I wish DUers would speak in more civil tones to eachother than they do.

the Dems will "dredge" up anything soon. There is too much toxic sludge down at the bottom of that Primary Pit.

And 2018. And 2019. Our goal should be state legislatures and governorships. If we don't get them back, we are still faced with gerrymandered voting districts (among other things).

Can you point to policy differences that are "words apart."? Certainly there is a difference in style and rhetoric, but by that standard Sanders falls short on equal rights.

"Class warfare" is a GOP term used to discredit policies favorable to workers and the poor. I never heard Sanders himself use that term.

What you refer to as a "demographic war" means politicians that pay attention to the concerns of non-white men. Those concerns are not encompassed by patronizing concern for "the vulnerable." The resistance to treating those Americans as full citizens with a right to political representation and politicians addressing their concerns is a serious problem.

By referring to Democrats attention to the concerns of voters besides white men as "demographic wars," you communicate that you imagine your own concerns to be universal and ours to be divisive. The fact is we are the base of the Democratic Party, its most reliable voters. As much as you are certain our concerns matter less, we don't see it that way. You don't see your call as exclusionary, but it is. Your views and your life experiences are not universal. And I for one am not going to back down on issues that are key in American society because you don't see them as important. I disagree with certain politicians who see white male votes as more important than regular Democratic voters, and those kind of dog whistles do not go unnoticed by the Democratic base.

The GOP exists precisely for people who view the concerns of the non-white male majority as divisive. As much as you want a party that treats the concerns of a minority as though they were universal, that is not the Democratic party. Other people exist in this country, and they deserve political representation. We are not going to sacrifice our rights because some white people feel uncomfortable hearing about, for example, black lives or women's rights. Diversity is a key value in the Democratic Party because the Democratic electorate is so diverse.

Voters decided the primary, and 3.8 million more of them voted for Hillary than Bernie. He lost by a wide, wide margin. You can recite every tired excuse for his political failure, but it accomplishes nothing productive. It does, however, harden divisions. You can keep talking about ending "demographic wars," but many are going to see that as an attempt to silence the majority of Democrats. You seem to forget that those "demographic warriors" are in fact the majority of the party, and we damn well vote.

Clinton had a robust plan to address jobs and inequality, far more extensive than Bernie ever did. That you never bothered to learn about her policy positions and rely instead on media hype and the self-serving statements of a candidate who lost doesn't give you the right to supplant the votes and the will of the millions of Democrats.

Your post does point to the problem of the lack of attention to issues and policy by the media and the lack of initiative by too many voters to inform themselves on policy positions. The fact is that democracy depends on an educated citizenry with some knowledge of civics. Without a responsible news media, it also requires self initiative. We don't have that, and it doesn't bode well for our future as a republic.

Last edited Wed Dec 7, 2016, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)

somehow better on equal rights or social justice. Sanders has always been ahead of the times. Aside from universal healthcare, Clinton has usually lagged behind them.

And you have applied things to the poster that the poster just did not say. You take issue with "demographic war", fine. It seems to me the poster meant that as "fights for social justice," and said plainly that we should not abandon them. You then go on to pretend that the opposite was said, or meant.

It is by the way, tasteless to say Bernie's run was a political failure. You wouldn't be fond of it if people said that about Clinton's GE bid. Frankly, I've always bristled at the media's gleeful use of "failed Presidential candidate." It has a clear intention, and that is to make a person less relevant, less competent.

I absolutely disagree with your opinion, that Clinton's policies were more robust than Sander's. Hers were probably more fleshed out. On that, I couldn't give a shit. We need to make people want something so that the insiders actually start delivering it and Clinton just had less actual change to offer. She wanted to work with the people screwing us to unscrew us. That is basically, asking them to throw us a bone from time to time.

But we should be having a conversation about what we want our economic policies and direction to look like, rather than the both of us saying "nah-ah cuz clinton this , Bernie That!" This is continuing to get us nowhere, which is why I objected to the OP's premise.

I don't care how gop uses the term. I believe we are in a class war so it is accurate terminology for what I am describing.

By demographic war, I mean to imply that - in terms of race, sex, gender, physical/neuro abilities and other issues familiar to critical studies - that there is an assault on the less powerful by the more powerful. And, yes, thank you, I am aware my life is not universal and that, obviously, am not asking anyone to "back down."

Your projections about my opinions about diversity seem to me to have little foundation in my OP.

I never talked of ending demographic wars. I specifically said otherwise: "It seems to me that Clinton and Sanders are worlds apart in terms of bringing fire to the class war, but they seem unified in terms of civil rights, equal opportunity, protecting the vulnerable and so on. As a result, I think there is a growing emphasis here on how to fight back against the abuse of the wealthy, but it isn't, I hope, an abandonment of other demographic wars being waged." And, obviously, I make no mention of "supplanting votes" - I am talking about re-assessing the democratic party ideology.

Eh. You are blabbing-on here and your post not only misrepresents my words but is indulgent on your part. Maybe you want to start your own thread.

I think what you meant to say is "stifling support for Donald Trump."

solidarity behind our nominated candidate, and I don't object to it. The point, more than anything is the need to clearly and easily screen trolls who's intentions are to bait discussion and suck energy away from better more productive topics.

Constructive criticism though, is not something to be terrified of and shouted down. I feel like we are or should be more capable of fielding serious issues without freaking the hell out about the possibility that broaching them is "giving comfort to the enemy!"

those who were more immersed in that echo-chamber atmosphere may be surprised at opinions of Clinton's campaign.

People got banned for saying "I will not vote for Hillary Clinton".

The only problem is that those people were allowed to stay here way too long.

interpretation. It is not the previous primary or GE that can help us to mend divides on policy direction. Frankly, I think at this juncture it makes people harder of hearing when it comes to trying to address philosophical underpinnings.

And arguably, for some that will be the point. Damage the policies by taking down the candidate rather than the policies themselves. So I don't expect the primary to go away any time soon, especially in democratic journals and websites,and if it does, we can absolutely expect to hear about it come the next time we start vetting our presidential candidates, but I would advocate a different approach on these boards.

Of course, this is the 2016 postmortem sub-forum, so what should I expect.

to the thoughts and feelings of friends and family via social media. To try and assess the shortcomings of Democrats 2016 is, in part, to merely allow DU to work unimpeded.

Enough of the gerontocracy.

This is your primary concern right now?

I, as do most others, have a variety of concerns that share the top spot and occasionally rotate with secondary and tertiary concerns.