• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Left better brace itself for war

I don't see the connection between the democratic establishment and democratic voters, past this debacle of an election.

Could you clarify what you mean here?
 
In contrast, I don't like Hillary, and it's the votes of my bloc that will decide this election.

That's the problem.

Then we'll know who to thank when Speaker Ryan at long last gets to move his agenda through a unified GOP government. It'll definitely be easier to pursue Medicare-for-all when traditional Medicare doesn't exist anymore. And those 2-3 SCOTUS seats the GOP president fills will undoubtedly be a real boon to social and economic progress.
 
Most people on the 'left' don't have the intellectual honesty to realize there's a very large amount of people supporting alternate views within their assumed voting bloc.

Actually, currently, that's what makes the left and all I hear them talk about but they still arent divided in any major way as far as presidential support goes (not voting if its not who they like). Also attacking them as a group, claiming that most are intellectual dishonest is silly and exposes biased.
 
You said "The Clintonite Democratic establishment will not let go of the Democratic party willingly". I meant that I fail to see how it matters, if the voters don't support them.

Yeah, but the ability to flex institutional muscles and change the course of the elections is pretty apparent. Controlling the media and the narrative, ability to obtain large donations, political ties, having the ability to mobilize locals, having access to voter registries, etc, you cannot discount that. All of this came down on Bernie like a sack of bricks.
 
Then we'll know who to thank when Speaker Ryan at long last gets to move his agenda through a unified GOP government. It'll definitely be easier to pursue Medicare-for-all when traditional Medicare doesn't exist anymore. And those 2-3 SCOTUS seats the GOP president fills will undoubtedly be a real boon to social and economic progress.
I said the same thing earlier in the thread. If Hillary wins the nomination and loses the general, it will be millennials to blame, and everyone will know it. If Hillary takes the nomination, very bad things will happen to the left in the short term.
 
McGovern was a minor candidate in 1968. The young peoples' candidate was Eugene "Clean Gene" McCarthy.
My mistake, I meant McCarthy. But the point I was trying to make still stands....


In 1968 the Democratic Party was divided. Senators Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy had entered the campaign in March, challenging Johnson for the Democratic nomination. Johnson, facing dissent within his party, had dropped out of the race on March 31.[6] Vice President Hubert Humphrey then entered into the race, but did not compete in any primaries, compiling his delegates in caucus states that were controlled by party leaders. After Kennedy's assassination on June 5, the Democratic Party's divisions grew.[5] At the moment of Kennedy's death the delegate count stood at Humphrey 561.5, Kennedy 393.5, McCarthy 258.[7] Kennedy's murder left his delegates uncommitted.

When it came to choosing a candidate, on one side stood supporters of Senator McCarthy, who ran a decidedly anti-war campaign and who was seen as the peace candidate.[8] On the other side was Vice President Humphrey, who was seen as the candidate who represented the Johnson point of view.[9] In the end, the Democratic Party nominated Humphrey. Even though 80 percent of the primary voters had been for anti-war candidates, the delegates had defeated the peace plank by 1,567¾ to 1,041¼.[10] The perceived cause of this loss was the result of Mayor of Chicago Richard Daley, and President Johnson pulling strings behind the scenes.[10] Humphrey, even though he had not entered a single primary, had won the Democratic nomination, and went on to lose the election to the Republican Richard Nixon.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention


Humphrey didn't win any primaries or the popular vote and was nominated by the democrat establishment. But Hillary is winning the primaries...so it might be difficult to say that she was nominated by the democrat establishment.
 
I wouldn't assert that so casually and smugly, given your own statement that you don't understand the issues.

I understand since reality is hard for you since you use emotion instead of logic. Reality can be really tough but its reality non the less. Your emotion and biased is further put on display by the fantasy claims of smugness and not understanding. LMAO Maybe if you post your OP enough times in as many forums around the country as possible a few people will start to believe it and even their party may start to divide by like 2028

I noticed you dodged my question and provided no actual facts support your claim ;)
 
Actually, currently, that's what makes the left and all I hear them talk about but they still arent divided in any major way as far as presidential support goes (not voting if its not who they like). Also attacking them as a group, claiming that most are intellectual dishonest is silly and exposes biased.
I think you missed my point. I meant the reason you don't see anything among liberals is that most (and certainly the ones you talk to) don't realize they're already in this war because they fail to recognize the other side of it.
 
Last edited:
Most people on the 'left' don't have the intellectual honesty to realize there's a very large amount of people supporting alternate views within their assumed voting bloc.

I left Liberalism during the late 80's in large part due to the intellectual dishonesty that was even at that time rampaging. It has gotten a lot worse over time.
 
I understand since reality is hard for you since you use emotion instead of logic. Reality can be really tough but its reality non the less. Your emotion and biased is further put on display by the fantasy claims of smugness and not understanding. LMAO Maybe if you post your OP enough times in as many forums around the country as possible a few people will start to believe it and even their party may start to divide by like 2028

I noticed you dodged my question and provided no actual facts support your claim ;)

Whatever, you're trolling. I'm done with you, go annoy other people.
 
Should be interesting and I am sure the OP believes his claims. Thing is the majority of Electoral College votes are pretty much set in stone meaning it is the GOP that has a huge problem and not the Dems. The GOP has to win several states that are considered swing states the two note worthy being Ohio and Florida with without winning both of them and a couple of smaller states they do not stand a chance of winning the general election. So the challenge is on who the GOP nominates and how much support they will have among Republican voters, especially in those swing states. Which GOP candidate has that support, which one can draw enough voters to win where they have to win, I see that process is going smooth as silk. So when one considers the issues both Parties are dealing with if I had to pick the one I would rather deal with it would not be the one the GOP faces right now. That along with the distinct possibility that the GOP could also lose the Senate back to the Dems along with the Whitehouse I would think it is not the Dems that are overly worried. Go ahead whistle on past the graveyard but wishing and hoping that the Dems have something drastic take them down will not resolve the Elephant in the room and just so ya know he responds to the name Donald. Enjoy
 
I think you missed my point. I meant the reason you don't see anything among liberals is that most (and certainly the ones you talk to) don't realize they're already in this war because they fail to recognize the other side of it.
1.)this is about the ledt, all of the left are not liberals
2.) that would still biased and implying they are all intellectually dishonest, they are not
3.) even based on that illogical fantasy if neither side sees a war that means there isnt one
theres no war in thier party currently that is on any abnormal level
 
Whatever, you're trolling. I'm done with you, go annoy other people.
lol thats what I thought!
Translation: you are deflecting and dodging my question and you can;t support your failed claim :)
 
Then we'll know who to thank when Speaker Ryan at long last gets to move his agenda through a unified GOP government. It'll definitely be easier to pursue Medicare-for-all when traditional Medicare doesn't exist anymore. And those 2-3 SCOTUS seats the GOP president fills will undoubtedly be a real boon to social and economic progress.

I don't disagree that the election will have real consequences for workers, and for humanity, no matter who wins. However, this is a false choice because both roads ultimately lead to the same place. Whether by increments, or leaps and bounds, both parties are moving in the same direction. This only underscores the point I made in my last post, that both of these parties represent nothing more than the left, and right wings, respectively, of the bourgeoisie. This is not what democracy looks like. We don't just need a political revolution, we need an actual revolution.
 
this is about the ledt, all of the left are not liberals
By all contemporary definition they are. If not then I have no idea what you're talking about.

if neither side sees a war that means there isnt one
An interesting statement. I'm very hard pressed not to say specious.
 
I need to do a quick preamble on a very important topic, first, before I get into this discussion: Why aren't blacks voting for Bernie Sanders? Now after he's begun losing handedly in this demographic, people are now very concerned about why this is, and in response I think there have been some thoughtful responses in the African-American community, which I encourage people to read. The reasons are interesting and worth taking on board, but the reality is, it's too little and too late. At the core of it, there's a fundamental ideological difference between the two voting blocs that are most necessary to the success of the Democratic party. The first are Millennials, and the second are African-Americans/non-Millennial women.


Millennials have been taking it from the system since they got into the job market, they are "shockingly progressive," it's difficult to understate how irritated and mad they are, and it's also difficult to explain how anti-establishment they are. To contrast this, Hillary represents the Establishment, she's made no bones about how much of a part of the establishment she is, she openly takes money from Wall Street/Big Pharma/private prisons, and she openly will not tolerate single-payer healthcare, free tuition for state schools, and she will not break up the banks. That's a long winded way of saying that Millennials are wildly unexcited about Hillary and fundamentally view her as being "essentially no better than a Republican." On top of this, there is a pretty ubiquitous sense that if anyone other than Bernie is elected, there will be a second financial collapse. That means that for Millennials, Hillary is a pill that is going to be very hard to choke down, and this will cost her votes in the general election.

Blacks and non-Millennial women have different motivations, but the thinking is roughly the same: They want to see someone who they can affect a small amount of change and protect them from their extreme enemy, the Republicans.
...

This means that the Left, in terms of serious supporters, is now divided into two halves that are quickly becoming unwilling to work with each other, because they perceive their interests as being ideologically opposed to each other, and view each other's candidates as being wildly unsavory. I don't know what this means for the future, other than that there's about to be a massive war between the Progressive Left and the Neoliberal New Democrats. The Progressive Left is obviously going to win based on demographics, but that may take time --time that we don't have if there's a second Great Recession.

I cannot say I agree with most of this. You said that liberals are being divided into two camps of "millennials" and others (mostly black). We need to realize that supporters of liberals have never been a monolithic block. It is not a phenomenon we are seeing. What we are seeing is the result of Sanders' message. Sanders' message of "saving the middle class" and "free college tuition" resonate very well with (ex)-middle class white youth. They are experiencing a new kind of economic security and discontent and that is not witnessed by their parents. They are deprived of the middle class jobs and opportunity that their parents have. Sanders is able to capture this new anger and frustration.

With black and Latino workers, however, things are different. I do not think simply being above the poverty line automatically mean that you are part of the middle class. One has to be at least the 90 percentile to even "feel" working-class these days. Nevertheless, the middle class and the American Dream had always been a myth of the whites. The death of the American middle class simply does not have the same stimulating effect on the black Americans and white Americans. Similarly, this also holds true for Latino. It is Sanders' failure to identify the concrete struggle of these people. As for the voting pattern of older women, I think this is simply due to Clinton's image and the appeal of her brand of bourgeois feminism. Clinton's tactic of of portraying herself as the successor of Obama helps too.

You are right there is a new division between a potential rebirth of the Left and the Democratic establishment. This is due to some arbitrary generation difference (there was young people) but the polarization of classes and death of the middle ground known as the middle class. The frustration towards the ruling establishment create an opportunity, but nothing is guaranteed. Proto-Fascist momentum, as represented by Trump, is feeding of this anger as well.

I don't see how electing a "Progressive" can somehow "prevent" another Great Recession.
 
No, I expect that the Democratic establishment has woven a lot of stories, and I think those stories are going to get unwoven. Look, I strongly doubt that there are many Democrats --in the South or otherwise-- who actually object to universal healthcare, etc. The only reason they voted for Hillary is because of the argument that DiAnna raised. I think that's fundamentally flawed and that there's a way forward, but it involves not giving Republicans everything they want from the outset.

So the war is more going to involve the Democratic base agreeing that they will support Progressive values, not neoliberal values.

That's fine, but you didn't answer my question. Would the dethroned neoliberals migrate to the Repubs?
 
1.)By all contemporary definition they are. If not then I have no idea what you're talking about.
2.)An interesting statement. I'm very hard pressed not to say specious.

1.) this is true, the reality Im talking about you have no idea about
2.) I agree here too since its based of the logic you presented
theres no war upon them or any evidence of one. Theres a simply solution though if you belief your fantasy to be true, bookmark this post, then when it happens just come back with the factual proof and tell me you told me so
 
I don't see how electing a "Progressive" can somehow "prevent" another Great Recession.
"Progressive" is quickly becoming such an empty term especially in that Hillary Clinton is full-throatedly coopting it, but you make a fair point in that the recession could well come even if Bernie is our next president, especially if he fails to enact his signature proposal, the combination of single payer healthcare plus tax reform, which is likely given his lack of support among the establishment. His attaining the White House is not the only miracle he's tasked with pulling off.
 
I don't disagree that the election will have real consequences for workers, and for humanity, no matter who wins. However, this is a false choice because both roads ultimately lead to the same place. Whether by increments, or leaps and bounds, both parties are moving in the same direction. This only underscores the point I made in my last post, that both of these parties represent nothing more than the left, and right wings, respectively, of the bourgeoisie. This is not what democracy looks like. We don't just need a political revolution, we need an actual revolution.

Calling for a revolution because your preferred candidate is losing free and fair elections doesn't sound to me like "what democracy looks like." Quite the opposite, actually.
 
"Progressive" is quickly becoming such an empty term especially in that Hillary Clinton is full-throatedly coopting it, but you make a fair point in that the recession could well come even if Bernie is our next president, especially if he fails to enact his signature proposal, the combination of single payer healthcare plus tax reform, which is likely given his lack of support among the establishment. His attaining the White House is not the only miracle he's tasked with pulling off.

How does single-payer prevent a recession?
 
Yeah, but the ability to flex institutional muscles and change the course of the elections is pretty apparent. Controlling the media and the narrative, ability to obtain large donations, political ties, having the ability to mobilize locals, having access to voter registries, etc, you cannot discount that. All of this came down on Bernie like a sack of bricks.

Is it all that apparent? Bernie has become a media darling, and his small donations are nearly keeping up with Hillary's large ones. Where he's hurting is being up against Hillary's built in advantage with Afro American voters, especially in the South, but this is not the result of a flexing against him of institutional muscle, nor is his too early starting point in putting together a "ground game". The political ties are another matter, as they translate into super delegates and there Hillary is killing him. His one chance is taking her in the big state primaries. If he could, super delegates might start peeling away. Right now it doesn't look likely, which very well could be due in large part to Hillary sounding more and more every day like Bernie Sanders.
 
In contrast, I don't like Hillary, and it's the votes of my bloc that will decide this election.

That's the problem.

Sanders and Clinton's policies are not that far apart....so what are you voting for, the man or his policies?
 
What I find particularly funny is that there's this huge dismissal by most people on this thread as though this is ridiculous, even though Sanders raised ~135 million dollars and has been generally rolled over by the Democratic establishment, and yet he clearly has the energetic supporters. To be fair, I think most of the people posting on this thread are on the Right and don't really care anymore (or have any investment) than I do about the deep differences between Rubio and Kasich.

But the reality is, the DNC is about to go through an internal power struggle. I mean, it's the most trivially obvious observation if you just pick up any statistic on Millennials and then project forward 20 years when they will make up the vast bulk of the Democratic party. In the mean time, I'm not saying that Democrats will start losing elections. What I'm saying is that you're going to see increased, open criticism of Hillary when she starts her negotiations with Republicans by conceding all neoliberal issues, which she's already doing now. As time goes on, that's going to be increasingly untolerated on the Left.
 
Back
Top Bottom