The Democratic Party left me behind — and I'm not alone

[A.S. Deep]

This is hard to believe. You consider yourself a liberal and favor liberal policies, but Republicans have no obligation whatsoever to "earn your vote." They can do the exact opposite of what you say you want and get it, while Democrats can give you 90% of what you want and not get it. You can see why people would call bullshit on this kind of thing.

There were plenty of Bernie voters that went for Trump. We were hoping that a Trump victory would cause the progressive, Democratic base to get riled up, which seems to be the case. Just look at the Ocasio Cortez victory.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So you voted for the most evil choice instead of the lesser, brilliant!

There's no way anyone can be that dumb in reality. It's just another example of this (as someone else posted):

 

[A.S. Deep]

So you voted for the most evil choice instead of the lesser, brilliant!

Gonna copy and paste my reply to another poster:

There were plenty of Bernie voters that went for Trump. We were hoping that a Trump victory would cause the progressive, Democratic base to get riled up, which seems to be the case. Just look at the Ocasio Cortez victory.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Jesus, how fucking delusional could you possibly be?

There is not a single fucking way in which Hillary would "sell out" the US to the highest bidder more so than Trump has (and was clearly going to).

Trump has actively self-dealed with China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the UK - and I'm sure there are plenty of other countries who have benefited from Trump's corruptness. Moreover, Trump and the GOP have passed sweeping laws and policies to deregulate and empower multinational (read: foreign; also read: amoral) corporations to the detriment of American consumers, retirees, and citizens altogether. He appointed fucking oil executives to the Sec. of State and EPA positions. He appointed for-profit school magnates to the Dept. of Education. He deregulated the financial sector so Wall Street figures could contravene their fiduciary duties like they did pre-2008. He's gutted the CFPB so crooks can con people more easily. He appointed a NLRB board that has attacked workers' rights and a SC Justice who just killed public unions. He spiked the national deficit for the sole benefit of the ultra-rich.

Seriously, do you have any self-respect at all? Hillary Clinton wouldn't have done any of those things, all of which are pretty blatantly "selling to the highest bidder." And I challenge you to name one single instance in which Clinton would have been better for the profiteers, the buyers of influence, and the global oligarchic class than Trump.

We all know Hillary would be bombing the shit out of the middle east and worsening the relations between Russia and the USA. She would have escalated the threat in North Korea instead of opening a dialogue. There is no way she would be pressuring countries to pay their fair share on military defense. Refugees and illegal immigrants would be flooding the USA under her watch. Worst of all, Hillary would have been pushing hard for a globalist agenda instead of shaking things up and forcing countries to pursue their own interests like Trump has been doing. Canadians used to think being patriotic was a terrible thing that only white old men believed in. It has suddenly become trendy among the kids since Trump started shaking things up.

Lefties are just pissed off because Trump has not been nearly as bad as they were predicting and he has actually done some good things.

 

[A.S. Deep]

There's no way anyone can be that dumb in reality. It's just another example of this (as someone else posted):

What was the alternative, let Hillary win and show the Democrats that they can keep giving us corrupt, fake liberals? Many millennials are sick of having no real liberal choice to vote for. How old are you?

 

[BangersAndSmash]

- Universal Healthcare (You're not "free" if you're one medical bill away from bankruptcy)
- Be against all these pointless wars (We're still in Afghanistan 17 years later)
- Campaign finance reform (It shouldn't be about which candidate has the most money/is a bigger bitch to their donors).

Those are the main 3 that'd have the greatest impact for everyone in America, even rural, conservative folk.

This is basically the platform that Bernie ran on. It seems likely that the next democratic candidate, whoever they are (possibly Bernie again), will adopt this platform. So you'd be back on board with them at that point?

 

[ultramanhyata]

There is not a single fucking way in which Hillary would "sell out" the US to the highest bidder more so than Trump has (and was clearly going to).

Trump has actively self-dealed with China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the UK - and I'm sure there are plenty of other countries who have benefited from Trump's corruptness.

Dude, you missed the part where Trump is already a billionaire so he's not going to be in any fat cat pockets.

 

[Jack V Savage]

We all know Hillary would be bombing the shit out of the middle east and worsening the relations between Russia and the USA.

Russia wasn't even a factor until they successfully placed a puppet in the WH. And the notion that Clinton would be doing more bombing than Trump is ridiculous.

She would have escalated the threat in North Korea instead of opening a dialogue.

Again, Trump actually has greatly escalated the threat in NK, and there has long been a dialogue with them. It sounds like you're basing your understanding on simple factual errors, but I suspect that correcting the errors would just cause you to look for a new basis rather than re-orient your thinking.

There is no way she would be pressuring countries to pay their fair share on military defense.

Other countries don't pay for our defense. Obama already pressured other countries to make a recommitment to their own defense, and that is still the framework of the deal in place. Trump has done nothing of substance in that area.

Refugees and illegal immigrants would be flooding the USA under her watch.

Unauthorized immigration fell dramatically under Obama, and the population of unauthorized immigrants fell every year under his presidency. Clinton actually called for increased measures to secure the border relative to the very strong present baseline. Again, this is just a factual error. She had a very modest target for refugee acceptance (too modest).

Lefties are just pissed off because Trump has not been nearly as bad as they were predicting and he has actually done some good things.

The one good thing that Trump has actually done is fill Fed vacancies with the same types of people that Obama was filling them with, and I am quite relieved about that (there had been suggestions that they'd be filled with hawks, but I suspect that's like the deficit--Republicans are hawks when out of power and doves in power).

 

[Jack V Savage]

What was the alternative, let Hillary win and show the Democrats that they can keep giving us corrupt, fake liberals? Many millennials are sick of having no real liberal choice to vote for. How old are you?

The alternative to electing a president who would radically remake the country in a way that is more favorable to plutocrats and less favorable to the environment, workers, consumers, and the middle class and that would greatly increase global insecurity would be to not do that and actually push in a good direction. Realistically, Clinton was probably the most liberal presidential nominee ever, and losing elections generally puts pressure on a party to move toward the center rather than away from it.

 

[Quequeg]

We all know Hillary would be bombing the shit out of the middle east and worsening the relations between Russia and the USA. She would have escalated the threat in North Korea instead of opening a dialogue. There is no way she would be pressuring countries to pay their fair share on military defense. Refugees and illegal immigrants would be flooding the USA under her watch. Worst of all, Hillary would have been pushing hard for a globalist agenda instead of shaking things up and forcing countries to pursue their own interests like Trump has been doing. Canadians used to think being patriotic was a terrible thing that only white old men believed in. It has suddenly become trendy among the kids since Trump started shaking things up.

Lefties are just pissed off because Trump has not been nearly as bad as they were predicting and he has actually done some good things.

All absolute nonsense, do you think a Republican congress would have let her do any of this stuff?

 

[A.S. Deep]

This is basically the platform that Bernie ran on. It seems likely that the next democratic candidate, whoever they are (possibly Bernie again), will adopt this platform. So you'd be back on board with them at that point?

Yep. There's a reason my first vote ever was for Bernie. I'll gladly vote for a Dem who's with me on those 3 issues, even if I disagree with them on other stuff.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yep. There's a reason my first vote ever was for Bernie. I'll gladly vote for a Dem who's with me on those 3 issues, even if I disagree with them on other stuff.

But not if Republicans baselessly accuse them of being corrupt, right?

 

[A.S. Deep]

The alternative to electing a president who would radically remake the country in a way that is more favorable to plutocrats and less favorable to the environment, workers, consumers, and the middle class and that would greatly increase global insecurity would be to not do that and actually push in a good direction. Realistically, Clinton was probably the most liberal presidential nominee ever, and losing elections generally puts pressure on a party to move toward the center rather than away from it.

I disagree on the last point. The party leaders will go to the center, but the base will go further left. Just look at Cortez's victory and Tom Perez saying she's the new face of the party. I don't believe Perez is sincere at all, but it's hard to deny that the base (especially millennials) wants more Bernie-style Dems. It's okay for voters to tell their party that they (the party) isn't good enough.

 

[A.S. Deep]

But not if Republicans baselessly accuse them of being corrupt, right?

Are you really saying Hillary wasn't corrupt? (If that is indeed what you're implying).

 

[Jack V Savage]

I disagree on the last point. The party leaders will go to the center, but the base will go further left. Just look at Cortez's victory and Tom Perez saying she's the new face of the party. I don't believe Perez is sincere at all, but it's hard to deny that the base (especially millennials) wants more Bernie-style Dems. It's okay for voters to tell their party that they (the party) isn't good enough.

People were also saying that Lamb was the new face of the party. The way to win elections is to nominate candidates that are right for the particular race they're running for, which means far left candidates in Cortez's district and more moderate candidates in Lamb's district. And there are always intraparty battles in any major party, that never ends, and losing hurts every faction. For example, single payer is now a dead issue in your lifetime even if it passes the legislative process because of the changes in the court.

Are you really saying Hillary wasn't corrupt? (If that is indeed what you're implying).

Of course she's not corrupt. Especially not in comparison to Trump, but not in comparison to a regular person either.

 

[Quequeg]

People were also saying that Lamb was the new face of the party. The way to win elections is to nominate candidates that are right for the particular race they're running for, which means far left candidates in Cortez's district and more moderate candidates in Lamb's district. And there are always intraparty battles in any major party, that never ends, and losing hurts every faction. For example, single payer is now a dead issue in your lifetime even if it passes the legislative process because of the changes in the court.



Of course she's not corrupt. Especially not in comparison to Trump, but not in comparison to a regular person either.

Hillary is as corrupt as any other lifelong politician.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hillary is as corrupt as any other lifelong politician.

Way less. How many people who have run for president could stand up to the kind of scrutiny she's faced without any major scandals? Very few, I'd wager.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

Yep. There's a reason my first vote ever was for Bernie. I'll gladly vote for a Dem who's with me on those 3 issues, even if I disagree with them on other stuff.

I understand your frustration at Hillary ending up as the nominee, believe me. It felt like she was old news back in 2008 when she was the presumptive nominee and Obama blew her out of the water. She is an old guard politician through and through, and I do think the democratic party of her husband ran rightward whenever they had a scare, but it was almost certainly that rightward tilt that actually enabled him to win the election back in 1992. I don't think it's necessary now, in fact I think many people want the democrats to lean more heavily leftward, like you seem to want.

On the one hand, if Hillary had been elected, I still think the democrats would be moving leftward because the political winds were already blowing in that direction, and Hillary is nothing, if not someone that follows the political winds. However, the republicans would be obstructing her at every conceivable opportunity, and because of the fact that they have a majority in congress AND the senate, they'd be quite effective. Come the midterm elections if Hillary won, the democrats would probably lose more seats in the house because she would be blamed for the republicans obstructing the ever loving shit out of her. The key difference is that there would potentially be two different nominees to the supreme court (well, at least 1).

I can understand the desire to protest vote (as you said you did) or at least not vote (like a lot of people did) and I'm not going to judge you on that. However, the reality of our political system, as I see it, is basically winner takes all and winner can consolidate power to make it harder for their opponent to win. They can redistrict and gerrymander electoral maps. It's this giant system where the winner of state elections can effect not only state elections but also federal elections going forward. If one party controls the senate and one party controls house, then the house is mostly a wash but the president can do some stuff. If one party controls the house and the senate, then the president can barely do anything, but can veto a lot of what the two chambers of the house are trying to do. If one party controls the house, the senate, and the presidency than they have almost unlimited power, and there's little the other party can do to stop them.

For instance, there was nothing stopping Mitch McConnell from with-holding a confirmation vote on the supreme court nominee Marick Garland. Had Hillary won, there would have been nothing stopping him from withholding on that vote again. Yes, there are political norms and expectations, but they don't mean shit. there was nothing stopping Mitch from doing what he did, and there was nothing stopping him from continuing to do it, until the Republicans confirmed a different candidate or lost control of the senate. All these political norms, which are now pretty useless, were created at a time when society was honor-based and people wouldn't break those norms for fear of being dishonorable. If Mitch Mconnell had did that back in the time of the founding fathers, he and Chuck Schumer would have probably dueled with pistols at dawn, either that or someone would have caned his ass.

Either way, as enlightened of political thinkers as the founding fathers were, I don't think they foresaw the world of modern politics as they exist today.

 

[Quequeg]

Way less. How many people who have run for president could stand up to the kind of scrutiny she's faced without any major scandals? Very few, I'd wager.

The right wing really put old Hill through the ringer based on mostly BS, you gotta admire how successful they were taking morality and decency out of it.

 

[A.S. Deep]

I understand your frustration at Hillary ending up as the nominee, believe me. It felt like she was old news back in 2008 when she was the presumptive nominee and Obama blew her out of the water. She is an old guard politician through and through, and I do think the democratic party of her husband ran rightward whenever they had a scare, but it was almost certainly that rightward tilt that actually enabled him to win the election back in 1992. I don't think it's necessary now, in fact I think many people want the democrats to lean more heavily leftward, like you seem to want.

On the one hand, if Hillary had been elected, I still think the democrats would be moving leftward because the political winds were already blowing in that direction, and Hillary is nothing, if not someone that follows the political winds. However, the republicans would be obstructing her at every conceivable opportunity, and because of the fact that they have a majority in congress AND the senate, they'd be quite effective. Come the midterm elections if Hillary won, the democrats would probably lose more seats in the house because she would be blamed for the republicans obstructing the ever loving shit out of her. The key difference is that there would potentially be two different nominees to the supreme court (well, at least 1).

I can understand the desire to protest vote (as you said you did) or at least not vote (like a lot of people did) and I'm not going to judge you on that. However, the reality of our political system, as I see it, is basically winner takes all and winner can consolidate power to make it harder for their opponent to win. They can redistrict and gerrymander electoral maps. It's this giant system where the winner of state elections can effect not only state elections but also federal elections going forward. If one party controls the senate and one party controls house, then the house is mostly a wash but the president can do some stuff. If one party controls the house and the senate, then the president can barely do anything, but can veto a lot of what the two chambers of the house are trying to do. If one party controls the house, the senate, and the presidency than they have almost unlimited power, and there's little the other party can do to stop them.

For instance, there was nothing stopping Mitch McConnell from with-holding a confirmation vote on the supreme court nominee Marick Garland. Had Hillary won, there would have been nothing stopping him from withholding on that vote again. Yes, there are political norms and expectations, but they don't mean shit. there was nothing stopping Mitch from doing what he did, and there was nothing stopping him from continuing to do it, until the Republicans confirmed a different candidate or lost control of the senate. All these political norms, which are now pretty useless, were created at a time when society was honor-based and people wouldn't break those norms for fear of being dishonorable. If Mitch Mconnell had did that back in the time of the founding fathers, he and Chuck Schumer would have probably dueled with pistols at dawn, either that or someone would have caned his ass.

Either way, as enlightened of political thinkers as the founding fathers were, I don't think they foresaw the world of modern politics as they exist today.

You're probably right. Perhaps Hillary would've gone with the progressive movement in the Dem base. Appreciate the respectful write up!