No kidding. But that isn’t what we’re talking about.
No, I know. You are talking about what your faction always claims: “We represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” “We are the base–defy us at your peril.” Etc. This despite the fact that most of you don’t go to regular monthly party meetings or take volunteer positions with the party, much less get involved with all the mundane off year party infrastructural bureaucracy that needs to be done by someone, even if it’s not exciting. Even when African Americans and Latinos–whom I’d consider to have as strong a claim on being true blue, base Democrats as anyone–are foursquare against you, they somehow don’t count. :dubious:
To be fair - camille does.
Also to be fair, a large number of other Sanders supporters however do not bother to come out for midterms and are as you describe.
Where did I say any of this? How about you respond to what a poster says instead of attacking a hypothetical with hackneyed HRC campaign talking points. Personally, I think you are deflecting away from discussing your more extreme views.
Theoretically true, but kind of unrealistic. Getting a feasible third party up and running is a Herculean task. Given how entrenched the two party system is, hijacking one of them is by far the more reasonable proposal. Can’t really blame super progs or tea partiers for going that route.
But I’m not talking just about voting in midterms. I’m talking about working with the party even in the year *after *a presidential election, when there are no midterms, and no presidential primary race. I find it ironic that despite all the claims about the party establishment, a lot of what makes up that establishment is boring bureaucratic work that no one (or at least few people) really relish doing, and if the far left was really organized and assiduous, they could take over the establishment even if they never really get a majority of the party to line up with them. But they are slackers (*not *an insult coming from me, people!), and they fail to get support from the majority of primary voters despite claiming to speak for a majority of the country.
Riiight, that’s what I’m known for: being unwilling to discuss my views. I must have just accidentally blurted them out and immediately regretted it. Maybe I have Tourettes! :rolleyes:
ETA:
It’s a good point. But oh, the umbrage when we dare to resist said hijacking!
It looks like I replied to your post before you edited and expanded it. And now, as even DSeid points out, you are even more wrong. I’m willing to bet I’ve done more thankless, unsexy, grunt work for the Dem party than you have. So now what?
All I can say is that I’ve done plenty of that thankless, unsexy grunt work–and other then people doing canvassing or phone calls right around elections, I never encountered anyone under 30 doing it (and very few under 50). My point remains: if Bernie fans really wanted to accomplish a political revolution, they would do what the Christian right has done for years and take over local school boards, state legislatures, county commissions, all that low turnout stuff. (Bernie’s power in caucuses demonstrates how successful such an effort would likely be.). Instead, they seem to want to start at the top, and then get their noses bent out of joint when everyone else doesn’t go along.
Let us NOT begin commenting on other posters’ discussions with the Mods, particularly outside ATMB.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
One sees an army of Democratic Grampa Simpsons turning up unannounced on victims’ doorsteps, and haranguing them on why they must vote for whomever the oldster prefers today.
Aim Low; Start Small; do endless patient feeble stuff for 50 years, and end up bitter and corrupt.
And 70.
Just because you grunt a lot does not mean that people should necessarily vote the way you vote. Put together a platform that is appealing, rather than pointing and grunting “Get off my lawn!”
That wasn’t his point.
Bernie Sanders’ voting base seems to consist of people who are disgruntled with the fact that past progressives have turned out to be disappointments. But why have they been so disappointing? Is it because progressive politicians simply use progressive votes to get elected and then laugh in their faces while calling them “suckers” once they get into office? Or is their perhaps a more nuanced explanation, which is that the absence of progressive activism post- presidential election cycle results in losses that end up giving the other parties more seats in congress and that also, a lack of activism at the state level completely ignores the other reality, which is that a lot of regressive laws are passed by state and local legislatures? His point, if I understand it correctly, is probably that the Sanders contingent has unrealistic expectations of what their candidate can accomplish, particularly since they seem not to be active in other ways. It’s difficult to change a system if people don’t fundamentally understand how it operates in the first place.
I don’t always speak from high ground myself – I also sometimes overlook the impact of state and local races and pay less attention to them though I do usually vote in them. Part of that is my having moved around a lot over the years but that’s no excuse. But my occasional hypocrisy aside, I think his point still stands. If you really want the kinds of changes that Sanders is advocating to be effective, I think the ground up approach is probably more effective.
C’mon, how many Democrats are members of their local DEC?
The center-right in power is worthy of concern, and is extremely dangerous.
Oh, yes it was. “Get off my lawn!” is exactly SlackerInc’s point. In pretty much every post.
SlackerInc believes his grunting entitles him to have people vote for his conservative democrat candidate, and when confronted with the policy of the liberal democrat candidate he cries Robespierre! Terror!
An out-and-out racist fascist and an extreme-right religious fanatic are the leading candidates for republican party. By isolated comparison against the leading republican candidates, the leading candidates for the democratic party appear to be respectively liberal and extreme left, however, if the comparison is made against the first world community, the two leading democratic candidates appear to be respectively conservative and liberal.
SlackerInc cannot see outside of the American fishbowl, which is skewed very far to the right. He should leave the democrats and join the republicans, but instead, he wants the democrats to stay deeply conservative rather than try to catch up with the generally liberal first world.
Running a political party requires work. It’s not exactly an outrageous position that the people doing the work should and likely will have a greater say in that political party’s direction. Nor is the corollary idea that if Sanders supporters want to move the party then they should do more work.
That is fine and well, but yes, hijacking is the proper term. So for those engaged in such attempted hijacking to tell the people who are already in the party that they can leave their party for the other major one further to the right comes across as pretty silly (Post #586). And of course, those entrenched will fight to keep their party as it is, as would anyone subject to a semi-hostile takeover.
It’s how must Dem centrist supporters got where they are today!