Now this a big bonfire, folks. Dummies telling the dem party why they lost the election.
The topic line is: "Let’s abandon the Democrats: Stop blaming Fox News and stop hoping Elizabeth Warren will save us"
The link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026016811The OP:
Autumn (19,034 posts)
Let’s abandon the Democrats: Stop blaming Fox News and stop hoping Elizabeth Warren will save us
The Democrats’ conduct since the midterm debacle is as sad and sorry as the campaign that caused it. The party’s leaders are a big problem. A bigger one is the closed system of high-dollar fundraising, reductionist polling and vapid messaging in which it is seemingly trapped. Some say a more populist Democratic Party will soon emerge. It won’t happen as long as these leaders and this system are in place.
Nancy Pelosi says it wasn’t a wave election. She’s right. It was the Johnstown Flood; as catastrophic and just as preventable. One year after the shutdown Republicans scored their biggest Senate win since 1980 and their biggest House win since 1928. Turnout was the lowest since 1942, when millions of GIs had the excellent excuse of being overseas fighting for their country.
Every Democratic alibi — midterm lull, sixth-year curse, red Senate map, vote suppression, gerrymandering, money — rings true, but all of them together can’t explain being swept by the most extreme major party in American history. Citing other statistics — demography, presidential turnout, Hillary’s polls — they assure us that in 2016 happy days will be here again. Don’t bet on it.
Our problem isn’t partisan gridlock but the stagnation of a political ecosystem imbalanced by the slow extinction of liberalism. In the shutdown Ted Cruz bestrode the world like a colossus till the Kochs, of all people, rode to the rescue. Wall Street was a major player but labor was invisible and progressives said barely a word. Their silence didn’t strengthen Obama, it weakened him. It was a perfect tableau of politics in our time. When the left goes AWOL, the right goes crazy.
http://www.salon.com/2014/12/23/lets_abandon_loser_democrats_stop_blaming_fox_news_and_hoping_elizabeth_warren_saves_us/
Now this ought to be good.
Away we go....
upaloopa (5,593 posts)
1. We already did. It gave us the election
results of 2014.
Let's all just ****ing give up because things aren't liberal enough.
Please do.
Autumn (19,034 posts)
3. Did you read the article?
I think it pretty well explains what happened and how the Democrats can avoid that happening again in the future.
Fight?
upaloopa (5,593 posts)
15. Sure the way to avoid what happened
is to run liberal candidates.
That isn't going to happen.
Please run those lib candidates!!
Maedhros (4,510 posts)
30. If the Democrats don't run Liberal candidates, then Liberals won't vote Democratic.
It's that simple. Democrats need to learn that.
And these fools say there is dissent in the GOP ranks.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN (5,642 posts)
31. They have a cognitive disconnect.
They simply can't process that sentence. They really believe that voters should simply vote for the candidate who is 'less evil', without actually demanding that those candidates adhere to any particular principles at all, or act or vote in any particular fashion once elected. Our job is simply to elect them, not to require them to actually serve us once in office.
Yes dummie I agree!!! Dems need Hugo Chavez type candidates!!!
brooklynite (18,181 posts)
70. When we won in 2006 and 2008, it was with Liberal and non-Liberal candidates...
When we won the Presidency in 2008 and 2012, it was with a candidate that plenty of people here like to call a Republican.
Alert!!!
Autumn (19,034 posts)
80. The democratic party could have put up anyone and would still have won. Democrats and a lot
of Independents were just that sick of republicans. Hell I know republicans who voted for Obama in 2008.
Voting bouncy!!!!
Some typical dummies responses en masse:
sabrina 1 (48,414 posts)
59. How about let's figure out finally why voters will no longer accept Republican Lite candidates
from their Democratic Party? Bush helped enormously with getting Dem voters to go along with voting for the 'lesser evil'. 'Anyone but Bush'.
How about let's not 'all ****ing give up'. How about the party leadership starts listening to the voters rather than their Corporate Sponsors.
How defeatist to say 'let's all just give up'.
No, what voters are saying is, 'we want candidates we can vote FOR'. They are not going along with the 'just vote AGAINST this jerk' tactic anymore.
So, voters are not giving up. They are focusing their energies where they know they have a chance of being heard. See the midterms where they got Progressive Issues on ballots and WON.
So, what is the party leadership going to do about this new trend where voters are taking matters into their own hands?
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #59)
Mon Dec 29, 2014, 04:34 PM
cascadiance (15,642 posts)
75. You are so right... People voted FOR many liberal candidates and issues they believed in...
... even if in the same state two corporate funding obsessed candidates in races usually had the Republicans winning.
The problems are that we ALLOW ourselves to be divided by the corporate media and the rest of the corporate 1% message machine to focus on just looking at divisive social issues. The right wingers focus more on and are motivated more by these social issues (gay marriage, women's rights, etc.) which motivates them to vote for the right wing candidates championing them.
But many of these same voters are also anti-bankster, and believe the false narrative that the corporate and bankster takeover of our government is all Obama's and the Democrats fault, because that is what the right wing spin machine feeds them. They don't like getting pushed out of their jobs by outsourcing from free trade deals or "guest worker" programs any more than we do, but are lead to believe that it is Democrats and "government" (rather than those that fund the corporate corruption of our government) that is at fault, and fault Democrats for wanting to expand the size of this government that they blame for everything. Yes, the DINO DLC/Third Way elements that have welcomed corporate cash and have lead Obama's administration to push free trade deals and not prosecuting bankster criminals have fed this narrative, even if many of the Democratic constituency is frankly getting damn fed up with this kind of policies that many in our leadership are engaged in that fuel this narrative.
What this tells me is that if we can find a way around the corporate message machine and fuel a true progressive movement lead by progressive candidates that won't accept money for government influence, and make it very public that they are against those elements in both parties and champion the issues that the corporate media avoids where even the right shows that they are fed up with too, we'll have a big winner, and we can take the first steps towards throwing out the corporate corruption that has been almost a terminal cancer in our government.
Now, many of these social issues that we're divided on are still very important for us to stand strong on, but I think we need to take a step back and say that the fundamental issues that affect the way our democracy functions systemically are the issues we need to prioritize this coming election, because I think if we can do it the right way, I think we can get bipartisan support to throw the corporate BUMS out of office and work towards restoring a government that our founders wanted and wouldn't hate like they probably would our current government if they were still alive.
If we can have a non-corrupted government, I think we can have a more honest and perhaps civil discussion on what kind of rules we should have on social issues, and maybe not be as far apart on many of them as we are today in a way that still protects the rights and well being of all americans, and even those in the rest of the world too that are affected by our global interference policies with faulty trade agreements and military industrial complex pushed wars.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to cascadiance (Reply #75)
Mon Dec 29, 2014, 05:02 PM
Star Member Thinkingabout (9,221 posts)
81. What candidate are you planning to run which has not or will not accept corporate
Money for influence? I see you have a Warren sticker in your post, she has readily admitted she took campaign funds from corporations. Bernie Sanders attended a meeting which was put on by lobbyists from the banking and energy interests. In order for a candidate to get the needed funds for a campaign someone has to have very deep pockets and donate lots of money. Warren spent $42m on her run for senator in one state. From what is the funds going to come?
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #81)
Mon Dec 29, 2014, 05:14 PM
cascadiance (15,642 posts)
83. I want a candidate that "won't accept funds for government influence"...
The problem we have in our system today is that it almost requires that people have money in their campaigns to win. And that was done by design by those that want to institutionalize bribery that once was called a CRIMINAL ACT and now seems to be brushed under the table as the "normal way of doing business".
Now, recognizing that candidates need money, and many who want money out of the system like Elizabeth Warren understand that, they need to fight the battle in the world we live in now. Now, that being said, there are many wealthy people and well funded organizations that want to take money out of the political system as well. So, perhaps you can call them wanting to give money to candidates as wanting to have "government influence" to get money out of the system, but arguably, one could also say that they just want to facilitate money taken out of the system, so that no longer do we have a system that almost requires candidates to do favors to those who give them money to be elected. I think many of those who would donate to Warren's campaign either want just her to be herself and do the right things based on her own ethics and morals, or they are falsely believing that they can influence her to do the wrong things if they give her money. I think that she's made it pretty clear on how she feels about companies like CitiGroup wanting to "buy" our government, where other politicians avoid any stances like that.
Do you yourself want public campaign financing or not? Some argue that it would be too expensive. I would argue that it has been shown to be far more expensive to have what we have now, where the hidden costs are far greater in the favors that are returned for what money is spent from private sector sources.
Scuba (42,361 posts)
69. Incredibly wrong.
Cat fight?
VanillaRhapsody (15,295 posts)
4. you do know this is DemocratcUnderground....
not BashDemocratsUnderground right? Wirh some posters one begins to wonder...
Yep!!!!
Autumn (19,034 posts)
6. You are aware that it is a discussion board. Right?
And this is an article about the Democratic party and their recent losses? Do you have a comment on the article?
Claws are out, is fur gonna fly?
VanillaRhapsody (15,295 posts)
8. you are aware there is this thing called the Internet
With lots of sites designed specifically to bash Democrats....this is a site to SUPPORT them....it says so in the TOS
Yep!!!
Autumn (19,034 posts)
9. You have no interest in discussion, so there is
no reason to respond to you again. If you think this article is a TOS violation then do alert on it.
STFU!!!!!
VanillaRhapsody (15,295 posts)
11. no I have no interest in discussing Democrats
With those who do not support them....If I did want to, I could easily find a site for that discussion....which is my point..
No I won't!!!!
That is the end of that little fur ball. So what is next?
djean111 (4,892 posts)
12. If you read - or understood - the entire article, this is about why the Democrats lost
so much in the last elections. If you do not think that is worthy of discussion, then, just skip the thread. Or ask the moderators or something.
If you HAD read or understood the article, you might have noticed that the reason for the losses is now the fault of progressives - for not making the rest of the Dems Progressive, too. So hard to do, though, sitting down and shutting up except for bleating mindless praise, while getting the Democratic Party back to what it once stood for.
Or are you thinking the elections went rather well this time.
Ouch!!!!
VanillaRhapsody (15,295 posts)
14. no it isn't
its what Left Leaning Independents tell themselves to make themselves think they are not a minority....as if you can claim that all those that didnt vote in the Midterms are also LLI's
More fur flying!
djean111 (4,892 posts)
18. Well, then, you disagree with the article. Noted! But - others of us will be reading it
and discussing it, nevertheless. Have a really nice day!
Aaaand - that's the last reply from me, that thread jack shit got really really old.
STFU and I am ignoring you from now on!!! Is that the end of it?
VanillaRhapsody (15,295 posts)
21. only those that want to see Republicans
Have power while we wait years for this magical perfect party to emerge....
To us Democrats...thats a horrible to even contemplate scenario...NO Thanks!
Nope. One thing you can count on is dummies getting in the last word. Then Vanilla gets an ally...
BlueCaliDem (7,679 posts)
67. VR, they don't get it, they'll never get it, and there's not a sliver of difference between
those who would rather kill the Democratic Party until it "purifies" itself in the image of some non-existent perfect Liberal candidate than vote for any candidate that doesn't conform to their way of thinking, and the extreme RWers when it comes to political purity. Well, there's that tiny difference...the RWers at least vote even if they don't like the "establishment Republican". We can't say that of the Left (who are not Democrats, although there are exceptions).
Big picture thinking, as in, we can't get any liberal policies through if we don't win elections and the majorities in the U.S. House and Senate, just isn't their thing. No. Purity is their pet peeve and until their Liberal Messiah arises (or is born) they'll continue to knock down everyone and everything like petulant, spoiled-brat children prone to temper tantrums.
I'll end it at that but it continues on and on. Fun bonfire.
