@HenryAWallace Both you and gjohnsit correct on the fact that they don't care and won't change.

out since at least 1991, to independents--all of whom Democrats they imagine to lean heavily right--to Republicans and, above all, to big donors.

The most iconically blue state after going for McGovern in 1972 was Massachusetts. I believe, though I have not checked recently, that the largest group of registered voters in Massachusetts is registered "unenrolled," which is the Massachusetts version of "independent," or "not a member of any political party."

In any event, the large number of unenrolled registrants in Massachusetts, which has gone blue in Presidentials for decades, except for Eisenhower and Reagan, should be proof positive that not all indies lean right. Many of them are leftists who are just too disgusted with New Democrats to be able to register Democratic anymore. But, the Dem PTB know that as well as I do, or better. They don't care. They want neocon policies in this country, even if they lose elections.

@divineorder Not all that new; it's just that last year was too much for America. Like the last straw. With the exception of the people who decided to eat up the establishment propaganda and go all crazypants over Donald Trump and Russia.

80% of Americans think Congress needs a reboot. #BrandNewCongress is taking over in 2018. Join the movement. https://t.co/sv5EMjejln pic.twitter.com/eKZOOWVXHD

— Brand New Congress (@BrandNew535) April 24, 2017

@Hillbilly Dem @Hillbilly Dem I having been following Greenwald's tweets and he had a comment from blogger Atrios who said that he thought one of the problems with asserting Bernie would have been beaten Trump was he thought the democratic party leadership would have actively undermined Bernie's run. Jon Schwartz of The Intercept then provided a link on how the democratic party establishment deliberately undermined McGovern's run at Nixon.

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html

Probably the best writing about this at the political party level was done by the late Walter Karp. Karp points out in Buried Alive that before the 1972 elections there was a huge influx of new people and energy into the Democratic party from the anti-war and civil rights movements. This was enough to get McGovern nominated. But here's what happened then, as Karp describes it:

As soon as McGovern was nominated, party leaders began systematically slurring and belittling him, while the trade union chieftains refused to endorse him on the pretense that this mild Mr. Pliant was a being wild and dangerous. A congressional investigation of Watergate was put off for several months to deprive McGovern's candidacy of its benefits. As an indiscreet Chicago ward heeler predicted in the fall of 1972, McGovern is "gonna lose because we're gonna make sure he's gonna lose"...So deftly did party leaders "cut the top of the ticket" that while Richard Nixon won in a "landslide," the Democrats gained two Senate seats.

Could McGovern have won if he'd been fully supported by the status quo powers with the Democratic party? Impossible to say. But they didn't want to take any chances: they preferred to make sure he lost the election, because his winning it would have meant newcomers would dilute their power within the party. That's the Iron Law of Institutions in action.

The democratic party as a progressive New Deal institution was mortally wounded in 1972. Not unexpected that later much of this base that destroyed McGovern then voted for Reagan--known as (edited) the "Reagan Democrats".

except maintaining their phony baloney jobs (h/t Mel Brooks). They loathe the left. They would burn down the party before they allow the left to have a meaningful seat at the table, let alone run the show.

Forty five years later, the national Democratic party still cannot shake the notion that a more liberal approach will equate to a Nixon vs. McGovern result a'la 1972.

When Charles "Chucky" "Chuck-Chuck" "Chuckles" Schumer said that Hillary will pick up 2 moderate Philly Repub votes for every steelworker's vote she loses in Pittsburgh, he was simply parroting the "conventional wisdom" that is actually believed at the DNC. They still think that if they just lean a little further to the right, they'll pick off enough Rethugs to win.

They are so full of shit, it makes me want to puke. They'll never get it. Which self-preserving genius is going to have an epiphany? Tom Perez? Donna Brazile? Howard Dean? Nancy Pelosi? Chelsea Clinton? A party that has nothing to do with the Dems is the only way. Is there enough time? Enough interest? Beats me, but I'm for the kind of change that cannot and will not come from the 2017 version of my grandfather's once beloved Democratic party. Sad, but true.

@Hillbilly Dem

@rosevine3 @AlafiaGrandma @gardencatlady @TheGOPJesus @robles_jdaniel @KamalaHarris @SenFeinstein @kavn @pgoeltz @VirginiaInCal @JohnHard3 @Will_J_Bryan @NeoProgressive1 @HouseDemocrats @HouseGOP @SenateDems @SenateGOP Time to Cut all of them loose.
Making MONEY in politics has got to END pic.twitter.com/ZFILaFzOoB

— ♡ForeverBERNing♡ (@Caseysprout) April 17, 2017

except maintaining their phony baloney jobs (h/t Mel Brooks). They loathe the left. They would burn down the party before they allow the left to have a meaningful seat at the table, let alone run the show.

Forty five years later, the national Democratic party still cannot shake the notion that a more liberal approach will equate to a Nixon vs. McGovern result a'la 1972.

When Charles "Chucky" "Chuck-Chuck" "Chuckles" Schumer said that Hillary will pick up 2 moderate Philly Repub votes for every steelworker's vote she loses in Pittsburgh, he was simply parroting the "conventional wisdom" that is actually believed at the DNC. They still think that if they just lean a little further to the right, they'll pick off enough Rethugs to win.

They are so full of shit, it makes me want to puke. They'll never get it. Which self-preserving genius is going to have an epiphany? Tom Perez? Donna Brazile? Howard Dean? Nancy Pelosi? Chelsea Clinton? A party that has nothing to do with the Dems is the only way. Is there enough time? Enough interest? Beats me, but I'm for the kind of change that cannot and will not come from the 2017 version of my grandfather's once beloved Democratic party. Sad, but true.

@Hillbilly Dem

the nation to be neocon because that enriches them. The McGovern thing is a story they tell Democratic voters, many of whom sadly believe it. When I first broached Sanders to a friend during the primary, she replied, "I love Bernie Sanders. I just don't want another McGovern in the general election." She had never heard of the Democratic Leadership Council.

I sent her some links and managed to persuade her not only to vote for Sanders in the primary but to work for him. But....the rest is history. One of the links I sent her: https://www.democraticunderground.com/12778825

Both the thread starter and the replies are good, I think.

except maintaining their phony baloney jobs (h/t Mel Brooks). They loathe the left. They would burn down the party before they allow the left to have a meaningful seat at the table, let alone run the show.

Forty five years later, the national Democratic party still cannot shake the notion that a more liberal approach will equate to a Nixon vs. McGovern result a'la 1972.

When Charles "Chucky" "Chuck-Chuck" "Chuckles" Schumer said that Hillary will pick up 2 moderate Philly Repub votes for every steelworker's vote she loses in Pittsburgh, he was simply parroting the "conventional wisdom" that is actually believed at the DNC. They still think that if they just lean a little further to the right, they'll pick off enough Rethugs to win.

They are so full of shit, it makes me want to puke. They'll never get it. Which self-preserving genius is going to have an epiphany? Tom Perez? Donna Brazile? Howard Dean? Nancy Pelosi? Chelsea Clinton? A party that has nothing to do with the Dems is the only way. Is there enough time? Enough interest? Beats me, but I'm for the kind of change that cannot and will not come from the 2017 version of my grandfather's once beloved Democratic party. Sad, but true.

@MrWebster a little while. Addicted to the big money and the limelight, planning to meet with Merkel.

"He's really excited to go back to Chicago and have a conversation about community organizing and civic engagement.” https://t.co/eOChrPc92S

— Chicago Tribune (@chicagotribune) April 21, 2017

Democrats since the loss of the election are re-playing Clinton's tactics and methods (RussiaRusiaRussia). Obama, stay with the cool rich people with Perez. Like with the convention platform committee, stack the unit commission so the Clinton wing wins everything due to their numerical advantage (forget about superdelegates going away). The rejection of single payer and Medicare-for-all. Clinton's communication director saying the protests are definitely not about $15/hr min. wage (hear that SEIU which continues to worship at the altar of Hillary). The STD looks to be permanent.