Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:23 AM Sep 2015

OK I'll just say it: the dem establishment wants to lose this election

I have spent years working in the scientific field, so I tend to be an evidence-based person. And the only conclusion I can reach after looking at the evidence is that the Democratic Party establishment is trying to throw this election to the Republicans. Here's my evidence and my reasoning. I expect to take a lot of crap for this post but I feel like I have to express my thoughts. So flame away if you wish.

1. it is clear that there's an anti-establishment wave happening on both sides. Bernie keeps rising in the polls while hillary keeps falling. It is looking more and more like he could end up becoming the nominee. The powers that be do not want that because that puts him closer to the presidency.

2. so in order to avoid number one, they keep propping up a candidate who has terrible trust ratings, has a scandal and possible legal trouble following her, is not particularly popular, and is losing support rapidly. She's very unlikely to win a national election against a Republican candidate, and yet they still support her.

3. as another poster pointed out in another thread (credit to attorney in texas), The "biden might run" bullshit is just chaff being thrown out to try to undermine Bernie support and to try to give the impression that he can't possibly win a general election, so the establishment keeps floating out Joe as a possibility to "save the party" when Hillary tanks. but by his own words, actions and demeanor, it is not looking like he's ready to run.

4. debates. The Republicans have had two high-profile debates already, yesterday's getting 24 million views. They keep getting opportunities to present their points of view, meanwhile, the Democratic debate is not going to be for a few more weeks. This is clearly hurting all democratic efforts, since the Republicans are getting all of the media attention and getting that all the time they need to present their platform, yet nothing is done about it.

5. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She is clearly a major liability to the possibility of the Democrats winning this election, not just the White House but all the down ticket races as well. Her blinding devotion to Hillary and her willingness to sell out the country, the party, and democracy itself is hurting every Democratic effort to win an election next year. She has totally rigged the process, and instituted what is probably an unenforceable exclusivity clause to further tamp down free-speech supposedly to "help" her preferred candidate,and the president is doing nothing about it. A simple phone call from President Obama and she would be replaced in two seconds flat. Why is he allowing this to continue?

as I said before I am an evidence-based person. The evidence and the behavior of the powers in the Democratic Party have led me to believe that they don't plan to win this election. They plan on propping up a corporate candidate who probably can't win, and if she did then they would probably be happy about it, but they know she probably can't, and they will do anything to prevent Bernie from getting the presidency.

please feel free to provide ample evidence as to why this is incorrect, and I will be happy to reassess my thought process and conclusion.


OK I'll just say it: the dem establishment wants to lose this election (Original Post) restorefreedom Sep 2015 OP
With money and power comes arrogance and complacency. It's not that they don't want to win. liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #1
They want a corporate candidate to win. PERIOD. Their owners have spoken, Damn the voters Vincardog Sep 2015 #26
Its all about the Plutocracy! They are terrified of Bernie and what he represents, that the Dustlawyer Sep 2015 #77
That's the narrative. tecelote Sep 2015 #113
Socialism Rocks! redstateblues Sep 2015 #275
excellent summary. nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #121
This election IS the most important election since Lincoln was President! It STARTS with Vincardog Sep 2015 #165
Yes!!! We recruit other candidates to follow in Bernie's footsteps. Dustlawyer Sep 2015 #167
++ good Vincardog Sep 2015 #168
+ a brazilian. hifiguy Sep 2015 #178
Yes he is and I don't think that most people realize this! Dustlawyer Sep 2015 #242
Well said. Bravo! hifiguy Sep 2015 #243
The fierce urgency of NOW. Great post. Great thread! n/t Catherina Sep 2015 #252
go bernie! nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #257
^ That's the answer. TBF Sep 2015 #284
You hit the nail on the head. JDPriestly Sep 2015 #333
LOL. Hey look, a conspiracy theory! DanTex Sep 2015 #2
I go by what I see restorefreedom Sep 2015 #4
You do realize that the relevant will of the people hasn't actually been determined yet right? mythology Sep 2015 #298
he is ahead in the first two states restorefreedom Sep 2015 #299
It still baffles me why the DNC or democrats kacekwl Sep 2015 #326
you seriously don't think it is even a possibility restorefreedom Sep 2015 #6
No. Obviously not. The Dems want to win and the Reps want to win. No politicians or parties want DanTex Sep 2015 #8
that is the way it used to be restorefreedom Sep 2015 #11
The GOP threatens the Dems and the Dems threaten the GOP. DanTex Sep 2015 #17
have you actually listened to bernie? restorefreedom Sep 2015 #38
Both parties are complicit in the corruption azmom Sep 2015 #56
i just hope its not too late. nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #59
The Democratic Party does not want Bernie to win. azmom Sep 2015 #67
thank goodness for the young restorefreedom Sep 2015 #73
He has been fighting the good fight azmom Sep 2015 #83
amen to that. nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #85
You are correct. Their scam requires that both parties play along. And Bernie will fuck up the game GoneFishin Sep 2015 #99
Ha..good luck with all that Tommy2Tone Sep 2015 #184
It's on. The political revolution azmom Sep 2015 #194
Naw man I'm a billionaire Tommy2Tone Sep 2015 #196
That explains everything. N/t azmom Sep 2015 #197
Yes. And Hillary also. And I still don't believe in your conspiracy theories. At all. DanTex Sep 2015 #150
bernie does not have "no chance" restorefreedom Sep 2015 #154
Well, most establishment Dems believe that. You are free to disagree, but your disagreement doesn't DanTex Sep 2015 #159
yes running on 12 instead of 15 an hour restorefreedom Sep 2015 #198
There's a disconnect here you just can't remedy. Capn Sunshine Sep 2015 #173
What is the evidence for the statement that everyone 'outside the DC bubble" understands JDPriestly Sep 2015 #338
Koch's contribute to some of the Dems. Prairiegale Sep 2015 #341
Third post and already linking to a right-wing site. That was quick. DanTex Sep 2015 #342
Look for yourself and see what you think Prairiegale Sep 2015 #344
It still AMAZES me that anyone around here thinks there is ANY remote sense of randys1 Sep 2015 #138
There is a difference between the two parties on economic issues? Mnpaul Sep 2015 #247
Then you aren't looking mythology Sep 2015 #302
I'm not working for minimum wage Mnpaul Sep 2015 #311
No difference, is that what you are saying? I cant respond to a statement that ludicrous randys1 Sep 2015 #335
On the issues important to me there is no difference Mnpaul Sep 2015 #348
So Black lives, Women's rights, Gay rights, not important? Just pocketbook? How about randys1 Sep 2015 #349
I'm not black or gay Mnpaul Sep 2015 #350
You arent Black or Gay therefore who cares? got it randys1 Sep 2015 #351
Nice strawman argument there Mnpaul Sep 2015 #352
Yes, you said the lives of Black people and Gay and Women are not on the top of your randys1 Sep 2015 #353
Gay rights aren't at the top of the list Mnpaul Sep 2015 #354
DWS... DWS? You mean the same DWS that campaigned for 3 Republicans in the last election? A Simple Game Sep 2015 #319
Blankfein, speaking for Wall Street, hifiguy Sep 2015 #185
Yes, it suggests that he personally is comfortable with HRC or Jeb. DanTex Sep 2015 #189
Yeah, it's not like there's a history of establishment Democrats jeff47 Sep 2015 #217
Couldn't tell from watching the DNC at work. n/t Scootaloo Sep 2015 #307
Just like the Establishment didn't want Elizabeth Warren elected to the Senate? brooklynite Sep 2015 #65
she had a mixed history in earlier days restorefreedom Sep 2015 #68
You mean like Arlen Specter? d_legendary1 Sep 2015 #135
or in your delusion you don't want to see the cooperation Capn Sunshine Sep 2015 #179
The Question Must Be Asked McKim Sep 2015 #322
Are there any "Centrist" Republicans running whom can even win their party's primary? Proud Liberal Dem Sep 2015 #337
Is it really necessary to reply to OP that way? Chakaconcarne Sep 2015 #14
thanks. i did put my armor on restorefreedom Sep 2015 #16
Is it not a conspiracy theory? I mean, suggesting that the DNC is trying to sabotage the election DanTex Sep 2015 #20
it is not an attack restorefreedom Sep 2015 #39
The tone is decidedly conspiratorial Capn Sunshine Sep 2015 #182
For Dan, yes it is. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2015 #219
Conspiracy theory? nichomachus Sep 2015 #24
Doesn't the original post propose what would be an actual conspiracy ToxMarz Sep 2015 #64
I always try to avoid using the conspiracy term restorefreedom Sep 2015 #112
Doesn't Debbie Schultz's deliberate refusal to start the Democratic Cal33 Sep 2015 #27
What does that have to do with the theory that they want the GOP to win? Nothing. DanTex Sep 2015 #29
Yes. You are correct. It squelches the voices of all dem candidates while allowing the Repuglican GoneFishin Sep 2015 #105
No...it allows the GOP to make asses of themselves Gloria Sep 2015 #123
<< The more they sit there on the stage railing about religion, war, etc. the stranger they seem. >> Cal33 Sep 2015 #250
YEs, but these people won't vote Dem anyway...and Gloria Sep 2015 #297
Do not underestimate the power of the Stupid Side. backscatter712 Sep 2015 #317
I agree. In recent decades, Republicans have been winning elections just as frequently as Cal33 Sep 2015 #364
2014 Midterms "Conspiracy Theory" bahrbearian Sep 2015 #28
Aha, you're saying they lost on purpose. Obviously there is evidence of that. You know, some DanTex Sep 2015 #30
"Evidence based person" yet it is overwhelmingly assumption after assumption. NCTraveler Sep 2015 #31
please feel free to offer your own evidence restorefreedom Sep 2015 #42
Please present other evidence or other conclusions to the evidence that has been offered. highprincipleswork Sep 2015 #52
good additions, all. restorefreedom Sep 2015 #54
Also some debates are scheduled during major sports games according to several here. appalachiablue Sep 2015 #285
thank you so much. restorefreedom Sep 2015 #286
1) the republican debates are greatly helping our brand. NCTraveler Sep 2015 #80
I just posted something similar.... Gloria Sep 2015 #160
wrong about sanders having no chance restorefreedom Sep 2015 #199
Politics is not a zero sum game. jeff47 Sep 2015 #221
Ease up. gregcrawford Sep 2015 #74
i think its naive too restorefreedom Sep 2015 #88
So glad you posted this. Thanks. eom Duval Sep 2015 #181
Right because there's no such thing as legacy Ivy League students. closeupready Sep 2015 #101
LOL that has become the catch all dismissal. zeemike Sep 2015 #116
Is that an alert talking point? Autumn Sep 2015 #170
Thanks for giving me a laugh Tommy2Tone Sep 2015 #183
If doesn't matter if there is a conspiracy or not. Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #206
right restorefreedom Sep 2015 #213
+1 n/t Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #223
Denigrating this OP, chervilant Sep 2015 #241
Too bad you can't come up with anything that makes sense so you have to start yelling Conspiracy rhett o rick Sep 2015 #303
Just like 2010, 2012, 2014 FreakinDJ Sep 2015 #3
I think some didn't care if they lost the midterms. TDale313 Sep 2015 #229
If the Repubs. win in 2016, it could be the end of what's left of democracy, and Cal33 Sep 2015 #5
If a Corporate Democrat wins it will be the same. n/t Skwmom Sep 2015 #7
+1 and a huge THANKS for saying this RiverLover Sep 2015 #21
It would be similar, but not quite exactly the same. A Corporate Democrat would, for instance, Cal33 Sep 2015 #40
She would hasten the demise of the Democratic Party and hand it to the GOP Skwmom Sep 2015 #90
Yes. Having a corporate Democrat as President effectively muzzles most Democratic dissent RufusTFirefly Sep 2015 #94
As we clearly saw in the Bill Clinton administration: jwirr Sep 2015 #157
I gotta disagree with you Scootaloo Sep 2015 #308
Pres. Obama certainly was trying very hard for bipartisanship. He appointed 2 Supreme Cal33 Sep 2015 #371
Absolutely. There may be a few differences, but the "bottom line" will be the same. n/t RufusTFirefly Sep 2015 #87
So Hillary would repeal the ACA then ... is that your point? JoePhilly Sep 2015 #193
No but would she push for single payer ? kacekwl Sep 2015 #324
You can not claim she is the SAME as the GOP ... and then admit that ... JoePhilly Sep 2015 #340
+1 appalachiablue Sep 2015 #78
LOL. This place sometimes. SonderWoman Sep 2015 #9
always aim to entertain....nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #15
So does Donald Trump. SonderWoman Sep 2015 #43
hey, i am with donald! restorefreedom Sep 2015 #44
Don't feel too special MoveIt Sep 2015 #174
lol. nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #202
It's the same MO they've used in Fla for years. HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #10
+1 liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #12
exactly. restorefreedom Sep 2015 #13
Correction: WE threaten to take it away. HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #23
correction happily noted! restorefreedom Sep 2015 #37
Yes that is exactly right. And DWS is smart enough to know that closeupready Sep 2015 #115
What he said... Gmak Sep 2015 #148
I agree! Prairiegale Sep 2015 #345
Debbie Wasserman Shultz is turning into the Ralph Nadar of this election. Baitball Blogger Sep 2015 #18
MITCHELL: "The Republicans are drowning you guys out, though." DWS: "Good" RiverLover Sep 2015 #19
either the OP is correct or the party is led by idiots ibegurpard Sep 2015 #25
i have left open in my mind restorefreedom Sep 2015 #62
in other words there is no need for the Democrats to do any work. All they have to do is liberal_at_heart Sep 2015 #34
^^^this^^^ L0oniX Sep 2015 #75
That was a losing strategy last election abelenkpe Sep 2015 #145
"Better than a Republican" doesn't work anymore Mnpaul Sep 2015 #246
How so? I didn't know she was running. nt kelliekat44 Sep 2015 #93
Reading comprehension? /nt RiverLover Sep 2015 #95
Nobody is getting drowned out... Gloria Sep 2015 #162
Honest to Princess Celestia and the FSM, I am really starting to believe hifiguy Sep 2015 #186
if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck......nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #195
And all it would take is President Obama saying "pack your things, Debbie." Scootaloo Sep 2015 #309
My guess is that the scientific community has a much different definition of evidence nt Godhumor Sep 2015 #22
i wish a gas chromatograph could help here restorefreedom Sep 2015 #47
Tell me about, I love Sociological and Political science.... daleanime Sep 2015 #100
i think they are are different restorefreedom Sep 2015 #103
Different, yes.... daleanime Sep 2015 #218
true, human nature restorefreedom Sep 2015 #220
I actually think there is some wisdom in not deflecting from the Republicans verbal food fight The empressof all Sep 2015 #32
Ask any non political person you know ibegurpard Sep 2015 #41
Yep jberryhill Sep 2015 #84
When you don't show an alternative, shining in their idiotic glory doesn't work. jeff47 Sep 2015 #226
I don't know The empressof all Sep 2015 #231
No, they will have decided politicians all suck jeff47 Sep 2015 #235
I'd be more happy with a bowl of good old fashioned oatmeal and Vermont maple sugar. nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #254
This message was self-deleted by its author restorefreedom Sep 2015 #259
Okay. LWolf Sep 2015 #273
good grief, even a third grader could get it when explained this way. restorefreedom Sep 2015 #233
Because DWS's paycheck depends on her not understanding it. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2015 #236
sad. but true. nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #237
I agree, and the corporate media do the same. sadoldgirl Sep 2015 #33
it makes sense restorefreedom Sep 2015 #48
Because there is a level Puzzledtraveller Sep 2015 #35
This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Sep 2015 #36
+1 azmom Sep 2015 #201
Respectfully disagree. I think the corporate establishment wants to win this election RufusTFirefly Sep 2015 #45
good analysis. restorefreedom Sep 2015 #49
Guess again. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #255
I have to wonder if the elections aren't just for show now BuelahWitch Sep 2015 #46
that is exactly it restorefreedom Sep 2015 #50
I have considered the same factors. Enthusiast Sep 2015 #51
it did not give me any pleasure..... restorefreedom Sep 2015 #57
Eventually the population will wake up and the corporations will have to relinquish power. Enthusiast Sep 2015 #63
its sad restorefreedom Sep 2015 #66
Silly. nt Nitram Sep 2015 #53
Of course its quite the opposite. DCBob Sep 2015 #55
agree with you IF restorefreedom Sep 2015 #58
Of course shenmue Sep 2015 #97
The real elites don't care one way or the other. They'll get their tax breaks, wars, privileges, leveymg Sep 2015 #60
good points restorefreedom Sep 2015 #76
OK, I'll say it: that's a stupid assertion... brooklynite Sep 2015 #61
you can throw the word stupid around all you want restorefreedom Sep 2015 #70
Lets review our memes, shall we? brooklynite Sep 2015 #69
that is not what i said restorefreedom Sep 2015 #71
i agree with you for the most part. retrowire Sep 2015 #72
good op, yours restorefreedom Sep 2015 #79
Bernie bernie bernie!!! woooo! n/t retrowire Sep 2015 #82
woot woot!! nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #89
Yup hifiguy Sep 2015 #188
Or maybe the establishment corporatists refuse to cede the field. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #81
i do believe that is why restorefreedom Sep 2015 #91
'Cause the players tried to take the field Mnpaul Sep 2015 #248
This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Sep 2015 #86
Bwhahahaha! zappaman Sep 2015 #92
nice to see substantive discussion restorefreedom Sep 2015 #134
Maybe we can also debate the existence of unicorns zappaman Sep 2015 #187
I wish I could.... daleanime Sep 2015 #96
no worries restorefreedom Sep 2015 #119
They sure don't act like they want to win. CharlotteVale Sep 2015 #98
I disagree Fumesucker Sep 2015 #102
^^this^^ HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #106
Thread winner! RiverLover Sep 2015 #111
thats fair. restorefreedom Sep 2015 #117
Pretty much that Scootaloo Sep 2015 #310
I have a hard time believing crystal dawn Sep 2015 #104
they might want HILLARY to win restorefreedom Sep 2015 #108
The Dem strategy crystal dawn Sep 2015 #122
hillary is nothing like bernie policy wise restorefreedom Sep 2015 #141
Then you must be completely ignoring Hillary's campaign. crystal dawn Sep 2015 #169
There is a big difference. Bernie's campaign azmom Sep 2015 #172
Another meme crystal dawn Sep 2015 #175
the "meme" would stop if Ds stopped being Wall Street's little dancing poodles at every MisterP Sep 2015 #225
amen to that. nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #234
Translation: Please provide solid evidence to counter my simple speculation. FSogol Sep 2015 #107
in what way restorefreedom Sep 2015 #114
DWS and the DNC are doing a poor job*. They aren't trying to lose. FSogol Sep 2015 #137
that is a good analysis restorefreedom Sep 2015 #144
If that's true, it was a pretty incompetent move on Hillary's part to come out and say Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #258
True. They would rather have a Republican corporatist in the White House than a liberal Democrat. GoneFishin Sep 2015 #109
It certainly looks like that. fbc Sep 2015 #128
When your leading candidate has a madville Sep 2015 #110
Republicans are doing a good job fooling you Eatacig Sep 2015 #118
i am "pushing" for bernie restorefreedom Sep 2015 #127
Have you ever been involvled in actual party politics, SheilaT Sep 2015 #120
i am prepared to accept the possibility restorefreedom Sep 2015 #129
They do live in a bubble. SheilaT Sep 2015 #136
if that is the case restorefreedom Sep 2015 #147
Your remarks are Spot On!,,All Bernie has to do to win laserhaas Sep 2015 #124
that would be amazing! nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #130
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Sep 2015 #125
thx uncle joe. nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #131
You might want to share your findings with Nate Silver Gothmog Sep 2015 #126
naaahhh restorefreedom Sep 2015 #132
DWS is no liberal. zomgitsjesus Sep 2015 #133
"I am not a member of any organized party I am a Democrat." ~ Will Rogers Garrett78 Sep 2015 #139
if that is the case restorefreedom Sep 2015 #142
On far too many non-social issues... Garrett78 Sep 2015 #161
Good grief Gman Sep 2015 #140
no, not die restorefreedom Sep 2015 #146
No flame from me. And one though the scandals that jwirr Sep 2015 #143
the wh is their prize for sure restorefreedom Sep 2015 #149
Yeah that last does scare me also. But I think they jwirr Sep 2015 #164
bernie is resonating with the voters restorefreedom Sep 2015 #203
You make sense. Your argument is plausible enough senz Sep 2015 #151
great points restorefreedom Sep 2015 #155
The only way we lose the election is destroying the candidate with the best chance to win with Hoyt Sep 2015 #152
so if bernie or omalley get the nom restorefreedom Sep 2015 #158
Yes. Do you think the Democratic "machinery" is going to sit out the race and Hoyt Sep 2015 #171
when i see dws come out hard for bernie restorefreedom Sep 2015 #205
The party leadership should act in best interest of the party, not your annointed one. Hoyt Sep 2015 #230
The best interest of the party restorefreedom Sep 2015 #232
Well, I don't think Sanders is a membrr of the party, yet it is very accomodating of him. Hoyt Sep 2015 #244
he fully supports dems restorefreedom Sep 2015 #245
When I see them talking about finding a 'white knight' to 'save' the party from having to nominate Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2015 #261
sadly, i agree. nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #263
Where have "they" talked about that? Hoyt Sep 2015 #279
The DNC loves the DNC, not America. Android3.14 Sep 2015 #153
amen to that.nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #156
C'mon. Nobody wants to lose an election, except maybe the tea partiers redstateblues Sep 2015 #163
Regarding the debates - the Democrats have time Matariki Sep 2015 #166
The problem for corporate Dems is that as things continue to unravel, less "escape" is possible villager Sep 2015 #176
I believer Debbie's thinking goes somewhat like this: Maedhros Sep 2015 #177
it makes sense restorefreedom Sep 2015 #207
What's so ultimately stupid is the pro-Hillary argument runs like this: Maedhros Sep 2015 #224
very well said. no reason at all. nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #228
One of the problems with that tactic is that if you spend a lot of time looking winter is coming Sep 2015 #238
Oh, there are many problems with the tactic. Maedhros Sep 2015 #240
Can't argue with your assessment! The empressof all Sep 2015 #239
More Bernie hot air.. Tommy2Tone Sep 2015 #180
Victim Mentality runs rampant redstateblues Sep 2015 #272
Just to review: the Democratic President WANTS his Party to lose... brooklynite Sep 2015 #190
if he knows the party leadership restorefreedom Sep 2015 #208
DWS sucks. And we need more debates. Warren DeMontague Sep 2015 #191
how does she not see restorefreedom Sep 2015 #210
This is someone who teamed up w/ Sheldon Adelson to ensure FL would keep arresting sick pot smokers Warren DeMontague Sep 2015 #214
you're right, sigh..... nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #215
CNN draws 22.9 million for GOP debate RiverLover Sep 2015 #192
They would rather have Trump than Bernie, any day. Elmer S. E. Dump Sep 2015 #200
I think people of color are gonna have to get this done underthematrix Sep 2015 #204
the media is dying for clinton v bush restorefreedom Sep 2015 #211
You know, I can't tell who the DEM nominee is gonna be underthematrix Sep 2015 #222
PoC will be a factor, an important voice, LWolf Sep 2015 #276
I believe (also) that Debbie is going to kill us. A lot of Elections are won by a fairly small... BlueJazz Sep 2015 #209
not only that restorefreedom Sep 2015 #212
Not only that.... HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #330
they've thrown Senate races, and would throw all three branches as long as it meant MisterP Sep 2015 #216
I think they want to win but only with an establishment pol and TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #227
Please don't pretend to be evidence based. You ignore facts that don't agree with your outlook. Persondem Sep 2015 #249
your memes are played restorefreedom Sep 2015 #262
You just don't get it ... Sanders CAN'T win a general election. Persondem Sep 2015 #282
you don't think hillary has baggage?? restorefreedom Sep 2015 #283
Sure, I'll gladly admit HRC has baggage, but it's not like the 16 tons of lead Persondem Sep 2015 #363
its all chaff restorefreedom Sep 2015 #367
Tell that to John Kerry. Swiftboat victim over made up BS. Persondem Sep 2015 #369
i do not believe thats why he lost restorefreedom Sep 2015 #370
Don't go overboard with the crazy talk brooklynite Sep 2015 #251
fine. i have plenty of other things to do restorefreedom Sep 2015 #264
I'd like to take you point-by-point customerserviceguy Sep 2015 #253
some very good points. restorefreedom Sep 2015 #266
Thank you customerserviceguy Sep 2015 #357
thank you as well. restorefreedom Sep 2015 #368
BREAKING: Bernie Sanders to register as a Democrat brooklynite Sep 2015 #256
save it restorefreedom Sep 2015 #265
This is the second time that I have seen you trumpeting that Bernie Sanders Aerows Sep 2015 #277
maybe #3? nt restorefreedom Sep 2015 #281
rachel just nailed it restorefreedom Sep 2015 #260
For an "evidence-based person" ... NanceGreggs Sep 2015 #267
If Bernie Sanders is nominated, I (and my "fat cat" friends) will work like hell to get him elected. brooklynite Sep 2015 #268
well that is good to hear restorefreedom Sep 2015 #270
"Difficulty" is putting it mildly. NanceGreggs Sep 2015 #271
same for me and my evil, centrist, moderate friends redstateblues Sep 2015 #274
i never said hillary supporters want to lose restorefreedom Sep 2015 #269
As I appreciate your thoughtful response ... NanceGreggs Sep 2015 #278
the socialist meme works for you guys restorefreedom Sep 2015 #280
Sorry, I keep forgetting ... NanceGreggs Sep 2015 #287
i actually don't think most of that matters restorefreedom Sep 2015 #288
The fact is ... NanceGreggs Sep 2015 #292
as with many things...... restorefreedom Sep 2015 #294
In 2014, the non-voting population was 63% of those eligible eridani Sep 2015 #365
I cannot recommend this enough mcar Sep 2015 #356
Thanks, mcar. NanceGreggs Sep 2015 #359
Great post Nance. We can elect a nominee in the DNC who hopefully win the GE or we can Thinkingabout Sep 2015 #358
Exactly. NanceGreggs Sep 2015 #360
The lesser would be a Republican getting elected and we would receive lesser. Thinkingabout Sep 2015 #361
Well, you've undoubtedly seen ... NanceGreggs Sep 2015 #362
Dems who support Sanders would mostly support Clinton. The ones who will never support Clinton are- eridani Sep 2015 #366
Interesting theory. I'm not going to flame you, but PatrickforO Sep 2015 #289
i think you spelled it out quite well. restorefreedom Sep 2015 #293
That does sound sad. PatrickforO Sep 2015 #304
ok, i'll be at the windmill... restorefreedom Sep 2015 #316
I have read this thread for hours and came back again. Prairiegale Sep 2015 #373
i was pleasantly surprised restorefreedom Sep 2015 #374
As a progressive I think Prairiegale Sep 2015 #375
i am hopeful again too restorefreedom Sep 2015 #376
Umm... you do know that Hillary is way ahead in national polls right? taught_me_patience Sep 2015 #290
the trendlines are not in her favor restorefreedom Sep 2015 #295
If they succeed in cramming Clinton down our throats... 99Forever Sep 2015 #291
Hillary thought being liberal on social issues was all she needed to do to win the primary. jalan48 Sep 2015 #296
Regardless which political party "wins" wundermaus Sep 2015 #300
the kennedys restorefreedom Sep 2015 #315
John Kennedy was so ahead of his time he had a Republican head the Department Of Defense... DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2015 #328
No flaming here. I said something similar myself, that sometimes it almost looks sabrina 1 Sep 2015 #301
hard to believe, restorefreedom Sep 2015 #314
It's like 1968. Ken Burch Sep 2015 #305
Don't agree that Clinton can't beat a Republican--they are all really, really shitty eridani Sep 2015 #306
Clinton can't GOTV. She's not revving people up. For ex~ RiverLover Sep 2015 #312
the people outside the normal Democratic circles ibegurpard Sep 2015 #320
yes, its the restorefreedom Sep 2015 #313
it has been a disastrous electoral strategy ibegurpard Sep 2015 #321
Likely that the conservative interests in the Democratic party would rather NorthCarolina Sep 2015 #318
In the USPS we face this every day PATRICK Sep 2015 #323
It's really nice to hear concern for our grand old USPS, Patrick. Hortensis Sep 2015 #332
Imo, it is self interest PowerToThePeople Sep 2015 #355
DNC/DWS is ignoring the "Victory Task Force" report findings Cosmic Kitten Sep 2015 #325
That's certainly deliberate. Nt HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #331
Exactly! They can't assert ignorance following the task force report findings Cosmic Kitten Sep 2015 #336
More a matter of willing to accept greater risks, if they stand to gain more Babel_17 Sep 2015 #327
Very same thought crossed my mind earlier today. We are no longer dems vs repubs corkhead Sep 2015 #329
... Faux pas Sep 2015 #334
... SidDithers Sep 2015 #339
The Dem establishment is destoying the Democratic party. nt Zorra Sep 2015 #343
Don't know if Dem Establishment is trying to lose, but sure not trying to WIN Dems to Win Sep 2015 #346
I came to Democratic Underground olddots Sep 2015 #347
Nah, they just insist on not losing it and getting a democratic socialist president HereSince1628 Sep 2015 #372

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
1. With money and power comes arrogance and complacency. It's not that they don't want to win.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:25 AM
Sep 2015

It's that they think it is impossible to lose.

Dustlawyer

(10,474 posts)
77. Its all about the Plutocracy! They are terrified of Bernie and what he represents, that the
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:08 PM
Sep 2015

American people have had enough of the corruption and being openly f*cked over! Their hubris got to the point where they didn't feel the need to hide the corruption anymore. They have control over both Houses, Obama (yes they do), most of the Judiciary, the regulatory agencies, and the media. It cannot be more clear when you see how much coverage Trump is getting and how little Bernie gets despite his position in the polls. When Bernie does get covered it is almost always how he cannot win.

We will not get such a clear chance to regain our Representative Democracy for a long time if we don't get Bernie elected and have his back as we will be needed to push through the changes needed to return our country to Democracy from the clutches of Fascism. It must be now if we are going to be able to fully address Climate Change before it is too late!

This election is the most important election since Lincoln was President!

tecelote

(5,119 posts)
113. That's the narrative.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:48 PM
Sep 2015

Socialism? You worry about socialism? Sure beats the Fascist direction Republicans have taken our country!

Democratic Socialism gives the country back to the people.

Republican Fascism keeps giving to the corporations and the 1%.

Vincardog

(20,234 posts)
165. This election IS the most important election since Lincoln was President! It STARTS with
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:34 PM
Sep 2015

Bernie and we have to stay involved and make the legislature do what WE WANT them to do.

If (When) they don't do what we want we need to kick them to the curb and
get representatives who represent us.

Dustlawyer

(10,474 posts)
167. Yes!!! We recruit other candidates to follow in Bernie's footsteps.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:36 PM
Sep 2015

We have already proven we will give support to candidates with Bernie's message!

Dustlawyer

(10,474 posts)
242. Yes he is and I don't think that most people realize this!
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 06:19 PM
Sep 2015

We will not be able to run another candidate next time around with such a long and distinguished history of voting for the people. There will not be that level of trust that they will do what they say.

Obama said many of the same things, but sided with the Plutocrats on the issues that really mattered to them. Before anyone starts in on me let me say this, Obama has been a great President in many ways, but for the last 40 years to get to the White House you had to do a deal with the Devil to get elected to ANY national office. Obama had to do a quid pro quo in return for the huge campaign donations he received that helped him to compete and win the Presidency.

Bernie is doing it in a way that has not been successfully tried in a very long time, if ever in modern times. He will not be able to run again next time around unless he wins this time. This is for all of the marbles as they say.

We can hold nothing back! Assuming he wins we will still have to have his back in a way that has never been done before. It will take millions of active citizens to pressure Congress to overhaul the system in this political revolution. Our very future as a Democracy could depend upon this election and what comes after. There is no doubt about it, we currently live in a fascist state. Private corporations and individuals control our government through the campaign donations. There is no Representative Democracy if the politicians answer only to the big political donors and not the will of the people, which is exactly what we have today! even their corporate media concedes this point!

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
2. LOL. Hey look, a conspiracy theory!
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:26 AM
Sep 2015

That scientific field of yours wouldn't have anything to do with alien abductions or faking the moon landing, by any chance...

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
4. I go by what I see
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:29 AM
Sep 2015

and what I see is an establishment unwilling to respect the will of the people, who is propping up a candidate who is very unlikely to be able to win, and using sleazeball dirty tactics to try to undermine the person who is soon going to be the front runner.

sounds like evidence to me.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
298. You do realize that the relevant will of the people hasn't actually been determined yet right?
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:57 PM
Sep 2015

There have been exactly 0 primaries or caucuses. The closest approximation are polls, which nationally show Hillary ahead and in New Hampshire/Iowa show Sanders either statistically tied or ahead. So this will of the people that you speak of, is at best what you want to believe. Even you admit that Sanders isn't the front runner at this time.

Polls in head to head races between Clinton and various Republicans generally show her ahead (with Sanders often also doing well). You can say that she's unlikely to win, but again you have no evidence other than your claim.

I will be happy to vote for either of them, or O'Malley or even Biden if had decided to run.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
299. he is ahead in the first two states
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:02 PM
Sep 2015

and the trendlines for her are going down, while his continue to go up. Trendlines are important.

The Republicans are itching like crazy to vote against Hillary. They will pull everybody out of the woodwork. People will be lined up to vote against her. Republicans who sat out previous elections will come to vote against her. Add in all of her tremendous baggage, her sagging poll numbers, her sagging trustworthiness, and the fact that the young people are energized by Bernie but have no interest in the bush v clinton contest, and you have all the makings for a major stay home by the Dems and a huge victory for the Republicans.

but only time will tell for sure....

edit to add...how do you think Biden would change the race if he were to jump in? i actually don't think he will, but if he does, it could change things for all the other candidates.

kacekwl

(6,923 posts)
326. It still baffles me why the DNC or democrats
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 10:08 AM
Sep 2015

in general refuse to get involved in any investigation regarding election vote counting fraud , election machine discrepancy , refusal to release election records for inspection. It's makes me think the results are already in.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
6. you seriously don't think it is even a possibility
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:31 AM
Sep 2015

that the establishment Dems would rather see a centrist Republican in the White House rather than a very progressive very liberal activist who is going to turn their entire world upside down and take away their power structure?

if you cant accept how corrupt the power structure is and the possibility that some establishment Dems would rather see a Republican in the White House than someone like Bernie, I can only feel bad for you, because you're living in a fantasy world.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
8. No. Obviously not. The Dems want to win and the Reps want to win. No politicians or parties want
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:33 AM
Sep 2015

to actually lose an election.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
11. that is the way it used to be
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:36 AM
Sep 2015

traditionally each party has wanted to win the contest. But this is not a traditional election cycle. Millennial's are throwing out the idea of identity politics, and almost nobody cares about party loyalty anymore, it's all about ideas and plans for the country. And the power structure is concentrated between both parties, and Bernie threatens both of them. so it is absolutely not beyond possibility that the establishment types would rather see a Republican establishment person in charge then someone like Bernie who's going to take away all their power and not allow money to control people. At some point the party identity doesn't matter, it's about power.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
17. The GOP threatens the Dems and the Dems threaten the GOP.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:40 AM
Sep 2015

Both parties want power. If Bernie wins, Dems will be happy because the Dems have power. If the GOP wins, the Dems will be unhappy.

Also, Bernie is not going to take away anyone's power, because there will still be power in congress. Sure, DWS would probably prefer for Hillary to be the nominee than Bernie, but the DNC would not rather see a Republican than Bernie. That's just silly.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
38. have you actually listened to bernie?
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:07 AM
Sep 2015

he's not going to be owned by anybody. And while I agree with you that traditionally Dems wanted to win with the dem and Republicans wanted to win with a Republican, this cycle is not following traditional protocol. Bernie's platform threatens the power structure. And power generally doesn't care whether it's Democratic or Republican, at some point it's just about power. I have no doubt that the Democratic establishment would rather see a Republican in the White House than Bernie Sanders because his presence there threatens their power much more than a Republican would.

azmom

(5,208 posts)
56. Both parties are complicit in the corruption
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:43 AM
Sep 2015

Taking place. Some DUers refuse to acknowledge that the Dems are just as guilty as the Republicans.

The truth is the truth and when Bernie calls it out, people will respond.

azmom

(5,208 posts)
67. The Democratic Party does not want Bernie to win.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:55 AM
Sep 2015

We are on our own.

It's the people against the democrats and the republicans. Both parties will try to destroy Bernie and the political revolution.

The young people for Bernie don't have loyalty to either party. They are a driving force in this election.


restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
73. thank goodness for the young
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:02 PM
Sep 2015

they might just be the ones to save this country. And sadly, you were right. We are on our own against the entire establishment. I do believe that Bernie understands this and has a plan.

azmom

(5,208 posts)
83. He has been fighting the good fight
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:12 PM
Sep 2015

For years. He knows what he is up against.

He will lead us, but It's up to us not to give in to the fear that they will try to use against us.

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
99. You are correct. Their scam requires that both parties play along. And Bernie will fuck up the game
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:37 PM
Sep 2015

they are running on us.

azmom

(5,208 posts)
194. It's on. The political revolution
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 03:12 PM
Sep 2015

Against the oligarchs is going to be won with people power. Too bad you are not joining in. Are you a millionaire?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
150. Yes. And Hillary also. And I still don't believe in your conspiracy theories. At all.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:14 PM
Sep 2015

Particularly the silliness about how the "power structure" doesn't care about whether it's a Democrat or a Republican. I guess the Koch Brothers who are spending a billion dollars to ensure that it's a Republican and not a Democrat aren't part of your "power structure."

What the Democratic establishment wants, obviously, is a Democrat in office. Most of them would prefer Hillary as the nominee, primarily because everyone outside of the DU bubble understands that Bernie has no chance at the general election. But if it comes to Bernie versus GOP, the Democratic party will (obviously) be supporting Bernie.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
154. bernie does not have "no chance"
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:22 PM
Sep 2015

but A for persistance. of course the kochs want one of the Republican buddies or puppets to be in the White House, but there are a lot of corporatists who are fairly neutral politically who would much rather see a centrist of either party then a progressive liberal like Bernie or O'Malley. When you get to a certain level of power, I'm not sure the party matters, it's all about the money

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
159. Well, most establishment Dems believe that. You are free to disagree, but your disagreement doesn't
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:27 PM
Sep 2015

make it a conspiracy.

Hillary is running on a platform of higher taxes on the wealthy, higher minimum wage, union rights and employee free choice, wall street regulation, campaign finance reform, environmental regulation and investment in clean energy, and so on. These are not things "corporatists" want. That's why people like the Koch Brothers oppose her while unions support her.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
198. yes running on 12 instead of 15 an hour
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 03:19 PM
Sep 2015

keystone xl, TPP which will KILL union jobs and all jobs, higher taxes but not too high, not for glass steagall, wants to insure biotechs, MORE WAR, and whatever else she will tell us when she becomes president. that's why this battle is not between d and r but between the people and the ruling class. And she is a part of the ruling class.

Capn Sunshine

(14,378 posts)
173. There's a disconnect here you just can't remedy.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 02:08 PM
Sep 2015

I can't explain the importance of the financial system to anyone here without the accusations flying. How the stock market and bond market provide liquidity and credit. How it's a discount mechanism. What acceleration of M1 is all about. There are plenty of Hedge fund managers, account executives , Independent traders, and Bank executives who are registered Democrats. Who want the allocation of government resources to change. Who believe in responsible regulation. Who despise greedy profiteering Pentagon contractors. Who know what a supercharger effect single payer healthcare would have on things.

I remember when we got our bank charter, my business partner said " It's a license to steal" *
I said " Hold on. Who are we stealing from?" "Big Investment Banks" came his answer.

"Cool" I replied.

* not actual theft. Descriptor of skinning profits off big bank transactions. Because they were big banks.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
338. What is the evidence for the statement that everyone 'outside the DC bubble" understands
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 11:40 AM
Sep 2015

that Bernie can'r win the general election?

It is too early to predict anything about the general election.

Bernie is a candidate unlike previous candidates,

And the economy is on shaky ground at this time. The Fed's reluctance to raise interest rates is an admission to that fact.

When the economy is very uncertain and you have a shrinking, hurting middle class, and a candidate comes along who speaks boldly about moral and economic reform, that candidate has a chance to win.

We are due for a big dose of economic, populist reform. We need it to catch up. With our technological reform and to deal with the environmental disaster that awaits us if we do not switch from fossil fuels to new energy sources.

Hillary and the Republican candidates are too fettered to old, tired solutions to sell our country on the new ideas we need.

Bernie is the only candidate who is getting any attention and adequate support to get elected who will steadfastly advocate for the reform we need.

He can, and I think he will' be elected,

I recently flew on an airplane wearing a Bernie pin. Comments were very positive. People really like Bernie. It is astounding even to me.

Wall Street is not trusted, not at all. It is the only game in town for people who try to save money (along with some credit unions) and for that reason, I think that Bernie's message especially on trade and banking reform could draw middle class and sone Republican voters.

Our stock market tumbles due to the lack of integrity and proper regulation in the Chinese market?

Our bank interest deposit rates are this low for this long and yet so many are un- or ubderemployed?

People know something is wrong.

The Republicans are ready to blow up the world and are trying to scare people about Obama's relatively successful foreign policy? And who was secretary of state prior to Kerry.

The foundation for Hillarry's or Biden's candidacies in 2016 are being undermined. Three hours of constant blows and no response from Democrats in the form of a debate that presents the range of. Democratic points of view and ideas?

It verges on sabotage, and maybe it is.

Wasserman-Schultz needs to resign and give way to someone who is neutral in the primary contest

If we lose in 2016, she will be blamed. The result in 2014 does not say much that is good about her leadership.

 

Prairiegale

(13 posts)
341. Koch's contribute to some of the Dems.
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 01:49 PM
Sep 2015

There are various sites that have talked about it, and makes me wonder, just as the person who started this thread. What is going on behind the scenes? Both parties are for corporations and banks, which is the big prize for all of them and a steady income. The rest of the issues are just something to keep the unwashed masses up in the air and angry, which is a good smoke screen. Underneath none of them are really for the people.
Over the last years the Dems have not put up much of a fight to refute the many of Reps lies, or call them out on their vile behaviors. I read news much of the day, as it is my hobby and I am retired. Only recently have I seen a bit more calling out, probably due to the total outrageousness of the Donald. Bernie is usually the one who is calling them out, including Hillary. Hillary pretty much keeps her mouth shut as most Dems have. When her PAC was lying about Sanders she said nothing and that is with in the same party.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/15/what-leading-democrat-politicians-took-koch-brother-money/
When I read the 1st post, I was rather flabbergasted, as I thought maybe I was the only one who questioned this.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
138. It still AMAZES me that anyone around here thinks there is ANY remote sense of
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:04 PM
Sep 2015

"same" as to these two parties, ESPECIALLY since the rise of the American Taliban (teaparty for those of you who dont know what the teaparty really is).

I guess economic issues is ALL some people care about, even if there is a pretty big difference there as well.

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
247. There is a difference between the two parties on economic issues?
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 07:04 PM
Sep 2015

'cause I'm not seeing it. Neither party is working in my best interest. Wages have been flat for years. Workers rights continue to erode. Sorry but there are many more like myself that feel the same way.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
302. Then you aren't looking
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:11 PM
Sep 2015

Republicans not only don't want to raise the minimum wage, many of them would like to repeal it. Republicans don't want to lower student loan interest rates. Republicans fought tooth and nail to avoid the CFPB, Jeb Bush just put out a new tax plan that his a functional repeat of the tax cuts that his brother put out that sent the U.S. economy into a tailspin, Kansas elected an uber-right wing government and torpedoed their economy, Republicans voted against the Lily Ledbetter act.

Whether you want to admit it or not, there is a substantial difference between the parties.

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
311. I'm not working for minimum wage
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 05:19 AM
Sep 2015

I don't have a student loan. The banks are still charging outrageous fees. I don't live in Kansas and I am not a woman. You may see a real difference but I don't. I only have to look as far as my wallet and nothing has changed.

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
348. On the issues important to me there is no difference
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 04:16 PM
Sep 2015

economically or otherwise. That is why people don't bother to show up to vote. I finally made it back to the income level I was at 12 years ago. You can call it ridiculous and ignore it but that doesn't change the reality.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
349. So Black lives, Women's rights, Gay rights, not important? Just pocketbook? How about
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 04:18 PM
Sep 2015

the environment where you breathe and eat and sleep?

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
350. I'm not black or gay
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 05:01 PM
Sep 2015

and the Democrats have done little on the environment. They are more concerned with protecting their donors. I have yet to see someone in the real world praise the Democrat's work in protecting the environment. My local Democrats are considering a hazardous mine just miles from the Boundary Waters. The only one to call it out as madness was an American Indian running as an Indy(Ray Sandman).

How about government spying and their unconstitutional attacks on protesters?

The war on drugs and legalizing marijuana?

Terrible free trade deals?

Social Security and their financial games involved with it?

Corporate control of our government(and elections)?

Never ending meddling in the middle east?

Income inequality and the damage it does to our economy?

Wall St. and their reckless behavior?

You have to deal with the real underlying issues instead of treating the symptoms. If we let this country fall into full corporate control, none of your issues will be addressed. All the rights in the world mean nothing if no one bothers to enforce them.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
351. You arent Black or Gay therefore who cares? got it
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 05:03 PM
Sep 2015

I suspect lots of folks feel that way, i just appreciate you admitting it

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
352. Nice strawman argument there
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 05:19 PM
Sep 2015

I did not say that. Those issues just aren't at the top of my list and on the issue that are, there is little difference between the two parties. I also said that if you deal with the underlying issues(the war on drugs) some of the other issues go away. No war on drugs - far fewer Black persons being arrested, less funding for the police state, less people in prison.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
353. Yes, you said the lives of Black people and Gay and Women are not on the top of your
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 05:22 PM
Sep 2015

list, that your pocketbook is, I heard you.

And I appreciate you saying this as clearly as you have, many here agree with you but wont say it.

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
354. Gay rights aren't at the top of the list
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 05:50 PM
Sep 2015

because our state dealt with it years ago. The voters themselves(D,R and I) rejected attempts to ban gay marriage in the constitution and legalization came soon after.

and I told you what has to happen if you really want to address the Black lives issue. You have to deal with the underlying issues. What has your "much better that the Republicans" Democrats done to address the issue? I guess it must not be high on their list either.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
319. DWS... DWS? You mean the same DWS that campaigned for 3 Republicans in the last election?
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 09:09 AM
Sep 2015

You say that one doesn't really care who wins the Presidency as long as it isn't a Republican?

When that one is finally kicked out of office it will be interesting to see who she goes to work for.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
185. Blankfein, speaking for Wall Street,
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 02:44 PM
Sep 2015

said the the Big Money is comfortable with either HRH or Jeb.

That suggest anything to you, Tex?

It does to me. Not one bit of it good.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
189. Yes, it suggests that he personally is comfortable with HRC or Jeb.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 02:49 PM
Sep 2015

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
217. Yeah, it's not like there's a history of establishment Democrats
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 03:54 PM
Sep 2015

stabbing liberal Democrats in the back.

Oh wait! There is! And as an added bonus, one of the people who did that is now DNC chair!

brooklynite

(91,627 posts)
65. Just like the Establishment didn't want Elizabeth Warren elected to the Senate?
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:54 AM
Sep 2015

I know plenty of Wall Street types who supported her in 2012...including my wife. The WSJ actually slammed her for it in a campaign story back in 2012.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
68. she had a mixed history in earlier days
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:56 AM
Sep 2015

in their delusion they probably thought they could turn her back to the Darkside.

d_legendary1

(2,586 posts)
135. You mean like Arlen Specter?
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:03 PM
Sep 2015

Supposedly he was a by the book liberal who went Republican for a few years until he went back by helping the Dems pass Obamacare. Then he ran as a Dem and lost.

I hope those days for Warren are long gone and she stays the way she is now.

Capn Sunshine

(14,378 posts)
179. or in your delusion you don't want to see the cooperation
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 02:37 PM
Sep 2015

Senator Warren, and I lover her to death, so don't take this the wrong way, is a beneficiary of a "different" Wall Street animal- not Bankers, but Lawyers.

She left her $350,000-a-year job at Harvard, where she was the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law. That chair was endowed at his behest by the estate of Mr. Gottlieb by the law firm he founded, big time players Cleary-Gottlieb, which is not exactly doing the work of assisting middle-class Americans with their legal interests against the 1 Percent and their "Banksters". Instead, these lawyers make their living in part by helping representing multinational banks who among other things, did not want to pay their part of moneys received from Bernie Madoff back to the victims of his fraud. Other Law firms donating to Warren's campaign include criminal defense firms repping the asbestos industry and defendants in white collar crimes.

Of course donations by Democratic-leaning Wall Street Lawyers is not in and of itself anything one way or the other.

I only posted this because idealistic hero worship precludes realities. Among them, is that Elizabeth Warren has and does take money from Wall Street. As will nominee Bernie Sanders if he hasn't already.

But she's doing a damn good job, wouldn't you agree?

McKim

(2,412 posts)
322. The Question Must Be Asked
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 09:40 AM
Sep 2015

I have long wondered about the Turd Way Dems. I must pose the question: Are they closet Republicans who want to destroy the real Democratic Party and what it stood for? They are acting like it. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it IS a duck.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,181 posts)
337. Are there any "Centrist" Republicans running whom can even win their party's primary?
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 11:27 AM
Sep 2015

I don't see any, nor can I see any right-minded Democrats (and I wouldn't call them Dems if there were) wanting ANY of the current GOP frontrunners to win the WH in 2016, nor do I see any whom could beat Hillary or Bernie.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
20. Is it not a conspiracy theory? I mean, suggesting that the DNC is trying to sabotage the election
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:42 AM
Sep 2015

and hand power over to Republicans? It's an absurd attack against the party that DU supposedly supports.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
39. it is not an attack
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:08 AM
Sep 2015

to look at what's happening and draw a conclusion. It's called a thought process. You are more than welcome to disagree and we can have a discussion about it. But for anyone in the Democratic power structure to allow this delay of the debates to continue, giving the Republicans the floor for the last couple of months is the election gift wrapped in a silver platter in my view.

Capn Sunshine

(14,378 posts)
182. The tone is decidedly conspiratorial
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 02:41 PM
Sep 2015

But DU'ers see what they want to see, and draw the conclusions based upon what they want to hear.

nichomachus

(12,754 posts)
24. Conspiracy theory?
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:46 AM
Sep 2015

Whenever anyone trots out that bullshit, I figure they have no coherent arguments to present. So, the only way they can deflect attention from something inconvenient is to denigrate it.

Come back when you have something substantive to offer.

ToxMarz

(2,131 posts)
64. Doesn't the original post propose what would be an actual conspiracy
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:54 AM
Sep 2015

And he says it is his though process, sort of a theory isn't it. A conspiracy is an actual thing, and yes most theories are bullshit as you said. Then some are real.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
112. I always try to avoid using the conspiracy term
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:47 PM
Sep 2015

but as you point out, when the shoe fits. I do believe this is an establishment "effort" to keep certain people away from the White House.

 

Cal33

(7,018 posts)
27. Doesn't Debbie Schultz's deliberate refusal to start the Democratic
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:50 AM
Sep 2015

Presidential Debates sooner, and having more of them, look like an effort on her part
to make sure that Bernie Sanders would have as little media exposure as possible?
This would be of help to Hillary Clinton, of course. It also does back up Restorefreedom's
points, doesn't it?

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
105. Yes. You are correct. It squelches the voices of all dem candidates while allowing the Repuglican
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:43 PM
Sep 2015

candidates time to get their footing. It's stupid and destructive to the democratic party. But if you prefer a Republican to win rather than have Bernie win and give the voters a taste of fair policies which don't suck up to Wall Street, then you behave like Hillary Wasserman Schultz.

Gloria

(17,663 posts)
123. No...it allows the GOP to make asses of themselves
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:56 PM
Sep 2015

and not get the Dems tied up into it at this point.

Really, it's about spending resources (limited) and getting a clean start... right now, until the holidays, the attention is on the jerks in the GOP while the Dems go about their business...

We will have a better idea of who to fight against as the Republicans eat their own....Maybe by November.

Sanders has plenty of media exposure, stop that victim stuff. He is doing fine with media exposure. He will be on a cover.
You may want to NOT have tons of media exposure at this point, because it may NOT work in your favor.

I'm not even that worried about where and what time the debates are...because, the media picks up all this a does its own thing anyway. There is plenty of direct messaging the Dems will be doing. Also, infighting at this point among the Dem candidates may be counterproductive. They agree on so many issues that the fine points will be lost anyway in the machine and the holidays....

There is no easy answer to all this. The Rethugs have tons of money and lousy candidates....They are totally nuts. The more they sit there on the stage railing about religion, war, etc. the stranger they seem.



 

Cal33

(7,018 posts)
250. << The more they sit there on the stage railing about religion, war, etc. the stranger they seem. >>
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 07:34 PM
Sep 2015

Last edited Fri Sep 18, 2015, 10:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Strange to us, yes, but not to most of the Republican masses that have been brain-washed. After all,
they are the ones who have voted for and put these politicians into their jobs.

Gloria

(17,663 posts)
297. YEs, but these people won't vote Dem anyway...and
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:34 PM
Sep 2015

Independents and Dems watching will be motivated to vote and not let these creeps into office...

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
317. Do not underestimate the power of the Stupid Side.
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 09:00 AM
Sep 2015

I give you 2014, 2010, Dumbya, Bush the Elderly, Reagan, Nixon, as evidence that crass manipulation and rote repetition of nonsense wins elections for the GOP.

 

Cal33

(7,018 posts)
364. I agree. In recent decades, Republicans have been winning elections just as frequently as
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 10:21 PM
Sep 2015

the Democrats do. I must also say that Republicans have the tougher job. Since their agenda
includes stealing from the American public as much as they can, they have to invent lies for this
and almost every other thing they do.

They have the unenviable job of lying to the public, and then covering up their lies with further
lies. All Democrats have to do is to tell the truth. Oddly enough the Democratic leadership of
late seldom does this. Too easy? Too apathetic to open their mouths, perhaps. Bernie is going
to change this. He will call them out every time they are caught in a vicious lie. That's the
proper way to deal with sociopaths. Their lies will no longer pay when Bernie is president.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
30. Aha, you're saying they lost on purpose. Obviously there is evidence of that. You know, some
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:52 AM
Sep 2015

emails, or memos, or whistleblower.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
31. "Evidence based person" yet it is overwhelmingly assumption after assumption.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:54 AM
Sep 2015

Some of the assumption don't even flow from the limited facts offered. It appears to go against an analytical mindset as being sold. Not that there is anything wrong with not being analytically oriented.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
42. please feel free to offer your own evidence
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:10 AM
Sep 2015

The biggest piece of evidence is the Debbie Wasserman Schultz is delaying the debates to help her preferred candidate. Meanwhile, the Republicans have had the floor for the last two or three months with nothing to interrupt them from getting the American people their point of view. How does that advance the Democrats in anyway shape or form?

 

highprincipleswork

(3,111 posts)
52. Please present other evidence or other conclusions to the evidence that has been offered.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:38 AM
Sep 2015

If you feel the assumptions don't follow, tell how that adds up.

I'd like to hear the solid reasoning behind having fewer debates, scheduling them at times when people are unlikely to watch, letting the Republicans hold major debates with major viewership and not a sign of Democratic counterpoint, giving the candidates less time to perfect their debating skills for the future challenge, giving the Democratic voters less opportunity to select the best possible candidate.

What are the reasons behind these pieces of evidence?

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
54. good additions, all.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:41 AM
Sep 2015

thanks. and .i totally forgot about the debate scheduling.

i'm sure a lot of people will be watching on the Saturday night before a major holiday.

appalachiablue

(40,090 posts)
285. Also some debates are scheduled during major sports games according to several here.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 09:38 PM
Sep 2015

The December debate is set for the Saturday before Christmas when many have last minute errands and office parties are held. Tonight MSNBC, RM and Lawrence said after the 5 hour GOP circus last night, they have another post debate forum tomorrow night.

Many posters act unconcerned about all the GOP coverage and the major loss of reporting on Dems., and the valuable TIME AND VOTERS we are losing that cannot be recovered.

There seems to be among some an attitude of, pour me another glass of white, relax and Let Them Eat Cake. To me.

Your OP is outstanding, reasoned, very well thought out and organized. It's definitely one of the best I've ever read here. Thank you.



Louis XV King of France, 1710-1774

~ Apres moi, le deluge ~

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
286. thank you so much.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 09:41 PM
Sep 2015

very kind.

yes i had forgotten the crappy scheduling until some pointed it out, of course all to keep viewership low to protect their anointed one.

nice photo add

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
80. 1) the republican debates are greatly helping our brand.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:10 PM
Sep 2015

Almost every news organization is discussing them in an unflattering light. It is also giving our field excellent material and those same news organizations are printing our responses. Almost every position they are taking polls extremely low. They are their worst enemy.

2) I have zero problem with the number of debates on our side. I do think we should have at least had one at this point. I believe that is a flaw in the DNC plan.

3) Sanders has no chance of winning the general. In direct opposition to the ops "analytical" mind, every step the party takes to bolster O'Malley and Clinton is a step in the direction of them ensuring we beat the republicans.

Those assumptions are based of the same extremely limited facts being offered by the op. It is a completely assumption based op.

Gloria

(17,663 posts)
160. I just posted something similar....
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:28 PM
Sep 2015

Not worried about no debate yet, though...

The media is so involved with Trump, let them do that....In the meantime, Clinton will be testifying yet again at that
Benghazi panel, so let's get through that. Then the holidays come....

Pundits saying November will show a lot about the Repug field....by the time the Dems debate they will hopefully have a clearer idea of whom to target....

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
199. wrong about sanders having no chance
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 03:22 PM
Sep 2015

but you can wear your arms out beating that drum if you like. and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is clearly giving the Republicans room to sell their message to the American people. We might think that they're all insane, but there are a lot of people out there who won't. And she's giving them a lot of lead time just to protect her preferred candidate. She should be supporting all of the Democratic candidates until one emerges on their own to take the nomination, it's not a prize to be handed out to the favored one.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
221. Politics is not a zero sum game.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 04:03 PM
Sep 2015

Hurting the Republican brand does not automatically help the Democratic brand. You actually have to provide a contrast to help the Democratic brand. And by not having debates, we don't do that.

If your model was correct, we would have easily taken the House in 2014 - The Republicans running it were utterly despised. Yet we lost seats. Why? We stupidly relied on "GOP Bad" automatically translating to "DEM Good" without any effort. It doesn't work that way. Instead, voters said "politicians bad" and stayed home.

Sanders has no chance of winning the general.

Based on your intuition. Polling, on the other hand, does not quite agree with you.

gregcrawford

(2,382 posts)
74. Ease up.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:02 PM
Sep 2015

A well-reasoned argument supported by valid observations was offered for discussion. Snide sarcasm contributes nothing of value to this exchange.

To dismiss out of hand the possibility that there is collusion at the highest levels is naive at best.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
88. i think its naive too
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:15 PM
Sep 2015

and I really did want to have a discussion and not just offer flame bait. Thanks for your comment.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
116. LOL that has become the catch all dismissal.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:52 PM
Sep 2015

Because we all know that no one has ever conspired to do anything. Whatever reason is given for things must be accepted as the reason...no critical thinking allowed.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
213. right
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 03:49 PM
Sep 2015

and I purposely avoided suggesting that there was an actual conspiracy afoot, because I don't even think it rises to the level of conspiracy. They are just being completely transparent about the fact that it's either Hillary or Republican. But no way in hell they want to be Bernie or O'Malley.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
303. Too bad you can't come up with anything that makes sense so you have to start yelling Conspiracy
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:22 PM
Sep 2015

Theory. Politics abounds with conspiracies. But some here want to shut down discussions that go against their world view by crying "CT it must be locked or hidden."

There are experts that have written how we no longer live in a Democracy. That the wealthy make all the decisions as in an oligarchy. And the oligarchy wants either Clinton or Bush (ask Goldman-Sachs). They are willing to let the Democrats lose the general if they have to to keep a progressive out.

It's immoral to look the other way as 22% of our children live in poverty. Elect Clinton and the government will continue to look the other way as they have for 30 years. We need change to save our children from poverty.

TDale313

(7,820 posts)
229. I think some didn't care if they lost the midterms.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 04:23 PM
Sep 2015

I don't think they really to lose congress and the presidency, but I think they're fine with divided government where they can serve their corporate masters and blame the republicans.

 

Cal33

(7,018 posts)
5. If the Repubs. win in 2016, it could be the end of what's left of democracy, and
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:30 AM
Sep 2015

the beginning of a total Oligarchic Fascist dictatorship for us.

 

Cal33

(7,018 posts)
40. It would be similar, but not quite exactly the same. A Corporate Democrat would, for instance,
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:09 AM
Sep 2015

most likely not appoint Republican justices to the Supreme Court. Politically, s/he would
make no changes, and would continue with the status quo. This would defer the death
of the Democratic Party, and allow the Democrats to have a chance of bringing in a
Progressive Democrat into the White House in a future election. Where there is life,
there is hope.

For this reason I would vote for a Corporate Democrat in the General Election, if the
Progressive one fails to win in the primaries.











Skwmom

(12,685 posts)
90. She would hasten the demise of the Democratic Party and hand it to the GOP
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:16 PM
Sep 2015

probably Jeb Bush's son.

She would appoint corporate judges.

The Democrats can BLOCK confirmation of SC judges.

16 years of a corporate Democrat and Republican and there would be nothing left of this country. And they would blame it all on the progressive Democrats - which is a joke.

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
94. Yes. Having a corporate Democrat as President effectively muzzles most Democratic dissent
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:26 PM
Sep 2015

With another corporate Democrat in the White House, we'll be pressured to pull our punches on policies that would've generated apoplexy if they'd been instituted by a Republican.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
157. As we clearly saw in the Bill Clinton administration:
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:26 PM
Sep 2015

NAFTA, welfare reform, the communications act, tough on crime laws, and the repeal of laws like Glass-Steagall. Had Democratic president have done this there would have been a huge outcry.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
308. I gotta disagree with you
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 04:25 AM
Sep 2015

A candidate obsessed with "centrism" and "bipartisanship" absolutely WOULD nominate right-wing justices. Why? To prove their bipartisan chops. To "get things done." Easy confirmations. On and on and on, a litany of shallow, self-serving reasons.

There is no place for bipartisanship while the republicans are a reactionary fascist organization. If a Democrat looks over at that Lord of the flies bullshit and goes "yeah, I'm totally going to reach compromises with them" then I worry. I worry a great fucking deal.

 

Cal33

(7,018 posts)
371. Pres. Obama certainly was trying very hard for bipartisanship. He appointed 2 Supreme
Sat Sep 19, 2015, 04:18 PM
Sep 2015

Court justices. Both of them are NOT right-wingers.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
193. So Hillary would repeal the ACA then ... is that your point?
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 03:06 PM
Sep 2015

I mean since it would be "the same".

Right?

kacekwl

(6,923 posts)
324. No but would she push for single payer ?
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 09:59 AM
Sep 2015

The ACA is better than nothing but it's also a giant gift to the health insurance corporation.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
340. You can not claim she is the SAME as the GOP ... and then admit that ...
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 01:16 PM
Sep 2015

... she would not repeal the ACA.

Not try to reinstate DOMA, or DADT.

Not try to restrict voting rights further.

Let's pretend Bernie is President in 2017. Do you think Single Payer passes? I don't.

Now, imagine Bernie finds himself in that position, he's President, and he determines that the best he can do, given the Congress he has, is some minor improvement to the ACA.

Is he a sellout if he takes that deal? Or should he simply not make any deal unless he's getting Single Payer?

The answer to this question is important.

 

MoveIt

(399 posts)
174. Don't feel too special
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 02:10 PM
Sep 2015

She can't turn that thing off, its stuck on the "smear by association" setting.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
10. It's the same MO they've used in Fla for years.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:35 AM
Sep 2015

Clear the primary for the corporatist establishment candidate that nobody is excited to vote for, lose the election, rinse, repeat.
Why, you may ask? They keep their spot at the corporate feed trough whether the Dem candidate wins or loses. Their corporate owners win no matter which candidate wins...they've bought both. The corporations can continue business as usual, looting the national wealth.
IOW, DNC Debbie is doing the job she was put in place to do...make sure a corporate-backed candidate from either party wins.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
13. exactly.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:38 AM
Sep 2015

The corporate masters, as Trump often point so himself, don't necessarily have a party identity. For them it's all about power. And Bernie threatens to take it away big time

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
23. Correction: WE threaten to take it away.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:45 AM
Sep 2015

Thus the propaganda (even here on DU), the militarized police, the poor education system, the domestic spying...all designed to protect TPTB from a domestic revolt, at the polls or on the streets.

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
115. Yes that is exactly right. And DWS is smart enough to know that
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:52 PM
Sep 2015

this is how and why she's operating as she does.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
19. MITCHELL: "The Republicans are drowning you guys out, though." DWS: "Good"
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:42 AM
Sep 2015
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/16/dncs_debbie_wasserman_schultz_thrilled_republican_debate_drowning_out_talk_of_lack_of_democratic_debates.html

MITCHELL: But the fact is the Republicans --

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Hold on one second.

MITCHELL: The Republicans are drowning you guys out, though.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Good, because you know what? I am actually thrilled at the voters across America being able to see the 16 Republican candidates in the food-fight that they'll engage in tonight in the doubling down on extremism, alienating immigrants to the country who simply came to make a better way of life for themselves, alienating women by suggesting that we're providing too much health care funding for them, and wanting to take away the access to quality affordable healthcare for all Americans.

We're going to have a debate in one month and then we will have five subsequent debates, about one a month. We have 5 candidates; the Republicans have 16. They'll have nine debates.

We will have plenty of time for our candidates to be seen in many different forums without spreading them so thin like they did in 2008 when there were no controls put in place, Andrea, and as a result, we had 26 debates, and that was too much. So, I made a judgment call and I sought input from people who have been involved in developing the schedule in the past and this was the decision that we all thought was best.


2008? You mean the year the Democrats won???


restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
62. i have left open in my mind
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:50 AM
Sep 2015

The tiny possibility that they really want to win, but only if it's Hilary, because she is a corporate oligarch and will play ball. but they have to see the trendlines here and they have to see the revolution it is building and how there is no way she could win a general election, even if she made it to the nomination which is very unlikely. And if that is the case, it speaks to screaming incompetence, which as you point out, is equally unacceptable.

liberal_at_heart

(12,081 posts)
34. in other words there is no need for the Democrats to do any work. All they have to do is
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:56 AM
Sep 2015

blackmail the voters. Either vote for Hillary or have your reproductive rights taken away. I'm so sick and tired of Democrats not doing anything because they think they are the lesser of two evils.

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
246. "Better than a Republican" doesn't work anymore
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 06:54 PM
Sep 2015

"better than a Republican" could still be just as useless. I'm looking for "better than a Democrat" and Bernie fits the bill. He has the best record voting with the party in the House and is near the top in the Senate. When he doesn't vote with the party, he does so for good reasons.

Gloria

(17,663 posts)
162. Nobody is getting drowned out...
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:31 PM
Sep 2015

The on the ground stuff is maybe more important now as the Rethugs flail around looking like crazies.

The Dems plug away on the ground, organizing, where it counts.

The Dems nationally are involved in the voting issues....

This is not like 2008, you cannot equate now with then...

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
186. Honest to Princess Celestia and the FSM, I am really starting to believe
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 02:46 PM
Sep 2015

that DWS is a goddam Repuke mole. She's doing everything she can to sabotage the party.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
47. i wish a gas chromatograph could help here
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:19 AM
Sep 2015

but alas, we have entered the world of social science and psychological analysis. Some things are harder to measure than others.

daleanime

(17,796 posts)
100. Tell me about, I love Sociological and Political science....
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:38 PM
Sep 2015

try as I might, some folks refuse to believe that these fields actually quality as science.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
103. i think they are are different
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:43 PM
Sep 2015

because feelings and behavior are harder to measure and quantify.

but its all fun imo


daleanime

(17,796 posts)
218. Different, yes....
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 03:55 PM
Sep 2015

but still fields of serious study....


and some of the fun is because they're harder to measure and quantify.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
220. true, human nature
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 03:57 PM
Sep 2015

Will not follow the rules of physics and chemistry. In some ways it makes it much more challenging for those who are going to those fields.

The empressof all

(29,098 posts)
32. I actually think there is some wisdom in not deflecting from the Republicans verbal food fight
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:55 AM
Sep 2015

Let them shine in all their idiotic glory! Eventually a survivor will emerge and we will know the depth of crazy we are opposing.

I can't stand Debbie Wasserman Schultz in general but I tend to feel ok about waiting the debates out for a while.

ibegurpard

(16,685 posts)
41. Ask any non political person you know
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:10 AM
Sep 2015

Who's running for President. They're going to say Donald Trump. Are they paying attention to what he's actually saying? Nope.
DWS is a useless clown and she and her crew at the DNC need to be gone.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
84. Yep
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:12 PM
Sep 2015

The election is a long way off.

The Republicans, collectively, are doing more to repel voters than anything we could hope for.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
226. When you don't show an alternative, shining in their idiotic glory doesn't work.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 04:09 PM
Sep 2015

You need them to appear to be idiots and you need to show a non-idiot alternative.

"GOP Bad" does not automatically translate into "DEM Good". Politics is not a zero-sum game.

The empressof all

(29,098 posts)
231. I don't know
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 04:28 PM
Sep 2015

I think people eating gruel for a few months will be quite excited to see that bowl of quinoa with lemon and basil. My hunch is that there is plenty of time left to battle and it's probably wiser in the long run to know who you will be up against....Right now it's a crap shoot on the right.... So why waste time and energy responding to the crazy because you know that's what's going to be coming up from debate moderators trying to make a name for themselves. We'll see how Anderson Cooper does in the first one for us coming up.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
235. No, they will have decided politicians all suck
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 04:35 PM
Sep 2015

and watch something else. Especially with the utterly moronic dates that have been chosen.

"Excuse me, people who have traveled a long ways to see me at Christmas. I'm going to go watch TV for 3 hours now" is not going to happen with the voters you describe.

My hunch is that there is plenty of time left to battle and it's probably wiser in the long run to know who you will be up against....Right now it's a crap shoot on the right.... So why waste time and energy responding to the crazy

Because there is still a primary election.

Believe it or not, our debates do not have to address what the Republicans want to address. See, we have our very own political party. And we're able to debate what we want to debate instead of only addressing what the Republicans say.

Or at least, we used to.

Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #254)

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
33. I agree, and the corporate media do the same.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 10:56 AM
Sep 2015

I have no idea whether Bernie would/will win the GE.
There is no doubt that HRC is a very iffy candidate.

I have warned here before that there are many
handicaps for a HRC nomination as far as the GE
is concerned, and I still think it will be a Bush vs Clinton
election. In that case:
A) The millennials stay home, and the young generation
as well.
B) 10 - 15% of regularly voting democrats will not
go to vote either.
C) The voting group of unaffiliated will stay home
D) The Repugs will close ranks and ALL will vote.

The end result : a repug WH, and a severely shrinking
democratic party.

Just my analysis.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
48. it makes sense
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:21 AM
Sep 2015

especially the part about millennial staying home if it's clinton v bush. What reason would they possibly have to leave their homes and come and vote for politics from the 90s? I think your analysis is spot on, sad as it is.

Response to restorefreedom (Original post)

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
45. Respectfully disagree. I think the corporate establishment wants to win this election
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:17 AM
Sep 2015

However, they are playing a very dangerous game.

The assumption is that people will come to their senses and prevent Trump from securing the Republican nomination. But if for some reason he does, Democrats and Republicans alike will be falling over themselves to elect Hillary.

A more likely scenario is that in a panic, the Republicans will replace Trump with a less cartoonish nominee and that the GE will be as exciting as Tide vs. Ivory Snow (with a tip of the pen to Arundhati Roy on that one). In short, a corporate candidate against a corporate candidate.

The wild card on the Democratic side is obviously Bernie. Although I am a Bernie supporter, I think that once Hillary implodes completely, there will be a rush to replace her. Policy-wise, Biden is just Hillary in a suit and when Bernie supporters realize this (assuming they're consistent), they are no more likely to support him than they are to support her.

Enter Martin O'Malley, who is a bit of a cipher. His relatively unknown, outsider status is a drawback right now, but it will ultimately be a benefit, just as it was for the current President and for Jimmy Carter as well.

O'Malley is running as a progressive and thus will probably be a satisfactory replacement if it becomes clear to Bernie supporters that their guy isn't going to get the nomination. And there is no question that as Maryland Governor, O'Malley did a number of admirable and progressive things. What's not as well known outside of the Baltimore-Washington area is that in 2007 O'Malley co-wrote an article with DLC stalwart Harold Ford called "Our Chance to Capture the Center." In many ways, it was a Third Way manifesto:

Nearly seven years after Bush succeeded Clinton in the White House, America is facing challenges as great as we've ever seen -- a war against Islamist radicals who would destroy our way of life; global economic competition that demands we raise our game; and a quest for energy independence and efficiency that Al Gore has shown us could make or break our planet. To conquer such enduring problems, Democrats will need a broad, enduring majority -- and a centrist agenda that sustains it by making steady progress.

Most Americans don't care much about partisan politics; they just want practical answers to the problems they face every day. So far, our leading presidential candidates seem to understand that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That's why they have begun putting forward smart, New Democrat plans to cap and trade carbon emissions, give more Americans the chance to earn their way through college, achieve universal health care through shared responsibility, increase national security by rebuilding our embattled military and enable all Americans who work full time to lift themselves out of poverty.


In sum, my prediction is that Hillary will crash and burn, just as she did in 2008, and that Martin O'Malley will come out of the shadows and be our next President. I suspect that he will govern in much the same way that the current President has, by running as a progressive but ultimately by serving the interests of the corporate status quo when he takes office.

For those of us who are progressives all the time and not simply during primary season, our best bet is probably a Sanders vs. Trump GE. But getting there is fraught with peril.




restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
49. good analysis.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:22 AM
Sep 2015

and I do agree with you that more than anything, the corporate power structure wants to win this election however they can.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
255. Guess again.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 08:08 PM
Sep 2015
will probably be a satisfactory replacement if it becomes clear to Bernie supporters that their guy isn't going to get the nomination


A lot of Bernie supporters aren't that sanguine about O'Malley, and a lot have said it's Bernie or nothing.

And given your expectation that

Martin O'Malley will come out of the shadows and be our next President. I suspect that he will govern in much the same way that the current President has, by running as a progressive but ultimately by serving the interests of the corporate status quo when he takes office.


there's no reason Bernie supporters SHOULD vote for him, as that would make him just another wolf in sheep's clothing.

BuelahWitch

(9,083 posts)
46. I have to wonder if the elections aren't just for show now
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:19 AM
Sep 2015

That each party puts up a corporate candidate, and the parties "take turns" winning two terms of Presidential elections (ie. Clinton, Bush II and Obama). So given that, it is now a Republican's "turn" to be President.
However, for the life of me, I can't tell WHO is the reasonable Republican candidate in 2016. Even Jeb! seems nuts (but his brother was stupid and nuts, so that has nothing to do with it). Will the Tea Party Patriots go rogue if their favorite is not picked?
DWS has been "in the tank" for Republicans before, it's not unreasonable to think she won't be again (she's got a cushy job in Congress, why should she care anyway?)

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
50. that is exactly it
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:24 AM
Sep 2015

I think that's why the outsiders so to speak are making such inroads, because people are starting to wise up to the fact that corporatist don't care about party title, they just want power.

and I love how most people on du do JEb! with the ! Love it!

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
57. it did not give me any pleasure.....
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:44 AM
Sep 2015

just another reason to be sad for this country. It really is about corporate rule.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
63. Eventually the population will wake up and the corporations will have to relinquish power.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:53 AM
Sep 2015

But that could take decades, long after we are gone. In the meantime I hate it that they are getting way with this.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
66. its sad
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:55 AM
Sep 2015

but I keep reminding myself that this country is still relatively young, and it might just be part of growing pains. It doesn't really help me feel better, but it's something.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
55. Of course its quite the opposite.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:42 AM
Sep 2015

You may not agree with their strategy but they desperately want to win.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
58. agree with you IF
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:47 AM
Sep 2015

by "they" you mean the corporate power structure and the oligarchs of this country. and I have no doubt that there are many passionate Hillary supporters who desperately would like to see her win. But I am talking specifically about those in power in the Democratic establishment. I truly think they would rather see a Republican win than Sanders or O'Malley, because then their power would be severely threatened.

I also wonder about their strategy if it includes propping up a candidate who is so weak she can't even handle debating people within her own party. I do appreciate your optimism that everybody wants to win. Sadly, I just don't believe it.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
60. The real elites don't care one way or the other. They'll get their tax breaks, wars, privileges,
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:49 AM
Sep 2015

profits and cushy jobs regardless of who wins the GE. That is, if HRC is the candidate. Everything else is just a way of getting to the top and staying there.

The globalized elites have been investing in Hillary for two decades to a tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. These people don't walk away from equity.

Then, there are the hundreds of party apparachiks who have hitched their careers to the Clinton machine. Where will they go, and what else can they do?

That's why it looks like they want to hand the election to a Republican.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
76. good points
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:03 PM
Sep 2015

I don't think they would be disappointed if hillary won, I just think that somewhere they know they realize that she can't, and they rather prop her up and lose than see Bernie or O'Malley win.

brooklynite

(91,627 posts)
61. OK, I'll say it: that's a stupid assertion...
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:49 AM
Sep 2015

First, you provide no evidence at all, and offer only a "we all know" claim.

Second, the candidate you claim is beset with scandal is still the most popular Democrat running, racked up as many votes in 2008 as Barack Obama (is the establishment that big), and still beats or is competitive with every likely Republican. Add to which, if they want her to lose, why give her all the establishment money that Sanders' supporters complain about?

Third, the candidate is NOT facing "legal trouble".

Fourth, the GOP debate viewership is irrelevant: people could just a likely be tuning in for the entertainment value, and paying little attention to the political messages of the candidates. And why are the debates relevant at all if, as Sanders' supporters assert, there's a new media dynamic, and voters will get their information from YouTube and social media?

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
70. you can throw the word stupid around all you want
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:58 AM
Sep 2015

but their collusion is giving lots and lots of free airtime to the Republicans to get their message out, All because they are trying to protect the anointed one. And what does that say when a candidate is so weak she can't even handle debating people within her own party?

yes you're absolutely correct Hillary will save us all.

brooklynite

(91,627 posts)
69. Lets review our memes, shall we?
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:58 AM
Sep 2015

Meme 1: Clinton is in bed with Wall Street, which is why they're giving her so much money...

Meme 2: Wall Street wants Clinton to lose...

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
71. that is not what i said
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:01 PM
Sep 2015

your characterization of meme one is correct. But I don't believe they want her to lose. I believe they don't want Bernie or om to win, and, knowing that she can't possibly win, they are going to prop her up anyway and toss the election to the Republicans so the corporatist still stays in power.

retrowire

(10,345 posts)
72. i agree with you for the most part.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:01 PM
Sep 2015

especially regarding point 3 and Biden.

see my thread here to hear me out on that one:http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251579939

the one part I don't agree with is that I don't think any of the Republicans could beat Hillary. they're all way too awful.

but I'm certain Bernie will win this.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
79. good op, yours
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:09 PM
Sep 2015

just over there and left my two cents. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about whether the Republicans could beat Hillary. I agree with you that they are dreadful, but I do think they"d beat her. And I am in complete agreement with you that Bernie's going to take this all the way!!!

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
81. Or maybe the establishment corporatists refuse to cede the field.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:11 PM
Sep 2015

It could be denial of the public's mood, an honest misinterpretation or they could just be stubborn asses.

Nothing about Sanders says he can be co-opted. So, they have no incentive in passing the baton to him.

If they can't have Hillary they'll just turn their attention to Jeb.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
91. i do believe that is why
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:17 PM
Sep 2015

the m$m is trying in vain to shove the Hillary v jeb! contest down our throats. They want two corporate candidates, two family dynasties, and no matter who wins, the corporations win and the people lose.

Mnpaul

(3,655 posts)
248. 'Cause the players tried to take the field
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 07:14 PM
Sep 2015

The marching band refused to yield

Do you recall what was revealed
The day the music died?

the marching band's tune is getting really annoying

Response to restorefreedom (Original post)

daleanime

(17,796 posts)
96. I wish I could....
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:27 PM
Sep 2015

instead I have to agree with you.


And please don't take this personally but I'm not very happy about it.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
102. I disagree
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:41 PM
Sep 2015

The Democratic party does not want an actual left-populist to win the election under any circumstances, they would like an establishment Democrat to win but are willing to settle for an establishment Republican if that will keep a left-populist from winning.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
117. thats fair.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:52 PM
Sep 2015

and I agree that they won't be disappointed if Hillary were to win, because she's a corporatist and will play ball. But if she can't win which, she cannot, they would much rather in my view see Republican then a revolutionary populist. As you pointed out.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
310. Pretty much that
Fri Sep 18, 2015, 04:30 AM
Sep 2015

Under Republican rule, the democrats in power are still the Democrats in power. They're still making money, they're still wielding authority, and hey! The party voters rally for them as the "opposition" rather than the shady fucks who ceded the elections in the first place.

On the other hand, an internal sea change would upset that gig. The people running the party would likely lose that prestige if the party were shaken up. No more nepotism, no more glad-handing or back-slapping. Instead of the coals being banked, they would be extinguished.

crystal dawn

(85 posts)
104. I have a hard time believing
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:43 PM
Sep 2015

that the Democratic Establishment is just sitting this one out, wanting to lose, and handing the election over to the Republicans because they are just as much as bought and paid for as they are. This meme that D and R's are one is the same has to stop! And it's stoopid to think Wall Street is just so afraid of The Bern because like he would actually get any real reform or completely reinstate Glass Steagal on day one because congressional opposition will cease to exist! The Democrats want to WIN this election and allowing the party of the truly stupid to air their craziness for a year of debates won't hurt anyone but the party of the truly stupid.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
108. they might want HILLARY to win
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:45 PM
Sep 2015

because she is a corporatist and will play ball with the powers that be. But anyone who thinks that the establishment is not going to align against Bernie, in my view, is overlooking reality. The people with money and power don't want to give up their money and power. I think it's really that simple.

crystal dawn

(85 posts)
122. The Dem strategy
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:55 PM
Sep 2015

right now is to allow the Republicans to look as fucking stupid as they are... and putting Hillary, Bernie, and a couple of other Dems on stage night after night for a year and a half to debate on something they all pretty much agree with anyway, is to expose them to more scrutiny, more of the time, from the media. Hillary has all the same progressive ideas as Bernie if you break it down, and just because she was on the board of WalMart that one time, or has compromised with Republican policies before, doesn't make her as much of a corportists as the other side. As I said, that meme has to stop!

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
141. hillary is nothing like bernie policy wise
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:05 PM
Sep 2015

and i never characterize her as a progressive. Her record speaks for itself, and so does Bernie's, as do their positions on current issues of which he has many progressive ones and she has none or she'll tell us when she's president.

I also do not agree that they shouldn't be debating because it's protecting them from scrutiny. Good ideas don't need protection, they need exposure.

I do agree with you that the Republicans look stupid, but that's because they are stupid. Putting the Dems out there would not make us look stupid, it would make every single one of them look like geniuses.

crystal dawn

(85 posts)
169. Then you must be completely ignoring Hillary's campaign.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:47 PM
Sep 2015

Here's both their official campaign websites: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/
Feel free to read through them and see they have pretty much the same platform, minus a quibbling or two on who is more "pure" or less "Corporatist."

We can also go through BOTH of their legislative and political histories and find things that we don't completely agree with, and I'm not so sure Bernie supporters realize they want start that this early in the race. You can blame Hillary for then attacking the Bern on his past, of course, when it will be the media that wants that dog and pony show.

azmom

(5,208 posts)
172. There is a big difference. Bernie's campaign
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:59 PM
Sep 2015

Is being funded by the people. Hillary's campaign is funded by bankers and Wall Street.

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
225. the "meme" would stop if Ds stopped being Wall Street's little dancing poodles at every
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 04:07 PM
Sep 2015

opportunity; rhetoric and "I wished that" and "they're Dems they can't possibly be" don't count

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
114. in what way
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:51 PM
Sep 2015

does delaying the Democratic debates, scheduling during times and dates when people are unlikely to watch, not supporting ALL of the dem candidates instead of just the anointed one, and giving the Republicans a three month lead time to get their message out to the American people advancing the goals of the Democratic Party, if in fact their goals are to work for the people and to win elections?

i'm not speculating here, their very behavior is giving me a lot of reasons to suspect that their goal is not to elections or to work for the American people. Because their methods suck beyond measure for anybody that has a brain, and one thing we know, is that these people hire smart people to work for them. So if it's not screaming incompetence, it has to be intent in my view.

FSogol

(45,148 posts)
137. DWS and the DNC are doing a poor job*. They aren't trying to lose.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:04 PM
Sep 2015

Occam's razor?

* They are using the tired and true playbook in use since the '70s. They are ignoring the fact that the party and base have moved leftward. The only reason it appears that HRC is calling all the shots is because she has about 75% support of the leaders of the party. The only way for my candidate (O'Malley) or your candidate (Sanders) to win is if they can move the party out of that mindset.
Coincidentally, the only way for HRC to win is to move leftward with the base. She can (probably) do that, but it will take changing her approach to the previously mentioned playbook and her campaign.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
144. that is a good analysis
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:09 PM
Sep 2015

and I can accept the possibility that they don't want to lose as much as they're just screaming incompetents. But ignoring the will of the people is a bad thing to do. And as you pointed out the people have moved way left and they better start respecting that or they're going to have their asses handed to them in a big way come next year.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
258. If that's true, it was a pretty incompetent move on Hillary's part to come out and say
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 08:15 PM
Sep 2015

'she pleads guilty' to being a moderate and centrist, or whatever the phrasing was recently.

That's not the way to 'move left'.

madville

(7,358 posts)
110. When your leading candidate has a
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:47 PM
Sep 2015

Higher unfavorability rating than Trump you've got some problems or it's intentional.

 

Eatacig

(97 posts)
118. Republicans are doing a good job fooling you
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:53 PM
Sep 2015

I would bet most of these posts are republican plants. You know Sanders is
not going to win as a Democrat. This has been planned by the repubs since
the beginning and it seems to be working. Woe to this country with a
republican president you are pushing for.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
120. Have you ever been involvled in actual party politics,
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:54 PM
Sep 2015

other than voting? Have you attended local party meetings, been a delegate to a state convention? Run for office?

If you'd done any of those things you'd understand that no party ever wants to lose any election, no matter how hopeless it may seem. And inside a campaign the candidate and staffers are often quite insulated from the outside reality that is how they win or lose.

Various people have been posting here about the Dems losing in 2016 as a long-term strategy to win in 2020 or 2024 or maybe even 2076, but politics simply doesn't work that way.

It's my opinion that the "Biden might run" thing is actually something the media is putting forth, because they love what they consider an interesting race. Why they are so very happy with the current Republican field, as overcrowded as it is, because they get to spin that story in lots of different ways. It's not some sort of conspiracy to hold Bernie back.

The much bigger worry, in my opinion, is that too many Dems will mindlessly vote for Hillary simply because they think a woman ought to be President, don't look at her very closely, and besides it's her turn. And then they'll be shocked, just shocked, that not every single woman in this country votes for her. The longing for a female President is NOT so strong that she's guaranteed a win.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
129. i am prepared to accept the possibility
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:59 PM
Sep 2015

that they may not necessarily want to lose, but that their insular bubble is keeping them from the reality that the only candidate they want to win, Hillary, is not gonna be able to pull it off. I do believe that under no circumstances do they want to see a populist like Sanders or O'Malley win. This post is not trying to speak about the hordes of volunteers and people who work very hard for their candidates and very much want to win. This post was specifically about the establishment leaders and the people with power. Because I do believe the power crosses party lines

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
136. They do live in a bubble.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:04 PM
Sep 2015

They do want Hillary to win. But the do NOT want to lose the election. Period. Even the establishment leaders never want to lose.

I have been involved in retail politics, doing all the things I asked if you'd ever done, including running for office. I feel I have slightly more of an insider's take. Aside from meeting Howard Dean several times when he was running and afterwards, I have no connections to the top party leaders, but I understand quite clearly that there is never a plan to lose.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
147. if that is the case
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:11 PM
Sep 2015

then they need to start accepting the reality that the people have moved to the left and do not want a centrist to represent them. They have to let go of the Hillary love and support all of the candidates equally until one emerges on their own to take the nomination. If I start seeing that kind of activity, I might actually believe you.

 

laserhaas

(7,805 posts)
124. Your remarks are Spot On!,,All Bernie has to do to win
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 12:56 PM
Sep 2015

Both the nomination and the Presidency..
.
Is to convince Senator Elizabeth Warren to be his running mate.
.
The have the same ideals/ values; and the popular vote would be overwhelming

zomgitsjesus

(40 posts)
133. DWS is no liberal.
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:01 PM
Sep 2015

She has supported Republican candidates here in Florida over Democrats. What better way to infiltrate the Democrats than by posing as the.heas if the DNC? This woman must go.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
139. "I am not a member of any organized party I am a Democrat." ~ Will Rogers
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:04 PM
Sep 2015

The party establishment is inept (while the Republican Party is getting massive free advertising, the first Democratic candidate debate is still a month away). More than anything, though, I think the Democratic Party is stymied by cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, its members probably want to be progressive on more than just a few social issues. On the other hand, its members feel constrained by what Robert Jensen calls "the captains of industry and finance," who Jensen says "set the parameters of political action." So, on any big money issue (from military spending to criminal justice to tax reform to free trade to immigration), Democrats are extremely careful to not rock the boat.

So, it isn't so much that Democrats want to lose as it is they're confused about how to win. Now, gerrymandering doesn't help (and the failure to do something about gerrymandering speaks to an ineptitude), but I think the bottomline is that federal level politicians (on both sides of the aisle) simply don't know how to operate in the current climate (a climate in which moneyed interests rule and the masses are either too ignorant or too disgusted to care).

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
142. if that is the case
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:07 PM
Sep 2015

then the party as is might not deserve to win, as much as it pains me to say that. Democrats have it over Republicans on every single major issue. If they don't have the balls to come out and say that to the American people and present their ideas as the better ones that they are, they shouldn't be in this game at all.

it is time to rock the damn boat imo.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
161. On far too many non-social issues...
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:29 PM
Sep 2015

the 2 parties are largely aligned (with some relatively minor differences) on account of having their strings pulled by the very same entities. In other words, there's quite a bit of overlap on a number of major issues...regardless of what official party platforms and campaign rhetoric might suggest.

To paraphrase a 1992 Bill Clinton campaign slogan, "It's the system, stupid."

Gman

(24,780 posts)
140. Good grief
Thu Sep 17, 2015, 01:05 PM
Sep 2015

Another we're all going to die post