We 'Felt the Bern' and now we just feel Bern'd. Restart Required!
I wonder if Bernie had said, during the primary, "Well they're stealing these primaries. I see it, but I won't say it, because I've promised to support the candidate who wins:
-- without conditions,
-- without saying that the 'wins' must be fairly won and not fraudulent,
-- without saying that if my supporters are disenfranchised and their votes not counted, then that promise is null & void,
-- without saying that there are principles more important than foolish and/or opportunistic deals with the DNC,
-- without saying that the unwritten pledge of my supporters to what I represent matters more than putting a Clinton in the
White House!"
Do you remember when Trump said he would support the Republican nominee -- ‘if they treat me fairly.' Not wanting to argue for Trump as a moral standard -- just that he was never willing to be anybody's fool. And in the end the Republican Party (that wanted very much to reject him), concluded that rejecting the overwhelming will of their voting base would ultimately destroy their own party.
Why didn't the Democrats fear that? Because Bernie didn't call out the fraud and kept his deal with them, regardless of outcome. And because Hillary and the DNC elite believe that the voters will come along too in the end -- out of fear, along with the assumption that they can successfully play the same rigged voting booth game again in the general election.
So why should we dutifully come to the polls to vote for their candidate? Not only are we being whipped into a frenzy of fear about Donald Trump, now the second layer of bullying is that we are being told that voting for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for Trump.
Sometimes I think it's just as well that people believe Bernie was threatened. It's a way of trying to avoid cynicism. It's a way of trying to keep hopes alive after being sorely betrayed. (And of course if he was threatened in a way that made him forget what we are fighting for, then he can't lead us on the day after the election any more than he can now. )
What would Bernie's movement have said if he argued then -- as he does now -- that we'll just elect 'Her' -- and then on the next day you can all start following me again in protesting her. Even threats can't result in such a ridiculous argument. Better to just be quiet.
I'm actually not more afraid of Donald Trump than of Hillary and the DNC -- mainly because she has a power base that can overturn election results with impunity, while Trump has no institutional base from which to enact his views -- whatever they are. But I refuse to vote out of fear in any case.
The only progressive option now -- after this horrendous collective experience of what "feel the Bern" has actually come to mean -- is to work to overturn the 2-party system. We are the ones feeling Bern'd now -- after our unflinching loyalty to someone who abruptly quit on us & who permitted our efforts and generous donations to be squandered.
But we don't have to vote for the ones that engineered this Sophie's choice of an election. And doing nothing is hardly an assertion of what we stand for. It leads to the same outcome as voting for a 3rd party but without any clear message attached.
The Libertarian party shares the fiscal conservatism of the Neoliberals. Not a legitimate choice for those of us who felt the Bern and now feel Bern'd.
We have to rally round Jill Stein. If you take Bernie seriously about voting based on the issues, you have to vote for Jill not Hill. Jill represents all that we have been working for. And Bernie knows that very well -- he taught us what Hillary actually stand for. A 5% vote for a 3rd party means they will get funding for in the next election -- and Jill's not too old to run again.
Although Jill won't get a majority in the Electoral College, I believe that the growing levels of support for her are being misrepresented, so as to discourage us. Some say they've even stopped polling the Millennials. Together we can be a real force in this election and beyond. We can throw the 2016 election results into Plan B in Congress, and, beyond that, we can permanently change this oppressive 2-Party system. Gathering of forces before November will portend meaningful change. It's our only option.
Don't be thrown by arguments that Nader was responsible for Bush's election -- check out the history. Election fraud played a 'Yu-u-ge' role in that one too. And there haven't been such high levels of support for 3rd parties in the last 100 years -- even when that support is clearly understated by the same pollsters who kept arguing that Hillary had a larger base of support than Bernie.
This move to 3rd parties truly does have the DNC shaking in its boots -- a welcome development in my view. It undermines their campaign of fear and their bullying of all who persist in demanding change. It's time to make them shake even more. The Clintons and the DNC fear the upsurge of 3rd party votes with good reason. They intend to make this a focal point of their remaining campaign, a campaign based solely on intimidating the voters.
A vote for Jill is not a vote for Trump. It's a vote for change.
It's time to let Hillary & the DNC feel Bern'd too. It's time to let them experience the consequences of their own corruption.
A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for fundamental change – both on the issues and on the future of the electoral process. Dr. Stein was willing to give the top spot on her party's ticket to Bernie to keep the revolution alive. Bernie could have been on the ballot in 47 states if he had wanted to be. He chose not to. Instead he has chosen to argue to vote for Hillary today and protest her on the day after election day.
I will protest today and on election day with my vote for Jill Stein. Jill will not compromise. If Trump wins, it's not because we voted for Jill. It's because the DNC refused to acknowledge the will of the voters and pushed us out of the 2-party system. In my case, DemExit is a forever decision. My vote for Jill Stein is a continuation of all the hard work we've already done together. It's a vote for hope and for the future.
Comments
In order to run, the party makes a candidate SWEAR an oath
that they will support the eventual winner.
At any point during the primary, had Bernie called them on the fraud, they would have effectively removed him from the race. This oath is required for those running for elected office at every level and also for delegates to county conventions, state and national.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
lol - like they swear an oath when they all take office?
I agree with the writer. If someone can't accept the fact that Bernie just plain ol' quit, they are free to massage it. What I can't handle is when they attempt to sell it. I am sorry I can't be more supportive of your comment. I normally agree with so much that you say.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
You got that right! Taking an oath of office seriously is
apparently for suckers.
Did the 5 on the Supreme Court think twice about ignoring their oath and appointing W Bush president?
Do cops live by their oath?
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
The difference between an oath of office and an oath to party
is who gets to enforce it. The two are absolutely apples and oranges - not at all comparable.
It's a long process to impeach someone for not upholding the oath of office and may cost a lot of political capital. DOJ is refusing to even properly investigate this year, it seems. At any rate, the LIKELIHOOD of being called on the carpet once in office is minuscule.
An oath to the party is instantly enforceable by party leaders and is not appeal-able in court (the parties are PRIVATE organizations). You think Debbie Wassername or Donna would have hesitated for a millisecond to exclude him for the tiniest infraction?
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
So Bernie needs to protect himself no matter what and avoid
all the tough choices because what? Bernie needs to accept responsibility for what he does good and bad. I'm not making excuses for him.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Lame excuse for not standing up to injustice!
When the crunch time came, Bernie lacked the fortitude to rock the boat and fight like hell. He had leverage of his supporters and the threat of running as an independent. You got to be willing to sacrifice for the greater good if you are calling for a REVOLUTION.
Oaths, commitments, causes and the price of formal obedience
But you are ignoring the fact that they DID EXCLUDE him -- and us. As Susan Sarandon said, the Democratic Party doesn't have any room for Progressives. I believe that the majority of primary voters (or potential primary voters) supported Bernie. The DNC removed his supporters from the voting rolls, tossed out ballots, whited out results, disenfranchised thousands, etc. The votes in CA have never been fully counted to this day. When Bernie's supporters were not permitted to enter the convention and when Nina Turner was not permitted to speak, we were all "excluded." How did his keeping his "promise" to support the DNC make sense after what they did? Do you believe there is an implicit pact between a candidate and his supporters that they will not be thrown under the bus just to honor a pledge (not an oath) to a corrupt organization that is mishandling the election? There is no comparison to an oath of office and a pledge to support another political candidate. If you really think about politics this formalistically, then I'm guessing you've never actually worked in the trenches for any political candidate. Bernie would not have been breaking his pledge to have noted from the podium that the person he had chosen to nominate him was not permitted to speak.
I'm with you.
But you knew that.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Bernie is still a senator
that caucuses with the Dems.
Refusing to endorse Hillary means not being able to do his job in the Senate for the rest of his career.
He simply was unable to stop the primaries from being rigged.
It's not right, but it's a reason.
I must be more cynical than him.
My feeling is, he's not gonna get jack or shit out of the Democrats for the rest of his career. Forget any legislative help. They'll let him keep his committee, but they'll also let all his legislation die.
And forget being the Amendment King from here on out.
Politicians are so weird. When you're making a large gesture like the one he made by running against Hillary with that message, you have to understand that you're spending everything you have to do it. There is no afterwards.
Since he was 74, and Congress is a rotten husk of its former self where good ideas go to die--and completely controlled by the Republicans to boot--I thought he was willingly, consciously, ending his Senate career with this presidential run, which would free him up to do and say a lot more things. Apparently not!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I would love to see the Senate go 50R/49D,
50R/49D 1 Bernie indie leaving Bernie in quite good shape being the decision maker, unless then the duopoly decides to start working together to silence him. Would the R's actually start working with Bernie then?
It could get interesting, I'm really surprised I haven't seen anything about this possibility.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
It's an excellent point... n/t
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Doubt it would make much difference--there a '2' Independent
Senators--both caucus with the Democrats.
Here's the bio on the other one:
Angus King, Wikipedia
(He's an ultra deficit hawk, BTW. Erskine Bowles campaigned along side King on a 'pro-Bowles-Simpson, or pro-Catfood Commission agenda--i.e., pushing for a so-called Grand Bargain.)
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Could it then be a better scenario
a 49R/49D Senate with King and Bernie then caucusing together?
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Dunno--my crystal ball's been on the brink, lately. ;-D
Seriously, King is openly a deficit hawk, a 'No Labeler' who ran on voting for a 'Grand Bargain.' (Erskine Bowles, the Dem co-author of the Catfood Commission's proposal, 'The Moment Of Truth,' even campaigned with King, and as one of his surrogates.)
At first blush, King and Bernie should be ideological opposites. So, determining whether they would come together on votes, is sorta beyond my pay grade.
From what I'm hearing, the prospects of Democratic Senators (winning back the Senate) aren't quite as rosy as they first thought they would be. Even Evan Bayh has started slipping a bit in the polls. And, Ohio's Strickland is toast, I believe. OTOH, 7 weeks is a long time. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Hey, nice to meet you, GGersh!
Mollie
“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)
National Mill Dog Rescue (NMDR) - Dogs Available For Adoption
Update: Misty May has been adopted. Yeah!
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
left of his career? OMG - he's 75 years old.
Let me see, what's more important. On the one hand is saving the planet, the economy, and millions of people from poverty and death. On the other hand I can't caucus with the Dems, and I might have to retire at age 76 with a full pension and all kinds of health care. hmm, world - me, world - me. Ok, I pick me.
You guys cannot peddle this. You can give Bernie credit for every he has done, but you cannot give him credit or a pass on what he didn't do.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
You may or may not be correct
We'll all find out when his book is published a decade or so out, is my guess.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Bernie's book
I read somewhere that his book will be out after the election.
It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. Carl Sagan
Plus it's a double standard
Look at what Lieberman did during the 08 election.
He f 'king campaigned for McCain and was he stripped of his committees spot? Hell no. And he got special attention during the health care debate.
If Schumer punished Bernie or had threatened him, I'm with DKM on this.
Run 3rd party and if he doesn't win them find out what happens when he returns to congress and if he's stripped of his posts then retire and spend time with the wife and grandkids.
Let's see who wins the next election in Vermont.
And don't forget that Bernie made the deal with the democrats that they wouldn't run a democrat in Vermont against him.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Democrats Have Different Standards
Lieberman was useful. The Democratic leadership/aka corporate-owned Dems needed him to gum up any progressive legislation, because they had won an uncomfortably big majority. That's why Kaine was installed as head of the DNC, to shrink Democratic seats down to a solidly corporatist minority -- just the right size to look like if only people gave them more money and support, they could pass the legislation people want, while in reality being well-positioned to keep working with corporatist Republicans to slip corporate giveaways into the "must pass" legislation, without having to deal with any awkward accountability. Poor Obama! Poor Democrats! They WANT to pass AWESOME progressive legislation. Those mean, stupid voters just won't support them.
This, of course, avoids the fact that the Democratic Party backed Lieberman as an independent over the actual Democratic primary winner, and that the Democratic Party in the Clintonian era aggressively blocks progressive candidates -- first going to all sorts of trouble to prevent them from running at all, and then, if they win the primary, the DCCC/DSCC won't fund them. Look at the Florida Senate seat. They recruited a "former" Republican who always votes with Republicans to stop Grayson in the primary. So Rubio will probably win.
Meanwhile, you can disagree with Bernie's strategic thinking here, but waving away the actual obstacles and opportunities isn't useful. They didn't bribe him, they threatened him. I'm not talking about personal threats, that are unproven but wouldn't surprise me. I'm talking about the known stuff: yank him out of his seniority positions that he has earned, punish the entire state of Vermont, etc. Did you not notice that a Congress too dysfunctional to pass anything managed to pass a law that overturns Vermont's law re: GMOs in remarkably short order, RIGHT before the Democratic Convention? Vermont is a vulnerable state. They could hurt Vermont's residents very easily in a number of ways. You think Bernie wants that on his conscience?
There was no point in him running third party. The voting system is too corrupted now; it's too easy to suppress and flip tranches of votes -- but only for one of the two legacy parties with insider access. He made the tactical decision to not allow them to scapegoat him. I can see his thinking: she's sick, she's criminal, it's always possible she'll die and they'll have to turn to him. (We got close to that scenario this week.) If he's in the Senate, he can put holds are particularly awful legislation and nominations. So he might be able to protect us from terrible Hillary ideas, even in a weakened position, whereas retired and playing with his grandchildren, he's powerless.
I think what he's doing right now is not good. How much of this is of his own volition, given the forces against him, is not clear to me. But I can see why he didn't run third party, even though I still wish he had.
that scenario
it ain't over yet, that more stuff happens to her in public, and hrc's ill health derails her candidacy, then what happens?
the party would have to run bernie, so how would they manage to run biden, etc.?
Caucusing and voting
The value of Bernie's association with the Democrats cuts both ways. Whether or not Hillary's coattails (snark) are long enough to give the Democrats a majority in the senate, it's going to be close. I don't see the Democrats punishing Bernie directly. Remember Lieberman? Bernie will still vote with the Democrats not only on procedural matters but also substantive issues far more often than Lieberman.
No doubt Bernie is accumulating some level of good will. But what kind of return will he, and we, get on his investment.
Also, the level of enthusiasm associated with an endorsement ranges across a wide continuum. Edward Kennedy endorsed Jimmy Carter. Some of us are old enough to remember Jimmy Carter chasing Ted Kennedy around a convention stage trying to get that critical photo of the two of them raising linked arms together.
Bernie could have endorsed Hillary then gone off to campaign like hell for candidates who supported him. He did almost none of that. He could have started raising objections to the way his delegates and guests were being treated at the convention, publicly. (Do you expect these people to get out and vote for you? Enthusiastically?) He didn't.
Instead Bernie accepted a lucrative book deal, I understand from a publisher with ties to the Clintons, for a book that will come out immediately after the election thus limiting his involvement this campaign season, and seems to be at Hillary's beck and call. He puts incredible weight on a nonbinding platform because its the ONLY thing he got, and not much in that. And he stresses the need to organize immediately after the election to keep Hillary consistent with its provisions. It's an admirable plan to get Bernie back on the stage. As a means of shaping Hillary Clinton's policy decisions, it doesn't seem like much. She isn't moving an inch in our direction while she needs our votes. Why would anybody believe she'll change after the election.
No reason to give Bernie any more consideration than he gave his delegates.
So there is a book deal
good. I'd missed that.
As for this...
No, he could not. He had to promise ahead that he would behave as they demanded or he (and his delegates) would have fared even worse. They nearly did not allow him to speak during prime time as it was. You may imagine that it might have been otherwise, but having had a small window into the what was going on both with his campaign and with the Party, your version is fantasy.
Did you miss that they blindsided him/them with unscheduling Nina Turner who was supposed to nominate Bernie? See video -
Listen to Gabriel Silva and the others.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
hillary's coattails?
she's doing her best to turn out Republican voters on her behalf. does anyone imagine those voters are going to vote Democratic downballot?
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.
?
That's why I put (snark) after coattails.;
The intimidation tactics work only because no one speaks out
.
Let's say that Bernie continued fighting for super delegates and a hard count at the convention throughout the whole Convention week, and only at the very end issued a statement: " I will work at building a progressive movement independently of any 'candidate', and only conditionally support Clinton if she agrees and commits to: a) full repeal Glass-Steagall, b) Breakup of the Big Wall Street Banks, c) cancellation of NAFTA, China Trade, and full rejection of the TPP, d) committed support for Medicare For All in her first term, e) support of free public college tuition for all (not just this family greater than 4+ stuff), f) remove the Cap from social security and expand benefits, and g) agrees to give-up on her reckless "no fly zone" aggression in Syria and to NOT sell weapons anymore to terrorists groups there. "
What's the worst the would have happened then?
Of course, neither Hillary nor Tim Kaine would agree to that demand. But as a Senator from Vermont, they could not redistrict him into oblivion like they did to Dennis Kucinich. Sanders is "a lock" in Vermont no matter what. All they could've done is remove him from certain sub-committee chair positions (for which his power is marginal anyway).
But if they did that, he would have the power to speak out and say "hey everybody look at what the D-Party is doing", and publicly embarrass them, and stir-up public sentiment and outrage that would backfire on them and eventually cause a reinstatement of the committee position anyway.
The only real reason why intimidation works is because the victims do not rise up and expose the corruption and get public sentiment behind them. That might have been harder to do in the old days, but in our new era of social media, youTube, and Internet Media, and cell-phones --- a politician (and a citizen) does not have to always be silent victims of dirty-tricks (example: Hillary Clinton's health problems can be exposed).
It remains true that stolen elections won't ever be overturned because there is no legal structure to do that in this Country. But more general intimidation and dirty-tricks can be exposed and public outrage can be brought to bear upon that -- if people are not afraid to take the matter to the public.
Sanders shouldn't be blamed for everything, but let's face it --- after being very courageous and bold for 1.5 years and building a sizable movement that few thought was ever possible in the face of scorn and adversity --- he has been a very weak messenger now for that last 3 months, and he has wounded the movement and left it dispirited.
He could have pushed the ball a lot further, with the spotlight on him, and perhaps forced a significant public debate to take place --- that is not taking place now(and cannot) in the absence of that bold voice.
If I were him at 74, I would have recognized that at his age -- this is my last rodeo here -- and joined forces with Jill Stein and created a big united 25%-30% progressive voter-block in this Election. That would have really shook things up.
You can't really have a political Revolution (whether non-violent or violent) by remaining comfortable. It'll never happen.
You have to really commit to push that ball forward in bold, imaginative, creative, and uncompromising ways (whatever the risks are).
Sanders lost his mojo here...
". . . means not being able to do his job
in the Senate . . ."
And what job will that be?
Bottom line, that line of thinking sorta begs the question (for me) - if he doesn't stand up to the PtB as a Presidential candidate (regardless of the reason), is he likely to remain a 'team player,' as Drs Stein and Flowers described him.
IOW, will he allow the Dem Leadership to use him (in his Committee positions, etc.) to build support for, and push through, FSC's corporatist/neoliberal agenda--no matter how toxic?
One of FSC's 'fixes' for the ACA is enacting a 'Copper Plan'--basically a CDHP, which is considerably worse than a HD plan. I'll be posting a piece about the out-of-pocket expenses for CDHP's at EB, probably next week.
(Not a good idea, BTW, unless you think that picking up approximately 1/4 of your health care costs is a great idea!)
Just askin' . . .
Hey, I wish him well; I just wish that he (and Warren) would take a back seat to this Kabuki Theater. I don't believe for a NY second that some folks--including some millennials--won't fall for the intense (Trump) scaremongering in which he, and the rest of the Dem Party lawmakers/boosters appear to be engaged. And that's very concerning to me.
Nice essay, MsDidi.
Mollie
“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)
National Mill Dog Rescue (NMDR) - Dogs Available For Adoption
Update: Misty May has been adopted. Yeah!
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
My Red state Dem-for-Prez votes voided for decades
Indiana, where I live, is a winner-take-all state that traditionally goes GOP. Indiana has gone Dem only twice in my lifetime: For JFK (I was nine, but spoke up for him to grownups as often as I could) and 2008 (when we all believed in Obama).
I 'DemExited' in 2014, so the emotional upheaval many are suffering this year is old news to me. When the standard Dem argument of 'if you don't vote for the Dem, you're helping elect the GOP' was well past having any effect on me. In a Red state, my Dem residential vote had never counted for or against anything.
I had planned to withhold my Dem vote this year long before Bernie came to my attention. Oh, I had noticed that somebody was challenging HRC from the left, but figured it would be only a matter of time before he got crushed or eliminated from the slate. Well, the storyline got pretty dramatic for a few months, but eventually the Dem Party's choice was the only non-GOP choice left, with two non-viable 3rd-party choice included for a change.
So my existing decision to withhold my vote still stands as a solid option. I may be able to write in Stein (I haven't checked with the clerk yet to confirm this), but that would give me a second way of withholding my vote from the Dems (while adding a touch of 'protest' to my vote). So that choice is pretty much a toss-up for me.
For me, the only moral question I have regarding my vote this year is: Should I vote *against* Evan Bayh instead of just withholding my vote? Yes, folks, even though the merest thought of possibly voting for an R makes my brain burn, imo Evan Bayh is such a genuine danger to the people that I've begun to think that if the race looks close, I might actually have to vote for an R just to try to block Bayh from a return to the Senate.
Bayh was an active leader in the New Dem's project to turn the Party away from its Progressive path and into it current Corporate, Neolib, Neocon ways. Around 1984-85, Congressional Dems started supporting and passing bills that my Dem friends and I just couldn't believe. Our discussions were full of astonished outrage at how the Dem's explanations, as well as their votes, completely upended everything we had even known the Dem Party to stand for, and each vote betrayed at least one group of traditional Dem voters (usually more than one bloc was harmed by each decision). Even our local newspaper and TV News discussed the outcry among Dem voters at these decisions.
In each of these incidents, after the media had published the fact that local Dems found certain aspects of the bill/vote distressing, Evan Bayh would do an interview with the leading local TV news (sometimes in splitscreen with an R also supporting the problematic issue). Bayh, in his simplistic patronizing manner, would 'explain' the vote/position telling us that the points that dismayed Dem voters were necessary and would be good for Dems, then go on to explain how the Old Dem Ways didn't work any more and wouldn't work in the future, and that voters just had to learn that the only way that Dems could win elections was to cast off their old ways and values and become more like Rs.
In short, Even Bayh has always been one of the chief spokesmen for the Democratic Party's internal self-destruction over the last 30 years, and I can only believe that, if elected, he will continue his established career path of pulling the Dem Party further to the Right and deeper into collusion with the Corporate interests that now govern it.
Will the prospect of Evan Bayh back in the Senate make me cast my first R vote ever? I haven't decided yet, but it might.
Please Vote
The duopoly is fine with very low voting rates. Voting is of very little instrumental value, especially now. But they are going to a great deal of trouble to fake a legitimate vote, which tells you that while any given vote matters very little, the APPEARANCE of democracy and legitimacy matters a lot.
Yet the lower the voting rate is, the more powerful each vote AGAINST is. Please vote. At least make them work harder to steal the election. You never know -- they might fail.
I'm going to vote in November even though my state, California, was revealed to have an ENORMOUS capacity and desire to identify voters it did not want to count and keep those votes from being counted. I, personally, may be flagged in the system as an ornery Bernie voter best to separate out and shred (just my ballot, for now.) But I'm voting anyway. I have very few races where I can vote against the Democrats -- a lot of seats were unopposed from the primary on -- but I'm voting. If California is in the tank for Clinton officially, I'll vote Peace & Freedom for President. If ANYBODY is in shouting distance of taking the state from her, they get my vote. And maybe the effort they put into shredding my vote will mean some other anti-Hillary vote slips through.
There aren't good choices. But staying home just makes the show they're putting on easier to manage. Even just the act of lining up at the polling station demonstrating how crappy and anti-voter our system is does something.
Personally, if I could vote against Evan Bayh, I would do it with cold champagne waiting at home. Stopping him is achievable, I think. And it would be so, so enjoyable.
Agree. Would 'walk on hot coals,' before voting Bayh. ;-) NT
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I feel similar about voting for Schumer next time.
I think I have just not voted for Senator from NY for many years. Chicken's way out. Anti-votes count for someone.
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.
I was perplexed upon hearing
I was perplexed upon hearing how quickly Bernie flipped his support to HRC after the CA primary. Consider this: Early 2016, the DNC insiders knew more about HRC's health conditions than anyone here at C99. Knowing full well that her health had a chance to worsen, contingencies were considered. The risk of losing the election to Trump would be devastating to all of the Corporate Dems with possibilities of big losses down ticket. More threatening, though, would be the loss of the perks that these higher criminals enjoy. Knowing full well that Bernie Sanders had double digit leads in many national polls, the insiders approached Bernie with their proposal: Bernie would be chosen to replace HRC if for health reasons she should be forced to remove herself from the race. But Bernie had to understand that if she can make it to election day (Plan 'A'), he needed to offer her his support. I see a possibility of Bernie actually being our next president, though I fully expect that the insiders will not let him act on the actual important things and will hinder him with support from the Republicans. But, we will have 4 years to mobilize public support.
Great post!
I concur 100%. But I do want to thank Bernie for opening our eyes, indeed that of the nation, to the oligarchy, corruption, greed and fraud in the economy as well as the election. I feel so at peace to have decided whom I will be voting for in the presidential election.
It ain't Bernie telling
you and other Berners to hold your noses and vote for HRC.
As for the Donald flipping off the Rs with a, " -- ‘if they treat me fairly.' " ... that's rather easy for him to do since he hasn't spent as much as a minute supporting a candidate, is not really a member of the party faithful. (is why said party faithful was - and still is - scared to death of him). The DNC was scared to death of Bernie Not becuz he was Bernie, but becuz he was building something that could topple their paradise. First they ignored him, then they laughed at him, eventually they had to send Flash and Vito to mobsplain ~er DNCsplain what's what and he's not invited.
For the shortsighted they see the developments as Bernie selling out and selling us out. "well, he coulda flipped them all off and gone rogue and... and... and gathered the BernieBros and Bernie-or-Busters and formed a 3rd party, or... or joined the Greens and... and... "
Yeah, I suspect Bernie considered that strategy. He chose a more sane route.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Even Bernie can't fill a gym for Clinton
BERNIE BUST: Only 150 turn out at Sanders Ohio stop for Hillary
From the Light House.