The Democratic Party wants to cram the same voters into a smaller tent
I never thought I'd end up being that guy. You know, the guy arguing on Facebook until he gets defriended. I didn't even think it was an argument. To me, it seemed like a strongly worded discussion among Liberals. Hillary's name didn't even come up once.We were two people on the same side of the liberal fence. We never even mentioned the candidates by name. So how did it come that karateexplosions is no longer my friend on Facebook?
It all started when he made a post about how all of the Democratic primaries should be closed. I can see the reasons for this. I can. It's the Democrats' party and they can do with it as they wish.
It's a complex argument there, choosing between a candidate who represents the party to a 'T', or a compromise candidate who incorporates a lot of what Independent / No Party Preference voters want to see. Do you go with the "big tent" of ideas and inclusiveness? Or do you go with the purist route, and let the others follow if they will?
Let's not forget what the real goal is here, to win the general election. In order to do that one must lure Indie/NPP voters. Plain. And. Simple. Everyone around here has been all up about "the math" as of late, well, "the math" says that you can't win the election without attracting the 39% of the electorate who identify as Indie/NPP.
And if you want the Indie/NPP vote in November, the party just might want to get their input in the primary. Here I'll stop you before you accuse me of writing a sour grapes diary. That's not where I'm going. This isn't about trying to get Bernie on the ticket. This isn't about whether Bernie or Hillary will bring in more Independent voters (remember, my friend and I never mentioned the candidates). This is about the process that creates the Democratic ticket and platform.
The upcoming election could be uniquely defined by the presence of Donald J Trump, who is so odious that no redeeming qualities can be found in his potential Presidency. But his candidacy is even more toxic than it appears, for it turns discussions such as this one into an irritation. To vote for anyone other than Hillary is to encourage the most unqualified, dangerous, and unpresidential major party candidate in our nation's history. It's a non-starter.
Because of this, there has developed a certain entitlement among Democratic pols that anyone who participated in the Democratic primary is now obligated to vote for Hillary in the general. As if one Democratic candidate is interchangeable with the other and we should all expect the exact same results regardless of which one won. Normally this would not be the case but Trump! The prospect of his presidency is so unacceptable that even suggesting there won't be an identical united front against him, regardless of the Democratic candidate, is to stoke the deep fires of anger in Hillary's supporters.
So there's been this argument that the Independent/NPP voters shouldn't get to vote in the Democratic primary, but if you look at it, it's really an extension of the Bernie's-really-an-Independent argument that says he shouldn't even be running for the slot. There are many who encourage the Democratic party to close ranks. To not allow the guy who used to be Independent, and not take the preferences of the Independent voters. I call this the purity route, and it's what karateexplosions was arguing for.
The Democratic party tells the Indie/NPP voters that their input is not welcome, and in the same breath the party lays on the guilt trip for not getting their full support in the general. The party says "it's my way or the highway," but if you choose the highway you deserve to get run over by a fully loaded semi trailer.
I'm not sure what is so magical about having a voter change their registration to Democrat. If they support and vote for the Democrat that should give them a seat at the table. But apparently that's not good enough to build a party. To build a party you don't attract diverse constituencies and crossover voters at the polls! No! To build a party you blackmail voters into changing their registrations so they can gain the franchise!
One thing I learned during this campaign is that despite my registration I'm not a Democrat. Every time someone remarks that Bernie isn't a real Democrat it reminds me that neither am I. When you take the sum total of all the things the Democratic party has supported lately, it only jibes with about 20% of my ideology. I guess that makes me a radical leftie or something.
The Democratic party talks a big game but when it comes to actually enacting a progressive agenda, it’s practically a zero tolerance policy. I’m tired of being frustrated by the party I support. It shouldn’t feel like a breath of fresh air whenever an Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, or Russ Feingold rises to the fore. The dejected futility felt when TPP was signed shouldn’t be the norm.
When someone tells me that I should just suck it up and vote for Hillary, I have to weigh my anti-Trump motivations against what it would take for me to vote for "safe and responsible fracking," nation building, and the continuation/expansion of a national healthcare system that prevents me from obtaining insurance on the private exchanges. But most of all I have to consider the fracking, which is the antithesis of my ideology. I don't think my readers can appreciate just how much of a moral and ethical breech it is for me to vote for "safe and ethical fracking." But Trump!!
When the Democratic party chose a 3rd way centrist they assumed that they would still get the full support of the entire political left just the same as if they ran with the progressive. There are consequences to that. There have to be. I think this is the big lie of the 2016 election, the public secret, the elephant in the room if you will. The Democrats did NOT choose the candidate who lures in younger, first time, independent, far left, and crossover voters, but the party expects all of these constituencies to still support the Democrat in the election.
To recap:
- Independents should not get to choose the Democratic candidate
- Independents should not get input nor allowances on the Democratic platform
- Independents are expected to turn out and vote for the Democrat
The temptation at this point is to make the argument personal. To make me the bad guy here for even considering sitting this one out. Look, I'm just the messenger here. You can call me a shit and make me feel guilty, maybe even guilty enough to vote for Hillary, but you can't change the minds of the millions of voters who are staying silent and aren't taking the time to blog about how they are being taken for granted and getting virtually nothing in return.
If the Democratic party wants to ignore the input of the voices of Independents, it's their prerogative. If the Democratic party wants to push the progressive candidate to the side, the candidate that has Independents interested in voting D, that's their right.
But if you think you can do these things and still rely on Independents as a voting bloc you've got another thing coming. They may not vote for Trump, but they don't have to assist you in your crusade, either. You made it this way when you chose the path of party purity.
And if Hillary loses in November you will be blaming the voters, and not the candidate.
Comments
I've been seeing it as fewer voters allowed
in the very small tent.
So glad I never created a Facebook account.
Facebook 'Friends' really need to be called what they are as most fall under the category of 'vaguely known online acquaintance'.
I've seen both parties and their supporters make the effective claim over many years that people aren't really Democrats or Republicans - purity scales and issue hounds dictating what is or is not 'party approved'.
I have never seen an independent tell anyone they were not enough of an independent to be considered independent.
Some people make the claim the Democrats and Republicans are not the same. And they are not exactly the same. But they are more alike than different. Both excel at working AGAINST the American people and for the business and wealth classes like the good One Percent representatives that they are.
Not if you restrict access. But then that doesn't get you
'clicks'.
I just use if for friends (real friends) and family and political propaganda.
FB keeps asking me for my phone number, but that ain't never gonna happen. Nor where i live. Or (don't) work. Or pretty much anything personal.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Enjoy being data mined and monitored.
I've heard the 'I just use it for this' comment for years.
If I want to communicate with someone, I can phone, or send an email.
I also avoid texting like the plague. I just don't invite others to send me short messages, let alone allow others to expect me to respond within a specific time frame or be considered rude. That kind of interruption is something I can do without and won't encourage.
Any data they 'mine' from me is the intellectual equivalent of
Fools Gold.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
I find Facebook useful...
...as a "table of contents" for up-to-the-minute news from sources other than the MSM. I have friends from coast to coast who are all-Bernie all the time. Saves a lot of time vs. googling those news sources individually.
Nature is my religion; the earth is my temple.
Cool!
Just make sure you turn your mics off.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Disagree about facebook
The FB group i am a part of, Bay Area for Bernie, has been very active and many of us will be getting together post-Convention to work together on Brand New Congress and to spear head local and statewide initiatives on such things as ironclad voting and vote counting. All these people MIGHT have randomly got together because fate or something but more likely not. You may be escaping whatever monitoring and manipulation facebook is undoubtedly subjecting us too, but alternatively, you are missing out on making valuable connections. I would say that is your loss, but it really is all of our loss because, as bernie says, we need to do this together.
"If you're on fire, and running down the street, people will get out of your way." Davey- Cordovan Athabascan Native
logic says indies don't have to vote for anyone in particular
Dems have a reasonable argument that Dems should vote for the Dem nominee as a way of showing solidarity but it's simply wrong to insist that non-Dems do the same.
The logic seems to be "you once talked to us about things, therefore you must vote for our candidate and if you don't and if our candidate loses it's your fault. Not only that, but if our candidate loses we'll pick someone even worse next time as a way to get back at you."
The only Dems who 'owe' the party a vote are the only ones
that the party supports. AND THAT ISN'T US PLEBS.
My life experience kept going down the shitter after Obama was elected. I am poverty line now. Screw those opportunists. I am a NEVER-missed-an-election old white progressive who hasn't reaped one benefit from this great 'turn around'. The intenet (no cable, no landline) is MY ONLY EXTRAVAGANCE. I've even given up the used book stores. So trust me when I say from the very bottom of my little heart I OWE THOSE FRAUDS, FAKERS, AND LIARS nothing. None of us do. And we don't have the kind of money it takes to buy her.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
agreed
Good thing i will be leaving the party, after 28 adult years, as of the end of the convention, so i won't have to worry about being a dem and whether the party ever supported me in what i wanted and needed, and thus deserves my unity.
"If you're on fire, and running down the street, people will get out of your way." Davey- Cordovan Athabascan Native
What are Hillary's redeeming qualities?
I feel exactly the same way about Hillary. I am completely serious. Can somebody help me out here?
What redeeming qualities does Hillary Clinton bring to the Presidency?
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
She doesn't have even one.
The Clinton campaign does not want to discuss her
and, like some websites, they don't want to discuss issues. Hills and Bernie met last night. There's a report in the New York Times which has this revealing bit:
That is what the campaign will be all about for her. Fear, shame, guilt-tripping.
Good question
Anyone? Anyone?
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg]
Just One
She will do the bidding of the Democratic apparatchik. At least that's a redeeming quality in some people's eyes.
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
And the oligarchy
She will do the bidding of the oligarchy, as does the Dem party establishment.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Beuller, Beuller
I got nothing... n.t
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Neither do her supporters
I've seen pie fights come to an abrupt end on Facebook several times when I've asked the question: "Which of Hillary's ideas and proposals do you find better than Bernie's, and why?" I have yet to get even one reply.
Nature is my religion; the earth is my temple.
Put another way:
Trump has one redeeming quality. He is not HRC.
She has TOLD us what her one redeeming quality is: she's a woman!
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Well I'm a woman
and in a way it's one of the reason's I don't want her having any power even symbolic. I mean her version of what being a strong woman means is disgusting to me. A bad ass stone killer who wants to break glass corporate ceilings and turn the world into some sick PNAC wet dream of power and domination and thinks we came, we saw we killed, is 'foreign policy' is not a woman I can identify with. She has no redeeming value. Her vision for humankind and the world is terrifying.
Two fascistic 1% arrogant assholes running one male the other female is nothing I can identify with let alone vote for regardless of their gender, race, or any other aspect of their persona. As for her being better on social issues gimmie a break. She's given 'it takes a village' a whole new meaning. How about the women who work in slave labour sweat shops to be sold by the women who work in Wal Mart and have to live on food stamps? Haiti? Bangladesh? Pakistan?
One way or another women, men and children everywhere are fucked in the viscous cruel mind set of these 1%er's who want to rule the world. They mean all humans harm and that is not my idea of what a woman with power should be about. The only women she cares about are the ones who have won the race to the top and that is one sick version of feminism. According to Hillary the Hun and her mentor Madeline Albright 'It's worth it' as the US is at war and we need to protect our corporate overlords interest's, here in der Homeland and globally.
Well stated.
I should point out though that I did not say that being a woman is her redeeming quality. I said that is what SHE has told us.
And thanks for identifying her as a fascist. I have tried to get other people to see that and so far have not made any progress.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
If it quack's like a facist
even if it's couched as 'moderate' and in The Hairballs case quacks and looks like a fascist my lying eyes tell me they both are bad news. As for what comes out of Hillary's mouth it's just as ugly in many ways as Trumps. She may
parselie and equivocate about her nasty agenda but peel away the bs. and take a good hard look at what she's advocating for. It's a variation on the fascistic theme. A classic fear driven, jingoistic, corporate, privatized militaristic government with an anti-democratic plan for America. One where sinking every persons boat is considered pragmatic.I knew you where saying that's her main claim to fame but I'm not The Hairball is a also a hard thing to swallow. Her touting being a woman just makes me mad and sad for all women as well as everybody on earth. I guess you can see I'm not into identity politics. Now Bernie I can identify with as he tells it like it is. A global oligarchical anti-democratic duopoly. The thing I like the most he says is it us not me. Enough is Enough. So I can handle the fact that not everything he advocates is what I want or think needs to be done. At least he's about restoring democracy and reining in these mad people.
The difference I see between the two is
that in HRC we have her actions on record on the world stage and those actions have been repeated many times. Saying that she will put Bill in charge of the economy is so totally scary especially after all the information that has been widely publicized about the harm his policies did. So, more of the same.
What we have with Trump is a lot of rhetoric and some bad business practices. Enough to scare some, but he hasn't bombed anyone or established discriminatory legislation. Yes, I know it is possible that he would. The difference is that Dems would probably block his actions while they would support HRC doing the same.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Ding, ding, ding!
Which is the precise reason why I have no fear of Trump.
Hillary hasn't earned my vote for the general because she lied and cheated to get this nomination. Had she run an honest race and won, I might have considered holding my nose and voting for her but throughout this whole campaign and the years that came before, she showed us who she is.
Of course, had she run an honest race, there is no way she could win the nomination.
Yaldabaoth, Saklas I'm calling you. Samael. You're not alone. I said, you're not alone, in your darkness. You're not alone, baby. You're not alone. "Original Sinsuality" Tori Amos
HRC claims this is her favorite quote:
We haven't been paying enough attention. We should have been quite aware of exactly what she would do in this election cycle and made efforts to nip it in the pod.
I don't like Trump, but I am not afraid of him. I am very afraid of HRC.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
She has not, AFAIK, made fun of the disabled. End of list.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Maybe she can't see them. n/t
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Then maybe we should wrap them in $100 bills. Or maybe
the Fed would print us a couple $10,000 bills and we can give her the rest in hundreds. Think she'd care then?
***Today's trivia tidbit***
The highest current denomination is the $100 bill. The highest bill ever printed, however, was a $100,000 note that was printed from December 18, 1934 to January 9, 1935. It was used for transactions between Federal Reserve Banks. President Woodrow Wilson was pictured on the front.
Highest Denomination of U.S. Bills - Infoplease
www.infoplease.com/askeds/highest-denomination-us-bills.html
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Probably not. I do not recall ever hearing her mention anything
about disabilities in any manner, so it would be a grab the money, shake the hand (maybe) and forget. The ones she remembers are the ones that keep giving and giving and giving.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
your list is longer than mine n/t :)
"If you're on fire, and running down the street, people will get out of your way." Davey- Cordovan Athabascan Native
Well, if you buy her you can redeem her for political favors.
Is that what you mean?
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
She has a couole
I agree with her on voting rights and women's issues, like abortion rights. I disagree with her on just about everything else, so I will not vote for her. She hasn't earned my vote and it pisses me off that she, and the Dem establishment, thinks they don't have to.
I don't want Trump anywhere near the White House. He's suffering from a malignant personality disorder. I don't think Hillary is insane, but I do think she's corrupt and I will not vote for corruption. If the Democrts have to learn that the hard way, that's their choice. I'm entirely comfortable with MY choice.
Hillary Clinton does not want all
abortions to be legal. She has a problem with late-term abortion. So she's not quite the feminist she always purports herself to be.
Ya know who doesn't have a problem with late-term abortion, because he seems to understand that ALL late-term abortions are done due to health concerns of the mother and/or baby? Bernie Sanders.
I miss Colorado.
She's a woman.
That's it. And a gender-blind nation shouldn't take notice of that.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Her redeeming qualities are...
(according to your supporters) she has a vagina.
(according to everybody else) she is not Trump.
Democrats, we tried to warn you. How is that guilt and shame working out?
Seen in replies elsewhere
Has that been asked at the SOB?
Has that been asked at the Site Of Betrayal? What are Hillary's redeeming qualities? I'm sure the answers would be "She gets stuff done", "She's a tough woman", "She's awesome" and other platitudes that they're either paid or conditioned to say. And the real issues get worse.
Beware the bullshit factories.
I've been working on a "humorous" Dem Platform
that reflects Her Ladyship's "core values".
I should incorporate the ones you just mentioned. I've got "The Democratic Party supports the right of young girls to dream", "The Democratic Party will fight tirelessly for you", "The Democratic Party supports the only kind of change that's possible, i.e. so slow that it seems like no change at all and sometimes we might have to regress a little so as not to antagonize Republicans"
Yeah team increment
Beware the bullshit factories.
Since it's the Clinton Party
Where up is down and left is right... You can't forget increment's opposite: excrement.
Here's a video for you on this
When I was a kid, Republicans used to red scare people, now it's the Democrats. I am getting too damn old for this crap!
Great video -I hadn't seen that one
Does a great job of pointing out the absurdity of this "groundbreaking" election.
I find it amusing - but it's put out by a Libertarian group
There are some things they're objecting to that we would not!
(Especially expansion of entitlements!)
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
True
But the overall absurdity of the Hillary is historic so we should vote her gets demolished pretty good.
When I was a kid, Republicans used to red scare people, now it's the Democrats. I am getting too damn old for this crap!
That they did. I laughed. Maybe even out loud. eom
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
True - I kind of disregarded that since we are in no danger
of her increasing entitlements!
We will watch the glaciers calve.
Very thundering and very frightening, longview. Pls add. For the girls!!!!!!
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
A tiara on every girls head?
There is a writer over there who has been doing a once-an-
evening series on Hill's platform, to last 31 days (apparently she has taken 31 positions on her Web site). I have to say they're pretty good. Issues at last!! Too bad I don't believe a word Hill says.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
and if you count all the flip flops
explaining those positions will last all through the General.
Go Team Forgainst!
You keep using that word...
Is getting money out of politics among those issues.
Everything else is just small talk.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Actually, it is.
I just don't believe she'll even try to follow through if/when she wins the election.
Self-exiled from DKos, ahead of the arrival of the Clinton Thought Police.
Markos' transition from gatecrasher to gate-polisher is now complete.
Her redeeming qualities are that she stands for
Women and children.
Except the ones who got thrown off of welfare. Or had their fathers locked up longer if they used cracked instead of powder cocaine because it was cheaper to buy
Or the dead women and children in the Middle East because of her warmongering, or the ones that had to flee their country like Honduras because of the coup she backed.
Or the women and children in Ukraine that were slaughtered by the neo Nazis who she and the rest of our government brought to power.
I'm not sure which women and children they are talking about when they say that she stands for them.
Anyone? No one over at DK will give me an answer when I asked that question. I only got flags.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
The whole women and children claim is based upon
something else…
Won't somebody, please, please think of the children!
That''s pretty much all those claims are meant to do - shut people down - how dare you criticize her when we say she has helped women and children.
Ask Marian Wright Edelman today
what she thinks of the whole body of HRC's work. If I were on Team Hillary, I wouldn't be calling attention to her (former) associations.
You keep using that word...
I am thinking of the children
when I say Bernie is right about so many things.
Like a living wage that would allow a one-income family to flourish with one parent working and the other able to stay at home with the kids where they are needed.
Like a family leave system that would allow parents to share in and enjoy the important first months of a child's life.
Like a healthcare system that supports children's health regardless of their parents' ability to pay.
Like tuition-free state universities that would allow young people to get the education they need for the 21st century.
Like an honest-to-goodness plan to combat climate change so that children will have a future on the planet that is our only home.
So, yes, I am thinking of the children when I say Bernie's right about all these things.
You hurt the feelz of the oligarchy
…when you say things like this.
The oligarchy has to be pragmatic about how much of the scraps from their garbage they are willing to allow the commoners of America to have.
Commoners having all these expectations takes away from the vast sums of money the few can reap from the many. Imagine of their profits were reduced and people could live better lives. Just think about how that would impact the lives of the wealthy and the political class which supports them. Selfish commoners make income inequality and a horrible economy harder to ignore. If only the commoners would shut up about these things.
Man, if the founders knew how easily the commoners could communicate with one another and say the things they do, they never would have allowed free speech. This internet thing gives people too much free speech. These things didn't exist then. And phones, and instant means of communication - If the founders had known then what we have seen now, they'd have never given us the first amendment.
I might hurt their "feelz"
but ask me if I give a damn.
Kids aren't the ones responsible for the sad state of affairs in this country or the rest of the world for that matter, but they are the ones who are and will be paying the heaviest price, so I really couldn't care less about hurting their "feelz."
Here you go
When I was a kid, Republicans used to red scare people, now it's the Democrats. I am getting too damn old for this crap!
sob
I asked that very question at TOP. Well, close, I asked What were her policies?.... not one individual responded except one referred me to Hillary's website. Her followers will tell you she will be tough on Trump. That she is good at badmouthing people seems to be her strong suit.
Back before I stopped going there I used to BEG people to give
me a reason to support her.
Literally must have asked it 20 times if I asked it once and I never got an answer other than a link to her website or vagaries like, "Children" "Women",etc.
I can understand why the politically ignorant would follow her, the MSM has set a good narrative, but for those that are supposed to be both informed and liberal to do so?
It boggles the mind...
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Umm, you do realize that Indies actually
make up almost 48% now? They are almost as big as the two parties combined at this point, with both parties sitting at 26 and 28% respectively, so that's only 54% of the electorate. In other words, the people are disgusted with the parties, as that number has been growing for over 40 years now. As I had pointed out to me, Wallace got 13.5% of the popular vote when he ran, and that was at a time when the electorate was pretty well split between the two parties. Which actually amazes me that Nader only got 3.2% considering all things being equal if you will.
Anyways, I digress... I've had many arguments with FB people, and no I do not consider them "just acquaintances" as some are business contacts, customers, and people I've met through those people via my politics or business. The Democratic party can definitely try the purity route, but as I'm seeing more and more of via my social media is that Hillary is not a shoo in, the progressives are NOT rallying around the presumptive nominee, and in fact the talk has gotten hotter about leaving entirely and letting the Dem party have their Republicans. And while Robert Reich may be fanning the flames for the "after the November election" deal, Progressives don't seem to be waiting on that. They want action, and they want to start forming NOW.
Ross Perot got 19% of the
Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992. If I'm not mistaken, he actually led in polls for a short time.
It might be time to find out what is possible in this new age of social media. Also, I wonder how much of Bernie's appeal is owed to his not being a Democrat for all of these years. Did that, in itself, play a role in his ability to connect with people?
I see no downside to working on third party options. It would be nice to have an option with ballot access in every state. Even if it doesn't end up being our main vehicle, there is still value in terms of leverage and political pressure. In 1932, the Socialist and Communist candidates pulled in more than a million votes combined (more than doubling their haul from the previous election). Folks argue today about how much that mattered, but it didn't seem to hurt anything.
A Lot
I think this raises his trust level through the roof. If Bernie was running against Trump, he could turn Utah blue!
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
Perot
I voted for Perot....and never heard a peep about how that helped Clinton get elected....but Nader??? Hoooo Boy... Every Clinton surrogate uses Nader as the BOOGEY MAN in Gore v Bush. We are seeing another disaster representing the Democratic Party in the election for POTUS, and unfortunately, I fear the result will be the same...another village idiot from the GOP as POTUS in 2016
Perot
I voted for Perot....and never heard a peep about how that helped Clinton get elected....but Nader??? Hoooo Boy... Every Clinton surrogate uses Nader as the BOOGEY MAN in Gore v Bush. We are seeing another disaster representing the Democratic Party in the election for POTUS, and unfortunately, I fear the result will be the same...another village idiot from the GOP as POTUS in 2016
Political Parties are not mandated in our Constitution.
They are private clubs layered into our Democratic Process. Elections of any sort that touch our government must be open to all. Our process has become less and less democratic in a time when elections and voting should be easy because we have the technology to make it accurate and trustworthy if we choose to make it happen. You vote and then you go online to be sure your vote was recorded accurately. All the things Bernie is suggesting make sense in the 21st century, our current structure made sense in the 19th and 20th century but not today. Kos, of course wants to keep democracy a private club for the faithful. I want to open it to all so more people will engage in their government.
There are joiners and there are the rest of us.
Too bad there. I liked karateexplosions.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Closed Primaries
How is it that the Democratic Party is allowed in most states to exclude roughly 70 percent of voters from participating in their primaries, and yet those same voters (at least those that pay taxes) are expected to help foot the bill? Political parties should not be able to dictate eligibility criteria for participating in their primaries until they start paying for them.
inactive account
Not just taxpayer funded, but some states (CA) treat parties
like a branch of government in some respects but as private entities (which they are) in others. It's actually very undemocratic.
Closed primaries
isolate the party from the electorate at large. Pretty much by definition. That's just a bad thing for democracy in general, and in a two-party system the bad effects are magnified. If the U.S. had five or seven parties I'd say, sure, whatever, do what you like. But the fact is, with only two parties, it is a de-facto disenfranchisement of almost half the electorate. And that is just wrong.
"The Democratic party tells the Indie/NPP voters that their input is not welcome, and in the same breath the party lays on the guilt trip for not getting their full support in the general."
Yes, this right here. They want it both ways, and that won't fly. It's hugely arrogant.
"But Trump!!"
Clinton, and those who follow her, deliberately run as far to the right as they can get away with - bounded only by how far the Republicans have gone. Of course they have pat excuses for this: "it's just a tactical thing", it's just to get the those "centrist votes" so we can get the "good people" elected. But the effect is that it moves the Republicans even farther to the right, whereupon the Clintonians chase them to the right yet again. It's a cycle that can only be broken by refusing to play it. That is where BernieOrBust comes from. The recognition of that ugly cycle, and the fact that it can only be broken in one way: adamant refusal to stay on the rightward-rolling gerbil wheel.
That's the crux of the argument
Closed primaries make sense, but only in a world where we can have multiple parties. Here in the US, the two parties have created numerous legal and institutional barriers to entry to all but eliminate competition. In this political duopoly where other parties are all but impossible, closed primaries disenfranchise all those who don't feel represented by the two parties. In our political world, letting indies vote in either primary is the only fair option.
Please help support caucus99percent!
ultimately, closed primaries are only reasonable if
you have proportional representation. otherwise, if you happen to live in a district that is sufficiently biased towards any particular party (or more generally, in the case of multiple parties, sufficiently biased away from your own), you have, effectively, no vote at all, because the person you get to select in the primary has no chance whatsoever of ever holding office.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
I really think a parliamentary style arrangement is sounding
more and more attractive every day....
All I know for sure though is that this two party system is just flatout bullshit...
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
The two-party system was specifically designed to keep
undesirable assh*les (like us) OUT.
That it hasn't is just a glitch they've been working on for decades.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
I don't lose the right to
I don't lose the right to vote for whom I want in the general, just because I am a registered Democrat and voted in the primary. The democrats need to change the Constitution if they really believe that.
So, if the parties need to be pure,
why are we allowed to register indie, libertarian, green, etc.? If the POTUS represents only the two parties, we should only have two party registration. In that case, you and your friend wouldn't have an argument. This is the REAL problem with a duopoly, which is why it needs to be abolished. I know, easier said than done. But, really????
From Wikipedia:
Duopoly in Politics
See also: Two-party system
Modern American politics, in particular the electoral college system has been described as duopolistic since the Republican and Democratic parties have dominated and framed policy debate as well as the public discourse on matters of national concern for about a century and a half. Third Parties have encountered various blocks in getting onto ballots at different levels of government as well as other electoral obstacles, more so in recent decades.
I detest our system because of the last sentence above. Things just gotta change and change will not happen if we keep doing the same thing over and over again and getting the same result. That's called insanity, right? America has reached it's level of insanity and it's time to upset that apple cart.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
About that...check this post from Huffington Post...makes sense!
http://new.www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/what-will-berniehill...
Borosage gets it right...glad to see something sensible can appear on HuffPost.
mitchbird
^^^THIS^^^^
I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance. - e.e.cummings
Please stop trying to fear
Please stop trying to fear monger people of conscience into falling behind the lesser of two evils. At least what you have determined to be the lesser of the two. This has been and will always be tactic number one power play over the masses as long as it works. And as long as it works, we will never see better candidates. Ya know why? Because it isn't necessary when we will line up for the war mongering, PNAC queen, GMO, private prison, fracking loving corrupt and lying, cluster bomb and drone killing, surveillance state supporter, regime change lover. I will not vote for Trump but he does not have a fraction of the organization or relationships to pull off anything close to the damage Hillary will unleash on this world. All without much protest because she is the democrat. We have been played. Do not think for one minute that they rigged the primaries with all kinds of voter suppression and fraudulent activities but forgot to set up a scary opponent (who just happens to be a friend and contributor to the Clinton Foundation. Don't forget to vote for Hillary because Trump is scary.
We all dislike being painted into a corner.
And the majority of Americans (I did not say citizens) have enough sense to not paint toward a corner.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Red Sky At Morning
As time passes, more and more I am convinced that Hillary is at least as toxic as Drumpf. Her toxicity is of a more subtle variety right now, as she's not attacking racial, national, and religious groups. Her toxicity is also not as overt as is that of Hair Drumpf.
Neither of these candidates truly deserves election. Drumpf will exult the basest bully boys to elite status, and make the US more like Mussolini's Italy. This alone would be a disaster, but the nation could potentially recover from such a fate.
Hillary's toxicity would effectively end the US as we know it, and it isn't likely to be reversed. Once corporatism because the ruling class of this nation, the nation is finished. There will be no rights, no means to recover, for all avenues of recovery will be deemed as costing some corporate entity a tidy profit. We the People will be seen as corporate property once our efforts result in profits for our employers.
I await hearing what Bernie has to say tomorrow, even if I can't participate live due to prior commitments. I'll then know which fate we are being consigned to experiencing.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
She might be more dangerous
Hillary's less obvious toxicity may make her more dangerous than Trump.
The case has often been made that Obama has been able to get away with more than a Republican would during his time in the White House. "Now that ONE OF OURS is in charge, we have nothing to worry about" say many Democrats. All those anti-war protests we saw during Bush? They all but vanished. The progressive wing of Democrats still protests, but it's nothing like the marches we saw during Bush.
And Hillary is much worse than Obama; tied in with the wealthy and the oligarchy more than Obama could ever dream to be. Just imagine what she'll be able to get away with? Hillary, that paragon of progressiveness, friend to women, children, minorities, and working people everywhere. She'll be able to do anything she wants, and likely to great applause.
They say only Nixon could go to China. Well only Hillary could take a big shit on struggling Americans.
A bit incomplete, so let's finish that...
It's imprecise to say that only Hillary could take a big shit on struggling Americans.
I think that should be expanded to say that:
Only Hillary Clinton could take a big shit on struggling Americans, and have a large sect of party loyalist and third way Democrats tell those who have been shat upon that they should be thankful for the privilege of Hillary Clinton taking a huge dump on them.
The evolution of the Democratic message and response to fear.
2004: Those Republicans are fear mongering. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
2008: We will not let fear be the deciding factor for America's future.
2012: There are things to fear, but we will not let that stop us.
2016: Be fearful. There are things to be afraid of. It's not fear mongering when Democrats do it. And even if it is fear mongering, it's ok when a Democrat does it.
But nah, the two parties are not exactly alike. Mostly alike, but not exactly.
See, the commoners are the privileged ones because the nobles pander to them for votes in rigged elections. The commoners should check their privilege though, because having expectations of actual changes that benefit all is fucking selfish.
Government of the many, by the few, and for the few is in danger and these poor put upon leaders of the oligarchy might feel bad if the common people don't stop being so selfish as to think about only themselves and their livelihood without considering the conditions of the wealthy and elite if their profits are somehow reduced.
Of Course She's More Dangerous than Trump
She might not have the corporate resume that Cheney had, but she's certainly got the same level of cut-throat corporate connectivity and coordination. Remember Cheney's "secret" meetings with the oil companies (I believe it was the first year of W, definitely before Iraq began) for which we still don't even know the identity of the attendees or the agenda? She's got all those speeches (hers and his both). Cheney had his Halliburton (and other) buddies -- thanks for the electrified showers, Dick! She's got all that money flowing into the Foundation, and all OUR money flowing to its donors. Cheney seemingly sometimes tried to keep things from getting too obvious, but with her out-in-the-open foreign policy record, how long can it be before the Dole logo goes (back) on the Honduran flag?
Just don't get me started, okay?
Now interviewing signature candidates. Apply within.
Nation on the Precipice
Well said. I agree that Hillary is more dangerous than Drumpf, because she is more experienced in turning the wheels of government. Her disaster would be more effective. The Irony for us progressives is that Drumpf might be the better President, since both Republicans and Democrats in Congress will be opposed to his agenda and he'll do the least amount of damage. Another irony is that the Democrat is her own worst enemy when it comes to building the Democratic caucus needed to overcome GOP opposition. Caspar Milquetoast could run against Drumpf and lose, and the Congress would still swing Democrat. Not gonna happen with Hillary at the top of the ticket.
“He may not have gotten the words out but the thoughts were great.”
You give good comment.
I enjoy them, every one.
Here, I wonder if you have misused the tense:
In what way has this not already come to pass, some time ago?
The statement tingles of denial because it opens a paradox. You're not in denial and I'm not a time traveler — but what you frame as a future possibility is a reality that I've been exposing for more than a decade.
I fear we may tear a hole in the fabric of the Universe.
Employees are office furniture
I remember joking about being as replaceable as office furniture in the 80's. That's why Dilbert was such a roaring success when it came out in 1989. I recall reading an interview where Scot Adams said his best cartoon ideas were emailed to him by denizens of the concrete cubicle jungle.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
Pages