Forum Thread

The Left is Energized, but...

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 30 of 85 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 .. 6 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Another point that we don't talk about much here is that the caucuses in which Bernie did so well, are not representative of the electorate as a whole. Bernie is an opportunist and he saw that appealing to young folks -- teens and early 20s by offering stuff that resonated with them such as free college tuition and free health care -- that he could use the caucuses to his advantage. This is how the Tea Party got it's roots in the Republican Party in 2000 by overwhelming the caucuses and appealing to a small demographic. Bernie copied that.

    People should be wary that the caucuses represent a true mandate for Bernie liberalism. Hardly so as I wrote in my blog article here two years ago: Democratic Hub: Caucus Elections Are Undemocratic and Should Be Scrapped

    Bernie won 11 of the 13 states holding caucuses in 2016. If those state had held primaries instead of caucuses, his "yuge" victories would not seem so "yuge". Washington State is a testament to that. Hillary won the primary in Washington state but Bernie won the caucus. And so it goes...

    My opinion...

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    "Tom Perez was a better choice because he had more centrist appeal,"

    That is what lost and will lose. Centrist is not needed when it has been lopsided against the lower classes . Senator Graham took care of the upper class. Now the lower class needs a leader to right Graham's wrongs.

    Need I remind you for the umpteenth time that the centrist candidate won by three million votes in 2016? That same centrist candidate beat your hero by nearly four million votes in the Democratic primary.

    The Democratic Party chose a centrist by millions of votes. The people chose a centrist by millions of votes. The system and Bernie or Busters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania chose to give a narcissistic sociopath the keys to our nuclear codes.

    Obama had almost 70 million votes in 08. He lost 4 million in 12 because his promise of change didn't change anything. Hillary couldn't win the 4 million back in 16 because she promised more of nothing. Still no promise of any change for the deserted people so the 4 million are not coming back. Anybody but Bernie is going to elect another Republican.

    Says jaredsxtn "That same centrist candidate beat your hero by nearly four million votes in the Democratic primary."

    And the reality is that same centrist couldn't beat the worst human being running as the worst Republican candidate in the history of the world.

    That same centrist couldn't pick up any Obama votes even with the blessing of Obama.

    She got 4 million less than Obama did in 08. No message. Lost contact with the common people.

    The last thing the left behind need is a centrist anything. Obvious that a loss of 4 million votes in 12 and 16 was neglected, overlooked or misunderstood.

    What was the conversation in 12 about the lost 4 million votes?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Refer to my blog article from three years ago: The Strategy behind the “Party of No” to obstruct job growth

    The economy and jobs was the number 1 issue in 2012. The Republican Party became the "Party of No", especially on jobs and other beneficial programs for the unemployed and poor. The strategy worked. Obama might have lost except for Romney's "47 percent" comment.

    Republicans are ruthless. Their tribalism rules. Negative campaigning and obstructionism is their brand. Unfortunately it works.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Dutch -- I would disagree with you again. People do not vote for a variety of reasons, but believing that their vote does not count is not one of them. From a Washington Post article of why the voter turn-out in the 2014 midterm election was so poor, the main reason cited in a census poll was "too busy" (28 %). That was followed by "not interested" (16 %), "illness/disability (11%), "out of town" (10 percent), "forgot to vote" (8 %), "disliked candidates/issues" (8 %), "registration problems" (2%), and a few others.

    Now I have cited "voter apathy" based on my first hand experiences in knocking on doors of young people in 2014 who just seemed to me disinterested when I tried to pin that demographic down on their "hot button" issues. That changed in 2016 in a big way due to Bernie. But unfortunately much of that passion was misdirected as hate against Hillary.

    No Schmidt; just go with a big "bow"around the "real" issues; your "poll" indeed did not ask about the issues as I stated. You know damn well what the cause is here; yes the truth hurts; "head in the sand, as usual

    The poll was open ended. No multiple choice questions. In fact from most of the people I met in knocking on doors, most are ignorant of the electoral college basis for voting so it doesn't enter their minds. The last thing I would expect from a potential non-voter is that I don't vote because my vote doesn't count with the electoral college system. It was never given to me as a reason for not voting.

    The ball is back in your court. You have an opinion. I cited facts plus my own experiences.

    I guess you refuse to look at the "big" picture; add what I said to your analyses; all the "factors" I mentioned have an effect on how this country gets its "dumb" leaders; it is not just "votes"; it is the total "corruption" and stupid "voting" system! Wake up please!
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt: "The economy and jobs was the number 1 issue in 2012."

    Obama got 4 million less votes in 2012 than he got in 2008. The Democrats had no and have no hope for low income people. Counting 2020 as an easy Democratic win and sliding in Hillary or Hillary camp candidate with no message of hope and change will set the stage for a Republican victory. Trump if not in jail will be even a more formidable candidate. His multiple lies and lying will be turned by his charisma into a president trying to do the best for the country by reacting to new situations as they pop up. Plus his tweets, regardless of their content, are solidifying and growing support because of a feeling of personal contact with the president. Now is not the time to count on a victory.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Schmidt: "The economy and jobs was the number 1 issue in 2012."

    Obama got 4 million less votes in 2012 than he got in 2008. The Democrats had no and have no hope for low income people. Counting 2020 as an easy Democratic win and sliding in Hillary or Hillary camp candidate with no message of hope and change will set the stage for a Republican victory. Trump if not in jail will be even a more formidable candidate. His multiple lies and lying will be turned by his charisma into a president trying to do the best for the country by reacting to new situations as they pop up. Plus his tweets, regardless of their content, are solidifying and growing support because of a feeling of personal contact with the president. Now is not the time to count on a victory.

    Chet, a lot of things can still happen. The thing what worries me is that the Dem's don't really have good leaders, let alone a message which motivates. Indeed the "con-man" uses every dirty trick to get it his way; he also hopes the Russians will help him again. The only hope I have is that in the "mid-term" elections the "Dem's get more seats in Congress.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Ah Chet -- You have a fixation against Democrats and want to blame Obama, Hillary and everyone else in the party for the plight of poor people, but you cannot say much about the Republican obstructionism or even admit that it has occurred. That's the problem that I have in arguing with an ideologue. Chet the enemy is not Democrats. Wake up. And quit the blame game.

    You have a very annoying habit of cherry picking one line out of one of my posts while ignoring the rest to put it in context. That irritates the shit out of me.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    "Tom Perez was a better choice because he had more centrist appeal,"

    That is what lost and will lose. Centrist is not needed when it has been lopsided against the lower classes . Senator Graham took care of the upper class. Now the lower class needs a leader to right Graham's wrongs.

    Perez was networked and due. More of the same but with a new bow on it. Losing is just fine.

    New party message / platform in 32+ months huh ? Can't imagine anything important will happen between now and then. Most importantly - Don't change anything.

    Would you like some more slop / gruel ?

    Yes please.

    Is this different slop ? No, nothing ever changes.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    "Tom Perez was a better choice because he had more centrist appeal,"

    That is what lost and will lose. Centrist is not needed when it has been lopsided against the lower classes . Senator Graham took care of the upper class. Now the lower class needs a leader to right Graham's wrongs.

    Perez was networked and due. More of the same but with a new bow on it. Losing is just fine.

    New party message / platform in 32+ months huh ? Can't imagine anything important will happen between now and then. Most importantly - Don't change anything.

    Would you like some more slop / gruel ?

    Yes please.

    Is this different slop ? No, nothing ever changes.

    TJ, It is becoming my opinion that the greater good to the DNC is being the DNC.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Ah Chet -- You have a fixation against Democrats and want to blame Obama, Hillary and everyone else in the party for the plight of poor people, but you cannot say much about the Republican obstructionism or even admit that it has occurred. That's the problem that I have in arguing with an ideologue. Chet the enemy is not Democrats. Wake up. And quit the blame game.

    You have a very annoying habit of cherry picking one line out of one of my posts while ignoring the rest to put it in context. That irritates the shit out of me.

    Schmidt, The "rest of your posts" is without a doubt above reproach. If I pick one line it is because it stood out. Have I ever made even the slightest indication to question the overall substance and content of your posts. On the other hand you still haven't addressed why Hillary couldn't pick up the 4 million votes Obama lost in 2012. I think that is germain to the issue of why the party has nothing to offer. The foot soldiers work themselves to the bone while the party elders are hoping for another billion to play with .
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt, If you would read my posts you would see and know that I bame republicans for everything and do it frequently . I constantly blame their self interested taxcutting, their self interested laws like the CFMA that almost destroyed the economy, their constant attacks on all social programs, the poisoning of young and vulnerable minds against any kind of help which is desperately needed in this starvation economy they have created. I criticize Obama and Clinton just like the American voters do. In both cases turned the country over to republicans after each 8 year Democratic Presidency. Is it my fault that Gore couldn't even win his home state . There were at least 4 million that Hillary couldn't convince. I vehemently blame the republicans . But Clinton and Obama were on duty for 16 years . Obama was out of touch with his individual mandate . He had to guarantee the insurance companies everybody would buy insurance to generate the money to make Obamacare work. That made people who had no extra money feel like criminals if they didn't buy insurance. That alone probably cost him the 4 million votes he lost in 2012.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Obama had almost 70 million votes in 08. He lost 4 million in 12 because his promise of change didn't change anything. Hillary couldn't win the 4 million back in 16 because she promised more of nothing. Still no promise of any change for the deserted people so the 4 million are not coming back.

    Could it possibly be because he inherited an economy in complete and total free fall?

    3,204,000 jobs were lost from the beginning of the Great Recession to the day he took over in January of 2009. Another 3,499,000 jobs were lost from the day he took office until October of 2010. During that time he pushed through a massive stimulus package that prevented the economy from falling off a cliff.

    And what thanks do you give him? Absolutely fucking nothing. No credit for saving the economy. No "thanks, Obama" for saving the automotive industry. No "job well done, champ" for jump starting the green energy revolution. No "cheers to you" for helping make it so millions of uninsured individuals could never be denied healthcare ever again.

    No talk about the ruthless Republicans who used every tool they had to sabotage his Presidency. No talk about the fact that Presidents aren't kings and have to work with Congress in order to get things done. No talk about the Supreme Court making his job exponentially harder.

    No, the only thing you and so many other so called Democrats gave him was a whole bunch of bitching and moaning.

    How pathetic.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Anybody but Bernie is going to elect another Republican.

    I'd rather vote for my local dog catcher than Bernie. At least dog catchers aren't snake oil salesmen who promise things they know will never become a reality and whip their die hard supporters into such a frenzy that they decide to hand the keys to our nuclear codes to a madman out of pure spite.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Obama had almost 70 million votes in 08. He lost 4 million in 12 because his promise of change didn't change anything. Hillary couldn't win the 4 million back in 16 because she promised more of nothing. Still no promise of any change for the deserted people so the 4 million are not coming back.

    Could it possibly be because he inherited an economy in complete and total free fall?

    3,204,000 jobs were lost from the beginning of the Great Recession to the day he took over in January of 2009. Another 3,499,000 jobs were lost from the day he took office until October of 2010. During that time he pushed through a massive stimulus package that prevented the economy from falling off a cliff.

    And what thanks do you give him? Absolutely fucking nothing. No credit for saving the economy. No "thanks, Obama" for saving the automotive industry. No "job well done, chap" for jump starting the green revolution. No "cheers to you" for helping make it so millions of uninsured individuals could never be denied healthcare ever again.

    No talk about the ruthless Republicans who used every tool they had to sabotage his Presidency. No talk about the fact that Presidents aren't kings and have to work with Congress in order to get things done. No talk about the Supreme Court making his job exponentially harder.

    No, the only thing you and so many other so called Democrats gave him was a whole bunch of bitching and moaning.

    How pathetic.

    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Anybody but Bernie is going to elect another Republican.

    I'd rather vote for my local dog catcher than Bernie. At least dog catchers aren't snake oil salesmen who promise things they know will never become a reality and whip their die hard supporters into such a frenzy that they decide to hand the keys to our nuclear codes to a madman out of pure spite.

    Why didn't Hillary get any of the 4 million voters back? She got almost the same identical number of votes in 16 that Obama got in 12. That is a pretty big deal to have been missed. No Democrats dropped any of the 08 blame on Obama. The mandate probably cost him big time .

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: The mandate probably cost him big time .

    Yea, as Bernie likes to say - why pay for something when you can get it for free?!

    And just a heads up, single-payer healthcare, no matter how much you wish it, won’t be free. It will also come with a mandate that will make the individual mandate look like child’s play.

    Who will you blame after the inevitable shit show happens then? If you thought the push back against Obamacare was bad, just wait until the right wing propaganda machine kicks into high gear over a single payer proposal.

    I encourage you to look back to what happened to your hated nemesis and your even more hated nemesis when they tried to enact single-payer in the early 90’s. They tried to give you government funded healthcare and the thank you they received was losing the House for the first time in a generation.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: The mandate probably cost him big time .

    Yea, as Bernie likes to say - why pay for something when you can get it for free?!

    And just a heads up, single-payer healthcare, no matter how much you wish it, won’t be free. It will also come with a mandate that will make the individual mandate look like child’s play.

    Who will you blame after the inevitable shit show happens then? If you thought the push back against Obamacare was bad, just wait until the right wing propaganda machine kicks into high gear over a single payer proposal.

    I encourage you to look back to what happened to your hated nemesis and your even more hated nemesis when they tried to enact single-payer in the early 90’s. They tried to give you government funded healthcare and the thank you they received was losing the House for the first time in a generation.

    The only reason there is not medicare for all and free education and all the other free benefits possible from a thriving economy is the Democratic Party abandoned the welfare of the working class for every and any cause the elitist wine and cheese culture could come up with. If the economy of the USA was held as priority #1 jobs and prosperity stealing laws would not have been allowed to curse the working class. Gambling should be criminalized in wall street, front running should be criminalized, trades should be subjected to a holding period, everything should be done to direct money back into the economy. Dynasty trusts had been restricted and now they are almost totally unencumbered. Making money go back to work would increase the velocity and prosperity would thrive. Money would be abundant. Not that long ago college was free in CA and dirt cheap else here. I used to make enough money at my summer jobs to pay for a full years tuition. Why you are so vehemently against the ideas Bernie puts forward is totally baseless in your argument they can't be paid for. There needs to be a person willing to remind the country that all is possible if wall street is legitimized . Bernie is that person.