- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
- Messages
- 3,325
- Reaction score
- 2,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Could you clarify what you mean here?
I don't see the connection between the democratic establishment and democratic voters, past this debacle of an election.
You said "The Clintonite Democratic establishment will not let go of the Democratic party willingly". I meant that I fail to see how it matters, if the voters don't support them.Could you clarify what you mean here?
In contrast, I don't like Hillary, and it's the votes of my bloc that will decide this election.
That's the problem.
Most people on the 'left' don't have the intellectual honesty to realize there's a very large amount of people supporting alternate views within their assumed voting bloc.
You said "The Clintonite Democratic establishment will not let go of the Democratic party willingly". I meant that I fail to see how it matters, if the voters don't support them.
I said the same thing earlier in the thread. If Hillary wins the nomination and loses the general, it will be millennials to blame, and everyone will know it. If Hillary takes the nomination, very bad things will happen to the left in the short term.Then we'll know who to thank when Speaker Ryan at long last gets to move his agenda through a unified GOP government. It'll definitely be easier to pursue Medicare-for-all when traditional Medicare doesn't exist anymore. And those 2-3 SCOTUS seats the GOP president fills will undoubtedly be a real boon to social and economic progress.
My mistake, I meant McCarthy. But the point I was trying to make still stands....McGovern was a minor candidate in 1968. The young peoples' candidate was Eugene "Clean Gene" McCarthy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_ConventionIn 1968 the Democratic Party was divided. Senators Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy had entered the campaign in March, challenging Johnson for the Democratic nomination. Johnson, facing dissent within his party, had dropped out of the race on March 31.[6] Vice President Hubert Humphrey then entered into the race, but did not compete in any primaries, compiling his delegates in caucus states that were controlled by party leaders. After Kennedy's assassination on June 5, the Democratic Party's divisions grew.[5] At the moment of Kennedy's death the delegate count stood at Humphrey 561.5, Kennedy 393.5, McCarthy 258.[7] Kennedy's murder left his delegates uncommitted.
When it came to choosing a candidate, on one side stood supporters of Senator McCarthy, who ran a decidedly anti-war campaign and who was seen as the peace candidate.[8] On the other side was Vice President Humphrey, who was seen as the candidate who represented the Johnson point of view.[9] In the end, the Democratic Party nominated Humphrey. Even though 80 percent of the primary voters had been for anti-war candidates, the delegates had defeated the peace plank by 1,567¾ to 1,041¼.[10] The perceived cause of this loss was the result of Mayor of Chicago Richard Daley, and President Johnson pulling strings behind the scenes.[10] Humphrey, even though he had not entered a single primary, had won the Democratic nomination, and went on to lose the election to the Republican Richard Nixon.[11]
I wouldn't assert that so casually and smugly, given your own statement that you don't understand the issues.
I think you missed my point. I meant the reason you don't see anything among liberals is that most (and certainly the ones you talk to) don't realize they're already in this war because they fail to recognize the other side of it.Actually, currently, that's what makes the left and all I hear them talk about but they still arent divided in any major way as far as presidential support goes (not voting if its not who they like). Also attacking them as a group, claiming that most are intellectual dishonest is silly and exposes biased.
Most people on the 'left' don't have the intellectual honesty to realize there's a very large amount of people supporting alternate views within their assumed voting bloc.
I understand since reality is hard for you since you use emotion instead of logic. Reality can be really tough but its reality non the less. Your emotion and biased is further put on display by the fantasy claims of smugness and not understanding. LMAO Maybe if you post your OP enough times in as many forums around the country as possible a few people will start to believe it and even their party may start to divide by like 2028
I noticed you dodged my question and provided no actual facts support your claim
1.)this is about the ledt, all of the left are not liberalsI think you missed my point. I meant the reason you don't see anything among liberals is that most (and certainly the ones you talk to) don't realize they're already in this war because they fail to recognize the other side of it.
lol thats what I thought!Whatever, you're trolling. I'm done with you, go annoy other people.
Then we'll know who to thank when Speaker Ryan at long last gets to move his agenda through a unified GOP government. It'll definitely be easier to pursue Medicare-for-all when traditional Medicare doesn't exist anymore. And those 2-3 SCOTUS seats the GOP president fills will undoubtedly be a real boon to social and economic progress.
By all contemporary definition they are. If not then I have no idea what you're talking about.this is about the ledt, all of the left are not liberals
An interesting statement. I'm very hard pressed not to say specious.if neither side sees a war that means there isnt one
I need to do a quick preamble on a very important topic, first, before I get into this discussion: Why aren't blacks voting for Bernie Sanders? Now after he's begun losing handedly in this demographic, people are now very concerned about why this is, and in response I think there have been some thoughtful responses in the African-American community, which I encourage people to read. The reasons are interesting and worth taking on board, but the reality is, it's too little and too late. At the core of it, there's a fundamental ideological difference between the two voting blocs that are most necessary to the success of the Democratic party. The first are Millennials, and the second are African-Americans/non-Millennial women.
Millennials have been taking it from the system since they got into the job market, they are "shockingly progressive," it's difficult to understate how irritated and mad they are, and it's also difficult to explain how anti-establishment they are. To contrast this, Hillary represents the Establishment, she's made no bones about how much of a part of the establishment she is, she openly takes money from Wall Street/Big Pharma/private prisons, and she openly will not tolerate single-payer healthcare, free tuition for state schools, and she will not break up the banks. That's a long winded way of saying that Millennials are wildly unexcited about Hillary and fundamentally view her as being "essentially no better than a Republican." On top of this, there is a pretty ubiquitous sense that if anyone other than Bernie is elected, there will be a second financial collapse. That means that for Millennials, Hillary is a pill that is going to be very hard to choke down, and this will cost her votes in the general election.
Blacks and non-Millennial women have different motivations, but the thinking is roughly the same: They want to see someone who they can affect a small amount of change and protect them from their extreme enemy, the Republicans.
...
This means that the Left, in terms of serious supporters, is now divided into two halves that are quickly becoming unwilling to work with each other, because they perceive their interests as being ideologically opposed to each other, and view each other's candidates as being wildly unsavory. I don't know what this means for the future, other than that there's about to be a massive war between the Progressive Left and the Neoliberal New Democrats. The Progressive Left is obviously going to win based on demographics, but that may take time --time that we don't have if there's a second Great Recession.
No, I expect that the Democratic establishment has woven a lot of stories, and I think those stories are going to get unwoven. Look, I strongly doubt that there are many Democrats --in the South or otherwise-- who actually object to universal healthcare, etc. The only reason they voted for Hillary is because of the argument that DiAnna raised. I think that's fundamentally flawed and that there's a way forward, but it involves not giving Republicans everything they want from the outset.
So the war is more going to involve the Democratic base agreeing that they will support Progressive values, not neoliberal values.
1.)By all contemporary definition they are. If not then I have no idea what you're talking about.
2.)An interesting statement. I'm very hard pressed not to say specious.
"Progressive" is quickly becoming such an empty term especially in that Hillary Clinton is full-throatedly coopting it, but you make a fair point in that the recession could well come even if Bernie is our next president, especially if he fails to enact his signature proposal, the combination of single payer healthcare plus tax reform, which is likely given his lack of support among the establishment. His attaining the White House is not the only miracle he's tasked with pulling off.I don't see how electing a "Progressive" can somehow "prevent" another Great Recession.
I don't disagree that the election will have real consequences for workers, and for humanity, no matter who wins. However, this is a false choice because both roads ultimately lead to the same place. Whether by increments, or leaps and bounds, both parties are moving in the same direction. This only underscores the point I made in my last post, that both of these parties represent nothing more than the left, and right wings, respectively, of the bourgeoisie. This is not what democracy looks like. We don't just need a political revolution, we need an actual revolution.
"Progressive" is quickly becoming such an empty term especially in that Hillary Clinton is full-throatedly coopting it, but you make a fair point in that the recession could well come even if Bernie is our next president, especially if he fails to enact his signature proposal, the combination of single payer healthcare plus tax reform, which is likely given his lack of support among the establishment. His attaining the White House is not the only miracle he's tasked with pulling off.
Yeah, but the ability to flex institutional muscles and change the course of the elections is pretty apparent. Controlling the media and the narrative, ability to obtain large donations, political ties, having the ability to mobilize locals, having access to voter registries, etc, you cannot discount that. All of this came down on Bernie like a sack of bricks.
In contrast, I don't like Hillary, and it's the votes of my bloc that will decide this election.
That's the problem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?