General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEd Shultz Show Tonight: Ed Interviews one DUer after another.
Last edited Mon Sep 15, 2014, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)
About every other other day, I read on DU how the population of DU does not reflect Democrats in general. So, I guess everyone Ed Shultz showed or interviewed on his show tonight must have been a DUer.
Let's start with Senator Harkin, who said that there is a general feeling that the "center" has moved too far to the right. Who knew he and all the people who gave him that general feeling post at DU? Wonder what his screen name is.
A few other Iowans, not famous (that I know of) who Ed interviewed said they wanted a real primary. One's face lit up when said he really wanted to hear more from Bernie Sanders (after Ed had named Biden and a few other Democrats). One said he wanted as many people as possible in the primary. Several said Hillary had to be taken left.
I don't know how Ed knew all of them were DUers. They weren't wearing signs or anything. They never said they were DUers. However, every single person Ed approached sounded just like the supposedly highly atypical population of DU. Ergo, they all just had to be DUers, right?
Some of the mixed reviews from Iowans can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/14/politics/hillary-clinton-iowa-hamby/
Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)welcoming the Clintons to his retirement party in Iowa, which is why Ed was there.
You think Harkin can't cook steak with the Clintons AND say that there is a general feeling that the center has moved too far right, all in the same day?
I don't know what programming is in your area, but in mine, the Ed show will run again over night. Maybe you can record it and watch it tomorrow.
merrily
(45,251 posts)BUT TOM HARKIN STILL HAS QUESTIONS: Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said progressives should raise questions about Clintons foreign policy and economic positions. As someone who has carried the liberal, progressive populist banner for many years, were always nervous about people moving too far to the right, Harkin told ABCs JONATHAN KARL for This Week. See we, a lot of us believe the center ought to be moved back, that the center has moved too far right. Asked where Clintons positions fell on the political spectrum, Harkin responded, Well, I dont know, I mean I think this is something that will be developed and well find out when, if she, if she decides to run. You know, whats her vision for America? When asked if he had real questions about Clintons stances on issues, Harkin said, I do about everybody considering a run for the White House. http://abcn.ws
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/09/is-iowa-ready-for-hillary-the-note/
Not exactly an unqualified, ringing endorsement of either Hillary for President or for the current locus of the Party, despite the joint steak cooking.
What is it about the possibility that the Democratic Party might finally move back to the left a bit that seems so horrifying to you?
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)always be counted on to act in the interest of the people. He has been a great Senator for Iowa, and we were lucky to have him. If it weren't for Senator Harken, there would be no ADA. This notion that you can't stand next to someone you don't agree 100% with because you might get cooties from them is downright childish.
merrily
(45,251 posts)friends, with people whose views are not identical to one's own.
I had occasion to borrow the "my 80% friend, not my 20% enemy" line from he whose name is anathema when posting in ATA.
I always thought that Democrats prided themselves in being different from Republicans, so I don't know what the threat from the left is supposed to be.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)politicians. He understands that you need to be gracious even when you disagree because 'you win more flies with honey' eg.
Also I think he looks at people as human beings, not as monsters or not worthy of acknowledgement as humans, simply because of political differences. You see a lot of immaturity online, and the sad thing is they do more harm to the people they support than those people themselves could ever do.
I remember following a link to a Conservative site after Palin/McCain lost the election. I was surprised to find a thread where they were all stating that they had dropped their support for Palin, not so much because of her entirely, but because her supporters were so bossy and obnoxious. THAT they said, caused them to look more closely at HER.
There is an old saying about how someone can be judged by the company they keep and just as much by the company they don't keep.
Harkin is a true Democrat and someone I have always respected.
merrily
(45,251 posts)brooklynite
(94,598 posts)...it represents a SEGMENT of the Democrat Party, just as every other State. Iowa's Democrats are more liberal than average, just as Iowa's Republicans are more conservative than average. They're certainly deserving of a voice, but the bottom line is that the Hillary Clinton you love to hate is still going to attract - nationally - a substantial amount of support. Against someone as dynamic and unique as Barack Obama, she still got half of the Democrats to support her. I don't see how Bernie generates that kind of broad-based national support in PA, VA, OH, GA, FL etc.
merrily
(45,251 posts)That's what your posts seem to say and try to convey.
I love to hate Hillary? What are we, twelve? Can't you ever discourse with me without talking down?
I don't hate Hillary. I just don't like her politics and I don't want her as President. I wish her a full and joyful life outside politics.
I don't want my nearest and dearest as President, either. Doesn't mean I hate them, ffs.
I don't see how Bernie generates that kind of broad-based national support in PA, VA, OH, GA, FL etc.
Even if true, so? Why should that keep him out of a Dem primary?
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)My thoughts represent a different segment, which I recognize in more centrist than most people in DU. My point is that voters in liberal Iowa who match the opinions of DU doesn't mean that DU is representative of Democratic voters in general.
And, NO Hillary supporter has said there shouldn't be a Primary or that Sanders shouldn't run. Prove me wrong.
merrily
(45,251 posts)My thoughts represent a different segment, which I recognize in more centrist than most people in DU. My point is that voters in liberal Iowa who match the opinions of DU doesn't mean that DU is representative of Democratic voters in general. "
Hmm.
As my OP indicates, the meme of most of DU's centrists is that they represent Democrats in general and DU's leftists are atypical. So, saying that your views are more centrist than most of DU is not the same as saying that your views are not those of Democrats in general.
I think you are saying, in a carefully worded and roundabout way, that your views do represent those of Democrats in general. Not each and every individual Democrat, no, but that is not what "Democrats in general" means. And that is exactly what I posted to you previously. All your posts to me seem to seek to convey that same concept: Those espousing more traditional Democratic views, like me, are outliers. Those espousing New Democrat views, like you, are the majority.
I also think that, whatever might posted to indicate that both Democrats and America like populist policies, your response would be the same: Only centrists are mainstream Democrats and only centrists are electible. I disagree.
I think President Truman was more accurate about that than you are; and polls show it. By about 70%, Americans of both parties favor populist policies, provided the policies are not labeled and there has not been a recent propaganda push by either Republicans or Democrats.
And, NO Hillary supporter has said there shouldn't be a Primary or that Sanders shouldn't run. Prove me wrong.
Can you quote the part of my post that the above two sentences are supposed to be relevant to? You wouldn't be directing me to prove you wrong about a strawperson of your own creation, would you? If so, I'll leave dismantling him or her to the creator.
Besides, as we all know, there is a difference between what politicians and their respective coteries may want very much and be working toward, on the one hand, and what they all say publicly, on the other hand.
As far as DU, though, yes, there are Hillary supporters who don't want Bernie to run in the Dem primary as a Dem. They usually start out pretending that the only possible scenario is that he run as an indie and therefore spit the Dem vote. When pressed, however, it turns out no, they don't support his entering the Dem primary, either. And the initial response was just bs they were hoping would convince someone that having Bernie in a Dem primary would result in a Republican President.
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)"Even if true, so? Why should that keep him out of a Dem primary? "
Since no Hillary supporter is advocating that, why mention it?
And if Hillary supporters here don't support Bernie being in the Primary, as you allege, it'll be easy for you to quote one.
merrily
(45,251 posts)You were listing Sanders locales you claimed Bernie could not carry. Without wanting to debate with you what he can and cannot carry, I wanted to know what significance you thought that list had. So I replied, "Even if true, so? Why should that keep him out of a Dem primary? "
That is NOT the same as my saying that Hillary supporters said there should not be a primary or that they said Bernie should not be in a primary.
And if Hillary supporters here don't support Bernie being in the Primary, as you allege, it'll be easy for you to quote one.
No, not easy. That would require me to dig around DU for Manny's thread, on which you posted and for my thread on signing a petition, on which you also posted, then to go through those threads for the pertinent posts. Inasmuch as you, too, are familiar with both those threads, you can do that. If you think I am a liar. I don't feel a need to spend a lot of my time trying to dissuade you from that view.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)level the playing field for those who do not WANT to be beholden to Corporate Entities and watch that support rapidly disappear.
When you have only ONE candidate in a race, it isn't a great accomplishment to be the 'most popular'. In a field of ONE.
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)I'd love to have publicly funded campaign, but that's not what our laws allow. And given that, millions of regular Democrats have contributed a large amount of money to support a Clinton campaign.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)side from winning. It doesn't mean they are happy with the candidate. And that is why the system itself is not working for most Americans.
The people need to have more of a choice in the selection of candidates. Right now it is clear, Corporations and the MIC select them which means no one who doesn't express a willingness to continue the status quo, worse to further it, no matter how much money they might manage to collect, has a chance of reaching the WH.
We have lost this democracy. The question is how to get it back!
merrily
(45,251 posts)Obama and McCain agreed to it, then Obama reneged to the tune of over a half billion, not counting soft money. Then again, things like custom-made duplicates of Air Force One, don't come cheap.
McCain violated that agreement to a minimal degree by not counting things like some flights in his wife's plane, but was allowed to pay the money without being prosecuted.
Prosecution was reserved for Edwards, who was guilty only (as to public finance laws) of being a hero to an very, very rich elderly woman who called his people after his haircut publicity and asked them to call her for money whenever necessary for him to avoid bad publicity.
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)See Reply 14, which begins the subthread, which is a reply to your post 7, which brought up the subject of Hillary's campaign. In your Reply 15, you saiid you would love for Hillary's campaign to be publicly funded, but our laws don't allow that. I said you were wrong; they do allow it, if the candidate chooses.
I didn't think I had to spell out for you what you were already talking about. And my entire post was about Presidential campaigns, so no indication in the content of my post that I was wrong about anything.
No offense. but did you really read all that info in my post and think, this poster obviously knows nothing about this subject? Or, did you think, "the subject under discussion in this subthread is the possibility (or not) of of public funding of Presidential campaigns and her post is about FEC laws and 3 Presidential campaigns, but she is obviously under the misapprehension that public funding applies to mayoral races?
Absolutely nothing about my post suggested I was wrong.
You're funny. Yesterday you created a straw man of nothing I said and demanded I prove it. Today, you are trying to say something I clearly never said or implied or meant is wrong. Nope. The only who misstated campaign finance law on this thread was you, in your Reply 15.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Sabrina's reply 14 discussed "deep funding" and a level playing field. That, too, was not inconsistent with a modicum of private funding in FEC law. In the context of billion dollar campaigns, even before we get to soft money, no one is quibbling about relative pittances.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
merrily
(45,251 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)War is Peace!