there is a certain segment which is well beyond the line into full-blown paranoia and sees plots in everything

But I have been directly or indirectly called "disloyal" at least 5 times now (once just a few minutes ago) along with the suggestion that I have threatened not to vote if Hillary is the candidate. I'm putting that in a round about way because I don't like how that's designed to extract my commitment to vote for Hillary. I'm not even talking about that until that's a done deal for the reasons I gave in my OP.

In the meantime, I think it's fair to put potential voter apathy on the table before choosing a candidate.

tell you what to think or who to support
DU most likely doesn't even know who you are.
Stop posting here and free yourself from your delusions.

My loyalty is to people who will not be allowed to vote, more of them if cons take over, and to the Women cons will kill if they get the WH.

This means I am part of the Democratic Party, as fucked up as it is.

Because I know what the other side is capable of, if you dont, then something is very wrong here.

actually act in such a way as to allow rightwing terrorists to take over, well that aint no left I have EVER heard of.

True, they are pretty naive and want to taste good regardless who might be eating them, otherwise what is your anti-cupcake coming from? Don't you like sweet and empty caories?

I thought it alert worthy, but preferred to express my disapproval by posting for you and everyone else to see, rather than by alerting. "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

i have daughters and that stuff makes me angry
REASON FOR ALERT

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

YOUR COMMENTS

cupcake? if i called a woman that in the workplace i would be disciplined. this is sexism so bright i can see it from florida.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Thu Feb 26, 2015, 11:56 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No reason to be such a dick about it, studmuffin.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a big stretch to call it sexism.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Frivilous, PC bullshit alert.

Jurors 6 and 7 are pretty clueless. I think it should be against the rules to insult alerters. We have TOS and a jury system to help enforce the TOS. Using juror privilege to bully alerter anonymously is not the way to go--and I say that as someone who alerts on an average of ten times a year, if that.

I wonder how many men get called "cupcake" when they are being disagreed with? Amazing that jurors 6 and 7 didn't get that. Luckily, the majority got it, so the system worked this time anyway.

on the rare time i get called to jury i sign that too
like i said i have daughters and now granddaughters and i choose not to brook this level of rudeness

whether you want them or not!

The conversation often focused on who alerted or was alerted on instead of the content. And people alerting on sexist and racist garbage were labeled a "group" that's opinions should be completely discounted. No shock that jurors sometimes do the same.

endlessly quote Skinner when he a dived to "leave everything"- and then said "not really".
OMG, I saw that dragged out as an excuse to ignore a lot of hateful posts that bothered a lot of DUers. Same people sign up again and again and function almost as perma hosts… and they only ever show up when they see other hosts want to lock anything- then they suddenly appear to fight against a lock. It is literally the only thing some hosts do, a little "group" will suddenly all appear, all fighting the lock, interestingly enough. But strangely, I was accused of being part of a "group" because I'd alert on nasty sexist and racist stuff. You know what? I didn't know those DUers, but I do now… and I like us. I think many Duers feel the same way. I think we are trying to do the right thing.

Lol, studmuffin.

In my favor, some has never happened but I do know the GOP is not going to accommodate my wishes. In this case who am I going to vote for in an election, the Democrat candidates. I don't want to vote for a candidate such as a GOP who does not have my best interest at heart. Am I going to stay him and not vote, no way, I am not going to help the GOP to win elections with non voters on my part. It is so very important we take back control of the Senate in 2016 and win the presidency in order to get liberal judges on the SC. I honestly believe there would not have been advances in Civil Rights with RW judges. Hang in with the Democrats, they are our best friends.

This isn't the Presidential election, and the only people making voter loyalty an issue are people trying to corral advanced PRIMARY votes for Hillary over OTHER DEMOCRATS!

The discussion over voter apthy is whether the *general electorate* would come out and vote for a particular candidate, which should be a valid PRIMARY issue.

The people who twisted it into a Hillary commitment =Democrat Loyalty test are really giving off a stink of fascism, which is not good look for the Hillary campaign.

Though if I were some GOP double agent, hmm...

What has been their first order of business, to repeal ACA, vote for the KXL and now refusing to pass a clean bill to fund HSA, WTH are they thinking, are they going to increase minimum wages, no, this is a problem. There was 36% voter turnout, the gray beards turn out and vote and it isn't for Democrats.

Perhaps Democrats should be looking into whether they ARE representing their base, instead of just whining about voters not showing up at the polls. Whining might feel good, but it won't change anything for anyone.

Though I know certain forces are trying to rewrite the "base" in their image.

to find out why Dems lost. The results are ENCOURAGING, IF the leadership doesn't do what it did when they lost us the House, decide they needed to mover FURTHER Right.

Progressives WON in the mid terms.

Progressive issues WON in the mid terms.

Third Way dems lost. The ones the party finances and pushes apparently are not the choice of the voters.

The bottom line, the voters WANT Dems who represent THEIR interests.

It appears the Party Leadership thinks they win without the base. They can run right leaning candidates ant attract Moderate Repubs and Centrists.

This theory has lost us the House and the Senate.

So, what lesson has the Party Leadership learned from these losses?

So far all I see is 'BLAME THE VOTERS'.

That is not going to win any elections.

For the past year, DUers should have been demanding more entrants into the primary, not demanding that people promise to vote for Hillary in the general.

I saw support whoever you think the best candidate it. But in the generals, we all need to vote for the Democratic nominee. Anything else IS helping the other side, even if you think our nominee is less than ideal.

Can you imagine what THIS Congress would do with a Republican President?

75-80 votes? When do you think that might happen again?

Earl Warren -- appointed by Eisenhower
Associate Justices
Hugo Black I · appointed by FDR
Stanley F. Reed - appointed by FDR
Felix Frankfurter · appointed by FDR
William O. Douglas - appointed by FDR
Robert H. Jackson · appointed by FDR
Harold H. Burton -- appointed by Truman
Tom C. Clark · appointed by Truman
Sherman Minton - appointed by Truman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

It was a unanimous decision.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

We make progress as a nation when we elect progressive candidates. A Third Way president is not going to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will dare to decide cases to promote the general welfare. They are going to appoint Supreme Court Justices who please the third way donors, the corporate donors, who fund their campaigns.

Just having a D after your name does not make you a liberal who will appoint judges who are liberal on the issues of our time.

People that are still on the left these days are stubborn, we pretty much have to be to resist the tsunami of right wing propaganda on every media outlet, even supposedly "liberal" MSNBC and let's not even talk about Steve Inskeep an Mara Liason on uber liberal NPR.

Nope, push us and we just get more stubborn, I spent damn near a decade hollering at the radio when I was commuting and all it ever did was push me further to the left.

Now it's Democrats you have to be stubborn toward.

"Ay, there's the rub."

anyone could possibly think of. It's almost as if someone designed it to push voters away from the party. I am beginning to think that those who engage such tactics, actually are trying to alienate voters from the Dem Party.

Imagine a football team refusing to hire good players, then losing game after game, the blaming THE FANS??

It's a twisted way of looking at how things really are.

The Voters will show up to vote for candidates who represent them. So they are never to blame when their party refuses to provide such candidates.

Iow, if voters don't show up, the party is to blame. Period.

LoZo didn't make me angry, LoZo made me feel depressed and discouraged, less likely to be engaged rather than more.

reason for slamming voters when YOU FAIL! None and the natural reaction of voters is to wonder 'wtf are they talking about'

It certainly has been working. We got them the House, Senate and the WH, and they've managed to lose the House and the Senate by using that exact strategy.

Voters went to the polls in two mid terms, and guess what they did, the helped KEEP Progressives Dems in place AND elected a few new ones.

They also got Progressive issues on ballots across the country AND WON, across the political spectrum.

Guess who did not elected or re-elected?

So, what message does this send?

Results of elections are far more important than polls.

I don't have a 'base' btw, I am just an ordinary person with zero power, like all the ordinary people with zero power other than their votes.

And the people have spoken with their votes. The leadership can ignore the results of those elections and focus on polls if they want to.

But good leadership will analyze those elections and if they do they will figure out how to WIN. That won't happen by focusing on polls.

...or at least talking about doing them, lol.

Yet when we're talking about who the "base" is and who the "loyal Democrats" are, suddenly the Left isn't included? What kind of disconnect is that?

It's like the Third Way is trying to actively CONSTRUCT a fantasy base.

If they can attract enough Moderate Repubs, which they would MUCH prefer, to replace the 'base', that would be their dream come true.

They've moved into the Big Tent, which I thought was for Dems and those they include in a system that tried hard not to include them, AND they are bringing with them as many 'moderate repubs, centrists etc as they can, hoping that soon the tent will have no more room for the base.

'A fantasy base'. That's exactly right. Only if we don't fight for our party, that base will be the moderates from the Republican party and the Centrists as they call themselves, who really have no party and are too scared to start their own.

they don't feel obliged to do anything for them. Instead they suck up to the moneybags.

I will vote straight D, as I always do, but it is all too often a matter of the lesser of two evils when the D candidate is a corporatist Democrat.

While most people here on DU will vote for democrats, that doesn't reflect the rest of the country.

Eg, I read that membership in the Dem party has dropped to 32%, down about ten % points. Of course Republican membership has dropped also, now only at 29%, can't remember what it was originally.

The biggest voting bloc right now is the Independent vote.

In order to win, Dems are going to need a lot of that vote.

Problem is how do they win a vote that used to be theirs but chose to leave the party? Clinton won't do it.

surprising anymore from esp. what I've observed in 6 months. The dismissal and minimization of FDR on a thread last fall was incredible, I couldn't believe what was posted, and on a forum with democrat in the name. Can't imagine a GOP site tolerating any lack of reverence for Reagan for a minute. The passing of Mario Cuomo really brought it all into focus, the epitome of how great was the legacy of the New Deal, and the slow decline of liberalism. Things obviously could have been very different but dealing with reality is what we face now.

And the sports analogy was very good too.

What gets me is that much of the blame from Third Wayers on DU toward liberals on DU is misplaced. Most of us on DU vote and a lot of us have had to hold our noses all our lives to do it, at that. Some of us really are getting sick of having to listen to the bullshit coming from conservatives who have taken over the party on top of all that. I do believe their goal is to run liberals out of the party. What better way than to demand party loyalty only to conservative candidates? You never hear any of them demand party loyalty to liberal candidates. Odd, isn't it?

or something.

is a shit statement.

The spirit of Rove lives on, lol!

Of course, not everyone raising concerns is a "double agent," but back in the day, I used to lurk or RWNJ websites, to see what was being said, and some would openly brag about sowing discontent by riling up the left wing on this site.

who quietly posts GOP talking points when they can get away with it, but not in a trollish way, so I can't figure out how to nail them. Grr.

"Iow, if voters don't show up, the party is to blame. Period."

agree with that one too. to hear some people talk, we're supposed to vote for whatever crap they throw our way, so long as they can say that something about it is better than republican crap.

we don't want crap. period.

That those who don't vote are still voting. A lack of vote for our side, is as good as one for their side.

Ever hear of the phrase "don't cut off your nose to spite your space"?

still trying to prove that Democrats are not expected to be loyal to each other just like a team would be expected to be loyal to each other?

Know if they realize they are either not voting which does not serve their best interest or just don't care if the GOP runs and ruins this nation.

they will not vote or they will vote for another party but I have. If republicans gets elected because someone is trying to send a message do you think the republicans are going to vote the way you want on issues? Do you think republicans are going to sponsor bills which helps liberals, if you don't think republicans are going to work on issues liberals and by not voting or voting for third party, one is not voting in their best interest.
Do you think a republican is going to nominate a LW judge to the SC? If not then this is either voting or not voting in you best interest.

As far as a dictatorship, having 36% voting and participating in civic affairs is not a democracy, it becomes a dictatorship because we have allowed this to happen. A democracy requires a majority, 36% is not a majority.

that if Hillary is the nominee they will focus on the Congressional and Local elections to try to get MORE Progressive Democrats into Congress and the Senate.

Not saying someone has not said that, but it must be a very tiny number or I'm sure I would have seen it.

DUers have always voted so to imply that they do not, is simply wrong.

The Primary hasn't been held yet. Hillary hasn't announced her candidacy. You have a priori defined "us" as YOU, jettisoning the Left because *you* feel like it.

Using "with us or against us* when you don't even represent the nominee is a really crass powerplay at best, fascism at worse. I'm not the only one letting you know that, yet you don't hear.

decision in the Primary...as I AM! That's who is US!

Democrats are loyal to Democratic ISSUES, such as SS eg, and they WANT A CANDIDATE who represents those Democratic issues.

There is NO nominee right now, and the voters have every right to state their opinions on the candidates they believe most represent them on the ISSUES.

Feingold, Sherrod Brown, Warren, Sanders, among others, appear to better represent the people on the issues and it is the duty of citizens to let their party know what they want and it is the duty of the party to LISTEN to the voters, rather than attack them.

Now in a local match...Joe is STILL better than ANY Republican!

So yeah...I am STILL a loyal Democrat...why aren't YOU?

By the way....Democrats ARE speaking....they overwhelmingly support Hillary Rodham Clinton....seems it is YOU that is ignoring "the people" in the party!

NOT being Democrats because they disagree with you over who they would prefer as a candidate????

You need to start proving these false accusations against other Democrats.

So, I am asking you now to either apologize for that false accusation or to prove it!


Your advocacy for YOUR candidate does not give you the right to attack other Democrats.

Either prove that nasty and false allegation, or have the decency to apologize for it.

AND THIS is why Hillary is losing support. Those who support her trying to push Liberal Dems out of the Party.

Despicable.

I am the loyal Democrat that DOES plan to accept and support the decision of my fellow Democrats...I trust them....apparently you don't!

That is what you said, no? Last I knew, personal attacks on members of this forum violate the TOS especially when they are FALSE.

Either prove it or apologize for that despicable personal attack.

If you can do neither, then understand why your choice of candidate is receiving so much opposition.

what false attack?

That would require something to BE false...

There is nothing false about being loyal to your fellow Democratic Party members...

I might remind you....just like Unions are etc....you support Unions don't you?

accused people here, of not being Democrats because they DARE to disagree with you on WHICH DEMOCRAT they would prefer as a candidate.

Who is not a Democrat here?

Do you or do you not accept the decision your fellow Democrats make in the Primary ELECTION?

Its that simple!

Either you support your fellow Democrats or you don't....

you still seem to be very confused about this democratic system we live in.

Let me try again. Political Parties do not have power unless the people GIVE IT TO THEM.

This democracy is 'of, by and for the PEOPLE'.

Politicians who want the job of representing the people, will get the job IF they listen to the people, and if the people entrust them with that job, they SWEAR AN OATH to represent them by upholding the laws laid out in the US Constitution.

It is that document which backs up the system where the people do NOT 'pledge allegiance or loyalty to people in power.

It is the people in power who are required to be LOYAL to the PEOPLE they represent.

If they want the job, which WE PAY THEM FOR, they do not pay us, then they must be LOYAL to the PEOPLE who entrusted them with the job.

That is how it works.

Only in monarchical systems, or dictatorships, is it the other way around, where the PEOPLE takes 'pledges of loyalty' to those in positions of power.

We call OURSELVES Democrats....we don't JUST call the Pols Democrats!



Dammit....don't you get it yet? WE have a Primary....that is when WE make our decision together....that is our TEAMWORK

Do you even understand WHY we are called Democrats? What is the entomology of the very word Democracy? Its about ELECTIONS! We ELECT our leaders and we decide our Presidential Leader in a Primary Election..... VOTING in elections is the MAIN Action we take as a team....but there is so much more...and some do much much more.

We form a Union because together we can be heard...we call that the Democratic Party....and we hold elections because we are DEMOCRATIC! We trust each other....and that is why we are loyal to the team!

a democracy then such important decisions should not come from the top down. THAT is not democracy.

I am sick to death of being told 'you have to vote for this candidate or else'. Really? And just who made that decision for the people?

You are confused, or maybe it is the way you express yourself, but you appear to want to 'follow the leader' and deny the people any input to what their party decides.

Just because YOU don't like who WE choose....doesn't mean that WE are just fools!!!! That is what you are really saying....its more delusions of Grandeur...even though there is NO question among anyone that considers themselves a Democrat believe President Barack Obama was far and away better than having a President McCain and VP Palin or President Mitt Romney.....or for that matter another George W Bush!!!! You want to roll the dice on THAT outcome?

CANDIDATE IS GOING TO BE!

You think shouting makes what you say more 'right'?

Who is the candidate right now???

The Primary hasn't been held yet.

Hillary hasn't even announced her candidacy yet.

There is no team to be on yet.

The act of voting and being a good Democrat will be in CHOOSING the candidate who will best represent our platform, who is best qualified, and who has the best chance of winning WHEN we get to the Primary. Before the vote, the various candidates will get to campaign and debate, and, best of all, announce their candidacy.

So your WE is sounding more and more like some secret cartel that has already chosen the candidate in advance of the Primary, and you seem to see it as your mission to convince everyone else to get on board with THE Democrat Candidate that has already been chosen FOR us (without us getting a chance to vote), or someone like Bush might win.

If I misunderstand who you mean by "We", please clarify.

do apparently.

I too had to remind this poster that there is no candidate yet, and that we the people should have input into who the candidate should be.

and that is NOT how it works....We have a DEMOCRATIC Election called the Primary that WE decide as a group who we would like to lead us....I trust the decision of my fellow Democrats in that election....SOME on DU do not trust other Democrats...Obviously!

Its just like a Football team or Union...we are LOYAL to each other....but I guess YOU aren't!

Which is tragic coming from someone who appears to believe there is no need for a primary, and that one candidate should simply be "accepted" without challenge.

I am a leftist. I plan to vote for whoever best suits my principles, both in the primary and general election. How's about, rather than demanding I tie myself to an axe like a good little stick no matter what, you pitch in some effort towards ensuring there is a candidate worth voting for on merits other than poll numbers two years before the election?

"Principles," VanillaRhapsody. They're what will win, if our candidate has them.

You obviously ARE not!

You know, I remember what happened after Clinton lost the primaries in 2008.

Maybe you should focus on keeping your own house in order, VR.

I am FOR whoever wins the Primary....


By the way...Hillary was NOT ahead of the Pack by 50 points in 2008! In 2008 we hadn't had a Black President...in 2008 Hillary had not been Secretary of State.....


And DOUBLE digit leads over ALL Republicans consistently.....who do YOU have that can top that? And do you want to put any money on that?

Clinton is polling at 50%. This is a very different thing from "ahead by fifty points." Next, her 50% to Jeb's 43% isn't a double-digit lead. It's a single-digit lead, putting her ahead of him by seven.

If you want to bullshit yourself, be my guest, but don't bother trying it on me, I can math.

I find it interesting that you appear to be attributing Obama's primary win to his color. Got any further statements on that subject, or are you good with the one slip?

Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus Quinnipiac

Clinton 61, Warren 19, Biden 7, Sanders 5, Webb 2, O'Malley 0 Clinton +42


That is just one of them....here are the rest..

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/


OH and by the way.....one poll showed if you removed Clinton...BIDEN goes to the top with a 30 point lead!

the link shows that Hillary beats all republicans too...

but here is another that lays it out for ya..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-has-double-digit-leads-over-potential-gop-presidential-rivals-poll-shows/2015/01/21/a9df44e2-a190-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html


and this one...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/03/politics/hillary-clinton-republicans-swing-states-quinnipiac-poll/

You... you can't even tell the difference, can you?

That is the poll results!!!

She is LEADING them all by THAT many in poll after poll!

Clinton 61, Warren 19, Biden 7, Sanders 5, Webb 2, O'Malley 0 Clinton +42

She is ahead of the next closest Warren by 42 percentage points in just that ONE poll!

Which means the vast majority of the party support her....

And on top of that...she polls ahead of all Republicans...In FACT. I saw one poll that put her only 3 points behind Jeb Bush and tied with Scott Walker in FREAKING South Carolina

But these numbers are truly meaningless, when no one else has declared, and no one else has begun a campaign.

If she's holding this lead by May 2016, I'll be impressed.

is another. But it appears that we do not have a say in who gets the nomination.

percentage "points"...

I am attributing Obama's win as PRESIDENT......as in the first NON-White MALE elected President...to paving the way for a FEMALE President too...

He OPPOSED Bush's illegal war in Iraq. That put him ahead of her right there.

He OPPOSED 'mandated insurance' and explained why very clearly. She supported it. Yes, he changed his mind obviously, however he ran on that and other issues which got my support.

He also opposed 'humanitarian intervention' code for Imperial intervention which he appeared to understand. Hillary supported it.

I did not support him so that he would be the first non-white male president.

Eg, I would not support a Republican who was African American.

Nor would I support someone because of their gender.

ISSUES are what matter in elections, period.

Hillary is a Hawk, I do not support brutal, illegal Imperial invasions of other people's countries. Not even 'by proxy'. Hillary does.

I also think that Obama still does not support all these neocon wars but is being undermined by the neocons in his efforts to resolve conflicts peacefully. See Bibi and his gang of neocon supporters in this country.

ISSUES are EVERYTHING in an election.