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.
It's that they think it is impossible to lose.
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!
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%.
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.
We have already proven we will give support to candidates with Bernie's message!
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!
That scientific field of yours wouldn't have anything to do with alien abductions or faking the moon landing, by any chance...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
to actually lose an election.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
they are running on us.
Against the oligarchs is going to be won with people power. Too bad you are not joining in. Are you a millionaire?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When I read the 1st post, I was rather flabbergasted, as I thought maybe I was the only one who questioned this.
Just type in democrats who take Koch money .
"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.
'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.
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.
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.
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.
the environment where you breathe and eat and sleep?
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.
I suspect lots of folks feel that way, i just appreciate you admitting it
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not sure what that has to do with anything.
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!
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.
in their delusion they probably thought they could turn her back to the Darkside.
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.
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?
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.
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.
and hand power over to Republicans? It's an absurd attack against the party that DU supposedly supports.
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.
But DU'ers see what they want to see, and draw the conclusions based upon what they want to hear.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Independents and Dems watching will be motivated to vote and not let these creeps into office...
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.
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.
emails, or memos, or whistleblower.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 ~
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
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.
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....
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.
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.
Based on your intuition. Polling, on the other hand, does not quite agree with you.
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.
and I really did want to have a discussion and not just offer flame bait. Thanks for your comment.
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.
The DNC is indeed acting as if they WANT to lose.
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.
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.
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.
the beginning of a total Oligarchic Fascist dictatorship for us.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Court justices. Both of them are NOT right-wingers.
I mean since it would be "the same".
The ACA is better than nothing but it's also a giant gift to the health insurance corporation.
... 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.
She can't turn that thing off, its stuck on the "smear by association" setting.
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.
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
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.
this is how and why she's operating as she does.
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???
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.
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.
"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.
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...
that DWS is a goddam Repuke mole. She's doing everything she can to sabotage the party.
but alas, we have entered the world of social science and psychological analysis. Some things are harder to measure than others.
try as I might, some folks refuse to believe that these fields actually quality as science.
because feelings and behavior are harder to measure and quantify.
but its all fun imo
but still fields of serious study....
and some of the fun is because they're harder to measure and quantify.
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.
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.
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.
The election is a long way off.
The Republicans, collectively, are doing more to repel voters than anything we could hope for.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Just my analysis.
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.
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:
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.
and I do agree with you that more than anything, the corporate power structure wants to win this election however they can.
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
there's no reason Bernie supporters SHOULD vote for him, as that would make him just another wolf in sheep's clothing.
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?)
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!
I came to similar conclusions. I just hate to admit it.
just another reason to be sad for this country. It really is about corporate rule.
But that could take decades, long after we are gone. In the meantime I hate it that they are getting way with this.
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.
You may not agree with their strategy but they desperately want to win.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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
instead I have to agree with you.
And please don't take this personally but I'm not very happy about it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Here's both their official campaign websites: https://www.hillaryclinton.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.
Is being funded by the people. Hillary's campaign is funded by bankers and Wall Street.
opportunity; rhetoric and "I wished that" and "they're Dems they can't possibly be" don't count
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.
* 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.
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.
'she pleads guilty' to being a moderate and centrist, or whatever the phrasing was recently.
That's not the way to 'move left'.
Higher unfavorability rating than Trump you've got some problems or it's intentional.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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."