The Things Wrong With Dems

[JHan]

57. okay

yes, all corporate donors are bad, because they aren't contributing out of any kind of altruistic motivation. For that matter, its very hard to know when rich people who have enough money to make a major impact are contributing for altruistic reasons or because they have pet interests that they want privileged or protected. I think It hurts us to take that money, it doesn't help us. And you will find, not surprisingly, that those big checks don't tend to go to the folks who make it a priority to get money out of politics. You will find that that money more often than not, is going to the "adults" in the room who understand that governance is about giving business interests a very influential seat at the table.

well I suppose you have the luxury of engaging in that kind of purity, but it has never existed in Politics.

Ever.

"In Clinton's case she was certainly not being treated unfairly by the DNC. They like her brand, so it would have been an absurd argument to make. She was the frontrunner. Sanders on the other-hand is a wrench in the cogs. Frankly, its not a surprise that the DNC would be less than enthused about his candidacy and would by a simple fact of natural inclination, lean towards Clinton in its behavior. Particularly if they see Sanders as poison to the Democratic Party. That would only make sense, and I don't even begrudge it. I'll say there is evidence to that fact, however, I'll also say that it was actually relatively mild and benign. More tonal than anything. "

Yes I Imagine they'd be skeptical of someone who has criticized the party versus a woman who has worked with Democrats, defended Democrats and successfully implemented Dem legislation. I've shared many times what Sanders could have done differently, starting in 2012. And frankly, the base liked her since she handedly won the pop. vote.

"You actually have no idea whether or not the DNC would flip an election away from a candidate like Sanders. Using the Obama Clinton example is not very convincing, given just how close these candidates were in so many ways. In fact, back to my last point, if the party leadership thought that Sanders was going to undermine the machinery that they think is so effective and important to electing democrats, that could be a damn good reason(at least in their heads) to blow up an election cycle (which it would) in favor of barring a certain type of candidate. I hope they wouldn't do this because it seems like brand damage that could not be easily recovered from, but then, if it is not a trigger that would ever be pulled, then why do we need to keep it? Why does the black caucus think its so important if it should never be used?

they haven't done what you have claimed and there's no historical evidence for it, I don't engage in hypotheticals. I mean at the end of the day, the reforms mean less complaining from certain quarters. for a little peace, I'll let it slide but my cynicism remains.

"And actually, anecdotally, we have a poster here who claims to be a Superdelegate who has indicated that at least personally, he might be inclined to do exactly that. The very existence of supers came out of the idea that voters might choose a candidate that the leadership didn't think could win the GE, and that the leadership needed a course-corrector in its arsenal in such an event. Well what does that look like?

Brush up on your history and really look into what primaries used to be like. Tad Devine was instrumental in implementing the concept after all.

And challenging people like Manchin in primaries has the potential to give your message visibility. On a state-wide scale that is potentially a long-shot, given that it takes a lot of volunteers and ultimately a lot of money, so I don't know whether in this case there was any lingering benefit, but I absolutely agree that establishing a progressive presence in these states is important. You cannot expect these states to do anything but stay red if you always run to the middle or center right to court the voters. If those are the choices, and that's the spectrum of politics, well progressivism will never get a foot-hold there.

America is a diverse polity. We all have to grasp this and do our best to spread our message while observing political realities.

As to Dixiecrats, well how did FDR deal with them? How did Johnson?

Triangulation in FDR's case, Johnson was well aware that the Dems lost the south for a generation by pushing the Civil Rights Act.