ADVERTISEMENT

After Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, you’d think that there would be at least some sense of direction among Democratic Party leaders as to where they should plant their messaging seed for the 2018 midterms. Running on a wave of “inevitability,” or simply hoping your opponent says or does something that turns off voters just isn’t enough.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Democratic Party is asking followers on social media to vote on a new slogan for the upcoming elections, and the choices, so far, aren’t that great, according to The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer:

https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/882674564316246016

Derek Willis, of ProPublica, points out the worst:

“Have you seen the other guy?” – That one is just plain lazy. In other words, “vote for us, we’re not as bad.” Hardly a message that motivates people to get in their car and drive to a polling place.

The American Prospect, a liberal publication, sums up the Democratic conundrum as far as trying to formulate a winning message:

Electoral tests of early 2017 have given rise to several schools of thought among Democrats about how to win next year, and beyond. Proponents cite the fragments of evidence at hand—four House special elections, the Virginia primary, even the elections in Britain and France, for their cases. The focus of most of these analyses is on policy: Should candidates run to the Left or to the Center? Many issues are in controversy: single-payer health care (favored by Rob Quist but not by Jon Ossoff), abortion (Omaha Mayoral candidate Heath Mello’s position turned off pro-choice advocates), and pipelines (dividing the Virginia contestants).

One school, relying on Labour’s strong showing under Jeremy Corbyn, argues that a populist politics of the left is Democrats’ formula for winning. But that’s not only an unproven hypothesis, it’s also not been tested in a general election for president since McGovern-Nixon in 1972.

The ideal policy posture is an unknown. However, there are enough “known knowns” to sketch the path to a win.

Some Democrats are complaining that it’s hard to build a national message with someone like Nancy Pelosi at the helm, according to The Atlantic:

“The national brand is toxic,” said Democratic Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, who unsuccessfully challenged Pelosi for the title of House minority leader last year, in an interview. “There’s just no doubt about it. We are not connecting with people the way we need to connect with them.”

On the campaign trail, Democrats worked to distance themselves from the national party. In Montana, Democratic candidate Rob Quist reportedly didn’t want Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez to campaign with him, though Perez did campaign for Democratic candidates Jon Ossoff in Georgia and Archie Parnell in South Carolina. Quist instead promised that he would be “an independent voice” in Washington, while in Kansas, Democratic candidate James Thompson argued that “things aren’t working no matter who’s in charge.”

Democrats in conservative parts of the country have long tried to prove they’re not typical Washington liberals. But if candidates feel heightened pressure to separate themselves from the national brand amid public skepticism toward the party, voters may be left wondering what it is they represent.

“I think voters still don’t totally trust Democrats. I think they don’t know necessarily what Democrats stand for, and how they differentiate from Republicans,” Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who won election in November with the endorsement of Senator Bernie Sanders, said in an interview.

At the moment, being “Against Trump” is good for Democratic fundraising and for keeping the base engaged with the day-to-day fights in Congress and the courts. However, to expand that fervor for 2018, Democrats will need to move past being the party of opposition, and somehow come up with a plan to actually defeat Trump, rather than just oppose him.

“Vote for us, we’re a little better,” isn’t going to cut it.

49 COMMENTS

  1. The best message is that they are “not Trump” right now. Basic humanity and reason will prevail once again. All we need to do is to continue to fight and denounce this obvious monstrosity that continues to erode our constitution and values on a daily basis.

    • I think you are right Nottrump is a good label for now. I think by the midterms the generic notrepublican will work well also. (maybe even notwithtrump)

    • NOT TRUMP? That is as original as most of the Democrats ideas, in other words NOT VERY.?

      Has the fact that for the last several decades Democrats have been constantly losing seats in state governments, governerships, congress and the US senate eluded you? Finally the useless O’Bugger mercifully finished his two terms and he was replaced by the can do Donald J Trump and not the thieving, lying, elitist, phony MEGLOMANIAC Billary Clinton.?

      You surely aren’t naive enough to think that all of these lost elections over the decades by the Democrats was caused by interference by foreign governments? No the American electorate simply saw what lying POS the Democratic candidates were and decided that it was a no brainer to go with the Republicans, the party of the people!!!?

      • Republicans brag that the state elections were won by Gerrymandering. They announced that they were going to do it, and Democrats were too stupid to counter it. Likewise the House relies on Gerrymandered districts, so Dem dreams of taking control next year is a pipe dream.

        The presidency is not a good example for you, since Dems have won more votes in 6 of the past 7 elections.

        Meanwhile, Senate control has flipped in 1981, 1987, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2007, 2011, and 2015.

        • Have the Dems won more votes in the presidential election with or without illegal voting? Voting by illegals, voting by dead people, voting by live US citizens in more than one state. This is something that the newly formed ELECTION COMMISSION is trying to get to the bottom of, but some states don’t want to comply with this commissions requests, imagine that.?

          You are right the Senate has flip flopped more than a gymnast. But prior to the 1980’s the Democrats had control of both congress and the senate for a number of years. What did they do during that time? Not a whole lot. Is it any wonder that the electorate, the legal ones that is decided to boot the Democrats to the curb.?

          • I am really uncomfortable about a presidential commission to “study” a presidential election–voting patterns, using individual information. I would have felt better if Trump had asked the Congress to study the presidential election. He has both houses, so the effect would be exactly the same–except that it wouldn’t look so fishy. You KNOW they are going to find one or two anomalies in some podunk burg and claim that the whole election was “rigged.” A Congressional commission would have had less credibility issues.

            • You know as well as I do that by using your SS #, the government can find out anything and everything about anyone. That states are refusing to turn over information is a little FISHY!!!?

            • Again, my problem is not with having a “study” done. My problem is with having a presidential committee investigating a presidential election, beginning with a bizarre claim that it’s trying to “prove.”

              Talk about the fox in the hen house! They could have gotten around that by simply asking Congress to investigate. Just. plain. stupid.

    • I disagree 100%. If the dems don’t get a new message they’ll continue to show they don’t have a plan.

      Wow! vote for me as I’m not Trump. Hello, you already lost using that tactic.

  2. While the Democratic party needs a good, rousing slogan and some good bumper stickers, we do not need to change our identity. The Democrats have long been the party of inclusion, the party of equality, the party of more rights. We do not support “religious freedom restoration” laws that are thinly veiled vehicles to allow bigots to persecute those they hate. While we do believe in capitalism, we do not believe in denying healthcare to millions in the name of “market based approaches” that basically say that unless you are among the rich you, and your children should just die quietly and not burden the fortunate ones. We do believe in caring for the least fortunate among us. We believe in a strong social safety net so that children or adults for that matter do not go hungry, or suffer for lack of medical care when the economy falters. We believe in a livable minimum wage, we believe in job training, we believe in quality, free education for every child, not in robbing public schools to fund private schools through “school choice voucher” programs. We believe in making secondary education, if not free, affordable so that graduates are not saddled with lifelong, crippling student loan debt. We believe in the rights of workers to organise to protect their jobs and rights. We believe that women in the workplace should be equal to their male counterparts in pay, job security, and consideration for advancement. We believe that women should have control of their own bodies and reproductive choices and should never be subject to unwanted sexual advances.
    What we are not is socialists, what we do not need is Bernie Sanders. We do not need to lose another election cycle to someone who misrepresents everything we stand for and then hangs in the race up to the convention, telling his supporters that he can still win, damaging our candidate all the while. He then proceeded to pressure the platform process and then take credit for the platform. After all that, he never campaigned for Clinton, he campaigned for “his” platform. He took his inner circle on an uninvited trip to the Vatican, paid for by his supporters. And, oh yeah, he recently bought his second luxury vacation home since the campaign. Who do you think paid for that, surely not the “poorest member of the Senate”. Before I move on, let me repeat, BERNIE SANDERS GO HOME, GET OIT OF THE DEMOCTATS BUSINESS.
    Yes, we Democrats do need some snappy slogans, and good bumper stickers going into 2018 and 2020. But we don’t need to redefine who we are. We know who we are, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer know who we are. Tim Ryan and Kieth Ellison may be a little confused. Make no mistake, by the midterms, even if the Republicans continue to struggle and don’t succeed in their agenda, it will be enough to be Notrepublicans to take over the House and at least gain in the Senate. If they actually manage to enact any of their agenda, there will be such a wave that will take many years for the Republicans to recover from.

    • I just love the way Democrats believe in this, that and the other thing. It is a good thing that for the past several decades they have also sworn off another curse of theirs, one they have foisted on the American people without mercy, that of WINNING!!!?

      • Exactly SS. The dems aren’t the party of whatever. They don’t care anymore for the average worker/person than the Republicans.

        The dem elites are filthy rich like Repub elites.

    • Just curious, were they not able to enact any of this agenda during the Obama administration? What makes you think it would be enacted more successfully if Democrats take the House but don’t have the Senate or White House with it? Republicans currently have the House, Senate, and White House, and still can’t pass their own agenda.

      • I disagree that they didn’t enact any of the agenda under Obama. I think they fought hard and made civil rights advancements for many groups, and the economy slowly improved, granted not runaway and not for everyone. I was not a fan of the ACA, I thought it did not go nearly far enough. A public option, at least should have been included, possibly negotiated drug prices. That said, sometimes you can’t get all the way to the top of the mountain where livin is easy, but you can scramble far enough up to get to where you can survive, and you just might resent being thrown over the side to drown in the Trump flood.

        I think that what’s holding the Republicans back is number 1, Trump in Whitehouse =bubble, bubble, tool and TROUBLE and 2, I think the Republicans know that the people are not behind them. I don’t envy any of their jobs, whether conservative, or moderate.

        Obviously, the Democrats are not going to prevail while the Rs hold all the power. They may be able to resist the most drastic changes, admittedly by obstructing the Rs. If they retake the house, they can resist more effectively, the bigger the margin the better. If they retake both houses, all bets are off, options range from removing Trump, to Trump deciding to be a Democrat. Anything between that and WWIII are within the realm of possibility.

        I would like to say we will finally elect people on both sides who would work for the COMMON GOOD (no special interests), but my ruby slippers fell off and slid down the rainbow an out of sight, and I don’t think my unicorn refuses to carry me all the way home.

    • I’m gonna go ahead and disagree with the bulk of this comment. I’ll list a number of important points below.

      1. Progressives in the Democratic party have continually pulled the centre-right Democratic leadership to the left and into the future. If it weren’t for the progressive wing, the party would still be opposed to LGBT rights, just to name one example.

      2. “We” do not “believe in capitalism”. You might! I certainly don’t. Capitalism first of all requires indefinite economic growth, which in turn requires indefinite population growth. We do not, and will not, have indefinite growth. Certain aspects of capitalism served a purpose at a point in time, but in modern society capitalism as a system is toxic. We know, from Nobel Prize winning research, that capitalism unavoidably entails redistributing of wealth towards an ever shrinking class of hyper wealthy individuals, and away from the vast majority of people. Capitalism has never not led to increasing wealth disparities and the destruction of a functioning middle and working class. Even more troubling, the common American idea of unregulated free market capitalism doesn’t exist, and has never existed.

      3. You say you don’t want socialism, yet you express strong support for several socialist programs, such as universal health care, government subsidized education, and a social safety net. Of course, all civilized societies, including borderline civilized societies such as the United States, rely on certain aspects of socialist ideology. Indeed, socialist ideas are innate in the definition of civilization. What do you believe that “socialism” means? In normal parlance, it’s a fluid label attached to societies which incorporate an arbitrary amount of socialist ideas, deemed sufficient to make a socialist system. Like absolute capitalism, absolute socialism has never existed.

      4. Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country. You might not want to shoot yourself in the foot by distancing yourself from one of the very few genuinely popular political leaders in today’s discourse. I might add that attempts to smear Sanders over personal wealth and corruption will be a non-starter. It is quitr frankly a laughable line of attack.

      5. The energy and enthusiasm of the Democratic party is entirely contained within the progressive wing. Conservative third way Democrats still control the party, mainly due to lasting 80s and 90s legacies and name recognition. Hillary won the Democratic primaries by dominating the vote in states which would never give their electoral votes to a Democratic candidate in the general election. I question the value of name recognition in Alabama when it comes to engaging the Democratic voter base. The party has the most support where Hillary has the least. This is not a great dynamic for a political party with the ambition to sometimes win elections.

      6. Progressive politicians don’t have the ability to misrepresent what you stand for. The only way anyone can even know what you stand for is by reading your comments or studying your voting history. Sanders will express his ideas, just as you may express yours. Disagreements are part of life.

      7. The only thing that makes it possible for progressive leaders to influence the Democratic party platform, is the fact that progressivism has a certain support among the voters. Bernie Sanders has the power to negotiate only because a significant minority of the voter base support him and prefer him to other prominent Democrats. (The other way to influence the party platform would be to donate massive amounts of money, but Bernie Sanders doesn’t have that kind of money.) For contrast, note that Anthony Weiner has no influence over the platform. This is because he has no support from the voters. Ignoring someone like Weiner carries no penalty for the party. Ignoring Sanders would.

      8. The above is, incidentally, how political change happens. Third party votes are useless in a system such as the one we have. The only way to move the window of discourse is to win support within the existing institutions. This is why progressives with any understanding of politics voted for Hillary. Not because we support her ideology, but because she would have a reason and a de facto obligation to be attentive to progressive voices. Donald Trump has no reason to take progressive ideas into account, since his entire voter base consists of religious extremists, fascists, white supremacists and assorted uninformed parrots. This is also why a group like BLM targeted Sanders during the primaries. They knew that Sanders had a reason not to ignore their voices. Of course, those BLM protesters had infinitely larger disagreements with Trump, but Trump had virtually no support from anyone who is black or knows black people. Trying to influence him would have been a giant waste of time and effort.

      9. Chuck Schumer is a blue dog Democrat who supports ethnic cleansing through financial chokeholds in Palestine, voted for the Iraq invasion and has agitated for a war with Iran, voted for DOMA, voted against gun regulations, voted to keep tax loopholes for hedgefund managers, and describes the ACA as a mistake. If that is who YOU feel represents your ideals, then that’s your prerogative. I don’t accept that these are values inherent to the Democratic party, and I will rather support other candidates who more closely align with my morality.

      10. “Not Trump” and “Not Republican” is what you tried in 2016. It won’t be any more successful in 2018 or 2020. The new enthusiasm in the Democratic party comes through policy and political consciousness. Braindead denialism and meaningless talking points work fine for conservative voters, who by and large are driven by white identity politics and economical populism. It has never worked with progressive voters, who are generally capable of basic reasoning and explaining the bases for their positions. We don’t vote for bumper stickers. You’re thinking of the other guys.

  3. I am addressing this comment to “reality calls” who obviously doesn’t have the guts to post under his own name, evidently doesn’t have the guts to post so the community can see his words.

    First, the definition of socialism, a system of government in which 1. The state owns the means of production an distribution. 2 a system where there is no private property. 3 in Marxist theory, the transitional stage between capitalism and communism, characterized by unequal distribution.

    For an illustration of the effects of these forms of government, I would like to introduce you to Mr George Orwell. He was before my time, so I am sure he was before yours also, yet his work is timless and is as valid a warning today as it was when he laid down his pen. I recommend first “Animal Farm”. I think when you meet the leading citizens of the farm, you might be reminded of your friend, Mr Sanders. Its been a long time, but I think “Snowball” might be the one I am thinking of. He would, though, rather be “Napolean”. And realize that you would, at best, be “Boxer”, possibly the unnamed sheep at the cowshed. With that for a primer, graduate to “1984”. When you meet “Big Brother”, feel free to visualize him with small hands and orange skin. But notice the Brooklyn accent and the frowzie fringed bald head. You see, the setting has changed, but the main character is still with us. You, in this story get to be Winston.

    Pleas know that you, your socialist hero and your kind are as much to blame for this loss as are Wiki leaks ( may Assange die of something slow and painful) and the Russialns.

    Finally, we are Democrats, Sanders is not. We are not Socialists. Social Security, Medicare and the like came out of a capitalist system, paid for by our taxes. An improved ACA or even single payer will come the same way. Not by allowing the government own everything.

    Bernie Sanders is a fraud and a liar, look at his past, his “work” history. Look at his perverted writings. Look at his beliefs, at who he idolized and compliments. Look at his involvement in his wife’s fiascos. Look at his tax returns( you cant). Look at this “poorest member of the Senate’s” vacation homes.

    In not finished, I’m just not wasting any more time on a loser like you.

    • First of all, take a deep breath and calm down. My comment was auto-detected as spam, presumably because it was very long. I haven’t deleted anything, nor am I trying to hide anything. The comment is saved and can be re-posted if anyone’s interested.

      Most of your recent response is predicated on a misunderstanding on your part. You seem to be conflating socialism with a number of other types of government. I will therefore reply briefly to the underlying assumptions.

      1. If you take 2 minutes to look up the term in an encyclopedia (wikipedia will do fine, in case you don’t have access to other works), you will find that socialism entails that production is owned by the people, through some cooperative system or another. When the government owns the rights to production, it is referred to as state capitalism or state socialism. This is entirely distinct from socialism. Sadly, the United States education system has confused most Americans, including yourself, by erroneously referring to state capitalist systems such as those used in Cuba, USSR, former Eastern Europe, etc, as socialist or communist.

      2. Social democracy is also not the same thing as socialism. Bernie Sanders represents the former.

      3. I’m not convinced that you understand Orwell. Snowball is a metaphor for Trotsky, by the way.

      4. Which authoritarian ideas does Bernie Sanders support? You make this bold claim that he’s proposed a totalitarian regime, yet you’ve failed to provide a single example of any such policy being proposed or supported by Sanders. Come on now.

      5. The ACA is a hybrid system based in capitalism and laced with various restraints and regulations in order to prop up a private insurance business propositiom which is, without government support, mathematically incapable to survive.

      6. A single payer health care system would by definition not be a function of capitalism. It has no competitive market, no private ownership, no corporate interest, no accumulation of capital, and so on. You need to brush up on civics 101.

      7. I see that you have some weird personal vendetta with Bernie Sanders. I’m not particularly interested in it, other than to correct some false information in your comment. Bernie Sanders was never a nominee for President. Nevertheless, he did release tax returns in April of last year, and there was nothing of interest. Right wing sources focused their criticism on the fact that Sanders had made deductions for business lunches and charity donations, and that he picked up social security payments. In other words, they where very much grasping at straws. And, yes, Sanders is definitely one of the least wealthy persons in Congress. His gross income for 2014 was around $200K, almost entirely consisting of his normal salary and his social security benefits. For comparison, Hillary made something like $28M that same year. That’s 140x what Sanders made. In other words, your priorities are very, very strange.

    • First of all, take a deep breath and calm down. My comment was auto-detected as spam, presumably because it was very long. I haven’t deleted anything, nor am I trying to hide anything. The comment is saved and can be re-posted if anyone’s interested.

      Most of your recent response is predicated on a misunderstanding on your part. You seem to be conflating socialism with a number of other types of government. I will therefore reply briefly to the underlying assumptions.

      1. If you take 2 minutes to look up the term in an encyclopedia (wikipedia will do fine, in case you don’t have access to other works), you will find that socialism entails that production is owned by the people, through some cooperative system or another. When the government owns the rights to production, it is referred to as state capitalism or state socialism. This is entirely distinct from socialism. Sadly, the United States education system has confused most Americans, including yourself, by erroneously referring to state capitalist systems such as those used in Cuba, USSR, former Eastern Europe, etc, as socialist or communist.

      2. Social democracy is also not the same thing as socialism. Bernie Sanders represents the former.

      3. I’m not convinced that you understand Orwell. George Orwell self-identified as a socialist and an anarcho-syndicalist. His views on politics were similar to those of for example Noam Chomsky. (Snowball is a metaphor for Trotsky, by the way.)

      4. Which authoritarian ideas does Bernie Sanders support? You make this bold claim that he’s proposed a totalitarian regime, yet you’ve failed to provide a single example of any such policy being proposed or supported by Sanders. Come on now.

      5. The ACA is a hybrid system based in capitalism and laced with various restraints and regulations in order to prop up a private insurance business propositiom which is, without government support, mathematically incapable to survive.

      6. A single payer health care system would by definition not be a function of capitalism. It has no competitive market, no private ownership, no corporate interest, no accumulation of capital, and so on. You need to brush up on civics 101.

      7. I see that you have some weird personal vendetta with Bernie Sanders. I’m not particularly interested in it, other than to correct some false information in your comment. Bernie Sanders was never a nominee for President. Nevertheless, he did release tax returns in April of last year, and there was nothing of interest. Right wing sources focused their criticism on the fact that Sanders had made deductions for business lunches and charity donations, and that he picked up social security payments. In other words, they where very much grasping at straws. And, yes, Sanders is definitely one of the least wealthy persons in Congress. His gross income for 2014 was around $200K, almost entirely consisting of his normal salary and his social security benefits. For comparison, Hillary made something like $28M that same year. That’s 140x what Sanders made. In other words, your priorities are very, very strange.

      • You are still too much of a coward to post where your comments can be read. You are the one who needs to do more reading. This country is not now and will not become socialist. There is nothing lacking with my education, but when you direct me to Wikipedia, I tend to think yours is somewhat lacking. Wikipedia can be edited at any time, by virtually anyone. While it is ok for a quick reference about a subject that you are unfamiliar with, you had better follow that up with some research on real reference works.

        About Orwell, you are as usual, wrong. It is not his personal polotics, which were very confused, but his descriptions of socialism and communism that are important.

        As to Mr Sanders, you are still being taken in by his game. Educate yourself.

        You send me privately another long, wrong diatribe, and then post this short, insulting, wrong post here where it can be read. When I go to look at other comments you have posted, I find a smart ass emoji and the words “this member’s posts are private” and “Deal with it”. Do not post anything to me that you do not post where it is visible to all. Also have the guts to own who you are.

        • I don’t think it’s possible to send private messages here. Calm down. Posts that have been deleted by disqus or site mods won’t be visible to you on my user page, whether it’s open or closed. You don’t seem to understand how disqus works.

          I said wikipedia will do fine for a primer in case you don’t have access to other encyclopedias. For some reason, this has upset you greatly.

          Encyclopedia Britannica says the following:

          “socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources […] everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.”

          As you can see, Britannica agrees with me (and with wikipedia). It’s okay to be wrong. The question is if you can be graceful enough to accept that you were mistaken. Can you?

          I do find it amusing that you appealed to Orwell as an authority, only to be made aware that you haven’t understood a word of his writings. Oops?

          • I never called Orwell an authority. Orwell has on the other hand been recognised as a masterful writer. His description of events and their consequences both under socialism ( Animal Farm) and totalitarinist communism ( 1984) are both vivid and realistic. You will note that the pigs, (Sanders in our conversation) who proposed both the revolution and the new means of governing became the governing body who then controlled both production an distribution. That covers distribution of labor as well as Goods. You will also note that they were rather more equal than all the other animals. They shared much less of the labor and much more of the goods. Your Mr Sanders and his crooked wife. You, in the other hand will be more like Boxer.

            In 1984 We see what happens after the government ( in the name of society) has gained control over life’s necessities and distributed them by their own selfish set of rules. That when someone like we have in office now gains power They proceed to control every facet of life making ordinary citizens like you and I expendable at least and disposable for their amusement at worst.
            Are you aware that at one time Sanders proposed that the Rockefeller fortune could be seized and used for government expenses. While I do believe that there is to much wealth disparity in this country, I don’t believe anyone’s money can be taken from them. If you can do it to them, you could surely take what little I have.

            The Rockefeller family may not be paragons of virtue, but their fortune was made in industry, while Sanders, who got his first job at 40, has made his in campaign contributions and wages paid by the government. Educate yourself as to Sanders character and beliefs.

            Finally, social security, is NOT a socialist program. It was passed into law by elected representatives, signed into law by an elected president, is paid for by taxes deducted from our wages. If you do not work and pay in, you get no benefits. This program is paid for by its participants, it is managed by a branch of government. It does not belong to the government. Same with Medicare. Medicare is single payer yet is not a socialist program. It does not belong to the government. Single payer medical care, or “Medicare for all” would be the same way.

            As you say, it is ok to be wrong. I wonder if you will have the grace to accept that you are. Your Mr Sanders’ proposals are no different than the “Working class utopias” promised to the Russians or the Chinese. My way builds on the successes of a nation that has survived more than 240 years as a Democratic Republic.

            • Can you point to a single statement or policy proposal by Bernie Sanders that suggests he’s arguing for a totalitarian regime wherw production is controlled by the state and private property is illegal?

              You see, I’m not particularly interested in arguing with the demons in your mind.

            • Sanders is proposing a social democracy such that exist in Europe and particularly Scandinavia. These are nations that seem to be doing a whole lot better than we are. They are also very stable. Social democracies are built on ideas which, when presented one at a time, you claim to support. Yet, when presented as a package and promoted by Bernie Sanders, suddenly you perceive them as a totalitarian regime. What has gone wrong in your thought process?

            • The countries you refer to are generally about the size of one of our states, or smaller both in mass and population. Their populations also tend to be much more homogenous than ours. What is done in those countries is not easily extrapolated to a country the size and population of the US.

              Sanders is no different with his “revolution” than those who promised the “workers utopia” to the people of China, Russia, and Cuba to name a few.

              You need to educate yourself on the specifics of the situations in the governments that you use as examples. You need to see that there are more differences than similarities between those countries and the US.

              I do not support the programs in the form that Sanders proposes. I do not support Sanders tactics.

            • You wrote: “social security, is NOT a socialist program. It was passed into law by elected representatives, signed into law by an elected president, is paid for by taxes deducted from our wages. If you do not work and pay in, you get no benefits. This program is paid for by its participants, it is managed by a branch of government.”

              Congratulations. You’ve just described socialism. You REALLY need to brush up on civics 101.

            • You have an uncanny ability to read one thing and see something entirely different. I think they call this ” confirmation bias” when you see your own opinions reflected in any statement, regardless of the facts.

              You really need to lower your self important image a few pegs.

            • From the way you represent your ideology, it’s easily determined that you’re a 1990s style, corporate neoliberal. Your preferred policies align with those of Bill Clinton, Gerhard Schröder, Jacques Chirac, Tony Blair, Göran Persson, Kjell Magne Bondevik, Thabo Mbeki, and many others in that worldwide wave of 3rd way politicians.

              That’s fine. You are centre-right. Your problem is that you think you’re progressive. In reality, your values are similar to those of Reagan and Nixon.

            • Rattling off a smorgasbord of names of people with a wide range of political views and lumping them together just illustrates your political ignorance. Projecting those values on me illustrates your insecurity in your own ideals, and your need to feel superior. Most bullies are that way.

            • Sanders graduated from college at 23 and worked all kinds of regular jobs immediately afterwards. He was a teacher and a carpenter, among other things. I guess those don’t qualify as jobs to you? The only real jobs are, what, hedge fund manager and mayor?

              In his early 20s, Bernie Sanders worked with at-risk children and marched with MLK for civil rights. Where were you?

            • Do your research, according to his associates, he rarely had regular employment and spent much of his time on Liberty Union projects, instead of seeking real employment. As I said he most often ran an extension cord to the basement of the apartment building stealing power from his neighbors because he couldn’t pay for it himself.
              According to one friend his carpentry skills were very poor and wouldnt, and didn’t make him a living.
              The claim of marching with MLK has been debunked, and most of his civil rights activism has been shown to be highly exagerated.

              He was drawing unemployment when he was elected mayor.

              By the way, he has a son by a woman he never married, whom he never supported. I guess his “work with at risk” kids, maybe should have started closer to home.

              By the way, when MLK was assinated, I was in the seventh grade, when he gave the “I have a dream” speech, I was eight, at the ripe old age of ten, I just wasn’t able to tear myself away to march with him.

            • So, your big beefs with Bernie Sanders is that he used to be poor and that he had a child out of wedlock.

              Yet somehow you’re definitely not a Republican in disguise?

              By the way, Bernie had shared custody of his son, i.e. your complaint about child support is moot. You don’t normally pay child support to yourself.

            • I didn’t say you called Orwell an authority, by the way. I said you appealed to him as an authority, which you did.

            • You can twist things any way you want, Social Security is not socialist, if it were it would be owned by the government and paid out to whoever that government decided was deserving. If you don’t pay in, you don’t draw out.
              Did you see the reports that Sanders ran an extension cord to his neighbors throughtthe basement because he couldn’t pay for his electricity.

              Have you read any of his perverted writing.

              Have you seen where his wife is under investigation for bankrupting the university she ran and that he is under investigation for using his office to get loans for her?

              As for one proposal how about sezing a private fortune for government use?

              How about Sanders claiming he could win the nomination at the convention, after Clinton had won enough pledged delegates to win?

            • I’ve directed you to several sources explaining that socialism means things are owned by the people (hence the name social-ism), not by a totalitarian government. Before, you might have been ignorant. Now you’re willfully lying.

              I asked you to provide a single instance of Sanders promoting a totalitarian regime, state-owned production, and/or prohibition of private property. You have failed to do so. Thus, you are willfully lying here too. You don’t really believe this stuff, or you would’ve been able to provide the reason for why you believe it. You clearly have some weird psychosocial hangup on Bernie Sanders. Did he steal your girlfriend or something?

              It’s time for you to drop this nonsense. Grow up and take responsibility for the failures of your candidates. Sanders wasn’t the nominee. He didn’t lose the general election. He wasn’t even in it.

              I’ve seen in your other comments that you claim to support a single payer health care system. That’s not a Hillary proposal. It’s not an Obama proposal either. The only reason you even know about the possibility of single payer, is because Sanders’ candidacy brought it into the public conversation. Because of Sanders, it’s now an idea that many Democrats support.

              You claim to support free higher education. Do you know who doesn’t? Hillary. She had nothing like this in her platform until Sanders brought it up. Sanders showed, on a huge national platform, that free education is a wildly popular stance.

              You claim to support LGBT rights. Hillary didn’t, until it became politically convenient to do so. Same with Obama. Progressive voices shifted the public opinion to the point where centre-right Democrats were forced to endorse LGBT rights, or lose their base. Sanders was one of those voices.

              You claim to support the reigning in of Wall Street. This was a central part of the Sanders campaign. Hillary had zero interest in any such discussion… until the popularity of Sanders’ message forced her to pay lip service.

              Even with all this in mind, you cultivate an unhealthy hatred for a politician whose platform you claim to fully support, while championing a number of politicians whose platforms you claim to strongly disagree with.

              That’s why I assume Bernie stole your girlfriend. Sans this plot point, your foaming rage makes little sense.

            • I think it is time for you “Berniebots” to take responsibility for the damage your man did to Clinton’s campaign. Up to the time Clinton was actually declared to have won the primary, at the convention, he was telling followers that he could still win. He single handedly destroyed any sense of unity in the party. I would point out that Clinton wine by a large margin of pledged delegates, before any superdelegates were counted. He then blew up the platform and campaigned using the platform as if he, not Clinton were still the candidate. Or in his mind should have been.

              You claim that no one was aware of the concept of single payer until Sanders brought it up. Perhaps, in all your wisdom and political knowledge, you have missed the fact that the first lady of a former president chaired a taskforce that proposed and designed a single payer healthcare system. I wonder who that could have been.

              Hillary Clinton was proposing a public option and other improvements to the ACA, which would have been attainable, and in reality would have been concrete steps toward a single payer system.She also proposed allowing 50 and up being able to buy into Meficare, a step toward Medicare for all.

              I do not support free college education, rather I support debt free college. I’m sorry to say, that didn’t seem to satisfy those of you who expect to be served everything on a silver platter. I support grant programs and low or no interest loans to help students pay their way. I support programs that allow student loans to be forgiven for community service jobs.

              I support the rights of all people. Hillary Clinton spent much of her life fighting for the rights of the disadvantaged, Bernie, not so much.

              I do have a hatred for Sanders, he as much as any other factor, helped us lose the election. By his own admission, he hitch hiked a ride on the Democratic ticket because as an independent he would not have gotten as much coverage. I have one girlfriend, we have been together for nearly fifty years, and she hates Sanders as much as I do.

            • Go ask the Republican house and the Republican senate if they would be willing to pass any of Hillary’s “attainable” reforms. I’ll wait.

              Sit around and fume about Bernie Sanders all you want. At some poikt you have to grow up and take responsibility for your own failures.

            • The Clinton plan from the early 90s was decidedly not a single payer plan. It was a plan to mandate insurance through employment. Again, you are politically illiterate

            • I’ll add that I do find it troubling that many centre-right Democratic talking points are now lifted straight from Limbaugh or Breitbart.

            • I find your definitions of political viewpoints troubling. I assure you, I do not subscribe to either Breitbart, Limbaugh, infowars, or that other obscure blog you referenced. I also am not brainwashed by the far left purveyors of nonsense either.

              You need to watch your blood pressure.

            • Due to a pre-existing medical condition I check my blood pressure every 4 weeks. No problem there. You claim to be a man of quite high age, and you spend your time panicking about imaginary communists. You might be projecting your worries about your own blood pressure. Just a thought.

              The conspiracy theories you have bought into are exclusively peddled by Alex Jones and similar outlets. Next, you’ll be ranting about chemtrails and Obama’s secret college boyfriend.

              If you’re gonna pose as a Democrat, you need to be a little less transparent.

            • What private fortune did Sanders want to seize? And how would that make all property illegal?

              EDIT: I did a quick google search for your allegation, and found only a single link to one single story making the same allegation. The site Intellihub had an opinion story alleging that Sanders in the 1970s “insinuated” that he wanted to seize the Rockafeller fortune. The story doesn’t provide any actual quote of this particular statement.

              Intellihub is a far right conspiracy theory-pushing, crackpot blog that still supports the insane “Pizzagate” narrative, and counts Alex Jones as a friend.

              I determine the truth value of stories based on the evidence and not on the trustworthiness of the messenger. However, I do find it revealing that a self-proclaimed Democrat like yourself would get your “news” from far right junk blogs.

              At this point I think I can safely conclude that you are dishonest about your entire persona. You’re a Trump supporter masquerading as a Hillary fan in order to make the Democratic party look bad. Nice try, but you’ve been busted.

            • In the first place, you are an idiot, and a lazy crybaby who wants everything delivered to you on a silver platter. Secondly your “quick Google search” is just like your dependence on Wikipedia. Now it’s time to do your reading. I have never even heard of the site you reference. My research on Sanders came from multiple sources, some mainstream, and some even left wing. Get off your lazy ass and find out the truth about your idol.

            • Then maybe you should provide those sources? It’s quite ironic of you to call me lazy, while in the next sentence expecting me to do your research for you.

              Did you look up “socialism” in Encyclopedia Britannica yet, or was that too much work for you as well?

            • I’ve never claimed to be a Bernie Sanders supporter. I lean socialist. Sanders is a social democrat. Your complete ignorance of political science is making any such distinctions impossible for you to discern.

            • I will agree, one of us has an ignorance of political science. You may never have stayed that you support Sanders, but your arguements prove you to be a first class “Bernout”. Sorry but the truth will out.

              Good luck with your search for utopia, read your Orwell. His personal politics might have been muddled and his real intentions hard to discern. But his imaginings, and his writings paint a frightening picture of the reality of your utopian dreams.

              I am tired of your self aggrandizing drivel, have a nice life. Make better political choices.

            • The fact that you describe free health care and fair wages as a “utopia” really blows your cover. Didn’t think of that, huh?

Comments are closed.