An HRC administration is going to be a neoliberal shit sandwich. Anyone who tells you different either A) doesn’t see it for what it is, or B) is in a comfortable enough position in life that they can’t. I still think she should win, but I can’t buy into the hype that the Sandersites won. That hype is dangerous.
Wait, I though they were centrists?
No, wait, I thought she was a neo-con “Republican lite”?
Now they’re neoliberals!
This is all so confusing to people who just want her to do her job and don’t throw labels around or make assumptions about people’s behavior before they’ve had a chance to do things.
Stop being so confusing! Left or right: choose one!
To clarify: you want her to go left, right?
No, no, no.
The correct response for “We aren’t being heard” isn’t either of “You’re being ridiculous, of course we’re listening,” or “You’re right, we don’t care what you think.”
It’s, “All right, we’re listening now. What did you want to say?”
ETA: And then actually listening.
What about all the Sanders supporters who showed up to protest?
I made this thread for trying to keep track of some of the info I’ve been gleaning from the web. I want to make this easy for folks!
Everybody’s ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the American electorate.
Back in 2009, Democrats in Congress were hard at work on the Affordable Care Act. It wasn’t perfect, but it still benefited a lot of people. It turned out that some of the people it benefited were petty and small-minded and they said, “I don’t want these benefits if [African-Americans] and [undocumented workers] are going to get them too! I don’t want these benefits if it means that [sexually-active single women] are going to be able to get birth control, and [people who want gender-reassignment therapy] are going to be able to [get gender-reassignment therapy]!”
Obviously they didn’t use the words I’ve enclosed in brackets. They used different words, which I won’t repeat here. Anyway, they were so passionate about it that Republicans were able to use this issue to take over both houses of Congress in 2010, and they still hold control today.
The Democrats had to figure out how to respond to this. They could have moved further to the left, in hopes of picking up some votes from the fringe, or they could have moved to the right, in hopes of capturing a bigger share of the large centrist voting bloc. If you look at the relative sizes of the two groups, then that’s an easy decision to make.
And the vote counts from this year’s election are going to determine the party’s future. If Trump manages to win, then the Democrats will move further to the right. They’ll need to pick a few minority groups to jettison; undocumented workers will probably be at the top of the list. I mean, having principles is nice, but it’s kind of futile to have principles without enough votes to implement at least some of them.
If Clinton wins the election by 0-5 points, then the Democratic Party’s positions will stay about where they are today. If she wins by 5-10 points, then the party will feel that it’s safe to move a bit further to the left. If she wins by 10 points or more, then that will show that there’s an appetite for a genuine progressive shift.
What I’m seeing from the polls is that the American People as-a-whole want the Democratic Party to keep its positions about where they are today. If some people aren’t happy about that, then there’s no point in them whining about the DNC. They need to take their fight to the people-as-a-whole.
Those are facts, and that is a good fact-based response, assuming you are interpreting “dissent will not be tolerated. protest will not be permitted” correctly. (Note that I’m not the one saying it, I’m just the one saying your means of convincing others to change their minds leaves something to be desired.)
But as @nimelennar points out, maybe you should try to figure out what that statement actually means before scorning people for thinking it.
If Clinton and the DNC have taken actions that make Sanders supporters feel that way, then that’s a problem whether or not the perception is an accurate description of the reality. That is, it’s a problem if you want their buy-in or if you want to convince them of the correctness of your perspective. If you don’t care about any of that, then you can keep stamping your feet.
Which politician is that, Trump or Clinton? Because I’m not seeing a politician saying things I agree with anymore. Are you?
Not a helpful addition to a debate. Are you baselessly assuming their inclusion in her platform and the DNC’s are lies?
Jill Stein says tons of things I agree with. In fact, it’s hard to find anything she says that I don’t agree with.
I don’t really care if you think it is “helpful” given all of your responses above. You’re clearly bought into the razzle dazzle of the Clinton campaign.
They’re non-binding. They can promise whatever they want and, come the first day of office, ignore these promises with no penalty. She’s not a progressive. She’s a center-right, pro-bank, pro-business candidate funded by SuperPACs and fat cat (plutocrat) donors. She’s not a friend of the working people that are so angry and desperate for jobs at this point that they’ll back a thug like Trump. Those people aren’t going to go away because Clinton isn’t actually going to do anything to help them or other non-working Americans. She’s going to help the owner class of corporations, hedge funds, etc. You think this is a rough election cycle? Wait until the 2020 or 2024 overt fascists show up on Trump’s coat-tails.
Progressives lost (again) this cycle and the overall multi-decade economic decline for most Americans will just continue its slide to the third world. As long as the rich fucks have theirs, why will our political class care? They know who pays for them and their campaigns.
Much thanks for the info!! It will come in handy!
Remind me again of what political offices she’s held to qualify her to run a country?
Besides that, we all know that she’s not even a spoiler. Third parties don’t work in America. That’s the whole reason Sanders went to the Dems.
I wouldn’t vote for her because I think she has any chance of winning.
If the Greens can get up to five percent, then they’ll get more public money for the party.
Real progress is slow, but that’s no reason not to push for it.
That’s not a binary proposition though. What “they’re likely to get” is the first women president, a lifelong advocate and worker for human rights, an outspoken proponent of gun control, women’s rights, healthcare reform… and a professional politician with a hawkish mindset and a history of playing fast and loose with the truth when it suits her.
You can choose to dwell on the negatives and potential negatives for any candidate–and those don’t just include their stand on issues, but things like their likelihood of actually winning, and their practical chances of being effective once in office.
At this stage, regarding Clinton, I really don’t see the point of all the relentless pessimism about her. She’s the candidate. She’s not perfect by any means but she’s not any where near the shitstorm of a human being people make her out to be either.
To paraphrase Matt Stone, “I hate Trump, but I really fucking hate Clinton.”
(I’ve already been banned from Breitbart and Free Republic because I won’t fellate combover boy.)
But the DNC didn’t abolish the superdelegate system by which they choose (preordain) their candidates and didn’t allow the Sanders supporters’ anti-TPP language in the platform, among others. How do you explain Tim Kaine writing a letter to banks urging the loosening of regulations if the Clinton campaign truly embraced any of the Wall Street reforms the Sanders supporters sought?