2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf Clinton is a DINO...
then why do Republicans hate her so much?
If Sanders is a socialist, why does he only want to break up the banks and not nationalize them like we should?
If Bernie is bringing fresh blood into the party and energizing people who have never voted for a Democrat before, then do we really need to kowtow to them if we won the last two elections without them?
And since a Democrat won the last two presidential elections, how can we run an anti-establishment candidate? Has an incumbent party ever won the white house on an anti-establishment platform? Or by running a candidate who wanted to primary the leader of the party? That seems like a really mixed message to send to the public.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Downwinder
(12,869 posts)ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)That kind of goes against the Sanders supporter narrative that she would be a disaster in the general, no?
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Republicans. Repubs are only about 23% of total registered voters nationwide, though. So, while Clinton will be courting Repub women and Hispanics, if she becomes the nominee, there are simply not enough of them. Independents are giving, and will give her problems and they now are 45% of total registered voters nationwide.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)by any stretch of the imagination.
Get out and ask around.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)But it's something I see brought up a lot by Sanders supporters. Clinton can't win because the Republicans hate her so much that they'll be energized to turn out and vote against her. But at the same time she's just a Republican whose policies are no different from Trump or Cruz. I don't think you can have it both ways. She's definitely a moderate Democrat, but Republicans hate her because she has consistently been one of the most liberal senators.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)I know that for a fact.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)I see it close up and personal
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)so by definition she can't be losing more than she's winning. I don't understand what you're saying.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)I'm telling you what I see all the time. She is absolutely reviled by a lot of women, for a host of reasons.
She is a lightning rod of her own creation.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)But the fact of the matter is the majority of Democratic women are voting for her in the primaries. In New York she won women 63-37.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)She'll certainly need to have them around this fall when the real wars begins.
This is friendly fire at point.
sheshe2
(83,815 posts)Response to sheshe2 (Reply #42)
Name removed Message auto-removed
sheshe2
(83,815 posts)My sister, nieces and mother have brains, and they use them. They can think for themselves. We didn't even talk politics. I just asked who they were voting for.
You just called me a liar.
PS...you know nothing about me yet heap all these accusations against me. What the hell is your problem?
Response to sheshe2 (Reply #50)
Name removed Message auto-removed
marble falls
(57,134 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)Because Sanders supporters consistently say that she would be crushed by the Republicans all consuming hatred of her.
By the way, Clinton isn't the only one who has received praise or even funding from the Koch brothers.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/koch-brothers-bernie-sanders-220498
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
I wouldn't take everything they say at face value.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)The low information voters on the Republican side do not understand that the establishments of the two parties work together.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)that Koch didn't really endorse Clinton. But you'll keep trying to push that lie anyway.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)that Hillary is a warmonger, voted for Wall Street bailout and partners with the Bush family and got money from Goldman Sachs for merely speaking and thus does not represent Democratic values.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Sanders is supposed to be so bold, yet he calls himself a socialist and has not proposed any nationalization of industry. If you really want big changes, nationalization is the key.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)Let private savings, mortgages, and auto loans be handled by a national bank that's insured by the government. Then let investment banks, hedge funds, and all of the speculative stuff stay private and let them carry their own risk and fail if necessary. This should be like the bare minimum stance of a real socialist, right?
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)That would actually work.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Free cars for everybody
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)The whole "Democratic Socialist" label is not an excuse for not proposing actual socialist policies.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Or what we enjoyed between the period of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's The Great Society, where Capitalism itself was saved in the country by moving into a more equitable "mixed economy".
Until the unfettered "pure" Capitalist model, a goal espoused by the reaming American Fascists remnants of the robber baron age most of which were declared Fascists before WWII (like Prescott Bush and several other outspoken Fascistic remnant adherants) started destroying the "mixed" part of our thriving Governance (most notably beginning in the Reagan Era) when a more Fascistic, Oligarchical system began to replace it slowly but surely with an ever more unfettered Capitalist model which always ends in a system that works only for the few at the cost of most.
Pure Socialism survives (or usually not) without Capitalism and is a branch of Communism. Pure Capitalism survives (or usually not) without Socialism and is a branch of Fascism, (best described by Mussolini).
Capitalism without Socialism in the mix leads to Fascism.
Socialism without Capitalism in the mix leads to Communism.
Democratic Socialism is what is called a "mixed economy" and appears to work the best for the majority of people.
Did you never learn any of this in school?
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)I thought Sanders was promising more than that. By the way, I believe what you're describing is more accurately called social democracy, not democratic socialism.
Breaking up the banks is just regulation. And it's something that Clinton herself has suggested! But if we're going to nationalize their risks by bailing them out, why not just nationalize the banks completely?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Our education is also mostly for profit and privatized, especially college and the neoliberals are trying to privatize grade school now as well for profit, else people would not be in debt for either as they are now, and deeply. In the case of for profit health care many are still going bankrupt (unfortunately student debt does not even allow that as an option)
We HAD more of some of those things.
Perhaps after breaking up the banks we should nationalize them, I'm all for it!
Public run infrastructure work projects are much needed as well. Sanders has called for that and paid parental leave, both socialized programs we do not have.
Do you really want to argue about a ham sandwich and a sandwich made with ham as different, when they are two ways of saying the same thing?
Hillary is a neoliberal and not at all for the same things as Sanders (even if she will adopt anything temporarily and then change it in a month for a different audience). She is a neoliberal. Neoliberals want everything privatized, hardly the same as Sanders.
All you need to know about Hillary can be understood if you know her political roots, roots she has not wavered from.
After the landslide electoral losses to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas of governance. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists. They advocated a political "Third Way" as a method to achieve the electoral successes of Reaganism by adopting similar economic policies (Reagan Democrats and Moderate Republicans would provide burgeoning new constituencies after adding these new economic policies and politicians to our tent they contended) While hoping to retain, woman, minorities and other social issues allies with long ties to the party. Such would be their new Democratic coalition forged between fiscal right and social left under the "New" Democratic banner. The DLC disbanded in 2011 during an apparent re-branding of the New Democrat movement when money ties to the Koch bros. and Koch representatives placed on the DLC's board embarrassingly became common knowledge among the Democratic left. The DLC is survived by the Third Way, The New Democrat Coalition, and Al From's Progressive Policy Institute among other corporate funded groups that continue to sell their Economic-Right/Social-Left brand of "Centrism" to America.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)He wants people to be able to do basic banking through the US Post Office.
That is a socialist approach which existed in the US from 1911 to 1966.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)I'm reading about it now, but it's a good idea that I support. Why not go all the way though and have a national bank that handles everything that we insure. Personal savings, home and auto loans, etc. The private banking industry can then do the risky stuff and we don't need to bail them out.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...a separation of savings banks and investment banks.
We didn't bail out regular saving banks or investment banks during those years. And so restoring Glass-Steagall may be enough without creating federal bank branches.
(There was a bailout of the "Savings and Loans" in the late 1980s-early 1990s, after they were deregulated.)
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... buts gets no where without a supporting congress
Sanders: "we'll see" when it comes to supporting down ballot dems = he's talking a lot of crap
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...a fundraising email for 3 Democrats running for Congress.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)...DSCC events where he lobbies Wall Street for money and then takes it for his campaigns through the DSCC (so no, it's not just for down ballot dems) isn't something Team Used Car Salesmen (Weaver Devine) want to talk about.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)PufPuf23
(8,802 posts)uponit7771
(90,347 posts)insta8er
(960 posts)republicans. But they hate her because she is the other party, and they want to be in power. I am sorry to explain it like I am explaining it to a 5 year old but that is the simple version of it.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I'm a Socialist and would love to see the banks broken up as a first step to nationalization.
Get back to me when Clinton says she'll do that.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Repubs hate Hillary because they see her as competition for their ideas: "Encroaching on their territory", "stealing their thunder", call it what you will. Bottom line is they fear losing moderate republican voters to her.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)They fear Hillary. You Bernie folks might not like it but she is a solid Democrat. Not pure enough for the Purity Party but more in step with the GE electorate. That's why she is so far ahead in votes and delegates
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 24, 2016, 10:46 PM - Edit history (1)
Im a Bernie supporter, but certainly not a purist. Im not a S(s)ocialist, dont need or want "free stuff", am not against corporations (I work for one!!).
My biggest issue is the evil of corporate money/influence in politics, and here Bernie and Hillary are in different universes, and Id argue all day long that its Bernie who is closer to the traditional Democratic position.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)Is she going to build a border wall? Ban abortion? Shut down planned parenthood? Repeal Obamacare? Abolish the IRS? Shrink the federal govt. until it can be drowned in a bathtub?
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)I think its very well known that third way Democrats(which the Clintons practically invented) go with Republicans on many issues, wspecially economic. Off the top of my head:
-Trade bills, NAFTA, TPP
-Crime and punishment issues, including crime bill
-War: Voted yes on IWR
-Drug laws and policies, keeping Marijuana illegal
-2nd amendment: As Obama reminded us in 2008, Hillary was "Annie Oakley". Blabbering about protecting the 2nd amendment, when she had the right audience.
-Jingoistic, aggressive foreign policy: pursuit of regime change, gleeful cackling over the extra-judicial mob killing of Gaddafi.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Mostly due to Bill, who, as President, went down the talking points/PR/wish list/GOP platform and worked to get most of it passed in his two terms.
That effectively damaged the GOP as far as talking points at that point, it also made them look ineffective.
Now the GOP is afraid Hillary will once again steal more of their ideas and get them passed, leaving them without anything to campaign on.
(This post is only half serious, the trick is figuring out which half.)
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)instead of merely neoconservative.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)You are wrong. The Bush family loves her. The establishment loves her. Maybe the voters hate her but they are low information people who do not know that the Bushes and Clintons are allies just as the low information voters on the Democrat side do not understand this.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)as one of their own. The non-power elite DESPISE her because they recognize the corruption, and are able to hate it because she isn't on their "team".
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)Why is she so much more hated than Obama? Why do we allow smears of her here that we would never tolerate with Obama? How can we hope to run against ourselves and say "our party has been in charge for 8 years and turned around the economy, but that was a mistake and now we're going to do something totally different!" Clinton comes directly from the legacy of the only 16 years of Democratic presidents in the last 36 years, which happened to coincide with the best economic years of that same period. And Sanders wants to run against that legacy? This doesn't seem like the right time. Of course he really wanted to primary Obama 4 years ago. I think as a narrative, the general public is not going to buy it, and if Sanders won the nomination, he would be a huge failure.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)to say he was a 80's R.
But there are lies from him that piss me off,"comfortable shoes" and walking picket with Unions while Scott Walker fucked all Union in Wi and not a peep from O.Feds wont interfere with states decisions on MJ while he sent Feds in to do just that...
Hillary is gonna be bigger and better than that,I hope not.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Obama has done a remarkable job considering the circumstances. His approval has risen above 50 nationally, on DU probably in the teens.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)Never said he did a bad job.
Edit: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1827273
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)HER IN THE EVENT TRUMP GETS THE NOMINATION.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)Many Bernie supporters celebrate his success with "independents." But those are either people who usually vote for dems anyway, people who vote green or other third parties, or conservatives who sometimes cross over and vote for conservative democrats. The latter is the only segment of independents that really matters in the GE.
So it seems like Sanders supporters want to have it both ways. They say Clinton will lose the GE because conservatives hate her so much, yet they also say that the only people supporting her are conservatives, DINOs, etc.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Because wooing the core means being close to it. I don't trust her.