Since the late 80s the party's policy has been to shut out the left until election time.

[madfloridian]

They actually said it out loud in words.

There's been open declaration over and over of how they did not need the left anymore. They said they were getting enough corporate money, and they did not have to stand for things that might cause them to lose. They had enough money that they did not have to worry about the needs of the people who had been the usual constituents of the party. They had theirs. They didn't need us.

But now they do. Funny how that happens during every primary, every election. They push us aside until they need us, then they put us on a huge freaking guilt trip.

If the party loses they drag out the trite stuff about how they got too partisan, about how the left failed to vote. Any excuse except what really happened.

What really happened was that the new policy makers of the party decided that by taking corporate money, they could stand for whatever they needed to stand for to win. They thought. They sounded so much like the other party that the people voted for the real thing.

They actually said out loud that they had taken over the party, and they did not need us. Not just once either.

"Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

Rob Shapiro, the DLC VP at the time, and a Clinton advisor, spoke clearly about their purpose.

What we've done in the Democratic Party," explains institute Vice President Rob Shapiro, a Clinton economic adviser, "is an intellectual leveraged buyout." The DLC, presumably, is acting as arbitrageur, selling off unprofitable mind-sets to produce a lean and efficient philosophy for the "New Democrat," as DLCers call their slick bimonthly magazine.

Al From in recruiting Bill Clinton said this. (From his book The New Democrats and the Return to Power.)
I believe you are the right person for the DLC job—and the DLC job is the right job for you. We have the opportunity to redefine the Democratic Party during the next two years. If our efforts lead to a presidential candidacy—whether for you or someone else—we can take over the party, as well.

Also from From's book

Nearly a year after our Little Rock meeting, at the DLC’s Annual Conference in New Orleans on March 24, 1990, Bill Clinton became the DLC’s fourth chairman. Calling Clinton a “rising star in three decades,” Sam Nunn passed him the gavel. Nunn quipped that when the DLC was created “we were viewed as a rump group. Now we’re viewed as the brains of the party. In just five years, we’ve moved from one end of the donkey to the other.”


The Wise Geek says that a leveraged buyout is also known as a hostile takeover.

A leveraged buyout is a tactic through which control of a corporation is acquired by buying up a majority of their stock using borrowed money. It may also be referred to as a hostile takeover, a highly-leveraged transaction, or a bootstrap transaction. Once control is acquired, the company is often made private, so that the new owners have more leeway to do what they want with it. This may involve splitting up the corporation and selling the pieces of it for a high profit, or liquidating its assets and dissolving the corporation itself.

Here is a little more:

The clash will be between the "governing class" and the "activist class."

The former includes
the establishment types who populate Washington - politicians, interest
groups, consultants and policy makers. The second comprises "Net roots"
Democrats on the local level; that is, grass-roots Democrats, many of whom
were inspired by Dean and who connect to politics primarily online, through
blogs or Web-based activist groups like MoveOn.org. The argument between the
camps isn't about policy so much as about tactics, and a lot of Democrats in
Washington don't even seem to know it's happening.

I do disagree that with the statement that it isn't about policy....it surely is about policy now. Yes, to the party that says a "lot of Democrats in
Washington don't even seem to know it's happening."

And more:

Through the years they have tried to make "liberal" a word of shame.

I remember when I first realized how most of my Republican family felt about anything remotely off center to the left. A family member scornfully called my parents "bleeding heart liberals." My parents were moderate old-fashioned Southern Baptists who even hesitated to sip wine because the church forbade it.

I noticed it again in 2003, and it really hurt then. Those of us who became so active in politics with the Dean campaign were called liberals and scorned as fringe activists. It was stunning, and it carried right down to the local level. And it was not the Republicans who did that, it was our own party.

The most annoying thing was the preempting of the labels. The conservative Democrats began to call themselves progressives as they pushed liberals aside and called them fringe. They also renamed themselves the "sensible center" and the "moderate middle" and other similar high-sounding terms.

It started a long time ago. And through the years the degrading comments toward liberals/leftists/the left have escalated.

The Wise Geek was right.

It truly was a hostile takeover. They don't plan on giving any of it back to those who traditionally were considered a part of it. They are not going to give up their control over policy. They are going to keep treating the more liberal part of the party as conveniences when elections roll around.

I'm glad Bernie Sanders is running, I'm very happy he's not easily intimidated. I have no idea if he will win or lose, but I know one thing for sure. He's started something that will bring change that has long been needed.

People say he can't change things, but I say he will loudly protest what he can't change and not comply easily.

[madfloridian]

1. Just to be clear...

I am a lifelong Democrat from a mostly Republican family. I have always voted for Democrats in elections.

I have to be fairly silent about my views in my area...I am a rare breed here...a liberal.

If I say anything political to anyone I fully expect them to be insulting.

But I don't expect to receive such treatment from Democrats.

[Ned_Devine]

4. Thanks for posting this

[jwirr]

7. Agreed. And they think we should just accept their way of

thinking with no questions. This knowledge is exactly is what makes me not want to vote if she wins. In my case they are lucky - I vote for my disabled daughter and not for the party establishment. And if I have to I will hold my nose and vote for her.

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. indeed, the insults, condescension and abuse from some of Hillary's most

ardent supporters is something I have not seen in Democratic Party circles in a long, long time

[still_one]

181. Thank goodness the other Democratic candidates supporters on DU do not

resort to such things, and are always respectful of the opposing candidates

I don't think I have ever seen on DU for example a Sanders supporter ever insult or condescend a Hillary supporter, and if it did happen it would be a rare occurrence indeed

[Douglas Carpenter]

200. oh it happens, But - not nearly as much

[CharlotteVale]

55. K&R.

[leveymg]

116. I always voted out of duty and volunteered with pride. But, something has changed

And it's bigger than me this time. That's very bad news for Hillary and the Clinton-DLC-Third Way party machine. They left me.

[lark]

162. I feel and live your pain.

I live in Northern, aka redneck FL where white Dems are virtually non-existent outside the teachers union. I work with 60% blacks and generally bond with them on politics, especially social issues, and don't talk politics with anyone else or I'd get in trouble. Most of them are Hillary people, however, so don't even have that going this year. This is one of the groups, along with gays, that could be swayed by more debates, become more familiar with the better policies espoused by Bernie, but DWS is doing her best to make sure that doesn't happen.

[brooklynite]

2. If the left wants to have influence in the Party, there's a simple solution...

...find candidates that people will vote for.

Not a Warren or Feingold, but dozens of House and Senate members, Governors and State legislators. That's how the Tea Party did it in the GOP.

I keep hearing complaints about blue dogs, and how we never run"real" Democrats; well, where are the acceptable progressives who can get elected in rural Pennsylvania, or in North Carolina or in Montana?

[madfloridian]

3. Well, wait till I dig up the old posts about how the party kept liberals out of races...

It will take some time, but I have many posts just about Florida about how Rahm joined our state chair to get rid of progressives to put Republicans in their places.

Several other states as well...may take a few days.

[lark]

163. Being a one note pony here

DWS does her very best to keep liberals out of power in the state of FL. She supports Repugs often over Dems, she's the worst and what's wrong with our party. Totally crazy that she's the head of the party when she doesn't have a progressive bone in her body. Bring back Dean!!!

[Ferd Berfel]

168. madfloridian - looking forward to the backup annd history

Illinois here and Rahm....well....

[cascadiance]

191. Rahm Emanuel's DCCC was a big factor in putting us in such a bad position in the house in 2010...

... which with that solid majority in the House in 2010, lead to the big problems we currently have with a gerrymandered mess there and in so many places around the country.

Note how many of his DCCC picked DINOs were the ones that lost then in this article.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2013/11/worst-dccc-chairman-in-history-of.html

...
Unmentioned by the naive youngsters writing for Roll Call was that virtually all of Emanuel's conservative recruits were swept out of office once Democratic voters caught on to what crap Rahm had foisted on them. The Rahm recruits started voting with the Republicans and ruining progressive legislation in committees. By 2010, the disappointment level among grassroots Democrats was so huge that they simply stayed away from the polls in drove, letting almost all of Rahm's recruits lose their seats. In contrast, many of the grassroots candidates Rahm tried to defeat in primaries but who beat his weak conservative shills, are still serving in Congress, like Jerry McNerney (CA) and Carol Shea-Porter (NH). Also important to remember is that many of the conservative Rahm recruits lost in the 2006 election, like Christine Jennings (FL) and Tammy Duckworth (IL).

Rahm is rightfully given credit for recruiting and engineering victories for these dozen candidates: Only two weren't defeated, Heath Shuler who saw the polling and realized he'd rather retire than be kicked out of office, and Joe Donnelly, who also read the polls but decided to try a Hail Mary pass and run for Senate. A crazy teabagger beat incumbent Dick Lugar and then promptly self-destructed, leaving Donnelly as the most astonished and unlikely member of the U.S. Senate. The Great Blue Dog Apocalypse of 2010, which handed the House over to the Republicans, was entirely brought on by the Rahm Playbook.

• Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Tim Mahoney (Blue Dog-FL)
• Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)
• Brad Ellsworth (Blue Dog-IN)
• Nancy Boyda (Blue Dog-KS)
• Mike Arcuri (Blue Dog-NY)
• Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)
• Zack Space (Blue Dog-OH)
• Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA)
• Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA)
• Patrick Murphy (Blue Dog-PA)
• Nick Lampson (Blue Dog-TX)

All of these Rahm recruits were awful Members of Congress and Rahm's strategy was thoroughly discredited-- except by Rahm's corrupt DCCC staff and… one very reptilian… Princess: Long Island.
...

And a personal note on the comments here about how Joe Donnelly wound up with Indiana's senate seat when the Republicans stupidly primaried Dick Lugar and replaced him with "crazy teabagger" (Mourdock). Mourdock's comments on women certainly sank him, and thankfully so. Note here, that he was "owned" by Club for Growth as noted in his contributions mentioned on his Wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Indiana,_2012

Mourdock was likely a personal revenge project from then president of Club for Growth Chris Chocola, who lost his house seat to Donnelly in the big election that swept Dems in to power earlier, and probably wanted to try and control a candidate beating Donnelly for the Senate then. I personally knew Chocola growing up in Michigan back in his high school days as my next door neighbor there for a while...

[kenfrequed]

205. So frigging true!

Hopefully Rahm's reign in Chicago will be coming to an end quite soon.

[sabrina 1]

5. Haven't been following the Left over the past few years have you? We have found and elected many

Progressives across the country at the local and state level while refusing to accept DINOS at the national level. In case you didn't notice, we saved the seats of Progressive Dems while DWS was supporting Republicans in Fl and NJ Elected Dems were endorsing Christie.

We have been very, very busy building this party from the ground up, see the last two midterms, not the National Candidates but the intense work done by several fantastic Progressive Dem Orgs to begin the process of finding and electing Progressive Dems, most of whom won, at local levels.

And since our demands went unanswered in DC and those we did elect, voted for right wing policies, the Left put their issues on BALLOTS locally across the country and pretty much GOT THEM PASSED.

You don't seem to know much about what is going on in the party.

Eg, DWS lost us the House and Senate. Had it not been for the Left, it would have been worse. More Repubs.

But the left went out and elected Progressive Dems. Naturally HER Blue Dogs/Conservatives lost. Who in their right mind who claims to be a Dem is going to vote for a Repub with a D after their names?

If YOU want to get this party back into power, let ME give you YOU some of the advice you seem to think we need. You need to do more than donate to whoever DWS chooses because SHE is not a Progressive and does not belong in that position, supporting REPUBLICANS as she has, over Democrats.

YOU are losing registered voters at a huge rate. 10% since 2008 and those of us who are still here are not going to vote for Republicans, even if they slap a D on their names. We WILL vote for Progressives.

I have a few Progressives I am helping right now as much as I can. Because Bernie will need them when he wins the election. Great candidates btw. True Dems.

And of course we found the best candidate of all, Bernie.

So, what are you doing to reverse the losing trend of the Dem Party under DWS?

[madfloridian]

8. Well said.

We gave it real try here. Our DFA group was running a candidate for state legislature who had super credentials. He spoke several languages, was widely traveled, good looking, good personality. The state Democrats dried up his funding, spread gossip about him, and replaced him with a pathetic candidate, wimpy personality, who stood for everything the Southern Baptists stood for.

We held fundraisers for the DFA candidate in our home, but the Democrats in their wisdom decided only a former Republican Christian fundamentalist could be elected. He wasn't, and we lost again.

[sabrina 1]

13. You're in Florida I think. Thanks to DWS it was difficult in that state to get anything accomplished

Kudos for all you did though

Same thing happened in NJ. More than 60 Dems ENDORSED and helped Christie win the Governorship again at a time when he was VERY vulnerable.

The Party leadership refused to help the Progressive Dem who even without money or the backing of her party, managed to get over 30% of the vote. And NJ is a Blue State.

But elsewhere many local progressives WON with the help of some great Progressive Orgs. I think the % was pretty high, but on the Ballot Issues, I believe it was an overwhelming victory for Progressives demonstrating that across political lines, voters WANT what progressives want and when it's done on an issue based platform, we win.

DWS lost us the House and Senate and when I see people blaming the voters, not addressing WHY we lost, I rarely waste much time on them anymore.

The party has been taken over by conservo 'dems' and the only way to get it back is to reject their influence, choose our own candidates, and work to get them elected.

[840high]

111. Thank you. Good post.

[CorporatistNation]

221. As I Read This... I thought... Geez This Sounds Like Florida... Then I Saw Who Posted It...

I have seen this phenomenon time and again in Florida and have had the same hatchet job performed on me and quite a few others.

High Quality People who were UNWILLING TO BE BOUGHT AND UNWILLING TO ... "SELL OUT!

I could sit here and write for an hour and a half about Wasserman Schultz, Karen Thurman, Bill Nelson...Alison Tant RICHARD the CURRENT Chair of the friggin FDP for crying out loud... Alison and her husband Barry together and individually played DIRECT ROLES in giving us George W. Bush!

And they are of course... "Life Long Democrats!

The list is interminably long. It IS 'bout Da MONEYY$$$$$$$$$$$$$ That is about ALL that IT IS About... with one GLOWING EXCEPTION... Senator Bernie Sanders!

[brooklynite]

10. Remind me who won in 2012 when DWS was Chair...and how many House/Senate seats we picked up?

As for what I'm doing, I'm supporting every Senate candidate (progressive and moderate) that's electable, as well as as many House seats I can afford to, along with Governorships and State legislative seats.

[madfloridian]

11. Obama was an incumbent. 3 guesses who controls House/Senate...1st two don't count.

[Scuba]

89. Under DWS Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate

... seats. Any questions?

[Ferd Berfel]

169. Point Scuba. DWS has been a disaster for the Party - Unless you're a Corporatist

[sabrina 1]

114. Progressives retained their seats, except one I believe. Thanks for noticing. WE did that, not DWS

who worked hard AGAINST progressive Dems. How many Blue Dogs/Third Wayers held their seats in the last two mid terms?

Obama won as an incumbant, thank Progressives again for that. Not because DWS or the Dem Leadership.

Guess who won the Gubernatorial Race in Blue State NJ with the help of more thann 60 elected Dems at a time when he was very vulnerable due to his handling of Sandy? Yes, you are correct, the corrupt, right winger Chrisitie.

Guess who the Party Leadership REFUSED to help defeat him? Their very own Progressive Dem who needed those endorsements they gave to Christie AND The money they would not give her. Thanks Debbie, AGAIN. You're doing a great job for Repubs everywhere!

You need to direct your advice to the RIGHT people. We dems don't need it, we need to get rid of these dinos who are promoting Repubs over Dems whenever they can.

Have you ever admonished all those elected Dems in NJ for betraying their own party?

Ever admonished DWS for helping to elect REPUBS over Dems?

I'm puzzled by people who seem not to know what is going on within their own party.

Unlike Debbie and those 60 elected NJ Dems I will never, ever endorse a Conservative no matter what letter they slap on their names.

[ChiciB1]

73. GREAT POST "sabrina 1" AND I Stand With You! I've Called Many

here "newbies" because all they've known is the DLC/Third Way, but there are some here who aren't "newbies" and I'm afraid they'll never open their eyes.

I've known a Democratic Party that stood for "we the people" and would fight for "we the people" and not sell out to the highest bidder! I too will do what I can to elect what we know call Progressives, which were once called Liberals before this s--t began. Ronnie RayGuns and then so very many DINOS who got in bed with him.

I will stand MY GROUND! I live in FLORIDA! Maybe we'll get as lucky as GEORGE ZIMMERMAN did!

Too bad DWS lives here too!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

93. Maybe the good liberal Dr Oz should run?

[farleftlib]

6. His name is Bernie Sanders

The "people" obviously want him, but the party is doing everything they can to marginalize and silence him.

[Duval]

19. And we are fighting back! eom

[RKP5637]

29. Yep, exactly. What the people want doesn't matter, it's all about the $$$$'s. I quit my membership

to the DNC when I realized what they are about. The democratic party today in no way represents what I joined decades ago IMO. I vote democratic and support democratic candidates for individuals I consider to represent true democratic values, more like the FDR kind.

[George II]

33. Marginalize him? How long has he been "in" the Democratic Party?

And he despised the party until he needed it for his own purposes. No doubt when he doesn't get their nomination next summer he'll go back to being an "independent".

[farleftlib]

34. What does it matter?

He's in it now and the people are clamoring for more. If he doesn't get the nomination,I predict there will be a mass exodus from the party. I myself would rather stay inside and fight with my fellow liberals for the soul of the party and I'd like to adopt madfloridian's post as our liberal manifesto.

[George II]

35. You missed my point - 40 or more years he did spoke down to the Democratic Party....

....and denigrated him. Now, after all those years he discovered he "needs" the Party so he joins (not really, he still hasn't truly become a "Democrat&quot , and all of a sudden after all those years he and his followers expect the Democratic Party to bend over backwards to put him on a pedestal and deify him?

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. To put it bluntly, if he wants the respect of the Democratic Party he needs to EARN that respect.

[farleftlib]

37. How laughable

Hillary is the one who has to "earn" respect of the left wing members of this party. There will be no more abused spouse votes for the lesser of two evils. Buh-bye.

[madfloridian]

39. He hasn't earned any respect from them while voting with them? Makes no sense.

[daleanime]

79. Respect is earned by actions......

look at the last 30 years to see the respect that he has earned.

Not that that means anything to you.

[George II]

97. Yes, respect is earned by actions, which only agrees with what I've said.

[cui bono]

132. Except that you ignore his actions and make up stuff to suit your narrative.

He has not "despised" the Democratic Party for 40 years. That's a talking point that I keep seeing lately here. I can tell it's a talking point because it's not true and because it pops up from several different people all of a sudden within the same few days.

And the fact of the matter is, he is the most representative of the Democratic Parties ideals of any candidate in the Dem primary race. The fact that he cared enough to join the Dem Party in order to try to save our democracy and get it back in the hands of the people because no one else within the party was going to do it shows his dedication to Democratic Party principles.

We already went through two terms of moderate Republican policy, we simply cannot survive another 4-8 of that. And actually, if Hillary were to win the nom we have a good chance of living through 4-8 years of extreme right wing policy when the GOP wins the general.

.

[nyabingi]

166. It's funny

because Bernie's views are more representative of the Democratic base than any of the establishment Democrat's views.

Most Democratic voters aren't inclined to cater to the very rich at their own expense.

[reACTIONary]

179. Except, perhaps, when they...

....actually vote.

[madfloridian]

36. Oh, wait now. He would not vote WITH a party he despised. Also...to be clear...

If Bernie who has caucused with the Democrats for years (even though they did not want him to at first)...does not belong in the party then it follows that you think his supporters do not belong there either.

I would be careful moving along that path.

[George II]

94. First of all, a legislator doesn't vote "with" a party, he/she votes for or against legislation.....

....Second, he's voted "against" the Democrats more times than he or his supporters would like to admit.

[madfloridian]

100. Oh my I would never have known they vote for or against legislation.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[restorefreedom]

137. *snort* nt

[nxylas]

156. And how many times did the likes of Ben Nelson vote against the party when they were in Congress?

Somehow, conservadems never seem to have a problem with supposed "Democrats" who vote with Republicans every damn time, as long as they're wearing the team jersey when they do it.

[LiberalLovinLug]

203. So you would rather he NOT run as a Democrat?

Did I get that right?

You'd rather he pull a Ralph Nader then I gather, and run as an independent? And that would all but guarantee a Tea Bagger win. Already we have a few Bernie supporters promising to not vote, or write-in if Hillary wins. (which I disagree with) But you'd like to open that can of worms right up? Don't you think many many more Democrats from the left would abandon the Wall Street Baroness if they actually had the choice in the General?

Weak sauce.
If Hillary cannot even win against a contender that has only recently joined the party, shouldn't you be looking at WHY that is, instead of sulking about how long he has been wearing a D on his lapel?

[kenfrequed]

207. True

And I don't see the moderate squishy side of the party having the same problems when republicans switch to run for major offices in the Democratic party. Hell Rahm and DWS both seem to cheer for those sorts of candidates.

But here we have a candidate that keeps to Democratic ideals better than most Democratic candidates do so obviously Bernie must somehow be bad.

[Drunken Irishman]

78. The people...except those who want Hillary, right?

Or do they not count?

[reACTIONary]

177. I'm glad you put "people" in scare quotes . ...

..... because it is far from obvious that the PEOPLE want him.

[Bonobo]

14. There's another solution.

It relates to not having one's vote taken for granted and pre-counted before it is even cast.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. But more ...

Get involved in the WORK of the Democratic Party, at the local and state level. Bad news though ... the day you show up, no one is going to want to hear your answers; not until you demonstrate that you are more than brilliant ... you must show you are a worker, first.

where are the acceptable progressives who can get elected in rural Pennsylvania, or in North Carolina or in Montana?

In California and the N.E., typing on message boards.

[Ken Burch]

121. Most of the people who show up for such work ARE progressives.

You don't get cynical centrist types who look down their noses at activists doing stuff like canvassing and phone banking and stuffing envelopes.

[1StrongBlackMan]

122. That has NOT been my experience ...

the vast majority of the people I see doing the work at my local Democratic unit are moderates (centrists, in your parlance) ... In fact, but anecdotally, I have yet to see a single Bernie supporter, stuffing envelops or phone banking. But maybe, that's just in my neck of the woods.

[Ken Burch]

123. Out of interest, which neck of which woods is yours?

It's been my experience in forty years of volunteering in Democratic and progressive politics, in two very different states.

[1StrongBlackMan]

124. Arizona ...

Last edited Sat Jan 2, 2016, 09:28 AM - Edit history (1)

and I think you confuse the terms "progressive" and "activists" ... most of the workers have been "moderates", long committed to the success of Democratic Party; whereas, as the "progressives" have been the ones that showed up to a single/few meetings, and left in a huff when the long-term members didn't bow down.

[Ken Burch]

125. Again, not my experience(I've worked in Dem politics in Oregon and Alaska).

Last edited Sat Jan 2, 2016, 03:52 AM - Edit history (1)

I doubt the type of activists I'm referring to wanted anyone to "bow down"...it was about the issues they cared about, not ego. And since the Arizona Democrats have basically been dead(other than in presidential politics)since the 70's or so, it's not as though the party has gained anything by not making progressives particularly welcome.

If the party workers had really all been moderates, I strongly suspect that Raul Grijalva would never have been elected. He's not the DLC/Third Way's sort of guy.

(edited to correct omission in last line that totally changed my intended meaning).

[1StrongBlackMan]

126. Lost me at ...

Arizona Democrats have basically been dead(other than in presidential politics)since the 70's or so, ... If the party workers had really all been moderates, I strongly suspect that Raul Grijalva would have been elected.

as it shows you don't know what you are talking about.

Have a good evening ... Nothing can be gained from this discussion.

[Ken Burch]

130. There was a typo in that graph on my part

The last line should have read "if the party workers had really all been moderates, I strongly suspect that Raul Grijalva would NEVER have been elected".

[1StrongBlackMan]

150. Raul Grijalva was elected through the hard work of the Democratic machinery, i.e., the "centrists"..

that DU scorns. The same workers that got the progressive Raul elected, also, got Gabby Gifford, Ron Barber and Ann Kirkpatrick elected ... in the respective latter candidate's primary runs, the most progressive candidates (two Greens and a libertarian, that switch affiliation, got less than 8% of the Democratic vote, and were severely campaign worker challenged.

So your progressives are the workers narrative was not supported here ... and I suspect, in many/most other districts.

[Fuddnik]

139. I worked with the Florida Democratic party for several years.

I was also very active in my DEC and Dem clubs. Talk about a clusterfuck.

Any new, energetic people, who wanted to work inside the party were quickly run off by the powers that be. I've seen DEC members contribute money to Republicans in races where we had viable candidates. I've heard DEC Chairs call their candidates "wackos", because they were environmentalists. They recruit Republicans to switch parties even when we have viable candidates.

I spent one winter outside a DMV office gathering the needed 6,000 petitions needed to get a good progressive candidate on the congressional ballot. A Republican statehouse candidate (who was a former Democrat, who was strong on labor, but was run out of the party for being pro-life) got more petitions signed for us than the entire 7 county DEC's that comprised the district.

When we beat the DLC's annointed candidate by 10 points in the primary, Debbie Weaselman-Schlitz endorsed her friend, the Republican.That same cycle, Rahm Emmanuel recruited a Republican to run against a well liked labor lawyer, who came within a couple of points of defeating Katherine Harris the previous election. The result? Welcome Congressman Vern Buchanan-R, widely considered the most corrupt congressman in Washington.

I left the party in 2007, after being sold out by my party so many times, my head was spinning. I registered as a Dem again last summer for one reason. Guess what it is.

Loyalty is a two-way street.

[1StrongBlackMan]

157. It would seem that ...

as with most organizations, if there is a significant coalition that opposes the leadership, that leadership will fall. But that requires, staying IN the organization and build YOUR numbers within the organization, i.e., doing the hard damned work.

[kenfrequed]

208. Exactly

Most of the people I encounter that donate time and energy are hard core progressives whose values and ideals are sold down the river early and often in deference to big money and conservative democrats who tend to lose elections anyhow.

[JDPriestly]

131. I vote for a progressive Democrat for the House, and Barbara Boxer, also progressive for the .

Senate.

What more can I do? I'm not giving money to the Democratic organizations that help conservatives get into Congress. That's about all I can do.

I give directly to progressive candidates who need it when I can.

[nyabingi]

164. That is the main problem with the corporate Democrats

You are NEVER going to get rural Pennsylvanians, North Carolinians or Montanans to vote Democratic by moving further to the right and catering to their particular biases.

All the Democratic base (people of color, the LGBTQ community, progressives, etc) has been hearing from Clinton/Obama type Democrats is that you don't matter, who we really want are the white folks who are voting Republican all the time when it should be clear by now that that just isn't going to happen. As long as the aforementioned groups are voting Democratic, these conservative voters are going to vote for a Republican no matter how far to the right the Democratic leadership moves to kiss up to them.

You win elections by energizing your base support (which the establishment Democrats have been determined to marginalize) and catering your message to appeal to as many independents as possible without compromising your stances and principles. Ignore these diehard Republicans, don't try to appeal to them, don't try to move closer to there views (because they're damn well not going to move to the left to meet you half way) because they are never going to vote Democratic.

The Republicans completely ignore Black voters every election because they know they don't have a chance in hell of winning much support, yet the Democratic establishment is so stupid that it continues to believe it can win these Republican votes lol. These rural voters need to be written-off and ignored - the numerical advantage they once provided is becoming an irrelevancy and they are not needed to win now.

Bernie Sanders has a better chance of winning the general election than the primary, and it's because the reviled left of the Democratic Party will come out in droves to cast their votes.

[treestar]

180. Exactly

A lot of the posters seem to think they should sit back and be offered these candidates by the party. It just doesn't work as a consumer choice. You have to be the product, not demand others who may not agree with you offer it up to you.

[rhett o rick]

213. In other words sell your souls to the Wealthy 1%. Drink the kool-aide and let them continue to rule

The Conservative Democrats don't care about the 50,000,000 living in poverty, they only care about corporate profits.

It's time for change. Don't vote for the continuation of the looting of the 99% by Goldman-Sachs and their puppets.

[rhett o rick]

211. I thought for sure you'd say, "Sell your souls to the Oligarchy. Take money from the billionaires

like H. Clinton."

I saw a sign that the Conservative Democrats should think about. "Bernie Sanders, finally a reason to vote." The message is clear, if you want to win the Gen, don't nominate someone that lots of Democrats won't vote for.

The hubris of the Conservative Democrats that run the party leadership will lose this election rather than let Sanders win.

[MerryBlooms]

9. Rec & Kick. Good post.

[Autumn]

12. They think that we have nowhere else to go.

They think wrong

[Fuddnik]

140. This cycle, we're their worst nightmare.

Strongly motivated Progressives, with a REAL candidate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. But, they're very fond of blaming the left when the "not as bad" candidates lose. K&R

Last edited Fri Jan 1, 2016, 09:53 PM - Edit history (2)

[madfloridian]

18. Yep, noticed that.

[madfloridian]

16. Some Rahm shenanigans in Florida to shut out the liberals. Shameful.

He worked with the state Democratic chair woman, and it really hurt our state.

Rahm, what a mess we now have in FL 16. Recruiting Republicans to run as Dems. Not a good idea.

Wealthy businessman Tim Mahoney, a self-described "fundamental Christian," was recruited by the DCCC to run against then-Congressman Mark Foley in Florida's 16th District. According to The Palm Beach Post, Mahoney switched his registration from Republican to Democrat in July of 2005. Mahoney did not support a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

David Lutrin, a school teacher, union activist and staunch supporter of immediate withdrawal from Iraq, decided to run against Foley before Mahoney entered the race. After Mahoney declared his candidacy, Lutrin was contacted by field organizers for the DCCC who asked him to drop out and let Mahoney run unopposed.

Lutrin said that he also met personally with Mahoney. During a three- hour breakfast meeting, Mahoney offered Lutrin a higher-paying job if he agreed to drop out of the primary. "Mahoney tried to get me to run in a different district. He offered me a job at one of his non-profit organizations where he said that I would make more than I was making as a teacher. He said I could campaign full time while working at his non-profit as long as I agreed to drop out of the race," Lutrin said. Lutrin declined the job offer.

According to Lutrin, when he refused to step aside, the DCCC shored up local political support for Mahoney. The local AFL-CIO chapter, of which Lutrin was a member, came out with an early endorsement of Mahoney's campaign. According to Lutrin, the union told him that "they would like to back a fellow union brother, but Mahoney has more money and more political support from the party." Lutrin eventually dropped out of the race when the local teachers' union decided to support Mahoney.

They even turned the teachers' union against Dave. Did they give them a bunch of money? Haven't found the answer to that yet.

[Duval]

17. Need to know this! Thanks for the post. eom

[jfern]

20. We've had enough of these third wayers destroying the party and country

[DAngelo136]

21. We're seeing a fundamental shift in global politics

What the Reganauts didn't realize when the Soviet Union collapsed was that like ripples on a pond when a stone is thrown, that actions reverberate. In other words, unintended consequences.

What the elites didn't realize was that without the threat of "encroaching Communism", capitalism had to stand on it's own and be examined. They also didn't count on the blowback from decades of oppressive regimes ruling on behalf of the U.S. empire overwhelming the petty dictators and overthrowing governments in Tunisa, Egypt, and encroaching Syria now. The neocons didn't count on the Iraqi people not standing for being their economic lab rats and then raising hell enough to warrant the so called "surge" in order to suppress the insurgency.

The elites never saw the reverberations of the Arab Spring and the Indignados in Spain going on to inspire Occupy Wall Street. And when they thought they crushed it, it came back to bite them by denying them their hand picked candidate Mitt Romney the presidency which would have proven once and for all that the plutocracy was here and here to stay. The DLC candidates thought they could be good Republicans until they were overtaken by the Truman rule ( Given a choice between a fake Republican and a real one the public will choose the real Republican every time". ) It was why Obama had short coattails and even why Rahmbo is sinking in Chicago.

The Labor Party in Britain had it's ass handed to them by the Conservatives who shed them once they found out they no longer needed them; much like the bosses lay off workers once they've outsourced the company. And now they have Jeremy Corbyn and even still the Blair wannabe's haven't gotten the hint that they're done. The French elected Hollande, a socialist ( note the small "s&quot and the Greeks, Syriza. The Scottish Labour Party is raising hell; The Canadians elected Trudeau and the U.S. is "feeling the Bern" and Elizabeth Warren is giving them hell, while Kshama Sawant, a Socialist is in the Seattle City Council. And the Conservative/Republican answer is Donald Trump...their living , breathing, loud and loutish id.

This is gonna be fun

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. Great post! Welcome to DU!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[madfloridian]

28. Nice post. Some very good points made.

[MisterP]

92. yeah, after 1991 the neolibs took over and, in the US, ran off a bunch of bubbles--telecom,

then dotcom, then housing under Dubya; WalMart would improve lower-class lives with cheap goods and the middle class would have stocks

but that system can't last, and crashes constantly with a state giving up on any smoothing or doing something other than punishing the 98%

[sonofspy777]

117. wow.

Nice summing up!

[KoKo]

206. ...!

[99th_Monkey]

22. K and fucking R!!! - The party's so-called "Big Tent" habitually shoos-off Lefties

into "The Observers Area" in the back of the Tent, once they get into the White House
with our "valuable" support.

It's about time this shit is stopped in it's tracks.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH dammit !!

It's about time we voted like our future depends on it, because it never did like it does
right now.

[ish of the hammer]

23. Not voting for Clinton -

not in the primary, writing in Sanders in the General if I have to.

[kjones]

77. Saving for later...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. Saving for what?

[kjones]

98. Oops, the OP, I mean.

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. Yeah, well

for 42 years I've been a "loyal" Democrat, but that ends if Bernie isn't the nominee. I'll wash my hands of the so-called "Democratic" Party and their corruption and never look back. They've pulled back the curtain and have shown us just how corrupt they are and I refuse to condone it by voting for them. I'm done. I'll join the millions who are now Independents.

Independents are already a majority voting block. Why the DNC thinks they can get rid of Progressives and not suffer the consequences of that, is beyond me.

Independents = 43%
Democrats = 30%
Republicans = 26%

Good luck crapping on Progressives! That number 43% for Independents is going to go waaaaaaay up if Bernie isn't the nominee. The so-called"Democratic" party is going to regret this. If Bernie crowds of 33,000, 28,000, 27,500 and 15,000 didn't open their eyes, they deserve what they're going to get.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[brewens]

44. I'm close to going "Bern or let it burn!" They may get me to vote for Hillary if she's the nominee,

but I'll be holding my nose. I frankly don't even trust her to nominate anyone acceptable to The Supreme Court.

I'll expect Bernie to be stonewalled at every turn. The difference might be that he can bust through it! I can see Bernie raising hell about the obstruction, demanding Congress do their job and give the people what they want. It might help turn things around in his first midterm election.

If it's not Bernie though, I'm afraid we have to get even closer to hitting bottom to wake people up.

[farleftlib]

47. I wouldn't trust her SCOTUS picks either

She'd put even more corporatists on the bench than there are now and there won't be any liberals left to balance them out. And they're there for life. As far as choice goes, Congress continues defunding Planned Parenthood so the whole SCOTUS/Choice rationale for voting for HRC is falling apart at the seams.

[kjones]

81. Lol

This is the same kind of all or nothing bull that we've been calling you guys out on for months
but always hear "Naaaah, we're not like that."

Seems like there are a lot of Bernie guys that can afford to "let it burn."
Just another example of this group's severe disconnects with broader society...
society, you know? You can't just flip the board when it doesn't all go your way.

Every day I'm on here listening to this kind of stuff convinces me that much more that
the "horseshoe theory" holds pretty true.

[brewens]

96. I said I was "close". You're working on it though. My vote in the general won't matter anyway if

it's Hillary. I live in freakin' Idaho! Bernie might have a gnat's ass chance of taking Idaho, but Hillary, no way! It's doubtful my vote even matters when our primary rolls around. It's usually a done deal by then if I remember right. It's now a closed primary too. I used to use my votes to vote craziest republican to poison their selection. The last time I did that, Bill Sali ended up winning anyway! Worse then Helen Chenoweth.

I did what I could though this time. I donated to Bernie today.

[kjones]

103. You know what's really funny

I"VE donated to Bernie.

I lived in Indiana in '08, I think that was the first time my vote in something
ever mattered, or rather, won.
So, I really sympathizes with you on the political environment in Idaho (found
the natural environment beautiful when I was up there though).

Even when I know there's a 99.9% chance my vote wont change anything
(Now living in Michigan, which is basically Indiana surrounded by water)
I still vote, because hey, maybe next time, some minuscule tick in statistics
well convince some shaky moderate (as cursed as they seem to be on here
lately) that it's OK to go against the conservative stereotypes of whatever
state or region they might be in, and vote for a progressive...and whether
they're far left or just left of center...progress is progress in my book.

So, for the sake of those tiny statistics, the effects on the attitudes of
my neighbors, and sometimes, yes, just as a hopeless way to make myself
feel better, I always vote. Even if it's a lost cause, even if the candidate was
my second/third/fourth choice in the primary, and yeah, even if those to the
left of me (who I look towards, and in ways, aspire to be) disapprove.

[BuelahWitch]

25. I remember Chuck Schumer on The Daily Show

after Kerry lost in 2004, giving everyone the song and dance about how our country had moved to the right and yada yada. Trying real hard that people really did want idiot Bush for another 4 years. If it had been me I'd be yelling for an investigation because people couldn't possibly have voted for Bush again. But not Chuck of the sad face and heavy sighs.

[Broward]

26. We must make the Dem Party unwelcome to Third Way corporatists.

[jtuck004]

75. Ain't gonna do it from the inside, no more than the Union could have joined the Confederacy to

stop slavery. Or passing laws to keep capitalists from accumulating the payment for your labor.

It's the same thing they told IWW members when they joined the AFL, and were co-opted. by the business unions. Didn't work for them either.

It was true then, and it is true now, and it will always be.

But many will have great fun pretending.

[truedelphi]

128. Very true words, indeed. n/t

[bread_and_roses]

185. Amen to that (n/t)

[RKP5637]

30. Excellent post!!! n/t

[FloriTexan]

31. Kick !!

Great post!

[99Forever]

32. The exposure of the neoliberals to the light...

... sends them scurrying for a hiding place behind lies and "triangulation."

No more.

Enough is enough. Time to call in Pest Control and take back OUR party from the infestation.

[NRaleighLiberal]

38. superb OP. thanks. Kick and Rec

[brewens]

40. Republicans did the same thing to the religious right for years. Get their votes and then

blow them off for the most part. I remember Gary Bauer on Bob Novak's show one time. He was a rat faced shitweasle leading something called the Family Research Council.

Bauer was all stoked because the Republicans had taken over The House with Gingrich and his gang. Novak's tone was like, calm down Gary. Now just let us get some tax cuts and a republican in the Whitehouse and then we'll see what we can do about your agenda. Pull the ol' football away, and then hope for them to fall for it again in the next presidential election!

I know I'm tired of being played. That's why I donated to Bernie today!

[stevenleser]

42. Why do you think they did that? Because electing folks who act like that is next to impossible.

And that is a big hint.

[madfloridian]

45. I was waiting for a comment like that. Knew it was coming.

You said:

And that is a big hint.

People who act like the Christian right wing types who want to take over the govt....were elected in 2000 and 2004. Bush shamelessly used them, and he took us to war which the religious right called a Holy War.

You are comparing Bernie supporters to such folks.

I understand you don't like Bernie and you despise his supporters, and there are too many Democrats who do think like that.

Steve, we will never agree.

[stevenleser]

50. No, people who payed lip service to such folks were elected in 2000 and 2004 and...

... true to form, little was done for those folks after being elected, much as your fellow Bernie supporter who started this sub-thread intimated.

And sure, I am comparing those folks to Bernie supporters, insomuch as winning a national election between two candidates requires 50.1% of the vote and the further to the fringes you go to on either side makes getting 50.1% impossible.

I don't like Bernie because he's smart enough to know that and I despise his supporters for threatening to give the last of the three branches of our government to the Republicans who would then be able to pass anything they want and name Supreme Court Justices. This is something I have been fighting against my whole life and you are fighting to make it happen.

[madfloridian]

51. See. You and the party leaders consider us fringe. We are NOT fringe.

We are ordinary people who support the things most Americans support, but that our party stopped supporting decades ago.

As long as you think of us as fringe, there will be no common ground.

[stevenleser]

53. Bernie supporters are fringe. But you refusing to accept that is OK. Bernie should know better.

He SHOULD know he has no chance and I hold him responsible for risking the future of this country on this fools errand.

[madfloridian]

56. You blame Bernie "for risking the future of this country on a fools errand"?

And you call his supporters fringe.

That quite frankly is scary to me....to have a Democrat say that about me..about us...about Bernie.

[Doctor_J]

64. That was to be expected. Hillary may well lose the ge, and at any rate the party

will get trounced nationally, because the Republicans will turn out in droves while the Hillarians have gone out of their way to insult Sanders voters. The right wingers will blame Bernie and his voters.

This is especially hilarious coming from a poster who believes that Hillary is "unfit to be president". Her supporters, like Hillary herself, are completely lacking in morals.

[stevenleser]

66. The truth hurts sometimes.

#1 - He can't win the general.

#2 - If a miracle happens and he wins the general, he cannot pass any kind of transformative legislation because the GOP will control at least the House until 2023.

THAT is a fools errand.

[madfloridian]

70. Okay.

As I say we will never agree, and I'm tired of the insults. So enough said.

[nashville_brook]

84. sadly, it's the Hillary Campaign that bears the responsibility of leading Dems on a fools errand

as well as the party under DWS.

Bernie is doing the right thing by bringing new voters into the game. That's something that HRC and her campaign just can't do.

But we'll see. In the meantime, it would be nice if Team Hillary, the DNC and their New Dem cohort, here and everywhere, could act like "good winners" they believe they are. Since you believe you're headed to the General, it makes sense not to alienate folks during the primary.

A scorched earth approach to every Dem who doesn't march in lockstep with you is inconsistent with a heartfelt belief that you're indeed headed for the General.

[stevenleser]

87. Nope, it doesn't. There is a factual basis for Bernie's entire reason for running being a fools

errand and that is even if elected, he can't get anything transformative passed a Republican House of Representatives.

So he has no reason for running.

[Fuddnik]

141. He has plenty of reasons to be running, and I support all of them.

I've refered to Hillary as "Bush in a skirt" for years, because policy-wise I don't see much difference.

Now, are you done with your errands?

[nashville_brook]

160. that makes no sense at all. but do continue.

[concreteblue]

85. "has no chance"...ROFLMFAO!!!

I would advise you to strep away from your crystal ball until after IA and NH.......

[stevenleser]

86. Nope, he has no chance in a G.E. And my crystal ball is fine.

Absent the Republican nominee being indicted for a serious felony or other unforeseen mishap, Bernie is unelectable.

[concreteblue]

91. Keep smokin whatever you're smokin

Bernie crushes Trump, Cruz, et al in almost every poll. Your desperation is quite amusing.

[stevenleser]

127. The G.E. polls now don't mean anything, they are for entertainment value only.

At this point in 2003-2004, John Kerry was beating Bush by 10 points at times, it means nothing. The fact that you don't know this is a tell in terms of what you know about politics.

What DOES mean something is whether there are wide open lines of attack against a candidate. And with Bernie there are plenty.

He would lose by 15 points.

[concreteblue]

226. Apples and oranges.

One of the most damaging attacks on Kerry was that he was a "flip flopper". No such opening with Senator Sanders. Additionally, the country has reached a threshold with CONservative bs. Kerry was the target at it's peak.
And keep ignoring that the only person the right hates more than President Obama is Hiullary Rodham Clinton. No coatails, and a record R turnout equals 3 way CONservatism for the next 8 years. I will wager a week's pay on it.

[Old Codger]

192. The images

You see in you "crystal ball" are being broadcast directly from repug central via DNC transmitters and DWS is the director... All false, she has a chance to win the nomination but I seriously doubt she can win the GE and as has been stated she has no coattails at all so we end up with a net loss with her..

[dflprincess]

119. Bernie supporters are "fringe"

yet in my area (a suburb) the majority of those on the local DFL Central Committee are a) long time party activists and b) Bernie supporters.

I'm hearing the same from other areas. Though it has always been the left that has hung in and kept the party going from caucus to caucus so maybe we're not the best measure of Bernie support.

Strange though that so many fringe people have been party hacks for so long.

[Bonobo]

129. How DARE he oppose Hillary!

Fools errand = participating in the electoral process.

Gotcha Steve, true to form.

[MeNMyVolt]

90. Hate to break it to ya, but yes you are.

In a good way, but totally fringe.

[FlaGranny]

167. I guess now I'm fringe

I'm a 75 year old woman for Bernie, whose ancestors have been on this continent for nearly 400 years, and now I'm fringe. Who would've thought it? My parents were Roosevelt people - man, really fringe huh?

You know, every 50 or 100 years or so, we get a real progressive and we prosper. Without those real progressives we'd be still working 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. for a few cents an hour.

The average American is for EVERYTHING Bernie stands for. Sad day when the average American is fringe.

[madfloridian]

171. Me, too, FlaGranny...

for your post.

[Armstead]

182. Your definition of "fringe" is far too broad for me

Your definition of "center" is to the right of center.

[rhett o rick]

215. Maybe the reason that Sen Sanders supporters are so enthusiastic is because they've been

treated with contempt for a long time. The Oligarchy bought our Party's leadership and we will have to fight to get it back.

It's not a threat to point out that lots of Democratic voters are unwilling to support H. Clinton and big money politics. That's a fact. And if the Party leadership doesn't heed that fact, we will lose the Gen. Then they will look around for someone to blame, like Nader. I suggest that the Conservative Democratic leadership look in the fracking mirror. The election is theirs to lose.

[stevenleser]

41. Nope, you are wrong. It is since November 1972. nt

[Still In Wisconsin]

43. I'm done with this. Not voting for Hillary Clinton ever..

I'm way too old to say, "Well, we can hope for a better candidate in four or eight years." It just never happens. We keep getting force-fed the same third way bullshit.

[Ferd Berfel]

46. Doesn't this lay it out well. We have the rightwing (disenfranchised republican-lite) "dems"

ANd we have the extreme right-wing (batshit crazy) republicans giving cover to the republican-lite 'dems' so they can complete the corporatist oligarch's agenda. Sick. a 'hostile takeover' of the party of FDR by sociopaths.

NAFTA, GATT, WTO, demise of Glass_steigle, telecommunications act and T P P. THese aren't things that democrats of 30-40 years ago would do, These are the programs of the right-wing. You cannot be a progressive or liberal and support this crap. Support for this shit can only come from the corporate right. We've been had.

Is it time for a Progressive Party? And let the corporatists have it. IF the Progressives left this mess the DLC crew left wouldn't get very far. Maybe they'd have to go back to the Republican party.

[dreamnightwind]

48. K & R, another fine OP from you

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. excellent post

[madfloridian]

54. Last week someone here called us "little idealists" who needed to grow up. That's why...

I put this post together.

Here is my response to that:

"the little idealists need to grow up"....I am proud to be an idealist.

You said:

This is not a time to go back 40 years in hope of a huge revolution...
We need to save what we have which has been decimated by the GOP....



It isn't the GOP that has diminished our party. Our party leaders listened to an elite group of thinkers...and they kept on listening and following and listening and following...

They are still doing it today.

I am proud to be an idealist.

[CharlotteVale]

60. So am I and I think it's the third wayers that have decimated

the Democratic Party. When the DNC head backs her Republican pals over Democrats, what is even the point of the Democratic Party anymore?

[Betty Karlson]

136. DWS has show her true nature. And Clinton's one too.

She needs to go - and fast.

[MisterP]

83. if they don't keep the GOP around and rabid people might not vote for their DINOs

(I mean, not vote for the DINOs *more* than they already are)

[sonofspy777]

118. Me too and not only that,

The ideals we hold dear are what the MAJORITY of Americans actually want.

They will listen to us because our honesty and caring will resonate with them.

Y'all are a bunch of Ebenezer Scrooges!

WE are the Ghost of Christmas

YET TO COME, AND ARE GOING TO HAND YOUR ASSES TO YOU!

[captainarizona]

57. everyone is needed

The democratic party is a coalition of different interest groups and white liberal elitists who want to win elections are part of that group. That is why consensus is not a dirty word as the national polls show mrs. clinton leading.

[madfloridian]

62. Consensus means NOT insulting those the party is supposed to represent.

And it means not insulting them and then warning them to fall in line after being called fringe and talked down to for years.

[farleftlib]

69. Yes, they are the newcomers

and yet they treat those of us who have been here for years like doormats. They give us a candidate whose values are more aligned with the opposition party and insult us for voicing our concerns. The party left a vacuum which Bernie Sanders filled and now they are trying to shame us into submission. It isn't working anymore.

[pansypoo53219]

58. SURVIVAL mode during the REAGAN ERA love fest the media had w/ ronny raygun. but the lie pendulum is

swinging left again. we need to cut off the wall street tentacles.

[Doctor_J]

59. Been voting for D's since 1978. I'm done voting just because they're marked with a D

And it's not just because they no longer represent me. For the 15% or so at DU that favor Clinton over Sanders, I find that I have nothing in common with them. They actually, like their candidate, agree with Ted Cruz and Donald Trump and Ben Carson more than they agree with me. I simply can't be associated with people who are against universal healthcare, public schools, free college, wall street reform.

This primary cycle has exposed the fact that a vocal minority of the party have lost their souls, much like the republicans. They also don't care about making the party a force again. As long as the pandering conservative Mrs. Clinton makes it to her rightful place, they are willing to turn their collective back on probably 10 million new voters.

[in_cog_ni_to]

102. 10 million new voters who will never vote for HRH.

If Bernie isn't the nominee, those 10 million new voters, a large segment of the 43% who identify as Independents, perhaps the Green Party and the disenfranchised Progressives must start a Progressive Party. That's the ONLY way we'll ever see change. I see the "Democrats" and Republicans needing to merge in the near future.

30% of the population identifies themselves as Democrats and only 26% admit to being Republicans. No party can survive with so little support.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[restorefreedom]

145. exactly right

the only real difference between r and d at this point is the choice issue.mthey are almost i distinguishable corporatists on everything else.

if bernie wins which i think he will, progressives might be able to get the party back. if he loses the nom, you are right about a new progressive party being born. too many people have seen too much of the corruption and collusion to just sit and take it. the tide has turned. i think bernie has caused us to walk through a one way door onto a new progressive path.

[zentrum]

61. This should be required

….reading for every Democrat. Very important. Thanks for posting.

[senz]

63. K&R - so glad we have Bernie now

Every true liberal/progressive Democrat who believes this country exists of, by, and for the people should throw their support behind Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination.

Now is the time for us.

[ChiciB1]

65. Boink, Boink, Boink! Not Sure What Can Be Said When

actual facts ARE presented, actual people made the comments, actual organizations made the plans and ACTUAL events DID HAPPEN, and yet... somehow there are people who WILLINGLY ignore it all.

You know there's a saying "you deserve what you get" when you decide to ignore factual information. But, for those of us who DON'T ignore it... well WE DON'T deserve what GOT DONE!

We all pay the price and have been paying the price for MUCH, MUCH too long! I won't lie to myself when I can clearly see what I know to be true. It's been going on for such a very long time. We are standing at the edge of the cliff. I just hope there's no rope tied around my waist when people fall into the abyss! Maybe it's time I find myself a very sharp knife!

[Blue_In_AK]

67. Rec a thousand times

[MeNMyVolt]

68. Might be time for you to go.

Just a thought. it may bring you more happiness in life.

[madfloridian]

71. Are you going to give me a push out the door?

Your words sound a wee bit threatening....

Might be time for you to go.

Just a thought. it may bring you more happiness in life.

[MeNMyVolt]

74. Never. I think you're a fine DUer.

Just seeing a lot of angst. There's more to life than DU.

[madfloridian]

76. Nice save.

[Katashi_itto]

153. Quite right just like there is more to life than voting for a neoliberal

That just happens to have a "D" after their name.

[Cha]

148. The inevitable Jury Results..

Might be time for you to go.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=966587

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Telling a long time member it's tim for them to go is rude, inappropriate and over the top. The post is patronizing and insulting.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jan 2, 2016, 06:16 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post is disruptive
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster is saying "If you don't like it leave" which is hardly abusive or an insult. It is a rather mild slam in the daily torrent of abuse and personal attacks that take place on DU.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nope, I think it's a sweet sincere thought.. quit trying to twist everything, alerters.

Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing wrong with this post or the one that follows clarifying what the post intends.

[MeNMyVolt]

186. Thanks Cha.

I was clumsy with my verbiage. Thanks for giving me the BOD.

[madfloridian]

197. So glad you posted that, Cha. Interesting to see the mindsets.

I remember times when we were on the same team. We stood up for each other.

That's the saddest part to me. I have seen so many posters I used to call friends literally show they think we who support Bernie are despicable. I don't think there's any going back now with the present atmosphere and contempt. That's the worst part....some things that have been said about us can not be unsaid.

[stillwaiting]

154. I'd much rather you go. mad is one of my favorite people on DU. nt

[ljm2002]

172. What a ridiculous reply...

...to a substantive post.

madfloridian posts an informative post, along the lines of many, many informative posts she has made throughout the years, and you decide that it represents personal angst, and pretend to be concerned for her well being.

What a perfect demonstration of the condescension we so-called fringe are complaining about.

Thanks for showing your true colors -- I'd put you at the red-violet point of the spectrum, i.e., as far from blue as you can get without being outright red.

[Marty McGraw]

216. Creepy...

As well as the Alert's response with attempting to re-write history.

[ornotna]

82. Great post madfloridian

Thanks and keep up the good work.

[madfloridian]

88. From the 1985 DLC blueprint for reforming the party...words could not be more clear.

1985 Blueprint for reforming the party.

In his "Saving the Democratic Party" memo of January 1985, From advocated the formation of a "governing council" that would draft a "blueprint" for reforming the party. According to From, the new leadership should aim to create distance from "the new bosses"-organized labor, feminists, and other progressive constituency groups-that were keeping the party from modernizing. From's memo sparked the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council in early 1985. According to Balz and Brownstein, "Within a few weeks, it counted 75 members, primarily governors and members of Congress, most of them from the Sunbelt, and almost all of them white; liberal critics instantly dubbed the group 'the white male caucus.'"

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/6407

I have looked for the whole thing on line, but haven't been able to find it.

[kjones]

95. I guess extreme is extreme regardless of the variety

I suppose I can call this one way alliance fully broken...by which I mean that, on the whole,
Bernie supporters seem to feel zero loyalty to anything but their small percentage of the electorate,
whereas the vast majority of Clinton supporters seem perfectly fine voting for Bernie should
he win the primary. 'Cause, you know, we actually care about what happens apparently...that -
and we also actually honor the label Democrat as an alliance, not just a convenience.

A further left candidate might actually win if the left of the left stopped being fair-weather
friends, bothered to make big showings at midterms, didn't call for primaries because progress
isn't fast enough...because it MUST be revolution.
"Damn, things aren't changing fast enough. Screw it, let's burn it down."

I don't know a lot about the internal mechanics of the European left you all so often laud
(and often, I do as well), but I really feel they'd scoff at the attitude displayed here.

Really, looks more like the left locks out the left. I am left, but I'm also a realist and a
progressive (not a revolutionary). We want 90% of the same things, the difference is,
I don't expect it to happen quickly (and I don't threaten not to vote, etc, when the
progress is slower than I'd like).

Basically, the best way to stop being labeled extreme is to stop acting like it.
The in-fighting, that's expected, the name calling, sure, the pushing and shoving,
and on and on...It's just how it goes.
...
But in my book, the attitudes expressed in many of the comments above
("I'll stay home" and it's variants) qualify as extreme.

[madfloridian]

101. I have NOT advocated any of the things you refer to.

But I am treated as an extremist anyway.

A further left candidate might actually win if the left of the left stopped being fair-weather
friends, bothered to make big showings at midterms, didn't call for primaries because progress
isn't fast enough...because it MUST be revolution.
"Damn, things aren't changing fast enough. Screw it, let's burn it down."

That's what I mean. How do you know it's the left that's not showing up? Do you have proof?

The most shocking thing happening this primary is the utter contempt for Bernie supporters, like we do not belong like we have no place in the Democratic party.

That is exactly the kind of thing I refer to in the OP....

[kjones]

109. Apologies if you feel that way, since...

...since to some degree, your OP has only brought in those comments
that are the primary springboard for my reply.

I have no contempt for Bernie, though I admit, many of his supporters
are starting to get on my nerves. There are some rabid HC fans that
do that as well...really, I just have an aversion to hero worship.

Bernie and his supporters have every right to be in the party, and I believe
they should be. I just don't know why so many of them (including BS himself)
took so long to get around to it...and now, I can't figure out why they're
so eager to abandon it.

If I remember right, consensus is an integral part of socialist-y things in
general. Absolutism (my way or the highway) has zero place in consensus
making. Many people threatening to leave seem to have this sort of attitude,
and thus, would naturally leave anyway.

Basically though, if this group of people (those that the above statement applies to)
is not willing to vote for the democratic candidate (whether HC, BS, or whoever), can
they really call themselves democrats. Nah, they'd be independents. And no, it's not
some sort of purity pledge or what have you...it's a coalition based on consensus. HC
doesn't embody my image perfectly of the ideal Dem candidate, nor is my ideal Dem
candidate represented perfectly by the Dem Party's consensus. However, I'm part of
the coalition because numbers are strength, and I'd rather vote for someone chosen
through a consensus of view similar to mine than to go it alone.

I'd rather compromise with allies than compromise with whatever the right dredges
up. An alliance is two ways though...

[madfloridian]

115. I have always felt about that way myself....however

things have a different feel this time. Even during the most heated Deaniac/Clarkie moments...we never got this personal. I am now friends with them just like things never happened. I don't think that can happen this time around, too much hatred.

I am not used to seeing this kind of disrespect shown to us by supporters of another candidate. It stuns me in a way because even my teaparty neighbors like Bernie's message in many ways.

[Fuddnik]

143. Even my 86yo father wants to vote for Bernie.

And he's been a borderline Bircher his entire life.

Which reminds me, I've got to take him a voter registration form to change parties.

[Marty McGraw]

217. ( ._.)

[Punkingal]

193. Love this OP, and I especially love this post, and agree with it.

Been around a long time, and it DOES have a different feel this time. It is unbelievably nasty here....I have gotten invited to leave DU more than once, for no reason, really, other than posting the TRUTH about some statement, or vote, or action of HRC. It is almost frightening. Not personally, but frightening for what we seem to have become...angry, vengeful, blind to actual facts.

Thanks for your wonderful ops!

[madfloridian]

220. Our country is filled with such anger and hatred at all levels....

The GOP field in particular is trying to outdo each other on nastiness toward others.

It seems to have carried over to the Dem primary. I did not see this coming, not in this intense form.

[comradebillyboy]

104. great comment...nt

[madfloridian]

106. Calling Bernie supporters extremists....you think that's great?

[kjones]

222. I think the irony of their protests for non-divisive discourse is lost on them...

It sure wasn't the Hillary people who jumped right out of the gate with broad
accusations of shilling, sellouts, and traitor bull (oh, and conspiracy theories).
I sit around pretty much the whole primary season hearing all sorts of disingenuous
self righteous crap, and when I finally say my piece calling them out for something
they seem to openly admit themselves (that they don't actually care about maintaining
coalitions. That "blow it up" is acceptable to them.), I"M the bad guy. It's just...wacky.

Word of wisdom to any whom the above applies to. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred,
an "all or nothing" attitude gets you nothing.

[ljm2002]

174. Who the heck are you...

...to call us disloyal when your fearless DNC leader, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has publicly supported Republicans against Democrats while she was the party chair in Florida? Given that, how can you say with a straight face that "we also actually honor the label Democrat as an alliance, not just a convenience"... That's not what it looks like from where I sit.

I call her "Disloyal Debbie" for a reason. And she continues to do everything in her power to keep pulling the Democratic party to the right. She and the rest of the DLC / Third Way / Blue Dog Democrats are the ones who are using the Democratic party as a convenience to push their corporatist agenda. Well fuck that.

[Armstead]

223. Not a matter of moderate....If "the left" weren't consistently sandbagged....

They might feel more loyal and inclined to support the Democratic Party more wholheartedly.

Instead, the centrists push crap thst is contrary to progressive values like the TPP, killing of public insurance plans, bargaining with Social Security, deregulation, privatization.....and so much more

[Uncle Joe]

99. Corporatism; is ideological one believes that conglomerates can't become too big, that

CEOS and Boardrooms should dominate the U.S. government and "third world nations," that bringing down the wages of the American People is the only way to make the U.S. competitive and if that doesn't work regime change becomes the fall back line.

They disguise this as "pragmatism" but in all honesty it's a cynical ideological belief system that the people can't be trusted to shape their own governments.

It's blind faith in both short term thinking and the concept that greed is good, with absolutely no restrictions.

As that type of deeply ideological thinking can only lead to perpetual war and eventual destruction or at the very least near destruction of the human race, there is nothing practical or realistic about it, they live in a gilded fantasy land.

Thanks for the thread, madfloridian.

[postatomic]

105. What were they supposed to do?

Yes, there were Democrats 30 fucking years ago that voiced their opinions about what the Party was doing wrong. It was why they called it a Think Tank. Democrats were having their ass handed to them over and over again. Various people speculated as to why this was.

You cherry picked your information to support your contention. That's cool. I work the other way. Information creates the contention.

So, I ask again; what were they supposed to do?

[madfloridian]

108. They are still doing it.

[Art_from_Ark]

138. Speaking of Democrats getting their asses handed to them...

30 years ago, we controlled the House, and were on our way to regaining control of the Senate. That was during the Reagan years.

Eight years later though, Bill Clinton lost us both the Senate and the House, and even had a combined net loss of Congressional seats in 1992/96. He didn't even have any coattails in his home state in those years (we lost 1 House seat in Arkansas in 1992, and one Senate seat in 1996).

And we got our asses handed to us in the last election-- not only at the national level, but at the state level as well. Our worst position since the 1920s.

[postatomic]

188. Thank you for detailing the problems the Democrats faced

I was a little too general in my observation.

[ljm2002]

176. What were they supposed to do?

I'd say they were supposed to fucking STAND FOR SOMETHING rather than TRIANGULATING EVERYTHING.

I used to wonder why Republicans had such a visceral hatred for Bill Clinton. One day I realized why: it's because he was so fucking brilliant at co-opting their own messages, and at playing in their playground (i.e. getting big $$$ from big players and corporations).

Our party leaders have made a choice to go feed at the corporate money trough. That has necessarily resulted in a shift to the so-called "middle of the road", which is still far to the right of what the electorate really wants, as several issues-polls have shown over the years. But our party won't fight for those issues anymore.

The issues between the haves and the have-less and have-nots are not going away. The question is, what direction will we go when the inevitable change occurs: will we go left-wing progressive populism, or will we go full-on right-wing fascist populism? The latter is a very real possibility as we see from the ascendant Trump candidacy.

It is very dangerous for our party to reject progressive change.

[postatomic]

187. Okay

Ahhhh...... nope. Your post has a religious fervor to it. Nothing good can come from an exchange with you. You're right - I'm wrong. I'm right - You're wrong. Ping Pong. Pong Ping.

[ljm2002]

189. So your question was rhetorical...

...got it.

[postatomic]

190. Yup. You nailed it

[ljm2002]

194. "Your post has a religious fervor to it"...

...from thesaurus.com:

Synonyms for fervor
noun excitement, enthusiasm

ardor
earnestness
intensity
passion
piety
seriousness

sincerity
warmth
zeal


Antonyms for fervor

apathy
indifference

insincerity
lethargy

unimportance
disinterest

dullness
coolness

discouragement

Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Copyright © 2013 by the Philip Lief Group.

Personally I am happy to be on the "fervor" side this election cycle. Of course you added "religious" but I disagree with that characterization. My support for Bernie is issues-based, and yes, my support for him is passionate.

Those of you who wish to avoid "fervor", well, to each his or her own. I will say, though, that enthusiasm wins elections while apathy does not.

[Recursion]

107. It had something to do with things like this

[Roy Ellefson]

161. wrong conclusion was gathered from those maps

Democrats could not have defeated either of the very popular Republican incumbents in either '72 or '80...two elections that should not teach "Democrats" any lessons in who they should nominate for president.

[Recursion]

173. Perhaps, but that is in fact the conclusion the party drew

And since 1992 our party has only lost one Presidential election (not counting the 2000 steal), whereas we only won one between 1968 and 1992.

In the same time, we saw our control over Congress erode; I'm convinced those are not coincidences.

[kenfrequed]

214. Wrong lessons

The '84 election had more to do with pushing forth a thoroughly boring candidate. Jesse Jackson was actually the progressive choice in terms of nomination. Mondale just did not have the fire or the capacity to debate Reagan. Also, a lot of the establishment sorts were entirely too kind with just how bad Reagan's record was at that time.

'68 was more about conservative old guard democrats getting really ticked off that McGovern took the nomination. So they did what you would expect and organized "Democrats for Nixon" and that sort of bunk. They basically did everything they could to sabotage McGovern because a lot of the old guard and establishment sorts feared the idea of the youth standing up and changing the system.

Also, in both cases we had Democratic candidates running against entrenched incumbents that were not afraid to use dirty tricks.



I already see shades of the establishment turning against any non-Hillary candidate pretty hard right now.


One of the reasons Reagan was a transformative candidate was because the Democratic party got chicken and ran a bit to the right. They allowed him to change the political landscape in a way that has yet to be undone even though the Democrats have had four presidential cycles to the Republicans three since Reagan left. We still allow the dialogue to be about tax cuts, anti-regulation, and economic conservative policy. There are still Democrats that use language that concedes a point to the republican party that was rooted in fiction.

[Marty McGraw]

219. ( ._.)

[BKH70041]

110. It's done because they allow it to be done.

Last edited Fri Jan 1, 2016, 11:58 PM - Edit history (2)

And when Hillary wins and Bernie loses, many will do it all over again. They'll "hold their nose and vote for Hillary" because of "lesser of two evils" or whatever makes them feel justified.

So why not shut them out until the time comes? It works!!

Now, if they want to grow a backbone and live what they claim, they'll do what I've seen several here claim they will do; either not vote at all or write in Bernie for the GE. At least normal people can respect that.

But there's no reason to respect the "they're going to shut us out until the time comes" types. They're there to serve a purpose, and beyond that they aren't worth consideration. So they haven't been.

Post #102 makes a good point:

"... perhaps the Green Party and the disenfranchised Progressives must start a Progressive Party."

The sooner this happens, the better.

[Fuddnik]

144. I prefer to take our own party back.

[ljm2002]

178. And another one...

...demonstrates the utter contempt that the "centrist" Dems have for progressives.

It's the usual "love it or leave it" we used to hear from conservatives back in the 60's during the Vietnam war.

Now we hear it from conservative party members who don't like being reminded of what the Democratic party used to stand for.

Keep kicking us and encouraging us to leave the party. I'm sure that will work out well for you.

[BKH70041]

209. It'll work out just fine if you do.

"... party members who don't like being reminded of what the Democratic party used to stand for."

If you want to know what a "FDR Democrat" looks like, and the results of what a FDR-based administration accomplishes, then look no further than Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama. This imaginary "FDR Democratic Party" is something a bunch of you have made up. But a proper examination will show that it already exists, and Sec. of State Clinton will continue that FDR tradition.

But for those who insist otherwise, you'll never be happy in the Democratic Party, of that I guarantee. So I, for one, encourage you to find happiness elsewhere.

[ljm2002]

212. And I, for one...

...encourage you to continue with your contemptuous attitude. I do like to know where people stand -- it's better than hiding behind pretend nicey-nicey talk, I'll give you that.

[Babel_17]

112. Following that logic, our party platform is made up of fungible parts

You just crunch the numbers and insert what's needed to garner an electoral victory. The candidate is then loaded with the right talking points.

[Enthusiast]

113. K&R! I would love to see this receive hundreds of recommendations!

[sonofspy777]

120. Thank you for a wonderful OP

DINOS suck.

[Major Hogwash]

133. It's now or never due to the CU decision.

I don't think politics will be able to be influenced the same way they were in the 60s and 70s unless Bernie is elected this year.
The more they tighten the fist around the scepter, the louder the shouts come our way to just sit down and shut up.

As far as I am concerned, this year is about restoring sanity back to Congress.
That requires that an honest broker becomes the leader of the party.
And that excludes Hillary right off of the bat.

[newfie11]

149. K&R!!!!!!!!!

[emsimon33]

134. K&R

[Betty Karlson]

135. impressive article. Thanks for posting this.

I hope primary voters in all of the states realise what a cancer Third Way has become.

[Live and Learn]

142. K&R nt

[democrank]

147. An important post. Thank you,madfloridian.

What is now called "fringe" used to be standard in our party. That`s how far right the party has been pushed. It doesn`t take much effort to research the degree of disrespect the Democratic Party`s Corporate Wing has for the rest of the party.

What`s most important to me is what happens to my country, not what happens to the Democratic Party. That`s why I intend to vote my conscience, not submissively participate in a coronation.

[Vinca]

151. Maybe sometime we shouldn't show up when beckoned.

[raouldukelives]

152. K&R Our world, our country, our democracy, has been sold out from under us.

By those we entrusted with the keys to the kingdom, all thanks to the best propaganda corporate investors could personally fund to fool the rest of us.

Some, sadly, remain if not one of the beguiled, one of the beguilers. For we few, we can at least proudly proclaim "Not in my name".

[whathehell]

155. Thanks. I'll vote for the nominee, BUT this strenghtens my resolve to fight for Bernie.

[Zynx]

158. The party is a coalition of the left, liberals, and centrists.

The liberals and centrists are seemingly closer to Republicans from the perspective of the left and they also make up a majority of the party. One should not conflate the words "liberal" and "socialist." They're meaningfully different and any country with a full ideological spectrum can tell you that. Hillary Clinton is definitely a liberal, but not a socialist.

[Locrian]

159. excellent post

Thing is - that a lot of people think that by the modern democratic party "winning seats" that the strategy is working. But if the party winning is really just republican lite - what have you really accomplished?

And of course, that's where the bat-shit crazy party comes it: as the rodeo / distraction / push it waaaaay to the right in order to guilt the sane people to turn out "or else".

[jopacaco]

165. I haven't changed but the Democratic Party has

I cast my first vote for George McGovern. I have voted in every primary and general election since then. I grew up in a Democratic union family (until my father became a Regan Democrat, ugh). I spent 16 years in Catholic schools when the church was all about Jesus and helping your neighbor not anti abortion/homosexual rhetoric. My political views are rock solid. I am a proud liberal with the same core values that I have always held. Bernie is the first candidate in a long, long time that I believe in.
I live in Maine now and I was shocked when the national party threw our nominees under the bus because the Independent was good enough or the candidate, who was nominated in the primary, was too liberal to win so why even try. I only give money directly to candidates now. I am planning to go the the Maine Democratic Caucus in March for the first time ever (Maine also has a primary but it is in June, generally too late). I want to see if there is still hope for the party at the local level. I have no faith anymore in the national party. I refuse to believe that my values are fringe. My vote should no longer be taken for granted.

[Baitball Blogger]

170. You can beat the "sensible center" by following their trail of political decisions.

At least in Florida, I have found that those who are involved with land development are not always the most law abiding. Their political connections allow them to cross the line without fear of reprisal from the State Attorney's Office of the FBI Corruption Unit. But, they usually violate someone's Civil Rights. If you really wanted to even the playing field, you can. Just follow their political trail.

[pangaia]

175. Thank you for this, and for so many of your other posts.

They are one reason I never watch any 'news'.

[djean111]

183. This so very clear down here in Florida, where Wasserman-Schultz OPENLY supports GOP buddies and

refused to campaign against GOP buddies.

As long as this is okay with the Democratic Party, and all those who maunder on hypocritically about always voting for the "D", the "loyalty" brigade can STFU until they have put their own house in order.

[Babel_17]

195. Remember Lieberman in 2006?

Most Democrats wanted Ned Lamont and many of our party's leaders resisted that. Lieberman ran third party and won. With strong support our candidate, Lamont, might have won.

[madfloridian]

198. AND the Dem party leaders openly supported Lieberman's indy run.

I may be able to find those names in a post or two I made.

[Babel_17]

204. wikipedia has a semi-accurate list

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Connecticut,_2006#Democratic_reaction

Caveat Emptor: Representative Lewis merely made a compliment of Lieberman.

Endorsements

Lieberman

Democratic U.S. Senators

Tom Carper, Delaware[18]
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana[62]
Ben Nelson, Nebraska[18]
Mark Pryor, Arkansas[18]
Ken Salazar, Colorado[18]

Democratic U.S. Congressmen

Ed Case, Hawaii[63]
Harold Ford, Jr., Tennessee[64]
John Lewis, Georgia[65]
Brad Sherman, California[66]

Democratic former U.S. Senators

David Boren, Oklahoma, President of the University of Oklahoma
John Breaux, Louisiana
Richard Bryan, Nevada
J. Bennett Johnston, Louisiana
Bob Kerrey, Nebraska, President of the New School University[67]

Republicans

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City[68]
Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City[69]
Susan Collins, Senator from Maine[70]
Newt Gingrich, Former U.S. House Speaker of Georgia[71]
Mark Kennedy, Congressman from Minnesota*[72]
Mike McGavick, Washington*[73]
Jack Kemp, Former Congressman and Vice Presidential nominee [74]
Christopher Shays, Connecticut[75]
William F. Buckley, Jr.[76]

* = candidate for U.S. Senate in his home state

Newspapers

The New York Post[77]
The Washington Post[78]

Lamont

Democratic Senators[79]

Daniel Akaka, Hawaii
Evan Bayh, Indiana
Joe Biden, Delaware
Barbara Boxer, California
Robert Byrd, West Virginia
Maria Cantwell, Washington
Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York
Mark Dayton, Minnesota
Chris Dodd, Connecticut
Dick Durbin, Illinois
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin
Dianne Feinstein, California
Tom Harkin, Iowa
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts
John Kerry, Massachusetts
Herb Kohl, Wisconsin
Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey
Patrick Leahy, Vermont
Patty Murray, Washington
Barack Obama, Illinois
Jack Reed, Rhode Island
Harry Reid, Nevada
Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia
Charles Schumer, New York
Debbie Stabenow, Michigan
Ron Wyden, Oregon



Other Democrats

State Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr., Pennsylvania*[80]
General Wesley Clark, Arkansas[81]
Former U.S. Senator John Edwards, North Carolina[82]
Reverend and 1984, 1988 Democratic primary candidate, Jesse Jackson, South Carolina
Governor Bill Richardson, New Mexico[83]
Reverend and 2004 Democratic primary candidate, Al Sharpton, New York
Former Governor Mark Warner, Virginia[84]

* = candidate for U.S. Senate in his home state

Local officials

John DeStefano, Mayor of New Haven and Democratic gubernatorial nominee[85]
Dannel Malloy, Mayor of Stamford[86]

Organizations

United Auto Workers[87]
Service Employees International Union[88]

Newspapers

The New York Times[89][90]

Some satire: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/bill-clinton-endorses-joe_b_25706.html

[reACTIONary]

184. If I understand correctly . ...

.... your relatives seem to generally loath your idelogical stance and they seem to be generally representive of the electorate in your region but you insist that the Democrats there run candidates that embody that despised ideology .


That doesn't quite make sense to me.

[madfloridian]

196. Exactly, so why do they like Bernie Sanders.

[reACTIONary]

210. That's a real puzzler...

..... i wouldn't expect people who are hard over against liberals, etc. to show any suport for bernie. I wouldn't expect him to do very well in an area where liberals are generally denigrated .

[Marty McGraw]

218. He does have that tendancey

to bulldoze through some of the programmed muck and around the rot buil-up in a Repug's head and drive straight for the humanity that a good number of people still retain but may have forgotten they still had.

much stranger things have happened.

[DhhD]

199. K & R. Thanks, mad, for the Posts.

[Depaysement]

201. Leveraged buyout/hostile takeover

In a leveraged buyout the managers take control of the company using cash flow and loans pledging the company's assets as collateral to pay off the selling shareholders. In a hostile takeover, an outsider buys a controlling interest in the company against the wishes of its Board or its management. In your scenario, using either type of acquisition, the shareholders are the left, the activists. They never got paid.

This wasn't an acquisition, it was class theft. It marginalized unions, workers, environmentalists, protectionists and war opponents within the party for the sole reason that they were a threat to management, capital and profits.

Note that LGBT rights are flourishing. That's a good thing and long overdue. No question LGBT people worked hard and smart to achieve these victories. But also recognize that they are achieved in part because they don't threaten the class and economic interests of the PTB, the 1%, our "betters."

There is a class war going on and only one side has been openly fighting. Then Bernie Sanders arrived.

[Ikonoklast]

202. Neocons infiltrated the very top level of the party

And people still refuse to believe it.

[LWolf]

224. It has certainly felt like a hostile takeover,

which has brought the Clintons into prominence and power while marginalizing the left wing of the party.

[liberal_at_heart]

225. The Democratic Party won't be able to do this much longer. The younger generation does not

self identify with party politics. They are not afraid to hold candidates from all parties accountable on issues such as police brutality, human rights, and economics.