Same old crap starting again...

[kentuck]

McGovern lost.

Therefore...

Unless you are willing to be a Republican Lite, Democrats will lose everything. The Supreme Court, People!

Therefore...

We will need to vote with Republicans on trade deals and tax cuts and new weapons, etc., in order to prove that we are "moderate" enough to govern. We will give tax breaks to corporations that take their jobs offshore. In return, they will give us campaign contributions. It's a simple enough proposition.

Therefore...

Bernie is a "socialist". Never mind that he votes with the Democratic Party almost 100% on the major issues. He votes Democratic more than many Democrats do. To me, he's a Democrat. He calls himself a "Democratic Socialist". Perhaps because he believes in a government that helps its people moreso than they help the corporations?

America is a great country. We want all of our people working. We want to build roads and bridges for the people, for when they travel across our good country.

We want our kids to be the best educated in the world. We want them to have stimulating classrooms and studies.

We do not want any of our people to go hungry or without shelter. The big companies and corporations may think they have no responsibility to take care of anyone? In fact, they may fire those people and take their jobs overseas. They are not the most patriotic bunch of folks you will find.

We want to put people to work. Work is good for the body and soul. It fills a space in our spirit. We have a need to build stuff and to produce things, such as food, that people can use. Work is good for our country.

I think those are probably the types of ideas that Bernie would support also? If Bernie has the heart and strength to lead this campaign, then I will be marching with him. It is time to stand up and say, "Enough is enough!", and we do not have to accept the status quo. We believe we can do better.

Or we can vote for the continuation of the corporate dynasty. Wall Street and Big Banks Approved. At least, that is a perception that a lot of people have and we have heard it, ad nauseum.

Liberals can no longer compromise with those that have gotten too close to their Republican brethren and their corporate masters. We must take a stand. It's time for someone else to compromise...

[merrily]

1. Don't know if you noticed this thread in the Populist Group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778825

[kentuck]

2. Thanks! I had not read it...

But, I did read it and kicked it back to the top.

[merrily]

4. You're welcome.

It's what we live for, LOL.

[madfloridian]

6. Had missed it, just recced it. Great post.

[merrily]

7. There are also a couple of threads I started about Mondale, supposedly the other ""proof"

that liberals can't win. However, I've only done the background. I haven't gotten to writing the one about Mondale himself.

Spoiler alert. Last time I looked at his wiki, it said he was a centrist. LMAO.

[1939]

21. 1972 and 1984

1972 was anti-McGovern and anti-hippie more than pro-Nixon.

1984 was pro-Reagan and not anti-Mondale.

[demwing]

87. 1972 was 1972

a lot of shit happened between then and now, and even if identical characters ran for President today, the current political and social environment is radically different, and the generation of change that created those differences would sure as hell have a significant affect on the election results.

[1939]

94. Huh?

I was comparing 1972 and 1984 and not talking about today's political environment. The election dynamics and motivations of 1972 and 1984 were different even though both were 49-2 electoral landslides. I am certainly not predicting a 49-2 margin for either side in 2016.

[virtualobserver]

3. well said

I think that people are no longer focusing on labels, especially when people are using them to attack.


Even if people are uncomfortable with a "socialist" in the abstract,
Bernie's authenticity and message will win them over.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Amazing how 1972 is totally relevant, but 2008 has been completely forgotten and written off.

Because fucking A if "common sense" wasn't telling us it was INSANE to nominate a first term African American Senator with a funny sounding name, to run against a DC institution like John McCain--- especially when we had a tested winning brand like "Clinton" available.

[raouldukelives]

20. When personal wealth is involved, conservatives tend to have memory lapses. nt

[hifiguy]

38. True.

In 1972 McGovern was running against a completely unscrupulous incumbent who did everything he could to manipulate the news in his favor, including announcing just before the election exactly the same Vietnam peace deal LBJ could have had in 1968 if Nixon had not monkeywrenched it so he could drag the war on four more years only to "end it" just in time for the 1972 election.

There was a dirty tricks operation against all Democratic candidates. Remember Watergate?

There will be no incumbent in 2016. The Repukes will be dangerous because of the deep pockets behind them, but so far not one of the Klowns looks anything like ready for the national stage, even Jebbie, who is proving to be even dumber than the Chimp, which I had not thought possible.

Obama looked like an outlier at this stage eight years ago. The smart money was on HRC then, too. How'd that turn out again?

[Warren DeMontague]

43. True. And the simple fact of the matter is, we live in a completely different world now.

Trying to use 1972 as a playbook for the 2016 election would be like trying to use 1928 as a playbook for '72. The time distance is identical.

The demographic that will decide this coming election are Millennials, by and large- but DU skews pretty heavily towards boomers who are only dimly aware that the Millenials even exist, if at all.

[hifiguy]

51. And isn't it interesting that so many Millennials

seem to be finding Bernie all by themselves.

[jeff47]

42. More amazing to me is 1968 is irrelevant.

No incumbent, unlike 1972. DNC forces the "electable" candidate onto the general election ballot. Insists that the big liberal issue of the day was not important to "real" Americans. And Humphrey loses, largely due to pissing off those liberals.

Today, we get a DNC working hard for one candidate (ex. debate rules). And people insisting the big issue that has excited liberals is not important to "real" Americans. Golly, that sounds familiar...

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Okay, but like I said. Would you use the elections of '24 and '28 as a lens to analyze the political

realities of 1968? 1972?


Coolidge? Hoover? How would they factor into Vietnam, Acid, and Hippies?

It doesn't make any sense. So likewise, people need to adapt and realize that we're in a new century, and more importantly; those seminal, formative years upon which they have structured their entire understanding of the world- hate to be the bearer of bad news, but.... those days are over.

[jeff47]

47. No, I'm just talking about how they always stop at 1972.

They think going back to 1972 is instructive. But even though they are going back 43 years, they won't go back just 4 years further.

I agree that 2000 and later are far more important to 2016. The history there is not kind on DLC-style campaigns, which is not the story they want to believe.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. Another example no one seems to like, in '04 we nominated the supposedly "smarter, stronger" choice.

The candidate who was supposed to be stronger in the general, because nominating an anti-war weenie apparently wouldn't fly in post 9-11 America.

The candidate whose war record was supposed to render him immune to attack ads. Whoops.

The candidate whose support for the IWR was supposed to be a net positive, instead of a muddying indication of our party's lack of moral clarity and center.

Whoops.

And then in '08, we nominated the guy the "smart money" beltway wisdom types told us it would be INSANE to run.

And, we won.

[madokie]

8. No doubt

" We must take a stand. It's time for someone else to compromise..."

I will stand with Bernie Sanders as long as he's standing.

[pnwmom]

9. Bernie calls himself a Democratic Socialist, and that's unfortunate, no matter what most

liberals think about the label. If he ends up going into the general election, the Rethugs will have a field day with the label. They're probably already chomping at the bit (which is why none of them is saying a word against him now -- their mouths are sealed shut.)

I wish he had chosen to be an ordinary Democrat all along, but it was his choice to call himself an Independent, and a Democratic Socialist, not a Democrat, for several decades. Now we have to live with the consequences. Hopefully the electorate can look past the label. We shall see.

[aspirant]

11. HRC Is carrying so much baggage

that the repubs are just licking their lips to rehash it all again,to refresh our memory of the Clinton's past.

I wish the Clinton's had chosen, for several decades a less risque lifestyle but it is what it is. We will see if the American people can look beyond these shortcomings.

[pnwmom]

12. Hillary Clinton has had no "risqué" lifestyle. She is not her husband,

and his philandering only made people sympathize with her, not blame her.

[aspirant]

16. They are married and locked at the hips

You get 2 for the price of one, what a deal.

[JaneyVee]

30. Bill has a 70% approval rating.

[aspirant]

33. Good,

when he becomes the first, First Ladyman I'm sure he will assume his duties respectfully and with the approval of Americans.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Risque lifestyle? That sort of verbiage makes LGBT people wary, just so you know.

'Populists' who run about judging who exactly counts as the people and who does not are not to my liking, thanks. Populists who are prudes tend to run pogroms.

[Lisa D]

29. +1

[hifiguy]

39. She has a battalion of skeletons in her closet.

And don't tell me Bill's don't count. The odiferous ties of Ferraro's hubby were a Very Big Deal in the 1984 campaign.

[AgingAmerican]

14. Case in point

nt

[dreamnightwind]

15. The corporate Dems can't even put the lie to the Republicans

because they've been too bought out by the same forces.

They can't speak with authenticity against militarism, against a runaway financial sector, against income inequality, and wealth disparity, against exporting our jobs overseas, because their donors wont allow it, and because it's too obviously disingenuous when they pay it lip service.

This serves to either turn the electorate off from both parties, disengaging from politics, or to make Republicans seem far more reasonable than they are. Many times I have heard Republicans defend their Iraq war advocacy by saying "Hillary also supported it", just to give one example.

Bernie can do all of this and show the nation how incredibly hurtful these policies are to pretty much every single one of us, exposing the Republicans for the frauds they are rather than legitimizing their horrible positions by being only slightly better than they are, which is where the corporate Dems are at.

That's not the whole game, but it's a huge part of it, and many Americans are dying to hear someone who can speak to their interests, who can articulate the nightmare they have been living and the policies necessary to awaken from it.

He'll have to overcome the Dem Socialist label, and most of all he'll have to overcome the massive onslaught of corporate money that both Hillary and whoever wins the Republican nomination will use against him.

He'll have the truth and the support of many highly motivated and energized citizens on his side. For me it's a very easy choice.

[Scuba]

18. +1

[raouldukelives]

25. So few can speak with authenticity against those forces today.

Most seem to do all they can to increase the power of those forces. Creating an assured hell on earth for our children and whatever straggling animal life can hang on.

The more one increases the volume of the corporate propaganda, the less one can be counted as an opponent to its desires, if they can at all.

The first step to ending slavery was, IMHO, not owning slaves. The first step to ending racism, is not funding racists. Behind every Stormfront is an apathy front.

[deutsey]

22. What's unfortunate are the decades of repression

that has happened in America since socialism actually began making real electoral gains in the early 20th century.

There were socialists in Congress and on the state level until WWI and the often violent repression of socialists, anarchists, labor movement, etc., that followed with the Palmer raids, red scare, and demonizing propaganda.



Even so, a lot of socialist ideas were incorporated into the New Deal after capitalism failed so miserably and, ironically, ended up helping to save capitalism from itself.

After WWII and the rise of the Cold War, we had more red scares and McCarthyist witch-hunts led by the right here at home and CIA-backed reactionary wars against anti-imperialist movements demanding more just and equitable economic systems. COINTELPRO, the corporatist reaction of the '70s (see the Powell Memo and the Trilateral Commission's Crisis of Democracy) and the ascendancy of Reagan were incredibly successful in stopping and rolling back progressive gains and sensibilities that were rooted in Democratic Socialist principles.

I'd love to see this history brought up and become the focus of debate and discussion.

[rbnyc]

37. They will have a field day with any nominee.

They are going to say horrible ugly things about the Democratic candidate no matter who that person is.

And with the massive media consolidation that happened under Bill Clinton, it has been easy for entrenched powers to show us a picture of America full wing-nut ihalf-wits ready to eat it all up.

They've made it a very scary proposition for people to stand up and fight for what they truly want, a representative government that serves the common good.

I don't actually believe that a true picture of America is reflected in the media. Regardless, the best we can ever do is truly commit to what we think is right.

As you say, we shall see.

[jeff47]

48. You realize that the people who care won't vote for any Democrat, right?

The people to whom "socialist!!!!" is highly toxic will be voting for the Republican. No matter who that Republican is, and no matter who the Democrat is.

[pnwmom]

50. Moderate Dems and independents might not want to vote for a "socialist"

but be willing to vote for a Dem.

[jeff47]

54. Sorry, the red scare is over.

"Socialist" really only has traction on the right. That's what that "50% would vote for a socialist" poll showed. "Moderate Dems and independents" who would vote for a Democrat aren't turned off by it.

[pnwmom]

58. No, the poll showed that 50% would NOT vote for a socialist.

47% would. That 47% includes some moderate Democrats and independents. With our elections running as close as they are, it's a shame to discourage voters simply because of a party label that works in tiny Vermont but not in the rest of the country.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

[jeff47]

59. And those kinds of numbers change when there is an actual candidate.

You are arguing voters would say "I like him, but he's a socialist! So I can't vote for him!"

That kind of thinking doesn't apply to the public at large.

You also continue to ignore that Clinton is already branded a socialist by the Right. If it's toxic for Sanders, it's toxic for Clinton.

[pnwmom]

63. If it's toxic for Clinton as a lie, it would be 10 times as toxic for Sanders, as confirmed truth.

[jeff47]

65. Except it is also a lie for Sanders.

Socialist isn't the same as Democratic Socialist.

So now your claim is people will say "I like him, but he's a Democratic Socialist and I can't be bothered to look up what that is, it just has the spooky 'Socialist' in it. So I can't vote for him."

[pnwmom]

66. "Socialist" is the noun, "Democratic" is the adjective modifying the noun.

He's still a type of socialist, by his own claim. And many people won't look beyond that word.

[jeff47]

68. So now they're pedantic about grammar but unable to google what the term means.

Yet the explicit "Socialist" label on Clinton won't stick because those same people are so well informed about politics they will know it is a lie.

I think you're down to about 6 people. Wanna refine it some more?

[pnwmom]

70. They couldn't care less about grammar. But they will HEAR the word SOCIALIST

and that will be enough.

And Bernie, unlike Hillary, won't deny it.

[jeff47]

72. If hearing the word SOCIALIST will be enough, they won't be voting for the Democrat.

And it's not like they'll actually believe the denial from Clinton - her "trustworthy" polling is very poor and being a "secret Socialist" is just as compelling to the people who will vote entirely on that label.

Again, your argument requires people to be simultaneously completely uninformed and completely informed.

[pnwmom]

73. Wrong. Lots of moderate Dems and independents won't vote for a socialist. Period.

And there's no reason that a moderate Dem or independent wouldn't believe Sanders and also believe Clinton. I'm not talking about Rethugs, I'm talking about moderates and centrists.

[randys1]

76. That is what rightwingers have told me for years on the nets, that America is a

center right country, that we dont like socialism at all (even though we have tons of it already) and so on.

I am not saying you are a rightwinger, I am saying that this is a tired, old line.

It is not true now, if it ever was.

It probably was true in the past, OK, but not now.

When the people hear what that means (BTW the ONLY way they can hear it is if we donate a GAZILLION dollars to Bernie) they will like it.

[pnwmom]

80. I'm not saying that America is a center right country.

I'm saying that the media has conditioned Americans for almost a century to be afraid of the word "socialist" and Bernie will have very little time to change their minds.

And this isn't just my opinion.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

[questionseverything]

81. obama campaigned like a socialist

at least that is what my repub friends said when he was talking about healthcare for everyone and guess what

my county went blue in a presidential election for the first time ever in 08

after the disappointment of the aca (especially for those over 55 who pay 3 times as much) we are ready to try again

[pnwmom]

83. The ACA greatly helped people over 55. Yes, the premiums can be 3 times as high --

because, as a group, people over 55 have much higher health costs than most young people. But before the ACA they could charge 5 times as much!

And before the ACA, there was no limit to how much more an insurer could charge based health conditions -- which older people are more likely to have. And they could deny you any insurance if you had a pre-existing condition. Now, they must insure all applicants and they can't charge more no matter what health conditions you have; and the oldest people can't be charged more than 3 times what a 20 year old would pay.

None of this accounts for subsidies, of course. Because of the impact of subsidies, a high-income, healthy 30 year old could end up paying more out of pocket than a lower-income 50 year old in poor health.

[questionseverything]

84. great commercial

there was no limit before that much is true

the aca would be 30% of my income when i include out of pocket...maybe that is affordable in your world...it is not in mine

i am gonna work my behind off for bernie maybe i can get what i was promised last time

[pnwmom]

86. I don't see how that would be true since subsidies limit the amount to 8% of income. n/g

[questionseverything]

89. i resent you saying i am lying

it is 8% for the premium another 22% (approx) for the 12 grand out of pocket

i could be off a percent either way,it has been months since i tried to get insurance but even at 27% it would be undo able

btw this past month we had about 1500 bucks worth of medical expenses and not 1 thing would of been covered by the aca

it was glasses,dentist and chiropractor

i am happy for the peops it has helped but we need better

[pnwmom]

92. Are you talking about a family plan? Because no individual plan has an out of pocket of $12K.

Also, even out-of-pocket costs (deductibles and maximum yearly costs) are reduced for those who qualify for premium subsidies.

http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/reform/a/How-The-Subsidy-To-Reduce-Your-Out-of-pocket-Maximum-Works.htm

For 2015 subsidies, if your income is:

100-200 percent of FPL,
your out-of-pocket limit won’t be more than $2,250 for an individual.
your out-of-pocket limit won’t be more than $4,500 for a family.
200-250 percent of FPL,
your out-of-pocket limit won’t be more than $5,200 for an individual.
your out-of-pocket limit won’t be more than $10,400 for a family.

[questionseverything]

93. yes 12 grand for 2 of us a year was what i have in notes

i did not mean to imply i was alone in needing healthcare..i have a spouse 6000 x 2= $12,000

we do not qualify for a subsidy

i really wish some of you du peops would listen instead of insisting you know my life and finances better than i do

[rhett o rick]

88. Exactly right. That's why we won't worry about them. "The people to whom "socialist!!!!" is highly

toxic" are idiots and have always voted republicon. Open-minded people will evaluate Sen Sanders as he is. They are hungry for a candidate with integrity.

[redstateblues]

55. It was a huge mistake

[KansDem]

79. We tried capitalism. It didn't work.

I say give democratic socialism a chance.

"Democratic socialism" -- Government of, for, and by the people
"Republican capitalism" -- Government of, for, and by the corporations

[postatomic]

13. I admire your spirit

And I'm not being patronizing.

[HappyMe]

17. k&r

[LWolf]

19. Why do

some Democrats have so much invested in neo-liberal candidates that they won't take the chance to elect someone who would actually represent them?

[jeff47]

45. Because they like it.

First, it's always 1972. So any liberal will lose.

Second, and more importantly, it would shatter their worldview. The turn towards neo-liberal candidates meant abandoning most of what the party used to stand for. But it was expedient - you could try to ride Reagan's coattails to election.

But there was a very enormous cost. The safety net is gone. Massive cuts to social programs. Schools in shambles. Huge debts on their children for getting a degree, only to enter a bad labor pool. But at least people with D after their name won, and would sometimes propose doing something good in a speech or two. Oh, and they protected the programs that help them, like Social Security and Medicare.

If it turns out another way works, then they destroyed so much for no gain. So neo-liberal candidates must be put forth, and are the only way to win. Because if anything else works, then they destroyed at least two generations for nothing.

[Fumesucker]

95. I think that's pretty astute, kind of a sunk cost fallacy for social progress

Yeah, there's a lot of emotional investment in political positions.

[Maedhros]

77. It's very simple:

We have to elect the Lesser of Two Liberals in the primary so that we can elect the Lesser of Two Evils in the general.

The bottom line is that the Party leadership doesn't want Liberals to be elected. To that end, they saturate left-leaning media with the "So you want a Republican to win?" and "Only the SCOTUS appointments matter" memes, in order to herd what they consider sheep into the corporate Democratic stockyard.

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out! There may be dogs about!
I have looked over Jordan and I have seen
Things are not what they seem...

What do you get for pretending the danger's not real?
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well-trodden corridors into the valley of steel.
What a surprise! A look of terminal shock in your eyes
Now things are really what they seem
No, this is not a bad dream...

[99Forever]

24. At this time...

.... Senator Sanders is the only acceptable candidate running for me. O'Malley is okay, but does not generate the fire this is going to take.

[ladjf]

27. I'm going to support Sanders regardless of the predicted odds. nt

[Kalidurga]

28. Same here, I remember when Obama was a long shot.

[ladjf]

26. Good post. nt

[CharlotteVale]

31. K&R

[azmom]

32. Fuck that noise. The people want Bernie.

The political revolution is on!

[MohRokTah]

35. Then why does he only poll at 15% of Democrats?

[lame54]

36. because many of the people haven't heard about him yet...

but with this ridiculously long campaign season - time is on his side

besides if Hillary such a lock - and if Bernie is not trashing her - why work so hard at convincing people to not vote for him in the primary
If Bernie wins Hillary will get the Bernie votes in the general

I for one would like to feel good about at least one of my votes this season

personally I think he can do it

and that noise about him not being able to win in the general? - if he beats Hillary he can beat any of these repug fools

[MohRokTah]

46. And they won't hear about him because his campaign hasn't got the money to get his message out.

Oh well.

[lame54]

49. the internet age...

the are other ways

[redstateblues]

56. Obama had a brilliant strategy. I don't see that from Bernie so far.

[lame54]

57. give it up - i'm for Bernie

[stevenleser]

91. It won't help. nt

[arcane1]

62. His strategy is to tell the truth and hope it's more important than money.

Money must not win another election!

[BuelahWitch]

75. Truth telling IS a brilliant strategy!

Lots better than pretty speeches full of hot air!

[MohRokTah]

78. Oh Bull Shit!

They've been selling that pile of bullshit since Kucinich.

[Babel_17]

34. The adults know best

Like they knew best about Viet Nam, and invading Iraq, about deregulating, and then deregulating some more, and lowering taxes for the 1% while running wars off budget.

Trust the adults, not your conscience, or your reasoned beliefs. Trust our self appointed leadership, and believe the words of the corporate funded media.

All else is illusion.

[hifiguy]

40. I am with you 100%, kentuck!

[seveneyes]

41. Just got out and ain't going back ...

[peacebird]

52. K&R!

[arcane1]

53. Everything that's ever happened will repeat with no change, except Clinton's 2008 loss

That's the only thing that will apparently be different in 2016

[whatchamacallit]

61. Bravo!

[democrank]

60. Apparently old dogs need new tricks.

I`m nearing 70 and a life-long Democrat, but I`ve recently learned that if I don`t get in line and support the Democrat crowned by Corporate Headquarters, I`m part of the lunatic left fringe, maybe even a dangerous Scandinavian Socialist. And, if there is even one of President Obama`s positions I take issue with, well....I`m a hater. Probably a racist hater.

Interesting how that works.

[arcane1]

64. One can't "Take issue" either. There is only agreement or "bashing"

[Enthusiast]

67. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

Thank you, kentuck.

[Juicy_Bellows]

69. Kick! Great post!

[Rex]

71. I'm not worried about it, the funny thing is...

The well off...all the sudden there is some 'concern'. LOL! After decades of a decline for the working class, there is now concern!

Arf arf arf!

Like this was the first time I've seen that nasty campaign bullshit thrown out for newbies to lap it up. Sanders will do fine, all the barking at his supporters (by his 'supporters') and for his supporters is grade A bullshit cow manure.

People will call out the bullshit, no candidate gets spared.

[Omaha Steve]

82. Great post

Bernie is still climbing in the polls etc...

K&R!

[LiberalElite]

85. Abso-fucking-lutely!

It's SOMEONE ELSE'S TURN.

[ozone_man]

90. I totally agree!

Bernie can speak truth to power like no one I have ever heard.