for you?

[lillypaddle]

26. Truth hurts sometimes. nt

[GoneOffShore]

108. Me thinks that the concern is misplaced.

And 'truth' would seem to be fluid with those who seem to have an 'interesting' agenda.

[WhiteTara]

23. Thanks for saying what is difficult for them to hear.

No one likes to hear they were that stupid to bring on disaster because they allowed perfect to be the enemy of the good.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. If you want a scapegoat blame the non voters

There are many magnitudes more of them, including tens of millions who benefit from Democratic policy priorities. It makes the number of leftists (who always happen to be one of the constituencies most loyal to Democrats) who vote third part laughable by comparison.

[NurseJackie]

35. Yes indeed. Wasn't it a shame that people like Sarandon likely discouraged the "wishy-washy" voter

... who was easily manipulated into believing that Hillary was "worse than Trump" or "more dangerous that Trump". Sarandon (and other arrogant loud-mouths like her) contributed to the toxic atmosphere toward Hillary even AFTER the conventions were over.

I'm certain that the non-voters definitely contributed in a negative way.

[Eliot Rosewater]

424. She did that for sure. People are stupid, she capitalized on that fact.

I really want to watch the new show on FX, Feud, but she makes me so angry dont know if I can.

[KeepItReal]

73. Zero lessons learned from '08 (inspired turnout), '10 (apathetic midterms), '12 (declining turnout)

Blaming some subset for a narrow loss when the party has proven to be capable of massive wins, with a properly run campaign, is not a good look.

[Crunchy Frog]

150. But witch hunts just feel so good.

[NurseJackie]

31. And the fringe-left FAITHLESS ELECTORS would have handed it to Trump if things had been that close.

Therefore, the insistence by some on the left for 100% ideological purity can only serve to marginalize themselves.

Amen to that. It's vain. It's naive.

They foolishly believe that "sending-a-message" will drag the party in their direction. They also believe that they must "destroy to rebuild". Both notions are wrong.

Stein voters (and those who thought it was cute to "write-in" names of people not actually running) are beneath contempt. I wonder if Sarandon (a Stein voter) is satisfied and happy now.

[Foamfollower]

41. They prove they cannot be counted on to vote for the Dems, then they cry when the Dems go after the

voters in the center.

It's pure stupidity on their part and they have no place in the Democratic Party until they, you know, actually vote for Democrats.

[Blue_true]

122. Don't expect Stein to take responsibility for anything. She is worst than Trump. nt

[NurseJackie]

165. Of course she wont. But ... it changes nothing. We know the truth.

[Gothmog]

32. Nader is responsible for Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act

I live in Texas where we are dealing the consequences of Nader giving the election to bush. The voting rights act was gutted and we got Citizens United all due to Nader

[Blue_true]

125. You "Must earn my vote" Clowns. Answer that poster.

The person gave to real, lasting consequences of your purity bullshit. Bush made two critical appointments to the Court, the Voting Rights Act was abandoned 5-4 and Citizens United became law 5-4. I saw some of you clever bullshitters reply to other posts, reply to the one that gave to real life consequences of your fucking stupidity.

[Gothmog]

155. So are you happy that trump won? Were you happy when Bush won?

A vote for Stein was a vote for trump and now Stein voters must accept the consequences of their actions.

Are you happy with Trump being POTUS?

[tblue37]

34. K&R. nt

[KG]

38. I lulz'd

[Foamfollower]

39. They will never learn.

They prove themselves to be unreliable voters for the Dems, then whine when the Dems move towards to center to pick up enough votes to actually win.

If they ever smarten up, they could be a real force and actually implement some of their agenda, most of which I would agree with. Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury because the extreme left is so purist they'll never get what they want.

[Blue_true]

129. Clinton got 66 million votes.

A lot of sane republicans have abandoned or will abandon the Republican Party. I can't see anyone that is a true patriot voting republican. My argument is forget the far left, we need to learn to live without them today, our candidates should be center-left, period, that is where elections are won and progress is made. If we win, who gives a shit is we win by the 3.5 million more votes the far left brings, we already have 66 million and can get millions more from the Center to become dominant in all elections. Fuck the far left, they will get what they want because our values are progressive, but we won't have them blowing up elections with us counting on them to be sane.

[Trumpocalypse]

240. Exactly my point

Thanks, I'm glad someone here gets it.

[ehrnst]

385. What part of getting more votes than anyone but Obama in '08 is unclear to you? (nt)

[Foamfollower]

392. No part of it.

You seem to agree with me. A few thousand extreme leftists actually voting Hillary instead of Stein in a few key states and history takes a completely different path, so those assholes are useles, their agenda is useless, and we need to pick of more from the center in those key states because extreme leftists are unreliable.

[Egnever]

396. The part that brought out enough votes to defeat her

More votes was not enough and had she been a better candidate it would have been very difficult to vote for Trump.

Her negatives gave enough cover for him to slide through.

She was and remains a terrible candidate. There is no doubt she would have been world's better than Cheeto Jesus but blaming the far left for a shit candidate is silly.

There is also nothing close to any assurance her presidency would not have destroyed the Dems for decades. All she had to do when she got in office is cozy up to the bankers, something she has a tendency to and that would have destroyed the Dems going forward.

At least with Trump we can point our fingers and say how is that working out for you. There is no guarantee were the shoe on the other foot that finger would not be pointed at us.

[RandiFan1290]

40. Cool story, bro

[Nevernose]

49. +1

The messages in this thread seem like Trump blaming Obama for Trump's collusion with Russia. Paranoid, angry, and looking for a scapegoat.

[HopeAgain]

42. So we are telling people how liberal to be?

Maybe a little more liberal candidate would have been a better solution because we wouldn't have lost votes to Stein, etc..

Instead of telling people to snap in line, maybe we should find more common ground.

[Mellomugwump]

62. You can be as liberal as you want to be

I'm very liberal but understand that you have to govern more from the center because the country consists of people from the far left to the far right and everything in between. It's not all about me and what I want. Most of us would probably be okay being governed from the center, but we can't handle being governed by the extreme right.

I never for a minute thought that President Obama wasn't in favor of gay marriage, but he knew there weren't enough voters ready for it, so he got elected and started slowly guiding the country more to the left. Once people got used to civil unions, marriage wasn't as big of a jump.

Even though I'm liberal, I respect those that are "somewhat" more conservative, and sometimes it takes baby steps to change people's minds.

[HopeAgain]

78. Babysteps is losing the millenials

Including my son who is very politically interested and active, but very, very frustrated.

[Mellomugwump]

94. Perhaps they need to learn that it isn't all about them?

There are other people in the world that exist and matter that you might not agree with 100%? Now that they actually have to govern and take responsibility for it, the republicans are finding out that it might not be as easy as they thought to take the country to a hard right. Just like it wouldn't be easy to take the country to a hard left.

Maybe witnessing the destruction that's going to happen over the next four years will be an education that maybe not getting 100% of what you want isn't the end of the world.....literally. Yes, we want free college tuition, but now, not only are we not going to get that, our public school system is going to be demolished.

California was set to start building their new light rail system, or whatever it was. Now, not only do they not get that, but regulations attempting to keep our air and water clean are being rolled back. The hard work that Obama did to fight climate control is probably for naught as well.

We couldn't get universal healthcare thanks to the DINO's and now with Trump, we get nothing.

Anybody that didn't vote for Hillary or who voted for a third party because Hillary wasn't left enough is a dumbass...pure and simple, and I despise them as much as I do the deplorables for giving us the hell we're in now.

[HopeAgain]

154. Hasn't been about them at all

Even though it is their future. Maybe if they had gotten support from Obama and Hillary during Occupy instead of her being paid exorbitant fees to speak on Wall street?

Oh, yeah I forgot, none of this is the moderate Democrat' s fault.

[Mellomugwump]

162. I'm just glad I never had kids

If I had, I wouldn't be able to stop and ask myself every now and then - what do I care? I'm going to be gone in 30-40 years, so just calm down. That's the only way I keep from going nuts. If I had kids, or planned to have kids, I would definitely not waste a protest vote on somebody who can't win, I'd vote for the person most likely to protect the environment. Wall Street speeches would definitely be lower on my list.

After 4 years of trump (or God forbid 8) and with a little maturity, hopefully they'll figure it out. But then I suppose we'll have another generation of voters who didn't live through the Bush and Trump years who think they know it all.

[JHan]

232. I am a millennial,

The best thing my generation can do is get involved - by running for office or acquainting ourselves with the power structures we're up against. If we fail to understand political realities we get left out which is why millennials who didn't vote set themselves up to fail.

Big sweeping changes can only happen with majorities in congress and a dem president.

[Blue_true]

131. I virulently was opposed to Bernie winning our Primary.

But, if he had won it, I would have ran to the polls to vote for him and every Democrat on the ballot. Why? Because in the end, Bernie would have given me more of the policy that I value than the republican would have, period. Since I am Center-Left, it is unlikely that Bernie would ever "earn" my vote in a Party Primary.

[RoadhogRidesAgain]

191. I ain't understanding squat

Any "dem" that tries moving to the center is an ENEMY. There has been enough baby steps and appeasing to the extreme right and every year they get worse and worse. Meanwhile this country still doesn't have universal health care.

If you look at what the current right wing is and think we need to move closer to their direction you are out of your mind. What the hell do we move to the center to? Less intrusive Muslim bans? Slightly less wealth inequality? Bring back only part of the EPA regulations? Fuck that and fuck centrists. They are enemies. It's not about being "pure", the center left in this country is pretty conservative in all other first world countries all because the left in this country is full of appeasing cowards.

[Mellomugwump]

203. This was in context of voting for Hillary

Rather than a Jill Stein throwaway vote. My main point is that I think Hillary is probably more to the left than she campaigned to, in order to not lose the independents. I'm not saying move more to the left, I'm saying that while not perfect, Hillary is leagues above what we ended up with, so anybody who didn't vote for her because she isn't progressive enough, screwed us all.

I would love to see the whole country move WAY more to the left, which would result in more progressives winning elections. In the meantime, we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot if our candidate's ideology isn't where we want it to be.....yet. Unless you're in favor of the scorched earth policy where you want to see it all burned down, so we can start over, and that is tempting, but I'd worry that we'd still end up way behind where we want to be.

[SticksnStones]

43. Breaking windows instead of building bridges

That's all the far left seems to do...

What part of the democratic platform does the far left object to in particular?

Or was is just their disdain in general, for the messenger ~

[treestar]

44. Exactly, they are "wimps" because they know

the left does not have their backs, whereas the right is "tough" because they know they can do anything and still have support.

[ornotna]

46. Excellent

Another circular firing squad. You're not beating that horse hard enough, put your shoulder into it.

[delisen]

47. Many claim to be "The Progressives" it is past time to define the term.

The noise I keep hearing is:


"We are the progressives, you are the Other."

"We are right, you are wrong"

"We are pure and saint-like in our ideology, you are less than pure, evil, corrupt"

"We must reform you and destroy you, bend you to our will"

"We are the anti-corporatists (except when they sell us products we need like I-Phones); you are corporatists.

"We are the judges, we decide who is progressive, you are the judged.

"You need us, we don't need or want you-you must be purged if you do not bend to our will.

Meanwhile the March of the Elephants continues crushing all in its path-and the monied pith-helmeted Susan Sarandon "progressives" decked out in expensive gear tell us the destruction is really a good thing---because the survivors will, one day, join us maybe........

[Blue_true]

133. Great analysis. On the money on Sarandon. nt

[NastyRiffraff]

329. That's what I'm hearing too

Great summary of the attitudes of certain so-called "progressives." Sarandon is a perfect example.

I can't stand smug, self-righteous people, and a lot of them are.

[ehrnst]

366. "Conform with us on every single issue, or you are not true progressives!!"

"Also - you must agree that Glenn Greewald is the font of truth, anything other than demanding single payer means you are a corporate shill, FREE college not DEBT free college or you are a corporate shill, NO LESS than $15 an hour minimum wage NOW or you are a right wing corporate shill. If you are Democrat and not with us, you are just a moderate Republican. Nothing in between."

Because that's totally a message that invites people to join your 'revolution.'

See also - Ralph Nader.

[Gothmog]

378. I stopped caring about Glen Greenwald a very long time ago

If agreeing with Greenwald is a litmus test, then I am happy to fail that test. Greenwald does not care about the Democratic Party

[ehrnst]

384. Moi aussi. (nt)

[edhopper]

48. Democrats got more votes

for the Senate and for the Presidency in 2016 than the GOP. It's just that the Repugs have rigged the elections.

[INdemo]

52. All this was/is bullshit.

Voters that elects Right Wing Nuts are right wing nuts.

[BainsBane]

152. I agree

But some pretend to be progressives. JPR provides plenty of examples.

[eniwetok]

54. TRANSLATION: Dems Lose When RIGHT WINGERS Don't Vote For Dems!!!

Leaving aside that you're absolving that antidemocratic abomination called the EC blameless, one can ALWAYS claim the Dems didn't win an election for the lack of votes. Duh!

But the reality is Humphrey LOST. Nixon got more votes than HHH and 10 million voted for Wallace. 10 million preferred a RIGHT WING candidate. Who are you going to blame for that?

Many were pissed at HHH's connection to LBJ's Vietnam War and his support for the Civil and Voting Rights Acts.

[Coventina]

59. Bless your heart.

[yurbud]

60. so whether Dems run a lefty or "centrist" candidate and lose, it's lefties fault?

Dems have pulled to the right even when the public was overwhelmingly to the left of them on trade, health care, Wall Street, and war.

If Democrats in Congress and Obama had dumped the secret, corporate-written TPP and its cousins, they would have deprived TRUMP of an issue.

When Trump is able to outflank you on on left, you have fucked up big time.

Also, if Obama had aggressively prosecuted some Wall Street bankers or even attached some serious strings to the second half of the Wall Street bailout, he would have won over a lot of RIGHTIES.

[QC]

63. We are in irrelevant fringe minority, yet we have the power to swing elections.

That's the Great Progressive Paradox, according to the sensible woodchucks.

[Demsrule86]

82. Only close elections...I wish that you had the power to win...but I have never seen that.

I am a liberal and would like to see a majority of liberals...but it won't happen anytime soon. Trump won as a populist which is a very different thing than a liberal. Like it or not...if we look at the states, and Congress...the country has moved right...I consider this country to be center left in terms of the population.

[Blue_true]

134. What policy iniatives have you accomplished in the last 60 years?

Don't give me stuff Democrats and the Democratic Party has accomplished, we are corporatist suck ups, remember?

[NamesDave]

177. no excuses

.

[BainsBane]

137. How have Democrats pulled to the right?

Last edited Sun Mar 5, 2017, 07:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Tell me what is more conservative about the 2016 platform than 1992? When is this period when the Democratic Party met your standards?

There were a number of civil prosecutions of Bankers under Obama. What law or legal strategy should have been used to criminally prosecute them? No one has yet to answer that question. The candidate who argued that point for years couldn't answer the question. You'd think basic curiosity, if nothing else, would promote someone to consider the legal provisions for something they have complained about for years.

Thank goodness you're relieved of the horror of Obama as president and can finally get back to making America great again. Happy now?

The true "progressives" on JPR insist Trump can do no wrong. They couldn't be happier with the results of their hard fought efforts to move the country "left." Funny how that "left" just happens to resemble fascism. And obviously corporatism isn't the slightest concern, as they pretended. The billionaires populating the cabinet aren't a problem. Hillary giving speeches and earning money that rightfully belongs to white men, now that's a problem. Abolishing EPA, no big deal. Hillary wouldn't ban all fracking, so she was worse.

And what you are worried about now is that Obama didn't criminally prosecute bankers under laws you don't bother to name. Who cares if Trump has put a money launder as head of Commerce? Who cares if the rest of his appointments are intended to destroy the agencies they head? The real problem is something Obama didn't do in 2009, not that Trump is working to end regulation of Wall Street.

The OP is wrong on one major thing. What he calls the "extreme left" are not leftists at all. Not if they worked to install a fascist as presidency. Fascism is what fascism does.

There once was a true left in this country before it was systematically purged, deported, and imprisoned. None of them were stupid enough to believe the Democratic Party was the party of the left. It never has been. Not during the height of Jim Crow, not during the era of McCarthyism and the Cold War, or when dollar men from Wall Street and industry populated presidential cabinets--not during any of the good ole days so-called "leftists" long to return to.

[Gothmog]

380. Great post-the Democratic party is being split by the extreme left

[Rex]

340. That is what this OP is about.

To make us move even farther to the right. By blaming the powerless left.

Where is all the blame toward Reagan Dems? How about those 200k Dems that voted for Bush in 2000 in Florida?

Oh right, those powerless lefties!

It is pathetic anyone still falls for this RWing propaganda.

[Trumpocalypse]

360. The left is not powerless

That is the point. The left can be very powerful if is would unite and stop splitting its vote because some insist on 100% ideological purity.

[Rex]

379. Well then get your centrists allies to stop blocking the left and stop losing seats.

You can pretend it is the left's fault all you want to, history just does not back up your claims. Sorry.

[Trumpocalypse]

406. It is not about fault or blame

It is about uniting to fight a common enemy.

[Rex]

410. Your OP is all about fault and blame, are you going to pretend now it is not?

All over the road with this one now, figures.

[Trumpocalypse]

422. It's not

And you're sounding very defensive. So did you vote for the Democratic party nominee in 16?

[Rex]

423. It is.

I voted for HRC, who did you vote for you sound angry all the sudden.

Your OP is totally about blame.

[Trumpocalypse]

542. It's not

And I leave the anger and defensiveness to you.

[yurbud]

64. it's what that 10-15% IS. Privatizing public education is not small potatoes for teachers & parents

Centrists and even a lot righties wouldn't think you're a commie if you said every kid deserve a good PUBLIC public school to go to with small classes, a teacher free to do their job as they see fit, and no tax dollars diverted to contractor profits.

If the people at the top of the Democratic Party could pick a few issues where they say NO to Wall Street and go aggressively in the other direction, especially where Wall Street is dead wrong, maybe you could win back what you've lost in congress, state legislatures and governor's mansions.

[forjusticethunders]

65. Part of the problem is lefties think that just because the GOP did it, we can too.

But guess who the billionaires aren't going to pour money to fund think tanks and indoctrination centers for???? The best part is that the socialists who have ACTUALLY WON actually, at least temporarily, made common cause with the center/center-left tp advance their goals. You'll find a lot of "mainstream Democrats" actually support things that DSA types want, but they have to be tactical about it.

Also no analysis of left-wing tactical stupidity is complete without the SPD versus KPD division that prevented the Left from stopping Hitler.

[Blue_true]

136. There are many billionaires that are Democrats.

The situation is billionaire Democrats seldom are rigid minds like most republican billionaires, so they have been historically less likely to pour money into mind control efforts.

[Demsrule86]

66. I don't disagree with some of this...but the point seems very divisive and I must say

I am suspicious of your motives...after all, the GOP could win if they manage to continue to divide Democrats...this was what the Russian lead Wiki attack was intended to accomplish, and it worked to some degree...it seems to me what this post may be intended accomplish the samething...divide and conquer...with all the trouble ahead with the GOP, we don't need this shite.

[Blue_true]

140. The Russian hacks and wikileaks propaganda worked because many

on the far left bought into the bullshit demonization of Hillary. The Russians saw an opportunity during our primary and took it. Hillary didn't help herself with her penchant for hanging onto stuff (like speech transcripts and emails) that she should have made public from the first day she entered the primary (I hope politicians on our side learned from that, if there is something that you are afraid of, don't get your ass into the race, but if there is nothing there, release every ducking thing the day you enter and be prepared to explain everything).

[Talk Is Cheap]

70. Diversion and divisive thread....Keep on topic - Comrade Trump Russian operative

Just like tRump saying Obama did a wiretap - just a diversion.

[Trumpocalypse]

312. So like Trump

you're making an accusation without any evidence.

Unfortunately, sometime the truth hurts, trying to deny it doesn't solve the problem.

[aikoaiko]

72. Hippy punching never goes out of style.

Remember....

[onecaliberal]

75. Hillary Clinton received 3 million MORE votes than that piece of maggot shit in the wh.

[sharedvalues]

76. Wrong. The conservative media gave us Trump and Reagan

To expand a bit- Trump was given to us by the ultra rich and corporations, by funding the conservative media, and funding think tanks, SPN, ALEC, and Norquist.

Remember how hard the Murdoch-owned NYPost worked to get Reagan elected.

Note that there was a right-wing third party candidate this election too - Johnson.

If you want to fix America, you need to fix the conservative media noise machine and the GOP donor class. And you need to keep the left wing.

Hell, your "ultra left" is even wrong. Chomsky is the ultra left, not Stein.

[Go Vols]

163. I like Noam

[guillaumeb]

77. Trump won the votes of 27% of registered voters.

If this 27% is what you consider to be "a large and secure base", we have an issue with your use of words.

And given that polling shows that majorities of voters prefer much of the progressive agenda, your framing progressives as "the extreme left" shows more of your own position than anything else.

This sounds to me like more of the we must become more like moderate Republicans argument that occasionally surfaces here.

[eniwetok]

83. and many Trump voters were actually anti HRC voters.

I believe the last Quinnipiac poll showed 60% believed he was unqualified to be president.

[guillaumeb]

86. In Trumpspeak, this 60% is a small minority of unhappy Clinton supporters.

while his 27% base is the silent majority.

[m-lekktor]

84. Nothing more SICKENING then left bashing on a supposedly progressive site.

Blaming the folks with no power for all that is wrong is BULLYING. DU is moving more to the right every day and the DEM party will continue to lose if DU is a reflection of the party. One right wing party is enough.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

199. Who the fuck's we?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8753305

[H2O Man]

88. nope

[DemocraticSocialist8]

89. People have to stop blaming the Left for the rise of Trump

There are like 5 other more important things that put Trump in the position he's in. Not leftists and Jill Stein voters. People have to cut out this divisive rhetoric.

[Gothmog]

98. Denial is not just a river in Africa

[DemocraticSocialist8]

101. It's not denial...it's inaccurate to blame the Left and incendiary

[Gothmog]

104. I am living with the effects of the voter suppression laws made possible by Nader

Votes have consequences. Why do you think that Rove and the GOP funded Nader in both 2000 and 2004. It was not because they believe in Nader but because they used Nader to win. Ignoring facts will not make these facts go away

[DemocraticSocialist8]

109. It's been shown that more Dems voted for Bush than Nader, but no one blames DINO Dems that

voted for the Republican...people only blame Nader voters. Also, even with the Nader votes, had tons of Black votes not been thrown out in Florida and had they been counted...Gore would've won anyway. The Nader attack for 2000 is overblown by some Dems. Just like blaming the Left for Trump is even more overblown.

[Gothmog]

110. Read the material on this thread

Your claims are wrong

[DemocraticSocialist8]

118. I am not...I think you should read this...

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/03/ralph-nader-did-not-hand-2000-election

24,000 Dems voted for Nader in Florida
308,000 Dems voted for Bush in Florida

No one blames DINO Dems for losing Florida...but people are quick to attack the Left and continue pushing this lie.

[Gothmog]

156. Did you read it? Bush won Florida by 500 votes

Nader gave Bush the win. Why do you think Karl Rove funded Nader? Do you think that Rove supported Nader's positions? Rove used Nader to steal the election and people who were stupid enough to vote for Nader helped.

[DemocraticSocialist8]

159. So you're just going to repeat the lie even after being shown the numbers that say otherwise?

LOL gotcha. 308,000 Dems voted for Bush in FL...but Nader gave Bush the win...not the Dems who voted for a Republican or the Black votes that weren't counted. Ok, you just don't want to admit you're wrong. I don't blame you, the Democratic Party has been blaming Nader for 2000 since 2000 and people want to believe it regardless of countering evidence.

[Gothmog]

252. Did you even read the material you linked to?

You are completely wrong in your attempt at analysis. Charlie Cook is far more knowledgeable than your source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called “Florida and New Hampshire” simply “the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket,” when Cook was writing about “The Next Nader Effect,” in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, “Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush’s Florida ‘win’]. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush’s ‘win’ in that state].” If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States — even more indispensable, and more important to Bush’s “electoral success,” than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation’s chief Ken Lay.

Read post 100 on this thread and you will see that your claims are simply false

[G_j]

259. Links????

[Gothmog]

271. Bush won by 537 votes

You got to be kidding. Here are some facts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000 Bush got 2,912,790 votes and Al Gore got 2,912,253 The difference between these two numbers is 537 votes

[G_j]

319. You've got to be kidding

I don't see Karl Rove mentioned in your link.

[Gothmog]

327. Read the links in this post

[LanternWaste]

283. And petulant blaming is not just for children.

And petulant blaming is not just for children. Two bumper stickers, each as petulant as the other...

I suppose if the best argument you posses is a simplistic bumper sticker, you may want to read some peer-reviewed, academic texts and theses to appear more rational.

[BainsBane]

171. Why?

What's divisive about it? None of those Stein voters are eligible to participate in DU. Stein continues to attack Democrats, often falsely, like when every single Dem voted against a Trump nominee and she insisted it was the fault of "corporate Dems." She made clear she favored Trump over Clinton, which is precisely the stand third-party voters took. That played a role. So why does that information need to be censored here? She is currently $4 million dollars richer (and she was already rich) because she scammed money off of vulnerable people desperately upset about the election results. She way overinflated her ask in order to keep the money, and then she did keep it. Why does that kind of predation require special protection?

I particularly don't understand the divisive claim because, as I said, this site is for people who vote for Democrats, not Stein or anyone else. How is it any more divisive than comments about the deplorables? Anyone who continues to post here after voting for someone besides Clinton in the GE is in violation of the TOS. That means they lied when they signed the TOS after election day, and it also means they lack the integrity of their convictions if they would falsely misrepresent themselves in that way. I fail to see how the OP is divisive to anyone who posts on this site honestly. And if they are lying, why do they require protection against their deceit?

[Cha]

175. Thank you for making that absolutely clear, BainsBane. nt

[DemocraticSocialist8]

184. While that may be true, Stein has support on the Left

So while it may jive on DU, in reality it's divisive because there are liberals and progressives that support the Green Party, but could also support the Democratic party if the Dems ran more Progressive candidates. So you're spitting in the face of people you need to win electorally.

[BainsBane]

193. If "Dems ran more progressive candidates"

That is exactly the OP's point. There are also others who might vote Democrat if we ran more conservative candidates. Why are the self-described leftists more important? The fallacy in your point (one I've seen repeated a number of times) is that the Democratic Party is supposed to constitute the left. It has never been the left in any true (eg. Marxist) understanding of the term. It's only left in comparison to the GOP and because the US has a relatively narrow political spectrum, but one that is becoming wider all the time. The parties were in the past far more alike ideologically than they are today. There is no evidentiary basis for the claim that the Democratic Party has become "GOP lite."

Candidates are determined by the outcome primary elections and caucuses. They will claim those contests are "rigged" because their entitlement is such they can't imagine anyone but themselves has a legitimate concern or might vote differently from them. What is so special about people who have such contempt for equal voting rights that they prefer to plunge the country into fascism than vote for a candidate supported by Democratic electoral majority?

Do you mean like these assholes? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8752749
The ones defending multiple billionaires in Trump's cabinet as "anti-establishment"? Who defend the Muslim ban and breaking up immigrant families? The ones who maligned and insulted people of color and social justice advocacy leaders and organizations like Planned Parenthood, Black Lives Matter, Mothers of the Movement, the United Farm Workers Union, Unions in general, and Civil Rights leaders like Dolores Huerta and John Lewis?

You see, what they really are is self-entitled. They resent the fact the party isn't devoted entirely to the interests of the white male bourgeoisie. They claim the Democratic Party has moved to the right, but they provide no evidence to support it. Instead, they resent the fact that is represents people of color and women, and that is why they chose to stand with the KKK in voting for Donald Trump or effectively voting for him by casting a vote for liar and con-woman Jill Stein.

It's one thing to make a mistake and learn from it. I myself did that in 2000 when I voted for Nader. It was a very bad mistake that I will never repeat. I learned my lesson. I don't expect the Democratic Party or people on this message board to cater to my more stupid, younger self. It's up to them, as it was up to me, to get smart, not to the rest of us to hold their hands and insulate them from the consequences of their actions. They fucked up. If they want to admit that and move on, all the better. But if they are going to continue rat fucking and driving the country further and further right, they better damn well own up to what they are. Fascism is as fascism does.

[BainsBane]

197. Also

I posted a threat asking people to explain what they meant when they wanted the Democratic Party to become more progressive. It was notable how few said anything different from Clinton proposed when she ran for the general election. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028719428
Some did, but most didn't.

We see a lot of people insisting individual politicians represent ideology, but that's a mistake. That is about personality, in some cases race or gender, but not ideology.

[Gothmog]

272. If you voted for Stein, then why are you posting on DU?

[JCanete]

273. It's divisive because we should be making the far left our ally. I'm among the far left by the way

I just happened to vote for Clinton at the end of the day, BECAUSE enough progressives held out and pressured Clinton and the party to move left on our platform. That was reassuring, and I was hopeful of a Clinton Presidency, and not so certain that a Trump Presidency would be entirely shut down by the powers that be had I sat out, although as people did augur, he is waking us the fuck up to politics and their consequences again. So anybody bashing the left and hiding behind our most impressive liberal platform in a long long time, is being disingenuous about how that even happened.

And I don't begrudge people who vote on principle. I may disagree with them, or think they are being short-sighted, or entirely willfully ignorant, ...I don't think Stein was an inspiring or entirely trustworthy candidate....but ascribing straw-man reasons for their decisions here, is not in good faith, nor is it in our best interest. Placing all the blame for W or Trump at the feet of liberals, when they account for a tiny fraction of that loss and have nothing to do with down-ticket elections( where Democrats continue to get clobbered), is being willfully ignorant, and promoting an anti-liberal message of "fall in line."

No. If people feel like the whole nation is going in the wrong direction, and one party is just mildly applying the breaks while we pick up downhill speed, and the other is pressing the pedal to the metal on a breakneck course to destruction--they have an obligation to vote their conscience and to be a hold-out that doesn't just give their vote away to one side for being "better." we need to be good as a party, not just better, and the only way we get there is with a counter-balance to the political heavyweight in Washington, money, which I fully understand is hard to ignore, but is especially so when there is no cover from constituency demands to do so. Were people who thought this would blow up in the GOP's face wrong? That remains to be seen. There's certainly evidence to say that this will generate a whole new generation of political activists, and a civic minded society. There's also evidence that this is going to fuck us the fuck up, irreconcilably. Like I said, the way I weighed it, it wasn't worth the risk, and I was feeling confident in Clinton for the first time.
So I disagree with the hold-outs for not coming around when the Dems responded at least to some degree to our issues, but it's not like I don't see where they're coming from, and as I've posted elsewhere, this loss is not on them.

[BainsBane]

298. By all means

Last edited Tue Mar 7, 2017, 01:15 AM - Edit history (2)

Go make overtures to the White Supremacists. I'm not stopping you. And certainly I understand their hatred for all things not white and male is "principled." It happens to be a principle I believe to be evil. You are free to admire and cultivate them all you like, but you don't for a second use the word "we" to lump me in with that crowd. I mean it. This is not the first time I have made that request.

Stein operated because of cash. She got plenty of it. It's fascinating that all people need to do to be defended on conning the poor and vulnerable is to declare themselves "leftist". The investment bankers really ought to start calling themselves leftist so they can get people who care more about labels than actions to defend them.

I really don't give a shit what fascists "feel." They chose to drive the country to the authoritarian right and continue to defend the unstable autocrat they installed. Trump is their doing, and they can continue to defend the cabinet of billionaires and racist policies ripping families apart because the party responsible for it isn't Democrat. They got exactly what they wanted with Trump. America is white, male, and rapier again. Thank god for "leftists" ensuring the country is finally moving in the right direction. And if Trump succeeds in stripping away voting rights of the subaltern, the "left" will be able to count control the Democratic Party again, just as they did in the days of Jim Crow when the party met their standards. Because time and time again that is precisely the period they point back to.

For those people the election turned on privilege, in which asserting their own privilege mattered more than the lives of the millions of Americans hurt by the election results. They were determined to punish the women and people of color they maligned, and continue to malign, as establishment. They insulted Black Lives Matter and the Mothers of the Movement for daring to concern themselves with the lives of black people, when the self- entitled narcissists insisted their concerns were all that mattered. Civil rights were a "distraction", they insisted. African Americans and women who asked candidates to address their concerns were "weak" or racist themselves--cause you know for "leftists" racism is defined by black people daring to speak about oppression. They attacked unions, worked to defund Planned Parenthood, insulted Civil Rights leaders and organizations. They nattered about " corporatism" without bothering to read Marx, analysis of the capitalist state, or lean anything about their own nation's history. The Tea Party had already engaged in that same discourse about corporations since 2009, but suddenly a certain faction decided to incorporate many of the Tea Party's positions, and we're supposed to believe claims they are leftist?

They did indeed believe the country was moving in the wrong direction. A black president who was poised to be succeeded by a woman--a lowly woman--was too much for them to bear. And people of color and women kept picking Democratic nominees due to the fact there are simply more of them who vote Democrat. That was unacceptable. How dare they not vote as the self-entitled demanded? One particularly foul rat fucker who no longer posts here insisted that corporations had sent women and people of color into the Democratic Party into divert it from its true mission of representing the "working class." (Funny how working class now excludes nearly everyone earning at or below the median income). So they did what the rest of the deplorables did, vote into power a white supremacist, fascist regime. But America is great-- white--again, and that's what really counts.

I won't be putting on a hood to liaise with the Trump supporters you've decided constitute some perverted version of leftism that the white male bourgeoisie cooked up to justify their own privilege. I have my own principles, and they will never accommodate fascism, White Supremacy, or deepening inequality in order to satisfy the self-entitled.

[JCanete]

307. You are using far left to define people who want right wingers and racists to succeed, not me.

There are no leftists who want that. There may be, though I'm suspicious of the claim, people pretending to be leftists who want that..but there are also those, right or wrong, who think that both parties as is, are bad because they move our country in the same direction, and that the slower, foot on the brakes, gradual increase approach, is far more lulling than the step on the gas approach of the Republicans. They are absolutely right about that last part, as has been proven. Are they right that we can survive a Trump Presidency to emerge better off? That's the question, and I like you, am not so certain.

Nobody on the left wants to make overtures to white supremacists. Nobody on the left wants to pander to them. What we want to do is reach people who can be reached, who's ignorance is making them susceptible to racist messaging, again, not by pandering to those basest instincts...but certainly by giving them an out so that they can distance themselves from them.

[Gothmog]

383. Stein voters voted for Trump and many of these voters are happy that trump won

I simply do not understand their logic

[Cha]

174. No. Dangerous#1 Dangerous#2 Dangerous#3

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

they damn well will.. sitting on their millions while the Planet goes to shite and people go hungry and Immigrants banned from the US by "the bumbler" according the ever present idiot, jill stein

We will not shut up about the danger of the LIAR stein.

[BainsBane]

198. She's an evil rat fucker

Fascism is as fascism does.

[Gothmog]

251. Great post

[Zen Democrat]

90. Bullshit! Bobby's assassination gave us Nixon; Tony Scalia gave us Bush; Putin gave us Trump.

The far left my ass.

[Gothmog]

100. Nader gave us bush

Nader was key to bush's victory http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called “Florida and New Hampshire” simply “the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket,” when Cook was writing about “The Next Nader Effect,” in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, “Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush’s Florida ‘win’]. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush’s ‘win’ in that state].” If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States — even more indispensable, and more important to Bush’s “electoral success,” than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation’s chief Ken Lay.

All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn’t even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn’t count in these calculations at all.) Nader’s 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida “victory” for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, “Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?” (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, “We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore.” David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, “Nader to Crash Dems Party?” and he wrote: “In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader’s Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore’s loss.” Nationwide, Harvard’s Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, “Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?” (also on the internet) presented “Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates,” showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader’s voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn’t have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn’t been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida’s Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn’t included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.

[fishwax]

91. aw, bless your heart.

[Solly Mack]

93. ...

[demosincebirth]

103. We are our worst enemy. The far left gave us Nixon, twice

[liquid diamond]

141. They will never accept responsibility or fault.

We see that in their "profound" responses in this thread. They say "Bullshit" and "Nope."

On the contrary, those calling out their self-destructive behavior have provided clear examples of how the radical left has fucked over this country.

[demosincebirth]

194. You go to the far left, you can shake hands with the far right.

[liquid diamond]

244. Yes. I just learned that

is called horseshoe politics. Fringe leftist and right wingers use the same fucking talking points to tear down our candidates. We have heard them. We have examples.

[demosincebirth]

301. They don't have to be "fringe."

[TDale313]

111. Bullshit.

Keep up the hippie punching. It's been working so fucking well.

[louis c]

123. this is exactly how I feel. Exactly

[yodermon]

126. There will *always* be fringe leftists, 3rd party, nader, stein voters. ALWAYS.

You cannot believe that attacking them will cause their numbers to diminish, can you?

16 years of attacking Nader voters really worked for you eh?

Might as well attack water for flowing downhill or yell at those poles you placed in the river for not redirecting the flow.



Good luck with your agenda.

[Alice11111]

128. Good job OP. Needs to be said, over & over & over

[liquid diamond]

130. Your posts illustrates perfectly

why I can see Trump/Pence winning a second term. Holdouts in our party will (meaning a FUTURE intent) sit out an election if the democratic candidate isn't pure enough or if we do not nominate their extreme leftist candidate. We can't even get our own shit together, so it's no wonder the republicans are kicking our asses.

"I'm so sick of voting for the lesser of two evils!" Sound familiar? How did that thinking work out for you? You know who "you" are.

[Blecht]

132. This shit again

The only place for blame for these monsters is the GOP.

I find it interesting that there are so many recs for such drivel. That's what comes with having an open forum, I guess.

[liquid diamond]

143. Whether you like it or not, the radical left played a part in our 2016 loss.

[BainsBane]

151. I think you give them too much credit by calling them leftists

I judge people by their actions, not by what they pretend to be. Anyone who helped Trump get elected, either by voting for him or a third party candidate, contributed to the installation of a fascist regime. Fascism is as fascism does.

I'm not talking about the primary. People can and should fight for what they want in the primary, but when the nominee is elected, they either get on board or become part of the right wing effort, which is what too many of them did.

[liquid diamond]

169. I agree.

And said earlier they are worse than Trump supporters since the latter are at least honest about who they are.

[Crunchy Frog]

147. So if we scold/insult/demonize people hard enough

Then they'll vote the way we want them to, and then everything will be great.

I'm not sure what other conclusions can be drawn from the posts in this thread.

[liquid diamond]

246. We will not coddle them.

If they hurt the Democratic Party, we will call them out.

[Ken Burch]

148. The left was not to blame for Nixon in '68, so that part of your title is unfair.

The '68 result was due entirely to what went down in Chicago...the bloody-minded arrogance of LBJ, in forcing Hubert Humphrey unquestioningly defend the war and make his delegates vote to keep us in Vietnam forever, despite the overwhelming majority of votes for the peace candidates in the primaries, and the savagery of Mayor Daley's cops in the streets. When Humphrey did finally make slight break from Johnson's position on the war, millions of peace Dems did give their support to Humphrey.

In 1968, Vietnam was what mattered. Compared to that, all other issues were minor. You can't apply "dpn't make the perfect the enemy of the good" to voting to let the bombing of Vietnamese civilians go on indefinitely.

It was never a reasonable expectation that year that progressives would rally to the Humphrey-Muskie ticket BEFORE Humphrey gave some public indication that he was not Johnson's puppet on Vietnam-I recognize that Humphrey was a bit of a dove in private, but no one who didn't know him personally had at reason to suspect that. If Humphrey had been elected and kept the war going as Nixon did-there was no reason to think he would not do just that until his Salt Lake City speech at the end of September-it would have been impossible for him to implement any liberal domestic policies. The funds needed to continue the war at all would have left no resources available for new social programs and barely enough to main the existing Great Society policies.

[TexasBushwhacker]

292. Don't forget George Wallace in 1968

Wallace only won 5 states, but he got enough votes in states that were traditionally Democratic strongholds, that several of those southern states went for Nixon. They came back for Carter on '76, but left again for Reagan in '80.

But I think you're ignoring a couple of things. One is that it is fucking hard to beat an incumbent and that goes for Democrats and Republicans. Americans have a tendency to give the President 2 terms to get shit done unless they commit some kind of grave error.

Nixon's stink was Ford's undoing in '76. The Iran hostage crisis was Carter's undoing in '80 and St. Reagan's promises sounded too good to be true (they were) "Read my lips" was George H.W. Bush's (and Ross Perot).

We also tend to flip and flop, from one party to the other. Since Truman took over for FDR and narrowly defeated Dewey in '48, we have kept one party in the presidency exactly 1 time, when GHW Bush had his single term after Reagan.

While it may have looked like a cake walk for Clinton last year, I think the only reason she did as well as she did was because Trump is just so awful. I think Cruz or Kasich would have mopped the floor with her. Not because she was unqualified, but because we just had a Democratic president for 2 terms, and it was time for us to flip to the other party. History tells us, that's just how we roll.

[Ken Burch]

149. What you're missing, though, is that there's no widespread public support for "centrism"

A centrist politician these days is largely running on a program of making somewhat smaller cuts in social benefits and on offering no policies to actually change anything.

Why would anyone rally to THAT?

[George II]

161. No widespread support for "centrism"? I'll bet more than 60% of the electorate are "centrists".

[Ken Burch]

168. "centrist" is what people self-identify as...when you ask what ideas they actually SUPPORT...

they aren't.

They support preserving the ACA in the short run and ultimately replacing it with Medicare-for-all...they generally support cuts in the war budget or at a bare minimum no increase, they are clearly and pro-choice and pro-easy contraception acces...they want it to be easier to people to unionize their workplaces. They want taxes increased on the wealthy and a higher minimum wage. And they don't accept that the only way to get access to global markets is to pit workers here against workers in other countries in a race to the bottom on wages, benefits and conditions.

Centrist politics doesn't involve anything remotely similar to any of these things...centrism in the US and Canada is nothing more than "it's enough that it's a centrist government cutting programs and cutting taxes for the rich".

[BainsBane]

172. Provide some evidence for that

Find some polls that support that the majority support "medicare for all" and increased "unionization."

Would that be possible? Do you even care enough to bother?

[Ken Burch]

176. Of course I do. And I will. I'll be posting polling data on that tonight and tomorrow.

Before I do, though, tell me...are you going to respond to everything I ever post on this board with suspicion and distrust?

Are you going to assume that everything I say here is a part of some sort of insidious plot?

I campaigned all fall for Hillary and was grief-stricken with the Electoral College result.

I could get the person who ran the Thurston County Democratic campaign this fall AND the chair of the Democratic district in Juneau to vouch for my years of party loyalty if you need proof that I'm not some sort of an infiltrator.

My goal is just to help us win in 2018 and 2020 and to end Trumpism.

And I never supported having any one person "take over the party". I think the party should be run from below, by the grassroots, ny African-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, LGBTQ people, women, workers of all ages, races and genders, and the poor.

What do I have to do or say to get you to trust that I'm not a saboteur or the enemy or whatever it is you think I am?

[BainsBane]

186. Asking for poll results to support a claim

Last edited Mon Mar 6, 2017, 02:30 AM - Edit history (1)

is not accusing you of being part of a plot. You are making claims not about yourself but what the majority of Americans believe. For that to be credible, it needs to be supported with evidence. You make these sorts of claims all the time, and I have never seen you once site a poll or data of any kind to support your assertions. If you actually care about winning, that means looking beyond yourself. If you don't have evidence or can't be bothered to provide any, don't claim you know what the majority of Americans believe.

I'm sorry you feel that asking for evidence is a personal attack. I've spent my entire adult life working in higher education, so that response is foreign to me. Evidence is essential to establishing facts or even constructing a narrative. No one's word is absolute. I take your defensive deflection to mean you have no evidence, which makes your point void.

[Ken Burch]

217. It's nor that you ask for evidence, it's that you keep acting like I can't be trusted

As though I have some secret agenda or something.

Like I'm the enemy.

What is it about what I post here that is so intolerable to you?

Why can't you accept that I'm posting with straightforward and positive intent?

Are you still angry because I used a harsh phrase about Hillary over a YEAR ago? A phrase which, as it happened, made no difference at all in either how the primaries or the fall campaign came out? OK. I shouldn't have used that phrase and I apologize. There was a valid point to be made about her foreign policy approach being too casual about military intervention, but I shouldn't have used the words I used and apologize.

It should be noted that I worked hard for in the fall in spite of using that phrase, but I was out of line.

As far as I know, I've done nothing else you have any reason to hold a grudge about.

[BainsBane]

224. Good grief

No, I do not believe you are the enemy. What I believe is that you are sometimes full of 💩.

[Ken Burch]

230. And I've done nothing to deserve that from you.

All I'm guilty of is being a little to the left of your comfort zone.

I don't lie. I don't undermine. I don't advocate the party doing anything that would harm its chances. I never said anything personally critical about our nominee OR refought the fall campaign. Not once.

What this really comes down to is that I didn't support our eventual nominee from the moment she declared her candidacy and didn't accept that the other major candidate in primaries should not have run at all.

Nothing would have been better or even different if there'd been no contest in the primaries. We wouldn't have taken any additional votes anywhere in the fall if the nominee had been acclaimed at the start or if our policy offer had been blander and further to the right.

The popular vote share our nominee took in 2016 was almost identical to what the national polls showed her receiving in 2015. Do you honestly think that, if only the primaries had been a meaningless formality, what Comey and the Russians did wouldn't have made any difference?

If so...why?

[BainsBane]

231. It has nothing to do with being too left

It's that you assume your views are universal. My point is I disagree with what you advocate in terms of political strategy and tactics, not ideology. I just think you're wrong about some (or a lot) of this stuff. I have trouble understanding how people can be so certain what they believe is universal, when elections show otherwise.

So yes, I thank you for including some polls, but I agree with J17 that voting behavior draws those polling results into question.

[Ken Burch]

234. I don't make any such assumption.

Last edited Mon Mar 6, 2017, 05:49 AM - Edit history (2)

What I do think is that the views I agree with-none of which I personally invented-have significant popularity and resonance and can win votes for Democratic candidates. I don't pretend to be personaly infallible or that nothing I support is ever unpopular.

My experience, my lived-in, day-to-day experience, is that it's possible to change minds, to win support for ideas people previously didn't support or even know of(as the LGBTQ community did in the last decade with same-sex marriage, as feminists did in the Seventies, as the black, Latino and Native American freedom movements did in the Sixties or the labor movement before that), and to expand the range of the possible.

What's the alternative, the workable alternative, to believing that? What can anyone do to achieve any change if, instead of believing that there is hope for a clearly different future, a person assumes that the big battles are all lost, most people's minds are forever cast in stone, and that nothing beyond a slightly-less-nasty version of the present can ever happen?

It sounds, from your posts here, as though that's what you believe...and that you are enraged and terrified by anyone who believes there's any more hope at all than that. You convey that impression by your habit of lashing out at almost everyone who rejects what you appear to perceive as the absolute limits of political change, and your apparent belief that the only thing that works is to demand that everyone accept your notion of such limits.

In some major ways, you have me totally wrong.

If you don't think I recognize that winning voter approval for an idea, or electing any candidate(I've worked on campaigns for forty years in three states, a good number of which were successful), requires a lot of hard work, than you just don't know me. I've lived in practical politics the whole time. It's just that I reach different conclusions than the conclusions you reach about how to approach that.

And I have no more use for the people who voted third-party or didn't vote or voted for Hair Fuhrer on "shake up the system" grounds than you do. I never did. I simply argued that we needed to use a different approach to changing their minds, because simply shouting "you have to! YOU HAVE TO!" doesn't work. Saying that is vastly different than saying third-party presidential voters are right to do what they do.

Nor have I ever defended or taken part in any of the ugliness that takes place on The SIte That Shall Not Be Named. Not my approach. Not my crowd.

And in my non-DU political life, I constantly practice compromise, I vote for candidates I'm not satisfied with on the issues, and meet people halfway in personal political discussions.

It's just that I don't accept that short-term practical considerations mean checking the goal of transformation at the door. The San Francisco Mime Troupe, in a line from a song from its Eighties musical "Steeltown", sums it up:

if we ask only little questions, and we do not ask for more,
We may seem to win a battle but still not win the war.

[NurseJackie]

260. Hi, Ken! Can you explain some things, please?

...are you going to respond to everything I ever post on this board with suspicion and distrust?

When people challenge you (or when people ask for proof or data) why do you take it so personally?

Are you going to assume that everything I say here is a part of some sort of insidious plot?

Here's a perfect example. Instead of answering questions, or clarifying your position, or providing additional info to support your claim/s ... you have a habit of deflecting and avoiding and changing the subject.

I campaigned all fall for Hillary and was grief-stricken with the Electoral College result.

Such drama! And this is an example of irrelevant info being tossed-in... apropos of nothing in particular... you just throw it out there.

Perhaps it's in response to an imagined (non-existent) accusation that you didn't support our party's nominee. I've looked up and down this thread, and nobody has made any such accusation about you.

I could get the person who ran the Thurston County Democratic campaign this fall AND the chair of the Democratic district in Juneau to vouch for my years of party loyalty if you need proof that I'm not some sort of an infiltrator.

OMG, Ken! OMG!! Seriously? What fresh hell is this? "Infiltrator?" Seriously? Nobody has accused you of any such thing.

And I never supported having any one person "take over the party".

Not in so many words, but to debate this in any great depth would be to risk running afoul of more than one of the "rules". I'd advise that you (and others) avoid pursuing this discussion.

What do I have to do or say to get you to trust that I'm not a saboteur or the enemy or whatever it is you think I am?

Who here has accused you of being a saboteur? Who said you were the enemy? Please, show us... we'll wait.

Yet, as per usual, you say these patently absurd things that have nothing to do with anything. You're defending yourself against imagined attacks and imagined insults. Nobody here has accused you of ANY of these things.

Nobody has accused you of being an "infiltrator".
Nobody has accused you of "not supporting the nominee".
Nobody has accused you of "lying" or "deceit".
Nobody has accused you of being a "saboteur".
Nobody has accused you of being a "disloyal".
Nobody has accused you of being the "enemy".

Why do you do this? You're not the "victim" you're pretending to be. You're not being personally attacked when someone challenges you or when someone refuses to accept everything you claim at face value.

BUT... by pretending that you've been attacked... and by getting all huffy about it, you get to deflect and avoid having to respond when someone challenges your worldview. It's a distraction and a way that allows you to ignore demands for additional info or data.

217. It's nor that you ask for evidence, it's that you keep acting like I can't be trusted

Asking for details or evidence is not an attack on you.

As though I have some secret agenda or something.

Who said that? Where? (Or was it in your imagination?)

Like I'm the enemy.

Who said that? Where? (Or was it in your imagination?)

What is it about what I post here that is so intolerable to you?

Who said that? Where? (Or was it in your imagination?)

Why can't you accept that I'm posting with straightforward and positive intent?

Who said that you weren't? Where? (Or was it in your imagination?)

Are you still angry because I used a harsh phrase about Hillary over a YEAR ago? A phrase which, as it happened, made no difference at all in either how the primaries or the fall campaign came out? OK. I shouldn't have used that phrase and I apologize. There was a valid point to be made about her foreign policy approach being too casual about military intervention, but I shouldn't have used the words I used and apologize.

It's difficult for me to imagine that ANYONE would remember or care what you may (or may not) have uttered about Hillary "over a YEAR ago".

As far as I know, I've done nothing else you have any reason to hold a grudge about.

Who's holding a grudge? What evidence do you have that someone is holding a grudge? It's been my observation that people often make accusations about other people's motivations and emotions that are actually only true about themselves.

So, I ask again, who's holding a grudge? That just meant as a question for you to think about, no answer or response is required. (But it's not like that would have happened anyway, right?)

230. And I've done nothing to deserve that from you.

You do realize that this is a political discussion forum, right? We're all adults here.

This isn't some Downton Abbey afternoon tea where calling "bullshit" on someone would cause the Dowager Countess to clutch her pearls and drop her lace-edge hanky. Stop acting as if it is.

All I'm guilty of is being a little to the left of your comfort zone.

What evidence do you have? How would you actually KNOW what her "comfort zone" is?

I don't lie.

Who said that? Did someone accuse you of lying? Where? (Or was it in your imagination?)

I don't undermine.

Who said that? Did someone accuse you of that? Where? (Or was it in your imagination?)

I don't advocate the party doing anything that would harm its chances.

Who said that? Where? (Or was it in your imagination?)

I never said anything personally critical about our nominee OR refought the fall campaign. Not once.

Well, again... not in so many words, but to debate this in any great depth would be to risk running afoul of more than one of the "rules". I'd advise that you (and others) avoid pursuing this topic.

What this really comes down to is that I didn't support our eventual nominee from the moment she declared her candidacy and didn't accept that the other major candidate in primaries should not have run at all.

How would you know such a thing? Who said that? Where? (Or was it in your imagination?)

Nothing would have been better or even different if there'd been no contest in the primaries. We wouldn't have taken any additional votes anywhere in the fall if the nominee had been acclaimed at the start or if our policy offer had been blander and further to the right.

Can you back this up?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know... I've asked you to "back up" something. Horrors! I'm "attacking you" right?

If you don't want to answer, just ignore it. Don't even bother. No need to do the same old song-and-dance pretending to be offended, pretend that I've accused of of any number of things.

[George II]

262. Inquiring minds want to know.

[NastyRiffraff]

295. +1,000

Bravissimo, Jackie!

[Ken Burch]

178. There has been majority public support for single-payer for years

Here are the most recent polls I can find on the question...will be searching for more:

http://pnhp.org/blog/2015/01/22/new-poll-on-single-payer-and-a-medicare-buy-in/

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/229959-majority-still-support-single-payer-option-poll-finds

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/16/most-americans-want-to-replace-obamacare-with-a-single-payer-system-including-a-lot-of-republicans/?utm_term=.903ad75a93fa

In the short term, progressives fight to defend the ACA and, as soon as we retake Congress and the White House, to expand it.

Supporting single-payer or Medicare for all as a long-term goal does not conflict with the short-term goal of preserving the ACA.

[JI7]

195. Single Payer was rejected in Colorado by a huge amount. people can claim anything. the way they

actually vote matters more.

[Ken Burch]

207. I was asked to provide evidence, I provided it.

All the Colorado result shows is that the health insurance industry can buy state referenda victories.

So long as we fight to save the ACA now(as we're all doing)what harm does it do to support eventual adoption of single-payer?

It's not as if the ACA can only be preserved now if everyone defending it agrees to renounce ever working for anything beyond the ACA in the future.

[JI7]

208. so lets stop pretending people support things they don't . it doesn't help if you actually want

to get something done to pretend something is when it's not.

even if hillary won the popular vote trump still got wayyyy too many votes which shows how fucked up many in this country are.

[Ken Burch]

213. I didn't pretend. The polls were evidence. A referenda in Colorado doesn't nullify the polls.

What that result shows is that the insurance industry can buy votes.

Look, I agree with you that Trump got too many votes...but we're not going to rectify that in '18 and '20 by making our policies as centrist and timid as possible. We're only going to win if we offer real solutions-and real solutions can only come from a real willingness to bring in change.

We need to re-enfranchise suppressed voters, AND we need a program that will get them to the polls.

We can't win elections on the votes of people invested in the status quo, or whatever the status quo will be in '18 and '20. Those people are always going to vote GOP.

[JI7]

215. actual votes matter more than what people claim in a poll

[Ken Burch]

218. It doesn't mean I made what I said up.

I said nothing to deserve having my honesty impugned.

What purpose is served by trying to pressure people in this party to stop working for single payer or Medicare for all?

Do you honestly think we can only defend the ACA by agreeing never to work for anything more?

By that logic, we could only preserve the Civil Rights Act if 1957 by promising never to replace it with a stronger bill. Or that we should have given up on working for same-sex marriage because THAT kept getting beaten in statewide referenda.

We don't have to abandon the future to resist Trump in the present.

[JI7]

219. same sex marriage and other gay rights still are not safe. it doesn't help to pretend people support

something they don't.

[Ken Burch]

225. I didn't pretend. I offered evidence.

What I meant was the Colorado result is no more the last word on single-payer than Proposition 8 was the last word n same-sex marriage or George Wallace's election as governor of Alabama was the last word on civil rights. None of those outcomes proved that the opponents of those causes had permanent majority support.

At the moment, we're all fighting to save the ACA. We don't need to declare the cause of single-payer dead to do that.

[JI7]

226. we don't need to pretend candidates are losing because they don't support single payer

[BainsBane]

227. None of those links were there when I read the post earlier.

Yet the electorate voted for Donald Trump. So either the poll isn't accurate, healthcare isn't a priority, or their voting behavior has very little to do with policy and issues.

[Ken Burch]

233. If their voting behavior has nothing to do with issues, there's nothing we can ever do to recover.

As the late Bill Paxton would say, it's "Game over, man! game over!"

In your posts on this board, you talk about issues as much as anyone else. Issues, particularly anti-personal oppression issues are what drive your political involvement, and I admire the passion you bring to those issues-issues I'm in 100% agreement with you on.

What is this party for without issues?

What is politics about without issues?

We can't increase turnout without talking about issues.

We can't change any voters' minds without issues.

Personal qualifications don't seem to matter to voters. In every election we've lost since 1964, our nominee was always more qualified than his or her Republican opponent.

"Ground game" doesn't work without issues.

How do you get voters to the polls with an issue-free campaign?

Even re-enfranchising voters doesn't make any difference if issues aren't in some way centered.

The voters whose votes were suppressed want to hear what the candidates will do that makes some difference to them.

The Trumputsch did not occur because voters didn't care about healthcare, or because issues don't matter...it's because Trump is an effective demagogue who sold a fantasy vision to just enough voters in just enough states to scam his way in(and did so, in part by running on a set of specific policies and promises...horrible policies and promises, but specific-AND because of what Comey and the Russians did-AND because the Democratic strategy, the strategy we've used in every losing presidential election since 1976, of basing the fall campaign primarily on warnings about the vileness of our opponent, rather than emphasizing what our party was FOR and asking people to vote FOR our party rather than just against the other party-in other words a total rejection of the strategy that elected Barack Obama twice with majority popular vote support-didn't work.










We can't depend on personality, either.

Our nominee is a far more balanced and decent person than the guy who held the office.

We need to re-enfranchise the voters who were suppressed, but just doing that, important as it is, won't turn what happened in November into victory in '18 and '20.

If we didn't win doing what we did this year, doing the same thing the same way means we'd never win again.

It's obviously impossible to go from Electoral College defeat to Electoral college victory(let alone getting out of long-term decline on every other level of electoral support

[George II]

257. Quite honestly I don't think the majority of the public even knows what single payer is.

[Ken Burch]

276. They get Medicare for all, and before that they supported national health insurance.

You do realize the irony of posting that people don't know what single-payer healthcare is while embedding the flag of a country WITH single-payer in your posts, right?

[George II]

284. Reread what I posted, please.

[Ken Burch]

286. I read what you posted and responded to it.

Perhaps some of the public don't know what single-payer is, but most of the public knows what Medicare for all would be or what national health insurance would have been.

It's not as though there's general ignorance and apathy about this.

[George II]

297. Unfortunately there IS a general ignorance and apathy about the ACA and Medicare....

....so let's break it down:

There are roughly 320 million Americans right now.

Of those 320 million, 123 million are gainfully employed and getting healthcare insurance through their employer (okay, maybe it's only 100 million, I'll give you that), 55 million are on Medicare and 80 million are 18 years or younger.

So let's add that up, we have 100+55+80 = 235 million people.

The concept that a "majority" of Americans wanting single payer, or even know or care about what single payer means, is bogus.

As my favorite NY Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

Yes, Senator Moynihan was MY senator. Despite your sly shot about my embedded flag, I am an American born in Brooklyn, New York (Bedford-Stuyvesant as a matter of fact).

[Ken Burch]

300. No "shot" was intended. I actually thought you might be Canadian.

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

181. Here is the most recent poll on union organizing that I've found

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116863/Majority-Receptive-Law-Making-Union-Organizing-Easier.aspx

This is from 2009-I'm looking for more recent polls and should find some by tomorrow.

[BainsBane]

223. Okay

You must be aware that 2009 was a very different political climate. I doubt your claims about medicare for all, not because I myself object to it but because I've never seen anything to suggest the majority of Americans favor it. I also know enough to know that just because I favor something doesn't mean everyone else does.

[Ken Burch]

294. I'm looking for other polls.

It is eight years later, obviously, but that doesn't equate to a swing in opinion against unions.

Please stop accusing me of thinking that everyone shares my views. I've never thought that. It's just that I don't accept that the things I support are hopelessly unpopular. You don't think that of the things you support, so why should I think it of myself?

In the early part of this century, same-sex marriage was overwhelmingly unpopular. That didn't stop the LGBTQ community fighting like hell for it . It didn't even stop that community from putting public pressure on John Kerry to come out in support of it during the fall 2004 campaign.

Even if you are right in implying that most people are to my right on nearly everything, what lesson should be taken from that?

Should I just give up on working for the causes I support?

Should no one in the party ever argue for supporting things that aren't already popular?

Should the party itself ONLY take progressive positions on issues when those views have majority support?

That could easily lead, in some years, to being conservative(or "centrist", which is largely the same thing) on nearly everything, as we were in the dead zone of the Nineties.

That wasn't the approach Hillary used in the primaries. She won by acknowledging that she needed to promise to go farther on things than she'd started out and she reached out to those who supported her main opponent. The problem was that all that was abandoned in the fall in favor of focusing on calling Trump out as a scumbag. Trump IS a scumbag, but it became instantly clear that the voters didn't care and that the "moderate Republican women in the suburbs" who were supposed to be won over by that did not exist.

Besides, even if that approach got us back into the White House and into majorities in the House and Senate, what good would winning by blurring the differences do? It would essentially mean promising to do nothing in office that mattered. It's not possible to be publicly anti-progressive and still do progressive things behind-the-scenes, for God's sakes.

[Gothmog]

254. If your claim is true, then prove it

Sanders magical voter revolution failed because these proposals are not that popular in the real world

[George II]

255. Very few people "self-identify" themselves as anything, only those deep into political discussions..

..like you and I self-identify themselves. Broad assumptions are made about the rest of the electorate or population by political analysts.

In fact I identify myself as very left (maybe about 35% from dead center) yet some people I speak with think I'm further left and others think I'm further right.

The bulk of the electorate are indeed "centrist", typical of any statistical bell curve.

[Ken Burch]

182. I campaigned for Hillary all fall and worked to persuade people further left to support her.

I'm not defending third-party presidential voting or staying away from the polls.

Mainly what I'm saying is that this party needs to learn to campaign FOR what we're about rather than just against the Right-because just saying "the Right is evil" clearly isn't working for us.

What is it in that observation that is so offensive?

[Ken Burch]

210. Could somebody pm me to say what was in the message that was autoremoved?

(I'm asking for that because I'd like to know what was said but don't want to re-introduce it to thread. Thanks).

[NurseJackie]

264. You can't tell what's offensive about that? Seriously?

Mainly what I'm saying is that this party needs to learn to campaign FOR what we're about rather than just against the Right-because just saying "the Right is evil" clearly isn't working for us.

Well, Ken... there's your problem right there. What makes you say that? Why would you say that?

Do you honestly believe that the Democratic Party doesn't already "campaign for what we're about"?? Do you honestly believe that the Democratic Party is "just against the Right"? Apparently so, because that's what you just said.

What is it in that observation that is so offensive?

I'm glad you asked! It's offensive because your (so-called) "observation" isn't true. You say something oh-so casually and off-handed... as if it's an accepted fact (it's not)... as if everyone knows it (we don't), and then pretend that nobody has any reason to be offended (we are).

You insinuate that the Democratic Party and its leadership focuses on one thing ("being just against the right&quot . You also insinuate that the Democratic Party doesn't know how to campaign "for what we're about".

I'll tell you something, Ken. If you're going to make accusations and insults... you need to be prepared to back it up. You can't just expect people to take what you say at face value. You can't parade around and accuse the Democratic Party and its leadership of being so short-sighted in incompetent.

Yes, yes... I know... "I'm attacking you and insulting you" and "how dare I question your loyalty" and "who am I to accuse you of being disloyal or a saboteur" and "you're not the enemy" (blah-blah-blah... same-old-same-old... we've heard it all before).

So, my recommendation to you is this: Avoid playing the role of "victim" and avoid coming up with a dozen different ways to say "I don't deserve to be talked to this way". Stop gasping for breath, stop clutching your hand to your heart and falling faint every... single... time... someone challenges you or calls-you-out on unproven bullshit.

[Ken Burch]

285. I can back it by referencing the ads the party ran in the fall, and the speeches I heard.

The vast majority of the ads and speeches were focused on warning about Trump. NOT about what we were going to promise. Like all of the ads where we just ran clips of Trump talking.

We were NOT, from everything I saw, campaigning on what was actually in OUR platform. There was not an emphasis on all of the good things we were proposing and how those things would help people.

And our nominee did not visit the Upper Midwest to campaign in the fall even when there were warnings on the ground that Michigan, Wisconsin(which was a swing state to start with)and Pennsylvania(also a swing state to start with)were slipping away.

There was clearly an assumption on the part of our strategists that a campaign focused mainly on attacking Trump was all that we needed to win

Here's one good analysis of the situation:

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/a-series-of-strategic-mistakes-likely-sealed-clintons-fate-1624514

Here's another:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-hillary-clinton-lost-bad-campaign-perspec-20161114-story.html

You say I have no call to question whether the Democratic establishment knows how to win elections.

If no one can question the party establishment's ability to get Democrats elected, explain why we we've been in decline electorally on every level since 2010. Yes, there is gerrymandering, obviously, but you can't dismiss it as nothing but that.

If the "pros" knew how to win...we would have done almost nothing BUT win since 2008. Some responsibility has to be assigned to the people who devise our electoral strategy.

When things don't go your way in an election, the first thing to do is to start asking the hard questions as to why. Once that's been done, a losing party needs to make whatever changes are necessary to do better, and to make those changes without betraying anyone or abandoning any core value.

Doing that insults no one and harms no one.

As to the way I interact with you personally-I don't see myself as a victim in life, but when you keep using derision and mockery to try to shut me up, why should I put up with that? Why should anyone put up with that? And why do you feel entitled to treat people like that? It's not just me...you do this to virtually anyone who is anywhere at all to your left.

[NurseJackie]

288. But where's your proof that a different ad would have made a difference?

You're just reinforcing your own beliefs without providing any proof. But here's the thing, you can't provide proof. It's just your theory based on what you would have done, or what you wish had been done instead.

The links were just editorials, from from someone who holds the same opinions as you. I'm sure you find that to be reassuring when someone agrees with you, but, sorry... it's not proof. You see yourself as some wise "activist" who has all the answers, but, I hate to break it to ya... you don't have all the answers. No you don't. No, not really.

If you actually did have all the answers, you wouldn't be stuck wherever you are now, doing whatever it is you do... instead, you'd be have a corner office at the DNC headquarters, and you'd be the toast of the Democratic Party. But you aren't, are you? I wonder why.

Yeah, I know... "Boo hoo! You're attacking me!" ... Don't even. I'm being sarcastic to make a point and to drive it home.

As to the way I interact with you personally-I don't see myself as a victim in life...

No, not "in life" (because I never said that) only in how you respond to people who disagree with you.

but when you keep using derision and mockery to try to shut me up, why should I put up with that?

Disagreeing with you is not "derision and mockery". That's a very thin-skinned way of thinking. I know you're not actually thin-skinned, so it must a big act.

Why should anyone put up with that?

Why does it offend you so much when people disagree with you?

And why do you feel entitled to treat people like that?

Why do YOU feel "entitled" to extra deference and hyper-politeness? You're not the Dowager Countess. What makes you so special that you need to be treated like an antique porcelain vase every time you utter a syllable? You do realize that this is a fast-paced rough-and-tumble internet discussion board, right?

It's not just me...you do this to virtually anyone who is anywhere at all to your left.

Virtually anyone, eh? My my my... how would you know such a thing? That's an awfully broad brush and all-inclusive statement.

The people to my right get the same barbs, towel-snaps and vinegary sarcasm as you. Why no concern for their emotional well-being, Ken? Have you no compassion for them as well?

In my opinion, you've proven yourself to be unreliable when it comes to characterizing people's behavior or your ability to guess their intent, or read their minds. Why would your "skills" of perception be any different with me? You're going to see what you're already predisposed to see... whatever confirms your preconceived notions and beliefs and opinions of me. You'll also ignore anything that doesn't confirm your bias.

[Ken Burch]

289. You set an impossible standard in asking that I prove that different ads would've worked better,

There's no way to prove a speculative outcome.

What we can say is that none of the "Trump is a crazy scumbag" ads ever gained us votes in the polls. They were designed to win over "moderate Republican women in the suburbs"...a demographic that turned out not to exist. We were at the exact same level of polling support after a month of those ads as we were when the campaign started. With ads designed specifically to gain votes we didn't otherwise have, that is proof of failure.

The ads I would have run would have emphasized what the Clinton-Kaine ticket was going to do, to solidify our base, AND would have talked about the positions the Sanders campaign added to the platform, in order to remind disappointed Sanders supporters that what they had done had made a difference and that the party had been changed for the better.

I'd also have bought time for a nationwide tv address by our nominee to talk about nothing but what we were going to do. It would have been expensive, but the campaign could have afforded it and the press couldn't have blocked people from seeing our candidate on live national tv.

Would you actually have objected to either of those ideas?

In addition to the problems with the messaging, we can clearly conclude that:

A) It was a mistake to have more Clinton-Kaine staffers in Utah than in Michigan,
B) It was a mistake to waste staffers and resources in states everyone knew the ticket could never carry such as Arizona and Georgia,
C) It was a mistake to keep campaigning in Ohio when we knew the state was lost(as the party knew for certain by mid-Octover,
D) It was a mistake and for the nominee not to appear in the Upper Midwest until the day before the elections.

Party professionals party officials have been saying those things.

As to "barbs, towel snaps and vinegary sarcasm"...why do you do that to people who are on YOUR side of the spectrum?
Why do you feel entitled to do that?
When you do, it always sounds as if your intent is to silence people. Why would you do that on a discussion board?
The point of a discussion board is to discuss things.


I don't mind if you disagree with my views...that would be perfectly legitimate, you have every right to disagree with me or with anybody else, I enjoy a good, idea-based exchange...it's just that there's no reason to be personally nasty to people you will eventually need to make common cause with, just because they disagree with you. Refute that person's argument, make a case for a different view, that is what challenging people is about...All I'm saying is leave personal abuse out of it. There is no argument that can ONLY be made by disrespecting people on a personal level. I don't just challenge that kind of thing with you, I call it out when it's people on MY side of an argument doing it and will continue to do so.

And it's not about wanting extra deference for myself. It's that progressives should always treat other progressives with at least a basic level of human respect. Nobody here should be treating anybody else as though they have no right to be here.

Being a progressive is, among other things, about building a respect-based world.

The only people we should ever be personally hostile to at all are people on the OTHER side...like Trump and those around him.

[NurseJackie]

290. "There's no way to prove a speculative outcome." Yes, thank you for admitting that!

And that's why it's so unfair of you (and very arrogant for you) to to be scolding and criticizing ... as if everyone had only been smart enough to listen to our very own twenty-first century Cassandra.

Nobody here should be treating anybody else as though they have no right to be here.

And nobody does that with you. Quit pretending like they do and quit accusing others of doing it.

[Ken Burch]

291. I don't scold. I critique and I try to do so with respect.

As opposed to, say, "barbs, towel snaps, and vinegary sarcasm".

Nothing I've said about how the campaign was run was a personal attack on anyone.

None of it was in any way disrespectful of our nominee or her earliest supporters, among whom are some long-term friends of mine.

I'm just saying we got it wrong and need to do things differently next time.

That's the kind of thing people say after a bad election result, and that's when it needs to be said.

What purpose is served by equating any critique or any call for change with an effort to tear the party apart?

[Warpy]

164. Uh, bullshit.

While a reaction against scruffy hippies is part of what gave us Nixon's first term, his southern strategy gave us both terms. You know, his appeal to outright racial bigotry and intolerance toward anyone not suburban and white.

Reagan rode in on a tide of tax fatigue, the old progressive income tax being tied to fixed dollar amounts, inflation forcing people who didn't have that much purchasing power left into what had been a rich man's bracket. There was nothing left of the organized left when he came along.

Bush was cheated into office. Twice. There was no left wing menace either time. Hillary won the nomination and she won the general election and couldn't have done the latter without Sanders supporters.

[BainsBane]

173. Obviously she didn't win the general election

because she isn't president now. You can hardly pretend insight into electoral politics when you can't deal with something as basic as election results.

[Warpy]

221. OH, FFS

What a disingenuous post.

She won the general election by 2.95+ million votes. She lost the EC because those bastards didn't do their jobs.

[BainsBane]

228. The electoral college IS the general election

Per the constitution. They voted in accordance with the outcome of the votes in their states, as electors have done since the founding of the Republic.

There is nothing disingenuous about my post. You're the one who insists no Republican has ever won a recent presidential election. I fail to see what productive purpose that serves.

You are free to deceive yourself for time immemorial, but don't expect the rest of the human race to go along with it. To claim third party voters and former Democrats supporting the fascist had no impact on the election because Hillary won anyway is not a refutation of the OP's point. What you considering "winning" an election is pretty damn useless.

[Warpy]

277. Then why bother voting?

The EC is supposed to follow the will of the people but they're badly proportioned and they're also charged with being the last defense against having a popularly elected populist with major screws loose gain the presidency. That's why they're there.

You obviously need to do a lot of reading. Goodbye.

[BainsBane]

166. Here's an example.

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/putin-is-not-americas-enemy-hes-the-american-establishments-competition/

Only I contend that they have become fascists, indistinguishable from the alt right and identical in what they seek. They share a hatred for Democrats and especially the women and people of color the Dem Party represents. Theiy will never forgive the Dem party for abandoning a commitment to representing ONLY white men.

You can't get any more right wing this.They pretend to be th left but they are liars. They are the alt-right, identical to the white nationalists they support.

[nolabels]

167. When are they going to bring that OP rule back of 500 hundred posts or less cannot be done?

Three million plus votes and still you are not satisfied how you are getting jobed?

Come on people, I have been hanging around here for over fourteen years and learned how to spot this weak crap only three months in

[KentuckyWoman]

187. I disagree.

First off there aren't enough numbers of far left voters in the swing states that went Trump to make the difference.

Second, "the left" is not any sort of a problem for anyone...... period. We need the viewpoint and the energy. The left has great value for the Democratic Party.

Third, If someone feels more comfortable voting for another party's candidates they are not Democrats, they're "third" party.

So in the start of it, I just feel like you are coming from a wrong direction.

[JCanete]

214. Agreed. nt

[killbotfactory]

200. Yep, we gotta keep going for those "moderate republicans" who don't fucking exist.

It's certainly not the "centrist" dems fault for not attracting voters, or for letting the state level organizations wither on the vine.

Just blow all our money on slick ad buys on CNN, tell the left to go suck eggs, and it'll all be good.

[BadGimp]

201. this person is a Plant

eom

[Trumpocalypse]

239. I'm not a plant.

I'm a lifelong Democrat.

[Boxerfan]

202. Fuck this thread & the notion we are to blame...

That is all....

[Cha]

205. jill stein owns a chunk of trump.. if you want to defend her.. please proceed

Dangerous#1 Dangerous#2 Dangerous#3

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

they damn well will.. sitting on their millions while the Planet goes to shite and people go hungry and Immigrants banned from the US by "the bumbler" according the ever present idiot, jill stein

We will not shut up about the danger of the LIAR stein.

[Trumpocalypse]

242. If you didn't vote for Clinton

They you do have a share of the responsibility.

[LanternWaste]

282. Sorry cupcake, you're not clean either.

We all of us share a collective responsibility. We all of us could have done a few degrees more. We all of us could have sent another two or three dollars. We all of us could have done X... or Y... or even a little more of Z. But we didn't. Sorry cupcake, you're not clean either.

There... you see how ethically convenient unsupported allegations are?

[BainsBane]

302. Yes, we all could have done more

but votes enabled Trump to come to power. Denying that basic fact is nonsensical.

Clinton lost by three voters per precinct in Michigan. That means every vote that went to someone besides Clinton helped elect Trump.

[Trumpocalypse]

310. Sure we could have all done more

But those who voted for and worked for Clinton or Gore in 2000 did their best. Those who stayed home for voted third party didn't.

[Rex]

381. But it is not everyone, just the 'left'.

So glad people are catching onto this sad form of centrist propaganda.

[JCanete]

206. First, Idealogical purity isn't the issue. Idealogical diversity is one thing.

Compromising too much with big money is entirely another that isn't necessarily about ideological differences, but whether it is or isn't in each individual case, it has dire consequences. some of those consequences are that now we have the shittiest media money can buy in this country. We let it run amok. We didn't fight against the total take over of the 4th estate. That accounts for losing votes to republicans in the 20 or 30 percentage points because of piss-poor and stilted coverage that ignores climate change, voter suppression, the bilking and poisoning of marginalized communities, the gutting of education, etc. typically by Republican politicians.

Second, the extreme left accounts for swings in a couple of percentage points. Putting the focus here is silly, especially since we could get that couple percent on our side if we just did what it is we need to do to win elections anyway, and that is to stop trying to court the money. We're never willing to get into bed with big business quite like republicans are*, so we'll always be a passable backup. And after all that flirtation, they have their media go out and prop up their favorite and tear down the Democrat. Assuming that fails, and it does, here and there, that's fine because the Democrats have already decided to take a road of compromise...nothing populist...nothing radical...and then when shit still doesn't work because of Republican obstructionism on top of a lack of will by Democrats to take the fight over their heads to the corporations that own them, the media will help to sell the lie that it was the Democrat in high office who couldn't get anything done...cue 4 or 8 more years of a Republican in office, not to mention the retention of the House and Congress.

Pandering to centrists is not a working model. Winning them with actual ideas that resonate with them is. So many people are hoping for a better future...so lets promise them stuff that we could actually get if we got people behind them, wanting them. We need to quit with the "political realities" bullshit and make the political realities.

And if people need a good and evil narrative to really get engaged, well shit, lets give them one already. why not give them the rich on a silver platter already? We can prove to the public that it is getting played. Just follow the money. Aside from just how much effort the mainstream media would put into fighting this, we can prove that that media isn't even close to liberal. That's so fucking easy, and yet we don't do it. We don't challenge it. In fact, we act like it is a totally legitimate 4th estate, when we Know it has a corporate agenda. It isn't just happenstance that the nation has turned so red. Stupid is being fed to people like junk food, and they are eating it up. We need to call out the peddlers of that garbage or admit that we aren't in it to win it after all...just to have comfortable minority seats where we can bitch about the horrors the other side is doing.

*Actually Democratic politicians can't do this and survive their own party's loyalty, thanks to the left.

[Crunchy Frog]

266. Excellent post.

I agree about "making political reality". The Rs have been doing that since Reagan was elected, and the Dems seem to have just conceded to them on it. We need to start creating our own narratives, rather than simply reacting to the RW created ones. When we do that, we look weak, and people don't tend to like to vote for "weak".

JMHO.

[onyxw]

211. What's the solution?

To rephrase your intro sentence:
1968 Democrats lose because the Democratic Party put up a candidate that the left was unwilling to vote for.
2000 Democrats lose because the Democratic Party put up a candidate that the left was unwilling to vote for.
2016 Democrats lose because the Democratic Party put up a candidate that the left was unwilling to vote for.

If only there were a way to rectify this problem. But what could it be? Grrrr. So frustrating that there's not a really simple and obvious solution staring us in the face right now.

[forjusticethunders]

247. The problem is that

if you're a real leftist, why are you refusing to vote to prevent a rightward shift? It's counterproductive no matter how you slice it. What is the point of refusing to vote for a candidate that isn't your ideal, but will at least be a net positive? I could sit out every election because there's nobody on the ballot running on a combination of intersectionality and socialism, but how does that actually help the causes I care about?

[onyxw]

263. Rightward shift

That's a fair question. I think some of the breakdown might be that we're operating under the premise that Clinton was a continuation of Obama that would continue to incrementally bring us further left. I'd say some viewed Clinton as to the right of Obama and so viewed it as both candidates were moving us rightward. It's still fair to argue even under that premise isn't 5% rightward better than 50% rightward.

Now that we have a new DNC chair, if Democrats undertake a rigorous autopsy, I think prodding along the lines of what led some folks to view Clinton as to the left of Obama vs what led other folks to view Clinton as to the right of Obama would probably help yield the most useful information for purposes of going forward into 2018 and 2020 and help identify what were the important issues to the various factions of the Democratic party and help us pick at what issues led part of the left to view Clinton as a bridge too far.

I think there was an undercurrent of unhappiness on the left that's been simmering for 20 years that the party takes the "oh you don't like what we're doing, who you gonna vote for, the Republicans?" which was present even with Obama but that was papered over because the view was we were moving left from Bush. That undercurrent appears to have boiled over for the folks that viewed Clinton as moving right from Obama. If it had been Bush-->Clinton-->Obama maybe that progression would've kept that undercurrent from boiling over for another election cycle and Clinton would have made a fine president, but that undercurrent would have boiled over eventually once it was viewed that we were going rightward from our previous candidate/president. Clinton caught it mainly as being wrong place/wrong time.

[forjusticethunders]

270. I think the problem is that progressives are starting from an entirely wrong framework

The Democrats didn't start appealing to corporates and technocrats because they wanted to per se, they did because they used to have a white working class base but once the party expanded to include black, Hispanic, LGBT and immigrant working class voters, the white working class bolted en masse, starting with the South. Thus, the Dems had to soften on economics and other issues because left wing economics got associated with "welfare queens" and shit like that and occasionally pandering to "LAW AND ORDER" (ie cryptoracism) is better than actually BEING racist.

Basically, as always in America, we can't have nice things because of racism.

The problem is that a lot of progressives misdiagnosed it - they thought the Dems went corporate because "well duh, that's where the money is", except the money was ALWAYS in going corporate, it's not like the malefactors of great wealth went away after the New Deal. But as long as you have a strong working class base, built up by organized labor, you have a counterweight, both in funding an organizing. But if a lot of that base bolts because they didn't want to have solidarity with """"""""those""""""" """""""people"""""""", then it leaves you in the lurch. It also would have helped if the Cold War union leaders didn't get rid of all the Communists, who were the most dedicated and devoted members of the labor movement, as well as being one of the primary forces for racial inclusion among the working class.

Basically if you want a more left leaning, or hell, a social democratic Democratic Party, let alone a Democratic Socialist party, one needs to, instead of refusing to vote for the leftmost person on the ballot:

- Put lots of organizing work into fighting racism, sexism and other bigotry, especially within the movement
- Fight hard for your ideas in the primary, but vote for the winning Democrat while lobbying for them to support your ideals (1 and 3 happened, 2 kinda did but not enough) (Lenin called this democratic centralism)
- Similarly, support mainstream Democrats when they're right, criticize them respectfully when you're wrong, basically engage in good old fashioned engagement with politicians.
- Organize locally to implement what you want to the farthest available point, so that you create working models for leftwing ideas, create more experienced activists and potential politicians, and creates good will among the people you're trying to uplift (your socialist city councilperson or state Rep in 2016 could very well be President, or at least a congresspereson in 2032)
-

[Rex]

212. Lulz

ssdd.

[On the Road]

229. Democrats Seem to be Thinking Primarily in Terms of Issues

instead of emotion and allegience. Democrats have been a big tent party for a long time, and candidates have had to get support for broad platforms from a broad base. As long as there is a shared identity and goal, Democrats have voted for the party anyway, just like Republicans. This election decreased the range of Democratic identity and narrowed the base on both ends.

That change might turn out to be short-lived. But I'm afraid it might be 1972 and John Mitchell is saying "this country is going so far to the right you're not going to recognize it."

[no_hypocrisy]

245. Beg to differ: FDR (and to some extent, Adlai Stevenson) gave us Eisenhower.

Kennedy, Johnson, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, et al were not as "left" as FDR with his creation of the federal system of security. Sure, they were more liberal on civil rights and women's rights, but overall, the FDR is the gold standard.

Eisenhower today would be called a DINO as he would be unwelcome in the republican party. He wouldn't survive a primary.

To the original premise of this post, I don't agree that the "extreme left" (which can range from anarchists to liberal) gave us Nixon, Reagan, Bush(es), and Trump. It's something altogether different. I see it as the "Killing the golden goose" syndrome: appealing to the inherent greed of enough voters. Getting golden eggs on a regular basis was not enough. There's been the assumption that killing the goose that laid the golden eggs would make everyone infinitely richer. How many geese have we gone through without realizing there is no gold inside the geese?

[Trumpocalypse]

315. While you make some very good points

Denying the problem is not a way to solve it.

[alarimer]

248. BULLSHIT!

I'm sorry, this kind of shit makes me so fucking angry because it is WRONG. Democrats lose because they abandoned their principles to try and win over less regressive Republicans. You cannot Neville Chamberlain your way to victory. Appeasers lose. Every fucking time.

It is the appeasers in the Democratic Party that lose, not progressives. People in this country are pro-choice, they believe in the social safety net, etc. etc. when polled.

[Trumpocalypse]

311. Those who refuse to learn from history

are doomed to repeat it.

[SunSeeker]

258. Dumb as dirt Stein voters were played by Putin.

Just goes to show the right wing has no monopoly on stupidity.

[vi5]

280. I'm always curious...

...why I see "leftists" cost us the election but never mention the various demographics whose lives will more than anyone else be made worse by Trump who voted for him and also cost us the election.

Why no talk of the fact that 30% of Jewish voters voted for an anti-semite?
Why no talk of the fact that over 40% of women voted for a misogynist?
Why no talk of the fact that 30% of latino voters voted for a racist?

It just always confuses the hell out of me why there is this perception that "leftists" owe the Democratic party their vote but those large swatches of other demographics don't? Especially since most of those leftists just didn't vote or voted 3rd party, but large segments of those other groups actually physically went in and cast their votes FOR Trump.

Can someone explain that to me and why it is not worse?

Unless someone can show me some kind of data point that shows that 30-40% of self identified "leftists" actually voted FOR Trump, then I'd like to see some of this blame get spread around a bit more to these other groups who by the standard that everyone seems to love throwing around should have voted for Clinton as well.

The way I see it, unless you are an African American voter, there's plenty of blame to go around.

[Trumpocalypse]

314. Valid comment

But convincing conservative to stop voting against their better interests is another issue. It is not a matter of which is worse. But when those on the left split their voting power by demanding 100% purity, we are not going solve that problem either. And every vote for a third party was a vote for Trump.

[vi5]

331. Exactly.....

My point is that there is more than plenty of blame to go around, but yet all we seem to hear about on here are "the leftists".

Personally I've voted for every Dem candidate in every single election of every level of importance for the past 35 years. But I'm a bit tired of hearing things blamed on one group of people while letting far too many others off the hook for similar, if not outwardly more destructive (self and otherwise) behavior come election days.

[Trumpocalypse]

341. It is not about blame

It is about trying to fix a problem going forward.

[vi5]

368. That OP is casting quite a bit of blame...

....it's a very long rant about how "leftists" gave us those horrible presidents.

And fixing the problem would be addressing how we can appeal to those people not essentially saying "fuck them for not voting for our candidate".

[Trumpocalypse]

407. Please don't put word in my mouth.

That's just dishonest.

[vi5]

514. "the extreme left gave us Nixon, Bush and now Trump"

No mention of any other group.

[Trumpocalypse]

516. No other group would have mattered

if the left had stayed united.

[vi5]

519. Look at it this way

I like your "Union Yes" avatar and agree with it 100%.

How come you're letting them off the hook? If they had been united in their support of the candidate who was more likely to support unions versus the one who had a history of hostility to Unions, wouldn't that have had an impact as well? And given the states we lost, probably working class union members being united probably would have had a bigger impact on the results than this mythical treasure trove of leftist votes.

So by the standards of your argument "Leftists" (whatever the fuck that means) have to be united and vote lockstep for a candidate simply because they other guy sucks on their issue, but Unions get a pass?


Again, I'm not letting anyone off the hook. It just seems too easy to keep dismissing "leftists" than it is to look at the disjointed messaging, horrible campaigning, short sighted strategies , and cowardly actions of many in the Democratic party establishment.

[Trumpocalypse]

532. I'm not letting anyone off the hook

Many white working class voters, union members, voted against their own best interests and went with Trump. But that is another problem that needs to be addressed separately.

And it is not dismissing those on the far left. They are the one dismissing themselves by not uniting to exercise their political power.

[pecosbob]

287. How 'bout next time

we try a candidate that 55% of the American electorate doesn't already hate?

[nikibatts]

293. Who was it who said: It's easier to fool people than to convince them they were already fooled.

[JesterCS]

296. Gonna have to disagree...

What this country NEEDS is extreme leftism

[Trumpocalypse]

313. Not saying it doesn't

But if the extreme left continues to play this purity game and spilt their voting power it allows people like Trump to win.

[Beartracks]

304. Makes sense to me. Q: Why does the GOP have such a large & secure base?

What is it about conservative voters that make them stick together monolithically like that? Is it just easier for their candidates to pass the conservative litmus tests of ideological purity?

(Perhaps something to do with 40+ years of conservative media, which, I think, predisposes a LOT of voters to simpler, more slogan-driven analysis...)

===================================

[KPN]

306. More like this OP is characteristic of why we've only won when

we've had a charismatic candidate. Reminiscent of Rahm's "Fucking liberals" ... now there's a sure fire way to win them over!

[Exilednight]

316. in your opening statement you state:

"As any political analyst will tell you, most elections are won in the middle, not at the extremes of right or left. "

By your own premise, you're calling Reagan, Bush II and Trump centrists.

I had to stop reading after that.

[Trumpocalypse]

317. Please don't put word in my mouth.

It's dishonest and shows you have a closed mind.

[Exilednight]

320. I didn't put words in your mouth, I quoted you exactly as you have it printed.

To deny it is being dishonest.

[Trumpocalypse]

344. No you quoted one line

and then you spun it to something that I didn't say. So please stop lying about it.

[Exilednight]

347. I quoted you verbatim, and it's not my fault your OP is factually inaccurate

You listed several presidents that were to the extreme right of the US political spectrum.

They were elected president which is proof that centrists are what voters want. It's not my fault that people like you divide us and we end up losing elections.

[Trumpocalypse]

355. One line

and then spun it to put words in my mouth.

[Exilednight]

357. That's factually innacurate. when you start with a false narrative, then

the rest is meaningless.

[Trumpocalypse]

358. Not a false narrative

You're one being 'factually inaccurate'.

[Exilednight]

359. Were Reagan, Bush and now Trump, centrists, or extreme right-wing nuts?

[Trumpocalypse]

361. Never said they were centerists

So again you are dishonestly putting words in my mouth.

[Exilednight]

362. You're denying that you stated:

As any political analyst will tell you, most elections are won in the middle, not at the extremes of right or left.

As part of your thesis?

From where I am sitting it sure seems like a lot of extreme right candidates are winning office.

[Trumpocalypse]

398. Maybe if you read my whole post

instead of one line and then passing judgment, you would understand the point I was making.

[Exilednight]

413. You're starting from a false premise.

If I say the sun is a ball of ice that causes snow, then the rest of argument is meaningless because the basic premise is based upon a false belief.

I'm not making fun of you, I am just pointing out a patently false statement.

Pundits will say elections are won by centrists, but only because they believe that Reagan, Bush and Trump are centrists.

[Trumpocalypse]

427. But you admitted that you didn't read the whole post

so you don't know the full point. Then you dishonestly spun what I did say to put words in my mouth.

So the real question is why do you feel the need to do that?

[Exilednight]

435. There is no point in reading something that is based upon a false

Premise.

Based on your opening statement, you say only centrists win elections, which is just not correct.

Again, reread my example about the sun. Would you believe a word after me saying the sun is a ball of ice when we all know that it's a giant ball of burning gas?

[Trumpocalypse]

437. So you read one line and then pass judgement.

And will you tell us if you voted for the Democratic candidate in 16?

[Exilednight]

441. I answered your question above. Will you answer my question about

the sun?

[Trumpocalypse]

447. No you didn't

And you continue to spin and misrepresent what I wrote. Why do you feel the need to indulge is that kind of intellectual dishonesty?

[Exilednight]

449. Yes I did, and here's the link to prove it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8767280

Now will you answer the question about the sun?

[Trumpocalypse]

451. Well good for you!

Then why do you feel the need to dishonestly spin my words to defend those who voted against the candidate you voted for?

[Exilednight]

455. I didn't spin anything, I quoted you.

I'll honestly admit that I voted for Bernie in the primary, and that other than voting for her I did nothing to support her. Which is the same thing I said to my boss.

[Trumpocalypse]

460. Quoted then spun it to misrepresent what I wrote.

And didn't even bother to read the whole post.

Plus, you didn't do everything you could to stop Trump. That explains a lot.

[Exilednight]

464. You keep saying I spun your words. The only way that is possible is if

you truly believe that Reagan, Bush and Trump are centrists. Do you?

[Trumpocalypse]

468. Never said they were so stop dishonestly putting words in my mouth.

And this again begs the question, why you feel the need to keep spinning what I said?

[Exilednight]

473. You never said they weren't.

Until you do, there is no point in debating you.

[Trumpocalypse]

475. They weren't

Happy now. And the point of my post was that since the right has a secure base they don't have to swing as many voters in the center as Dems do because they don't have the same secure base on the left.

If you bothered to read my post you would have understood that instead of dishonestly spinning one line in order to attack.

[Exilednight]

483. And now your argument is rendered moot based upon the false premise

that people from the extremes don't win elections.

Truth be told, people from the center rarely win the GE in the post Vietnam era.

[Trumpocalypse]

492. Never said that either.

You keep dishonestly putting words in my mouth. Why do you feel the need to do that?

[Exilednight]

497. What did you never say?

[Trumpocalypse]

502. See that's the problem with misrepresenting the truth

So hard to keep track of it all.

[Exilednight]

504. Quoting you in context is misrepresenting you?

You said, and I quote:

As any political analyst will tell you, most elections are won in the middle, not at the extremes of right or left.

Did you not?

[Trumpocalypse]

505. Yes and then you spun it out of context

or maybe you don't understand the difference between the word 'in' and 'by'.

[Exilednight]

507. I understand the definitions of "in" and "by".

No Republican Presidential starting withe Reagan, except MAYBE Bush I, "IN" the the middle, but won their elections "BY" being extreme?

Do you disagree?

[Trumpocalypse]

508. Never said they were

And that's not the point I was making which you continue to misrepresent dishonestly. The real question is why you feel the need to do that instead of engaging in an honest discussion.

[Exilednight]

513. It's only an honest discussion when you start with a hypothesis

that is based in truth.

The truth is, many presidents from the past 35 years have been from the extreme of the Republican right.

We don't know if a Democrat from the "extreme" left could win an election since one has not won the Democratic nomination.

[Trumpocalypse]

515. It is based in truth.

Which is why you keep dishonestly spinning it. I said 'in the middle' not 'by the middle'. Yet you continue to misrepresent what I said. I guess you never heard of swing voters.

So again the real question is why you are still dishonestly misrepresenting what I said. Why are you afraid of an honest discussion of what I really said?

[Exilednight]

521. Now you're changing your hypothesis which is still based on a false premise

Voters don't swing to the center. They swing left or they swing right. The idea that there are centrists who want middle ground is a myth. There are no true centrists.

If voters wanted centrism, then Republicans would not control so many offices. The largest margins of victory for Democrats are the ones who lean furthest to the left.

[Trumpocalypse]

534. No I'm not.

Maybe if you read the whole post instead of reading one line to dishonestly spin it.

And you are again dishonestly spinning my words again above.

So again the real question is why you feel the need to do so and why are you afraid to engage in an honest discussion without all these childish tricks?

[Exilednight]

535. You can't even clarify who you are speaking of when

you say extreme left, extreme right and center.

Your opening sentence which I will quote again, ""As any political analyst will tell you, most elections are won in the middle, not at the extremes of right or left.", makes it sound like your talking politicians, but then you shift to Sten voters who apolitical and don't fit on our spectrum, and then you shift to voters, and now you're saying that you're not talking about any of those people.

Who exactly are you calling extreme left, extreme right and centrist?

[Trumpocalypse]

536. Still spinning

All you have it dishonest spinning. So sad.

[Exilednight]

538. Says the person who can't give straightforward answers.

If you can't calify a simple question, then you shouldn't act surprised when no one takes you seriously.

[Trumpocalypse]

541. Well you have certain taken me seriously enough to keep responding

And I don't answer BS strawman questions that dishonestly spin what I've actually said.

Will you answer my question as to why you feel the need to misrepresent my post and are afraid of engaging in an honest discussion?

[Rex]

478. This is debate?

I am glad I reduced the OP down to what they are really about.

[Trumpocalypse]

493. No you misunderstood the point

And still do.

[Rex]

530. Wrong.

I showed what the true meaning of your OP was, sorry if it hurt your feelings. Better luck next time.

[Trumpocalypse]

533. Sorry you didn't.

BTW What color is the sky in your world?

[Cary]

318. But you still felt the need to comment

I think the opening post was a sincere effort to discuss where we go from here. I cannot honestly say that your potential shot at the poster was the same.

[Exilednight]

333. I point out hypocrisy when I see it. 5 of our last 7 POTUS have been

From the extreme right wing of our political spectrum.

There are no extreme left wing pols in this country who run for office.

[Cary]

334. Nonsense

That rhetoric is toxic.

[Exilednight]

335. Do you believe Trump, Reagan and Bush are centrists?

[Cary]

336. I think you took a pot shot at the opening poster

Trump is an opportunist, at best. I think he does this care about anything but himself.

I am a left leaning moderate.

[Trumpocalypse]

345. Thanks!

[Exilednight]

348. I see I touched a nerve with my question.

I don't really give a flying flip where you standself identify on the political spectrum. I never asked.

Can you answer the question about all the presidents I listed? Do you believe them to be moderates?

[Cary]

349. And that's what matters, that you "touch a nerve."

I'm interested in winning elections. That's what touches my nerve.

[Exilednight]

350. Can you answer the question, or are you just going to keep deflecting?

It's a simple question that only requires a yes or no answer.

[Cary]

363. No one has deflected you

I am under no obligation to take direction from you, and you aren't a victim.

I see you sought sympathy in another thread for being identified as radical. The entitlement schtick is a dead giveaway.

[Exilednight]

369. WOW!

Refusing to claim that Reagan, Trump and Bush weren't extreme for Republicans and now accusing people of the left to feel entitled.

Careful, your true colours are showing. Pretty soon you will

[Cary]

372. Why do you want to be a jerk?

What exactly do you think you gain?

Really, it's not so difficult to take it down a notch and it's not like you're fooling me or anyone else. This game you play is boring.

[Exilednight]

374. If you believe that me pointing out a flaw in the OPs hypothesis

Is being a jerk, then you're free to do so. You commented on my reply to the OP, I didn't seem out your opinion on the matter, you chose to interject it, and I replied in kind.

You want an honest debate, okay, here it is: The OP is flawed due to the fact that Americans do elect extremist from the right side of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party, including Bernie Sanders, hold no equal views that are comparable to the Republicans. Furthermore, there is no evidence that a third party left leaning candidate pulls enough votes from my party to upset an election.

[Trumpocalypse]

404. How you point out a flaw when you admitted that you didn't read the whole thing

Or were you lying about that too?

And as far as no evidence: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called “Florida and New Hampshire” simply “the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket,” when Cook was writing about “The Next Nader Effect,” in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, “Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes . In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 .” If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States — even more indispensable, and more important to Bush’s “electoral success,” than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation’s chief Ken Lay.

[Exilednight]

429. Did Nader run this election cycle?

Mr. Cook also leaves out several facts.

1. There was more than Ralph Nader running third party candidacies in Florida.

2. Based on demographic composition of Nader voters there is zero evidence to suggest they would have ever voted for Gore.

3. Each third party candidate pulled enough votes to make the difference that Gore lost by.

4. Also Gore himself has dismissed the Nader effect.

I loved All Gore and worked on his campaign that year. He's a genuinely nice guy who would have been one of the best three presidents in my lifetime (Carter and Obama being the other two) but sadly it didn't come to pass.

[Trumpocalypse]

433. No Stein did

and had the same affect. And you can continue to deny reality.

And I'll ask again, did you vote for the Democratic nominee for President in the last election?

[Exilednight]

438. Did Stein pull enough votes that if every person who voted for her

would have voted for Hillary, would it have turned the election?

To answer your question, yes I voted for her in the general.

[Trumpocalypse]

443. The losses in Michagan and the other rust belt states

were less than 100,000, if Stein voters had and those who stayed home had I don't think Trump would be President.

[Exilednight]

445. it would have taken all three states to swing the election to Hillary.

In two states MAYBE, but highly unlikely. Stein voters were never going to vote for Hillary.

[Trumpocalypse]

450. Why?

Why did they have to insist on ideological purity and not unite against Trump?

And BTW, you just agreed with the point of my post.

[Exilednight]

452. Who said they insisted on ideological purity?

You're making assumptions with no evidence.

I highly doubt I agreed with your OP. Stein is not an extremist, she's an idiot. There's a difference.

[Trumpocalypse]

454. Then why didn't they unite against Trump?

[Exilednight]

461. They don't support Democratic Party issues.

These are loons who believe vaccines are bad for you. They are nutjobs who believe aliens probe them.
They are idiots who believe crystals can heal you.

People make the mistake of believing that Stein voters really care about the same issues that we do.

[Trumpocalypse]

463. I don't believe they are loons or nutjobs

I think they just made a mistake by not uniting against Trump and the GOP.

[Exilednight]

467. Read their platform.

[Trumpocalypse]

470. So you are saying that people on the far left are nutjobs?

[Exilednight]

479. They're not far left. they're just far out there. They have no real

place on the political spectrum.

If you draw a line from West to east and call west liberals, and east conservatives, Stein voters are standing at zero lattitde and zero longitude. Which would put them out in the middle of the Atlantic where they belong.

[Trumpocalypse]

482. I have to disagree with you on that.

[Exilednight]

484. Feel free to disagree. You're entitled to your opinion.

[Trumpocalypse]

494. Well my opinion doesn't include degrading fellow americans

and liberals by calling them nutjobs.

[Exilednight]

496. Hold On! You believe Stein supporters are liberals?!?!?

[Rex]

459. The only one wanting 100% purity are people like the OP.

Amazing really. Nice watching so many people not let them get away with it.

[Trumpocalypse]

465. Then you clearly missed the point

[Rex]

466. No I was spot on about the OP.

[Trumpocalypse]

469. No you clearly misunderstood it.

[Rex]

471. Wrong.

[Trumpocalypse]

472. Not wrong

You've shown you don't understand the point at all.

[Rex]

474. Wrong again.

Fail.

[Trumpocalypse]

476. No still right.

It is you who have fail to comprehend the point of my post.

[Rex]

477. I know I am still right.

Thanks, about time you admitted to it.

[Trumpocalypse]

481. You're starting to sound like Trump

And how can you be right when you failed to make one coherent argument refuting my post but instead indulged in just throwing out insults instead, just like Trump...wait, Donald is that you? LOL

[Rex]

485. Awww....

Listen to you such anger...you should get help with that. I tore your little OP apart along with most people in this thread.

Of course you went there...what else could you do after losing so poorly?

[Trumpocalypse]

495. No anger

I really think you are projecting.

And you tore nothing apart, you merely offer insults and no substance, much like Trump.

[Rex]

529. Wrong.

But I understand your feeling are hurt.

[Trumpocalypse]

543. As usual

Only insults and no substance. So sad.

[pansypoo53219]

332. blame US?? did WE pimp out turnip like the TEEVEE GNEWZ? no. THEY have been pushing the rite wing as

the answer since ronni ficking reagan + REFUSE TO LET GOP OF VOO DOODOO ekonomikkks. THIS IS THEIR FAULT AND THE DUMMING DOWN OF AMERIKA.

[Cary]

346. Why can't the radical left stop the blah blah blah

And just work toward common goals?

It's all form over substance.

[truebluegreen]

354. Utter codswollop.

[Trumpocalypse]

356. Those who refuse to learn from history

are doomed to repeat it.

[truebluegreen]

367. Platitudes don't make your case.

The political world in 1968 was utterly different from the political world in 2000 and different again from 2016. Trying to tie them together in order to blame your preferred boogeyman is pathetic.

[Trumpocalypse]

397. Nor do two word responses.

And this isn't about bogeymen. It is about trying to win elections.

[Orsino]

364. The tens of millions of Republicans and those potential voters sitting out elections...

...bear by far the biggest share of the responsibility, and in no way represent some sort of "extreme left."

Trying to shift that blame onto some small fraction of the relatively few who do typically vote is silly.

MSM and plutocrat rat-fuckers, eagerly assisted by racists, sexists and the apathetic, create and elect these candidates.

[Trumpocalypse]

399. It is not about blame

it is about the left splitting it's power because some insist on 100% ideological purity, something the right doesn't do.

[octoberlib]

382. I notice you left out all those centrist Dems who crossed over and voted

for Nixon, Bush and Trump. Macomb, a county in Michigan that's always won by Dems , went for Trump big time giving him the state.

[Rex]

387. Beat me to it, but hey since when did facts matter?

I love how this OP is getting torn apart by facts, it is important for people here to see what we are up against.

[Trumpocalypse]

411. They wouldn't have mattered if

the left had remained united.

[Rex]

386. Wrong, it was the conservative side of the party that gave us those guys.

Meanwhile your own purity test is showing...

[Trumpocalypse]

414. The conservative side

wouldn't have mattered if the left had stayed united.

[Rex]

418. The left has always been united, it is the centrists that keep selling the party down the river.

Then again that is why the centrists were removed from power in the DNC. I guess you didn't notice that at all.

[Trumpocalypse]

428. So who were the millions who voted for

Nader and Stein?

[Rex]

431. I don't know, did you know HRC won by 3 million votes?

I know, doesn't fit your narrative. But your OP has nothing to do with blame...nope, none at all.

[Trumpocalypse]

434. Yet she got fewer votes that Obama in 12

and she's not the president today. Did you vote for her?

[Rex]

436. I said I did to you in another post upthread.

Not really pay any attention are you? Did you vote for HRC?

She won the popular vote...but you go on blaming everyone on the left it is funny to watch.

[Trumpocalypse]

440. Then why are you so defensive about it.

Don't you think that it would be better for the left to unite against the common enemy and not split it's political power?

[Rex]

442. Why did you get so angry when I mentioned centrists?

Don't you think it would be best if centrists unite against the common enemy? Get onboard with the rest of the left? I am wondering now.

Most of the party is Left, so the small amount of centrists that have lost 100s of seats must get behind this new progressive group led by Perez and Ellison.

Right?

[Trumpocalypse]

444. Never got angry

Maybe you did and are projecting.

And I haven't seen anyone not getting behind Perez and Ellison.

[Rex]

446. Okay so that is a non answer on your part.

Thanks, that is all I needed to know. Maybe next time you will refrain from creating an OP that blames the people that put Dems into office year after year.

One can hope better for you.

[Trumpocalypse]

448. You're misrepresenting what I said.

And it is not about blame. It is about staying united and not insisting on 100% ideological purity which only hurts the left.

[Rex]

458. No I am not, your OP title is all about blame. Did you miss all the other people saying the same?

Maybe you should look in the mirror about that purity test.

[Trumpocalypse]

501. But did you read the whole post

or just the title?

[Rex]

531. Of course I did, it was total garbage.

But you knew that already.

[Trumpocalypse]

537. Like I said

All you have is insults and no substance.

[pat_k]

390. Bullshit. The path to hell was paved by...

... the Democratic leadership's immoral refusal to do their duty and defend the constitution they swore to uphold by standing and fighting for:

1. Impeachment of Reagan
2. Prosecution of Bush Sr. when his role in Iran contra was exposed.
3. An objection to the unlawfully appointed FL electors on Jan 6, 2001, as was their duty under the electoral count act.
4. Impeachment of Bush/Cheney for torture.

Too many of them failed to protect the constitution from the likes of Alito when they refused to join a winning filibuster that would actually have stopped him, and instead cast their useless No votes on the floor. Thinking things like "I opposed Alito, even tho I refused to do the one thing guaranteed to stop him" is the sort of thinking that has earned them their wimpy reputation.

Not to mention their stubborn adherence to preemptive surrender on all the things they claim they care about. (The "Can't Win, So Don't Fight" policy that the leadership has stubbornly adheres to.) They give lip service to universal health care, meaningful progressive tax reform, meaningful change to end mass incarceration, meaningful consumer protections, meaningful protections of our financial system, and on and on, but the leadership of our part NEVER actually takes concrete action. Over, and over, and over again our they have refused to "whip up" support for the good bills that have been introduced.

Until the Democratic leadership "gets it" ("it" being the fact that if you want to get anything done you have actively advocate for it non-stop, regardless of the chances of "winning&quot our downward spiral will continue.

Fighting, win or lose, is how you make things happen. If not today, then down the line. They could learn something from the right-wingnuts who unceasingly advocate for things long considered DOA. (And look at how they are now achieving those things.) The Democratic leadership has not provided an effective counterpoint to the relentless corporatist agenda for decades.

Preemptive surrender on solutions that would actually change the lives of countless Americans for the better, coupled with their repeated refusals to stand up and fight for the Constitution they swore to uphold, is what paved the road to our current hell.

[Trumpocalypse]

417. So you're makning the 100%

purity argument. How did that work out in 2010 or 2014 or last year?

[kacekwl]

391. Nonsense , in my opinion

[Trumpocalypse]

419. Those who refuse to learn from history

are doomed to repeat it.

[Rex]

425. And those that make it up are mocked by those that know actual history.

Just saying.

[Trumpocalypse]

430. Really?

What actual history do you know? Please just saying that something isn't, is not proof that it isn't.

[Rex]

426. Of course it is.

But a few people ate it up, so it was good for something. I guess.

[liquid diamond]

486. Another profound and articulate

response from your side. Thank you for your contribution to this thread.

[agincourt]

395. You can be very extreme left

like myself. One who believes that capitalism is the root of our problems, that America never really was great, that Che Guevara should be read by everyone. You can believe all these things and still vote against the candidate that wants to further militarize the police, vote against the candidate that wants to take away public schools, vote against the one who systematically will try to make the rich, richer, including himself. You can vote against the candidate who wants more private prisons, builds walls to a country that no one wants to go to anymore, the one who wages war on the working class safety net, the one who target Hispanics particularly. One can vote against fascism and still be a socialist, but unfortunately many socialists think that voting is some big purity ritual instead of political maintenance. Hil was cozy with rich people so the ballot can't be used as a weapon against Trump.

[Dem2]

457. Lame Blame Game

is stupid.

TRASH THREAD.

[Trumpocalypse]

462. Not about blame

It is about uniting to exercise political power.

[Dem2]

488. Bull

There is nothing uniting about this thread/conversation you've started.

Try a different approach.

[Trumpocalypse]

499. You could start by having a serious discussion

rather than just throwing out insults.

[guillaumeb]

480. A false starting premise.

Trump was given to the country by:

Interstate Cross Check, and

gerrymandering, and

GOP voter suppression in the form of closing polling places and restricting early voting, and

a media that gave Trump billions in free advertising, and

a media that failed to examine or even notice Trump's slogans, and

41% of the registered voters failing to even show up, and

Russian interference.

So to blame the extreme left, which sounds ridiculous considering how small this so-called extreme left is,

is ridiculous.

[Trumpocalypse]

500. All true

but they wouldn't have mattered if the left had stayed united against him.

[Scruffy1]

487. Oh my.

Instead of looking for someone to blame we need to build a better party. Anyone who blames it on any one factor is completely out of it. Yes, the Democratic party has alienated many with it's third way politics that should be Democrats, Yes, voter suppression played a role, and of course the media is the biggest culprit in my eyes. None of this is going to change. We need to focus on the future, quit blaming others, and start realizing that the public that belongs to neither party is in the middle. Many of the voters who are neither R's or D's are on the progressive side of things. Besides which we've won many elections with handicaps. It takes a great candidate and a great organization. Blaming others for the loss is not going to change things a bit. Driving people from the Party will not help. We also need to get more involved. I met with a Green Party councilman this week over some local affairs. Here in this town we get along fine. The truth is that losing to this bunch of incompetent ass hats shows that our team needs some work and some new players. We need to groom new talent and take principled stands. The gerrymander is there until we have a majority in the state houses, the voter suppression will continue under the current regime, the media will always be a pile of crap, and third parties will suck off some votes. We need to win spite of all this, and playing blame will not help. We have to have a plan.

[Trumpocalypse]

498. Again it is not about blame

It is about uniting to exercise political power. And I agree with almost all of what you said. But even doing everything you said, which I agree with, will be for naught if a significant portion of the left insists on 100% ideological purity as the price of their vote.

[Oneironaut]

503. The far left is an embarrassment to the party.

Their cartoonishly kooky ideas, hair-trigger tendency to get offended over the dumbest of things, their blatant hypocrisy of telling others what to do but not following those rules themselves, their absolute hatred of free speech, and their open hostility to anyone who doesn't believe absolutely everything they believe is a black mark on the Democratic Party, and gives Republicans ammo to win elections. Very often, they also support candidates who have no chance of ever winning, pulling votes from a viable Democratic candidate.

It's time to distance ourselves from these people. They're free to have their own party, but they aren't Democrats. They hate what our party stands for.

The left wants to help workers and small businesses. The far left sneers at them and calls them redneck trash. The left loves freedom of speech. The far left hates it and does everything it can to silence dissenting ideas. The left wants everybody to be treated equally. The far-left divides and conquers by labeling everybody and pitting them against each other.

[Trumpocalypse]

509. I wouldn't say that.

We need to unite against the common enemy. The left would have enormous political power if they stayed united as the right have and not split their vote.

[Oneironaut]

511. True, but I don't think it's possible when you have people that won't compromise.

They actively try to undermine Democrats. When one side refuses to make any concessions, finding common ground is impossible.

[Trumpocalypse]

512. True

But I hope that going forward the more reasonable one can be brought around.

[caroldansen]

506. When speaking to a lot of people about the election, it turned out many stayed

home mourning the loss of Obama. Black's, whites and Spanish. This is not a time to be sad. We must be strong and stay strong to fight against the republicans and their evil, Godless agenda. Keep fighting! 20 months until the next election. Then we get all the Democrats in. Vote for all the Democrats. And keep out all Republicans. We have to take care of the people and take our country back. We have to take care of the people, the country and the planet. Republicans only care about themselves. They have always been that way!

[Trumpocalypse]

510. Well said!!! nt