In Re" "THEY JUST SAID NO!"

[pat_k]

Last edited Tue Mar 14, 2017, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)

I need some clarification, because it sounds to me that the THEY JUST SAID NO! post is saying:

"We have never made any mistakes. We have no shortcomings. It's their fault, not ours."

If that is what its saying, we have an enormous problem, because when we say that, we are effectively saying:

"We are outmatched. The Republican noise machine, the billions invested by Scaife, Koch bros, and others, the misguided Stein voters, and all the other forces at play against us are insurmountable."

If that's the position, it's over. Nothing can be done. We are at the mercy of forces outside our control.

I for one am not ready to throw in the towel. And I know there are many DUer's who feel the same. And if you are not ready to throw in the towel, there is ONLY ONE choice. Take a hard look at ourselves.

And to do that, we need to ask a lot of hard questions. For example: Are we clear about our principles and goals? Are we failing to convey our principles and goals? Are people rejecting our principles and goals? Why? Are there really rejecting our principles, or is something else going on? Are there things we should have fought for that we didn't? Are there things we should be fighting for that we are not? Are we doing a lousy job of exposing how wrong and immoral "their" conduct and agenda is? Are we doing a lousy job of defending against their demonization of us and our proposals? Are we enabling them in some way? Who perceives us positively? Negatively? Do we fully understand why?

If we can't identity any shortcomings or failures, there is nothing to fix. We're just outmatched and will keep losing ground.

To me, every failure we identify is a ray of hope that begets action. It's something we can work on changing. And so I ask those questions, and I describe the problems I see. I call on people to challenge our elected officials to change the thinking behind those problems. I call on them to help elect candidates who are not plagued by that problematic thinknig. (e.g., as I did in this post, and many others over the years).

Maybe we aren't able to bring about the necessary change, or maybe our diagnosis is wrong and the change doesn't shift the balance in the right direction, but trying and failing is better than feeling helpless in the face of forces beyond our control.

We are up against some powerful forces, but I see absolutely no useful purpose in affixing blame for our predicament on "them." We must study "them" and the forces against us, but solely for the purpose of identifying ways WE can counter those forces, or shut them down.

I cannot get my head around the perspective that identifying problems is “bashing,” and “bashing” must be silenced. We can debate whether or not a problem identified actually was a problem, but condemning the process of self-examination and identification of shortcomings itself is unfathomable. I have trouble believing that those who appear to be coming from that perspective really think the party can do no wrong. Perhaps it’s just that we are supposed to keep our thoughts to ourselves? I don’t know. Logically, from that perspective, the only things we are are allowed to do is curse the other side, applaud what Dems do, and if what they do is not enough, we are left to watch helplessly as we descend further into hell.

I am not good at helplessness. Not my style.

[pnwmom]

1. That is not what Nance said. And from me, not Nance, the reasons for the loss are clear.

It wasn't because of Democratic policies. It was because of James Comey's last minute letter bombs, after months of softening up by the Russian hacking and leaks. There have been several different analyses showing how Hillary's support dropped in those last critical days after word of a continuing criminal investigation hit the media.

OTOH, if all Jill Stein's voters had voted for the only progressive with a chance to win -- Hillary Clinton -- then neither Comey nor the Russians would have mattered.

[pat_k]

2. Why was it close enough for ANY of that to tip the balance?

Why has the level of support for right-wing radical extremists risen so high?

Even if Hillary had won, we would still be facing a hellish political landscape with the number of people openly supporting the extremist authoritarian/crony capitalist/reactionary agenda almost equally balanced with the people still on the "reasonable" part of the spectrum. That is the problem that requires diagnosis, not just the dynamics that tipped things a little bit this way or that in the election.

[pnwmom]

3. Because about a third of our population are strongly right wing/authoritarian/fundie types.

And Congress is now extremely divided along party lines -- more than ever in the past -- and some people vote R purely out of habit.

But whenever the Dems are solidly ahead -- as Hillary was at first -- the media itself works to turn it into a ratings-boosting horserace.

It wouldn't matter who our candidate was, that's what would happen. But we STILL would have won without Comey's fist on the scale.

[pat_k]

6. So, there is nothing we...

... could have done differently as a party to make the margin wider? Wide enough that Comey, or Stein, or whatever would have made no difference?

There was nothing that we could have done, or refrained from doing, that would have limited the number of people pulled toward the reactionary right over the past several decades? There is nothing we could have done to pull more people toward, or kept more people on, the reasonable portion of the political spectrum?

There's nothing we could have done to counteract the concerted efforts to suppress votes in "certain areas" by under-allocating resources? (I have little doubt that intentional under-allocation of resources in "certain areas" created lines so long in that about 1 in 10 who came to vote turned around and when back to work/home.)

If you actually believe there is nothing we could have done, that's fine. I just think that it is important to understand the implications of that perspective. Namely, that if we have done "all we can" against the rising tide -- if there were no mistakes or failures on our part -- then there is nothing we can "do better." That position says "The forces pushing people from the reasonable part of the spectrum to the radical right wing have been too strong for anybody or anything to stop." And if that is the case, all we can do is keep doing what we are doing and watch as things just keep getting worse.

At the conclusion of "THEY JUST SAID NO" we have this:

It is not the faulty message of our Party that is to be blamed here – it is the fact that our message has been vilified by those whose message appealed to the worst among us, and succeeded in convincing the haters that their hatred, their bigotry, their downright stupidity is worthy of being rewarded.

I don't know how else to read that except as a statement that "We did nothing wrong. They are just too powerful." It is a message of helplessness.

I reject that message. I believe there are things we could have done to keep the forces pushing so much of the electorate off the extremist cliff in check. I think there are ways that we could have served as a more powerful force pulling people toward "us." In other words, I think there are some pretty obvious things could have, and should have done. Mistakes. Failures.. And I think it is critical that we take responsibility for those things, understand the errors in our thinking that led to the mistakes, and correct those errors in thinking so we do a better job.

Describing where we fucked up is not about "bashing" or "blame," it is about figuring out a better way forward. Do we curse the forces pushing the nation in the wrong direction? Of course. Do we applaud all the things we did right? Of course. But simply cursing/blaming them and applauding ourselves DOES NOT point a way forward.

To me it's analogous to a battle between disease vectors and cures. Do limit ourselves to cursing antibiotic resistant bacteria and applaud the antibiotics that used to work, but are clearly no longer effective? No. We identify the ways in which those antibiotics are failing and figure out how to "fix" them so they work better. When we describe the ways those antibiotics are failing, are we "blaming" and "bashing" them? I suppose, you could call it "bashing" and "blaming" but that's not the aim of the analysis. Are we "blaming" the bacteria for being too strong? For continuing to mutate? I suppose so, but they are what they that are, and the process is what it is. The only productive thing is to focus on understanding what is going on, identify problems in our approach, and figure out ways to solve those problems.

[pnwmom]

9. We could have ended the circular firing squad in May and started campaigning as one THEN

instead of waiting till the convention, with young Bernie supporters keeping their hopes up through mid-July that somehow the convention would overturn the primary result.

Yes, that probably would have increased youthful turnout in the long run.

[pat_k]

12. The "circular firing squad" is responsible for the steady rise is RW extremism?

Really?

[stranger81]

14. You've been here long enough to know the drill by now.

The only mistake the Democrats ever make is not punching hippies hard enough. If only Democrats to the left of, say, Ronald Reagan circa 1980 would shut up, everything would be going swimmingly.

[pnwmom]

15. People who pretended that Hillary wasn't progressive were a big part of the problem.

Thanks for the reminder.

[stranger81]

17. And thanks for proving my point. [n/t]

[pat_k]

18. Seems to me things were a little different "back in the day."

Last edited Mon Mar 13, 2017, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Perhaps I'm looking back with rose-colored glasses, but I don't recall posts critical of Dem leaders, or the party in general, getting the kind of "STFU" response they get today. Way back when, I remember a number of passionate, ongoing arguments about whether or not this or that problem was actually a problem. Now, Instead of arguments that the criticism isn't valid, critical posts are condemned for being critical, and the poster is personally attacked for being evil in some way. I've been flamed for things I couldn't imagine would be perceived as attacks on the party. The one that sticks in my head is the response to something I posted shortly before the election. It just expressed my fear that the extreme overconfidence we were seeing would suppress turnout. A whole lot of people responded, and the response was 100% negative. Somehow, just expressing that fear was perceived "propaganda" intended to "undermine Clinton." I was mystified, and then horrified to see my fear realized.

[stranger81]

23. Things used to be a WHOLE lot different here.

The DU of, say, 2004, or 2006 -- or even 2008 -- would find this place unrecognizable. It has been coopted by a small centrist cabal that brooks no disagreement. My husband constantly gives me shit for even checking in to this place anymore. I tell him it's like a very old and dear friend that's suddenly gone round the bend. I don't agree with much that gets posted here nowadays, but I just don't have the heart to walk away entirely yet (despite what it does to my blood pressure to see so many party loyalists with their fingers jammed in their ears, stubbornly doubling down on their losing record).

[pat_k]

28. I for one...

... am glad you still peak in. After being repeatedly flamed, it was very nice to see some support for my "Extreme left didn't give us..." post. It's been a while since I had something get to the top tier of the greatest page. Now, when I feel outnumbered, I can revisit the list of DUers who recommended that post (you among them) as a reminder that real dialog and dissent are still possible here.

[ismnotwasm]

41. You're kidding right?

[pat_k]

46. No.

What part do you think I.m kidding about? That I get flamed for being a Democrat hater for things that didn't bring that sort of response a decade ago?

[QC]

26. Bingo. n/t

[pnwmom]

16. Your OP said that Dems need to take a hard look at themselves. It wasn't about RW extremism.

Nice try, though.

[pat_k]

19. Why else would we need to take a hard look?

How can it be about anything else? What do you think I was talking about?

Self-examination is needed in order to figure out how we have gotten to this moment in our history -- a moment when the level of support for RW extremism is so high that it put DT in the WH.

[pnwmom]

20. Democrats didn't create rightwing extremists. Much of the cause is due to

fundamentalist, authoritarian religions. And, as I said, I think the media has helped increase the power of these people by giving them a larger platform and encouraging the horserace.

I think fake news online -- propaganda spread online -- also had a large impact on the election. That wasn't the fault of the Dems, either.

https://chrisstroop.com/2017/02/24/christianaltfacts-or-how-the-christian-right-broke-america/

Fundamentalists–including the vast majority of white Evangelicals in the US–are inherently authoritarian. Authoritarianism, for its part, is a form of abuse on a social scale that depends on gaslighting, hence post-truth politics and “alternative facts.” And as Douglas carefully documents, it is the Christian Right’s #AltFacts, post-truth ethos that has radicalized and overtaken the Republican Party. Having broken one of our two major parties, the Christian Right broke America. It’s been a long time coming, but here we are–and since those of ex-Evangelicals who grew up indoctrinated and mobilized to fight the culture wars have been well aware of the plan, many of us are particularly angered and even retraumatized by the white Evangelical backlash that, with 81% of the white Evangelical vote, has brought us the disastrous Trump presidency.

[pat_k]

21. So, you are saying there is nothing we could have done...

... or can start doing, to check the rise?

[pnwmom]

22. I already said what I thought we should have done -- join together as a force as soon

as it was mathematically certain who our candidate was. Bernie didn't really start campaigning for Hillary till October (only 2 events in September, none before then). Maybe that would have made a difference.

But who knows. I still think the election system was tampered with, in counties/states with no paper trails. It was funny that Hillary was so far ahead in Florida, for example, up till the very last day.

In the previous post, I also added a link that you might be interested in, about authoritarian religions and how they affected the outcome of this election. You might want to take a look at it. I don't know how to fight this, but I think we should understand our enemy better than we do.

[pat_k]

24. Nothing else? No other mistake in the many years it took to get here?

Nothing we could have done to change the arc that lead us to the unbelievable level of support for rw extremism?

If that's your position, we are screwed. It means we have been doing everything that can be done. All we can do is keeping doing what we have been doing, and keep losing ground.

[pnwmom]

25. It wouldn't have mattered who our candidate was -- Putin was determined to help DT

and we weren't ready for the attack.

But all our energy now should be on stopping the forward march of fascism, not on navel-gazing and blaming ourselves for the coup.

In other words, we didn't lose because our policies weren't strong enough. We lost because of an attack by people determined to undermine our election system and to insert their puppet -- which would have occurred no matter who our candidate was or what his or her policies were.


That's what we should be focusing on now.

[pat_k]

27. So, we lost control of state after state because of Putin?

[Manly_Scream]

4. Here is a quote from David Duke about President Obama

"Obama is like that big spot on your arm, that finally sends you to the doctor for some real medicine. Obama, is the pain that lets your body know, that something is dreadfully wrong."

This is my answer to your question, as to why support of the "alt-right" is so high.

Many powerless, doughy, impotent, bitter white men grabbed on to for generations was "Hey, at least I'm white. I'm STILL less of a loser than those wetbacks and coons. Libruls think they're equal to me, I know better!"

And, well, Obama ruined that for them.

Then along came a doughy, impotent, bitter white man who was a "successful business man" and hated Obama as much as they did, and reinforced that, yes, they really ARE superior to the Godless mud people.

^That's one factor^

Another factor is that, nobody has refuted or shut down right wing spinmachines (or at least, not that I'm aware of.)

It seems we took the "Don't Feed the Trolls" stance.

From what I remember, in his 2 terms, nobody *seriously* denounced the endless disrespect for Obama for what it was, or the delusional right wing "alt media" tales for what they were. Maybe, because a lot of us lefties dismissed these people as "crazy" and moved on.

To this day, everyday at work (I work at a grocery store) I have to see the endless anti-Clinton, anti-Obama, Trump Ass-kissing tabloids.

When they started in August 2016, I too, dismissed it as harmless. Figured Trump was paying them in an effort to win the election. Now, he won the election, and these people STILL can't leave Clinton or Obama alone.

So yeah, that's just my 2 cents.

[gopiscrap]

5. Welcome to DU

[pat_k]

8. Thanks and Welcome!

Your post makes my point. You have identified a force at work:

Many powerless, doughy, impotent, bitter white men grabbed on to for generations was "Hey, at least I'm white. I'm STILL less of a loser than those wetbacks and coons. Libruls think they're equal to me, I know better!"

And, well, Obama ruined that for them.

Then along came a doughy, impotent, bitter white man who was a "successful business man" and hated Obama as much as they did, and reinforced that, yes, they really ARE superior to the Godless mud people.

And then you have identified something we, as a party, failed to do:

nobody has refuted or shut down right wing spinmachines.

Identifying the failure is step one. What needs to follow is an examination of the mindset lead to the failure. You propose one:

It seems we took the "Don't Feed the Trolls" stance.

So, you've identified a failure on the part of the party, and a frame of mind that we need to challenge if we are to address that failure. The question is what errors in thinking are behind the "Don't Feed the Trolls" stance? How can we change that thinking in a way the leads us to more effective action?

In the THEY JUST SAID NO post, we have the conclusion:

It is not the faulty message of our Party that is to be blamed here – it is the fact that our message has been vilified by those whose message appealed to the worst among us, and succeeded in convincing the haters that their hatred, their bigotry, their downright stupidity is worthy of being rewarded.

And yes, I question the bona fides of "Democrats" who are more determined to affix blame to the Party's "faulty message" than to the party that said NO to everything that is right, just and fair.

You've identified something faulty in the Democratic "message" -- i.e., a failure to "refute or shut down" the vilification coming from the "right wing spin machines." From the perspective of the above conclusion, you are one of the "Democrats" who are more determined to affix blame to the party's faulty message" -- a "Democrat" who "bona fides" the poster questions.

The problem I am addressing goes beyond the content of the "THEY JUST SAID NO!" post. There are a number of DUers who attempt to silence any criticism of the party. You can see an example of it in this thread.

Before the election many of the same DUers attacked DUers who described things the Dems were doing, or not doing, they believed were putting a Hillary victory at risk. For example, I got hammered when I posted my fears that the level of overconfidence would suppress turnout and put a victory at risk.

I am happy to debate whether something I identify as a "failure" or "problem" actually is a problem. But that is not what has been happening. Rather than arguing "X not a problem because..." there is a contingent that swarms critical posts and condemns the posters for "bashing" Dems or accuses them of hating Democrats.

[Manly_Scream]

30. Logic behind "Don't Feed the Trolls"

Probably comes from the fact that Trumpanzees, Teabaggers, the Alt Right, and any other subspecies that spawned them, NEVER argue with actual facts, or even nuggets of reality.

They only argue with ad hominem attacks, and negatively emotional buzzwords.

So going out of one's way to refute all of that can be overwhelming, and make you wanna say "fuck it" and move on, but in this day and age of the internet and (let's face it) nearly everyone is a "drama addict" regardless of their background can't be ignored anymore.

I don't think anything's wrong with our message (perhaps the delivery, and lower social media engagement.)

Even though, OrangeAnus farts through a keyboard, all day, everyday, it's STILL engagement that worked in his favor.

I think whomever is on the Dem ticket for 2020 should always interact and campaign just as heavily on social media (probably beginning in 2018), just you know, actually use it to logic and refute lies, also.

[pat_k]

40. In re: delivery

I think there is a lot we can learn from Lakoff on "framing." https://georgelakoff.com/blog/

But of course, it is not all about "message." As they say, actions speak louder than words. I think we can do a much better job on advocating for some "big stuff," regardless of whether or not the leadership in Congress thinks they can "win" right now. If you aren't out there making the case, you'll never generate the political will.

For example, I want to see the Dems introduce their own "replace ACA" bill -- one with the public option. We need to do more than just oppose the Repub bill. People are looking for a replacement? Let's give them one that is actually better, and actually moves us closer to universal health care. And when asked "but you don't have the votes" the answer is "that's why we are out here talking about it. We believe this is the the replacement voters really want. If Americans make this clear to their representatives and Senators, we can get it passed. And if the Republican majority blocks it in this session, we can get it done next session if voters send more Democrats to the House and Senate in 2018." More thoughts on why making universal health care front and center is a "winner" here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8773578

[booley]

7. if that were true.

.. and the policies currently pushed by the Party were not a problem, then shouldn't many of those disaffected voters be coming back now that Clinton is no longer a candidate?

Indeed, when you say democratic policies what do you mean and do others agree that those are the policies the Democrats in Congress are pushing?

Sorry but I think there is a disconnect here. The longer it goes on the worse it will become.

[pat_k]

11. By "if that were true" do you mean...

... "if the conclusion of the post 'THEY JUST SAID NO" were true"? (Here's that conclusion):

It is not the faulty message of our Party that is to be blamed here – it is the fact that our message has been vilified by those whose message appealed to the worst among us, and succeeded in convincing the haters that their hatred, their bigotry, their downright stupidity is worthy of being rewarded.

And yes, I question the bona fides of "Democrats" who are more determined to affix blame to the Party's "faulty message" than to the party that said NO to everything that is right, just and fair.

The way I read your post, you are challenging/attempting to clarify the above conclusion, but I want to verify before responding. As you say, there is some sort of disconnect happening and I don't want to exacerbate it by misreading your post.

One thing i should probably have included in the OP is that phenomenon I see as a problem goes beyond the content of the "THEY JUST SAID NO!" post. There are a number of DUers who attempt to silence any criticism of the party. Before the election many of the same DUers attacked other DUers who described things they believed Dems* , were, or were not, doing that put Clinton's victory at risk. For example, I got hammered in a way that completely mystified me when I posted my fears that the level of overconfidence would suppress turnout and put a victory at risk.

-------------
* Or leading voices within the party,. There are of course many different voices within the party, some of which the leading voices attempt to silence.

[BainsBane]

32. People don't vote based on policy

They vote based on cultural affinity and cultural signifiers. Political science research demonstrates as much.

That is as true for progressives as Trump voters. Most have no idea what Clinton ran on. They decided they disliked her and projected on to her what they wanted her to stand for rather than what she actually proposed. If progressives can't bother to form themselves on policy, what makes you think Republican voters do?

[triron]

10. Oh come now

It was the Russians (Putin) who said "nyet" to Hillary.
Nothing else is relevant. The election was a scam.

[pat_k]

13. And there is nothing Dems could have...

... done differently over the years to turn back the rise of rw extremism, or slow the steady progress the Republicans have made in taking over state after state?

Or are you being sarcastic?

If you are not being sarcastic, I should probably note that I'm talking about more than the past election. As I said in post 8:

The problem I am addressing goes beyond the content of the "THEY JUST SAID NO!" post. There are a number of DUers who attempt to silence any criticism of the party...

Before the election many of the same DUers attacked DUers who described things the Dems were doing, or not doing, they believed were putting a Hillary victory at risk. For example, I got hammered when I posted my fears that the level of overconfidence would suppress turnout and put a victory at risk.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. A solid majority of Americans support legal marijuana, & our last DNC chair was an unapologetic

Prohibitionist who opposed even medical marijuana reform.

Anyone who suggests there is NO room for us to improve our outreach, issues and messaging hasnt been paying much attention.

[BainsBane]

33. And that's why they voted for a candidate

Who wants medical marijuana users arrested, and whose AG is poised to implement policy based on that.

Few of Trump's policies are supported by a majority of Americans. Many are not even supported by a majority of Trump voters, but they still defend him.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. For one thing, Trump said during the campaign "leave it to the states".

Now, he says all kinds of shit, we know that, but on the objective face of it that is still a more popular position than the one espoused by, say, any members of the house who actually VOTED to send medical marijuana users to prison.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, here. Simple fact is, weed was on that ballot in 8 states and won in 7. It did better than EITHER party, on Nov. 8.

So what's your point? We should have another DNC chair who does "reefer madness" interviews to the times while insulting millennials? Who exactly does that benefit? Who benefits by deluding ourselves that no one ever made any mistakes, ever, and there is absolutely no room for us to do better?

If we didn't draw enough of a distinction between ourselves and the GOP on personal freedom issues, like marijuana legalization, that sounds to me like that is an unforced tactical error. And again, who would it help? Did we get any "megachurch mom" votes in exchange?

I doubt it.

[BainsBane]

35. My point is you have no evidence weed affected the presidential race

unless you can point to exit polls or surveys demonstrating voters made decisions based on that.

DWS resigned as chair several months before the election, which makes your explanation all the more strained.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Do you agree that we should do better going forward on stuff like that, or not?

The poll numbers just keep going up. That's not really disputable.

[BainsBane]

37. What is "stuff like that"?

I'm not a libertarian. I don't think pot should be illegal, but I don't favor a libertarian platform.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. my question was specifically about cannabis legalization, wasnt it?

Like I said, the poll numbers keep going up.

Seems silly to not embrace it, and like I said im not sure where that calculus actually makes sense, except inside the head of a few overpaid beltway consultants who think in terms of "megachurch moms" and "values voters".

Beyond that, while everyone loves a convenient label they can tag on pesky complex ideas and arguments to file them for easy disposal, there is "libertarian"="government shouldn't put people in prison for buying condoms", and then there is "libertarian"="we ought to privatize fire departments". Being smart, I'm sure you understand this.

I'm personally of the opinion that governments need a damn good and compelling reason to insert themselves into the private choices of consenting adult citizens as per their bodies, bloodstreams and bedrooms, insofar as everyone is a consenting adult and no one else is being directly harmed or endangered (to answer the inevitable genius who tries to deflect personal freedom arguments for marijuana legalization, say, with 'well then, should it be legal to drive under the influence'?)

This, to me, is not so much a libertarian position as a classic liberal one. I never got the memo that progressivism is supposed to be incompatible with individual liberty. Maybe thats the disconnect.

[BainsBane]

31. She pointed out Democratic principles

And in your zeal to excuse the right wingers who voted against those policies, you point the finger at Democrats who stand up against injustice. Perhaps you don't recognize the principles she discussed because you don't share them? They are largely social and economic justice issues rather than the political machinations you place great value on, based on your earlier thread.

What the Democrats didn't do is stand for white male supremacy. In fact, they articulated the opposite, and it is precisely that which draws ire.

If anyone asks you to respond to the implications of your posts, you demand quotes asking "where did I say that." Here you attribute arguments to Nance that she didn't make. You could have asked her to clarify questions you had instead of posting this thread as a shit stirring call out. You're obviously confused by what you read, probably because she's a Democrat not rushing to justify the far right.

I find it fascinating that those who say the right must not be blamed, that Trump voters shouldn't be held accountable for their own actions, make a point of blaming Democrats and Democratic voters at every opportunity. I can only conclude the difference is prompted by the greater affinity to Trump voters than Democrats, possibly because the share some of those voters fundamental values but lack the courage to admit it?

[pat_k]

38. Here we go again.

And in your zeal to excuse the right wingers who voted against those policies,

I have never "excused" right-wingers.

you point the finger at Democrats who stand up against injustice.

I applaud when Democrats stand up against injustice.

Perhaps you don't recognize the principles she discussed because you don't share them?

That is just silly. I am simply pointing out the implications of the blanket rejection of criticism; the implication of the conclusion that Democrats have done absolutely nothing wrong.

They are largely social and economic justice issues rather than the political machinations you place great value on, based on your earlier thread.

And they were all wonderful principles. But principles aren't very meaningful if you don't act on them. Those who refused to fight to impeach Bush for torture sure weren't standing up for the human rights, or standing up against injustice. If pointing out that failures like that put a stain on the party counts as putting great value on "political machinations," I'm guilty.

What the Democrats didn't do is stand for white male supremacy. In fact, they articulated the opposite, and it is precisely that which draws ire.

Sure. So?

If anyone asks you to respond to the implications of your posts, you demand quotes asking "where did I say that."

I asked you to do that in the other thread because you accused me of saying things I did not say. And you failed to support your accusations with any quote you cited.

Here you attribute arguments to Nance that she didn't make.

Here is her conclusion:

CONCLUSION OF THEY JUST SAID NO!
It is not the faulty message of our Party that is to be blamed here – it is the fact that our message has been vilified by those whose message appealed to the worst among us, and succeeded in convincing the haters that their hatred, their bigotry, their downright stupidity is worthy of being rewarded.

As I said in my post, that conclusion sounds like:

"We have never made any mistakes. We have no shortcomings. It's their fault, not ours."

If the vilification was just too much for us and there was nothing we could have done differently to counter it, it's pretty much game over.

You could have asked her to clarify questions you had instead of posting this thread as a shit stirring call out. You're obviously confused by what you read, probably because she's a Democrat not rushing to justify the far right.

i felt that the point I am making is important enough to merit its own thread. If that is "shit stirring" I'm guilty.

I find it fascinating that those who say the right must not be blamed, that Trump voters shouldn't be held accountable for their own actions,

I have NEVER said "the right must not be blamed." I said "I see absolutely no useful purpose in affixing blame for our predicament on "them." If there is a useful purpose -- if blaming and cursing can help us figure out how to turn the tide -- I'd be happy to hear it.

Any BTW, I happily curse the Republican noise machine, the racists, DT, rw pundidiots, and other rwingnuts. Plenty of posts I could dig up for you. I just recognize that the only thing it accomplishes is venting my anger. It doesn't help us figure out what WE need to do. Only an examination that involves asking the sort of questions I suggest in my post can help point to a better way forward.

make a point of blaming Democrats and Democratic voters at every opportunity. I can only conclude the difference is prompted by the greater affinity to Trump voters than Democrats, possibly because the share some of those voters fundamental values but lack the courage to admit it?

Your conclusion is wrong. I can't imagine where you are drawing it from, or why you "can only" conclude that, but that's your problem, not mine.

[ismnotwasm]

42. You went out of your way to post an entire OP to attack another OP

To continue some argument it looks like. Personally, I think you missed the point as well. Do Democrats need to look at and improve outreach? Yes. Is the basic message of the Democratic platform "wrong"? no.

Were, say, redneck, racist rural white males the cause of the loss? No, the cause was multi-factorial and I don't see that specifically courting them is the way to go, instead devising a improved 50 state strategy is, starting at local levels. Democrats are already doing this.

And ridiculous regret posts about "how DU used to be" Do we include calling President Obama a piece of Shit used car salesman as a high point of nostalgia? That wasn't that long ago. Democrats are consistently criticized on this board, sometimes rightfully so. Sometimes people pull it out of their ass.

[George II]

45. Just read this right after I said something similar below. I should have read all the way down...

..before posting.

[pat_k]

47. So, we're agreed.

Democrats are consistently criticized on this board, sometimes rightfully so.

.

And in re: nostalgia, I'm talking about 2004 through maybe 2007, as was stranger81 ("The DU of, say, 2004, or 2006 -- or even 2008&quot

[betsuni]

43. To this I just say no. (nt)

[pat_k]

49. No to self-examination? (nt)

[betsuni]

50. ...

[pat_k]

51. So, that would be a yes (No self-examination).

A little projection?

[betsuni]

52. ...

[George II]

44. You had to set up a whole new thread to attack what someone else said elsewhere? Why didn't you....

....address it there?

[pat_k]

48. I thought the point merited a post of its own (nt)

[NurseJackie]

53. To be seen and to get more attention? (That's my guess.)

It could be argued that threads like this are just "riding the coattails" of someone else's post rather than of the writer's own merits or their own ability or the actual message contained therein. Someone else might say it's because of jealousy and a desire to imitate ... they say that's supposed to be "flattery" but I'm not so sure I agree with that saying.