2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJust for once, let's NOT pivot to the right for the fall campaign.
The pivot never, ever gains us votes. Our base doesn't deserve to be treated as the junior partner in an electoral coalition.
And the voters don't want another choice between the rabid right and the bland, passionless center.
Nothing progressive in either the Clinton or Sanders programs is unpopular anyway.
It's not good enough to just be centrist pro-choice hawks. Nobody really wants that combination.
Just once, whoever we nominate, let's campaign in the fall as if our ideals are NOT shameful and embarrassing.
PatrickforO
(14,586 posts)It's a given that Clinton will turn right.
BainsBane
(53,041 posts)The primary has now gone further right than I ever imagined was possible. Some are clearly determined to remake the Democratic Party in the image of the GOP. The attacks on Huerta show just that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And Bernie carried the Latino vote in NV by eleven points, so clearly what's happening here is that Dolores Huerta is angry that Latinos in NV defied her and supported the true anti-racist candidate.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)until after the primary, when we will again be told who we "must" vote for. And I for one am dead tire of it.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)She LIED.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)BainsBane
(53,041 posts)As in Wall Street mainly, yet even the idea of corporate accountability leaves out gun corporations and the MIC. Actually it leaves out most corporations and seems to be focuses only on a portion of the financial sector. Not in terms of education, because Sanders has no plan to address k-12 inequality and the chief distinction between his and Clinton's plan is that Sanders insists on free tuition for students from families who earn more than $250k in addition to the poor and middle class covered by Clinton's plan as well.
But he clearly is not to the left of her on issues of racial and gender equality. In fact, he is to the right of the Democratic Party on gender. His recent comments about supporting a politician because he's a man, to denigrate Clinton's status as the first female contender for the presidency, is not left wing at all. He has voted very often with the GOP on immigration. On that he is not to the left, though he is presenting himself quite differently during the campaign. On guns, he is clearly to the right.
Additionally the attacks on Huerta and associated comments about racism (which follow attacks on BLM) are far to the right of the Democratic Party. The idea that people taking about racism is divisive or a political ploy, or calling a civil rights activist and union leader a liar just because people believe anyone who supports Sanders superior to everyone else--even a civil rights icon like Huerta--is shocking.
I no longer believe that the frustration with the Democratic party that some express is because it isn't "left enough." If that were the case they would not so eagerly defend right wing positions (immunity for gun corporations, voting with the GOP on immigration, etc...). I think the anger is about the decline of uncontested white male privilege and that the Democratic Party does not seek to elevate the interests of the white, especially male, middle class, above people of color and women, who are its primary voting base. White rage is not leftist, particularly when it so persistently demands deference from the subaltern.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)but could you save the promotion of lies until they are at least directed at Republicans (who would likely be guilty anyway making it repetition of the truth)
dchill
(38,515 posts)She's been practicing the pivot move for weeks.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)They're pissed they ever had to pretend to give a fuck about the left in the first place.
jfern
(5,204 posts)BreakfastClub
(765 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)Do I need to go on?
Hekate
(90,766 posts)But everybody already knows that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The country is turning away from the right.
And there isn't any progressive proposal in either campaign that needs to be discarded to gain votes.
It isn't anything to just elect someone who calls herself a Dem.
No program to the right of HRC's primary positions could even be worth voting for.
Hekate
(90,766 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)and still be worth electing. Not one.
It's not worth it just to elect a "pro-choice centrist".
Being centrist means doing nothing.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And that goes back a decade now.
And you're not stupid, you're just obviously not thinking about this at all.
We need more than progressive voters to win. There is not a progressive majority in the country.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They wouldn't even vote for Bill in '96, when he ran on a Republican platform.
We can win over voters outside the party by showing confidence and looking like leaders.
We don't need to act like we are in a permanent majority.
What would YOU be ok with HRC going centrist(i.e., agreeing not to do anything)on?
Just being pro-choice wouldn't be anything. It wasn't anything in the Nineties.
Running as centrists in the fall has to mean ending up permanently right-of-center in power.
Power in name only is worthless. Nothing progressive can be done if you get in as a centrist.
cali
(114,904 posts)She is not a progressive. And you can tell what she is by one hard look at the filthy corrupt campaign she is running
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)She is a Goldwater Girl at heart