Dems Like Losing
Democrats like to lose. That's my thesis for today.
When I was a young man, I came to the realization that the political parties weren't operating in good faith. Republicans were perfectly willing to thwart plans they previously championed if there was a chance a Democrat was going to get the credit for it. And when it comes to successful economic measures which would lift society up from poverty ... forgettaboutit!
This week I had a similar epiphany to explain the sad state of where we are politically.
This is not your father's Democratic Party. It has been incrementally shifted to the center-right to where it is almost another branch of Republicanism. The principles and values which we associate with Democrats are not being represented by many of those elected. But hey, we have no choice, right? What are we going to do, waste our votes on a 3rd party candidate? Well, maybe you and I are willing to do that, but nobody who wants to win will. And there's the rub.
Despite growing demographic trends that lean Democratic, the balance of power between the two parties is fairly even.
And then it hit me.
Of course the centrist Democrats don't want to see progressive policies enacted - their corporate overlords tell them so. But this isn't strong armed coercion. It's the Democrats who don't want to enact progressive policies because ... wait for it ... the Democratic Party would become too successful.
The last thing they want is overwhelming victories at the ballot box. They like losing because it reinforces the notion that there is no other option. If the Democrats won with 2/3 of the vote, more and more people would be willing to toss their vote to a 3rd party candidate. Eventually, people would realize that the 3rd party candidate was the more viable alternative, and then it's curtains for the Democrats.
So the Dems will raise a public fuss about GOP gerrymandering but secretly they support it. They will allow half measures like the ACA but they won't go the distance with M4A. Allowing a Bernie or a Tulsi to run is a non-starter because they might win in a blowout.
Comments
You're right
Only one party, the Capitalist Party. It's where the donors and the money are and it's the biggest indicator on how an elected official will vote on an issue. Something like 70% will vote the way the donors want, public be damned. We're only needed around election time and they'll tell us what (they think) we want to hear. But since they rarely associate with us they have a hard time getting it right.
It's fun to be boss, but it's almost as good to be runner up. Third party would break the scam which is why both parties, the press and just every other corporate entity hates the left.
it's great to be boss
.... underboss .... or caporegime ..... or ....
We also have this evilnasty honesty habit they can't stand.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
This
How long has Warren been in congress and in all those years she hasn't brought up plans to pass the things she is now running on? They all sound great don't they until you remember that congress will have to pass them if she wants them. Kambama is running on criminal justice reform, but she did that when she ran for AG and we see how she went back on every damn issue that she said she was for. It's like they think we are stupid and don't remember how they voted for stuff. Okay enough people buy their spiels which I can't understand after Obama.
Apparently holocaust denial is not an issue anymore. Lots of people are denying the one in Gaza with absolutely no repercussions.
They are the Washington Generals for the Republican
Globetrotters who in the end always outplay them whether either one is the 'minority power' in any legislative cycle.
Vote for the Generals that are promising so much to the general population and when they are the majority Party all the promises fall by the wayside because of those crafty minority Party Globetrotters blocking their bills but their own versions pass in the spirit of the much lauded 'bipartisanship' breaking up the 'gridlock' in Congress.
The media all applaud that concern 'for getting things done'.
Then when the Washington Generals lose the majority status they are helpless against legislation the Globetrotters roll thru Congress because they are a 'minority' Party and don't have the power to stop it all. So you gotta make them the Majority Party and then things will really happen for the better.
This is about the guy called the 'greatest Canadian',Tommy Douglas,(the founder of the Canadian healthcare system) and his famous speech about 'Mouseland'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdwySCMovHk
On economic inequality, Tommy Douglas "The Cream Separator" is an analysis of the capitalist economic system. This story was suggested by Tommy Douglas' reading of Lewis Mumford, who had argued: "During the age of expansion capitalism gave cream to the few, whole milk to the middle classes, and a blue watery residue to the majority of farmers and industrial workers, agri- cultural labourers and slaves." The way in which Douglas adapted this rather arid analysis to his rural audiences testifies to his oratorical genius."
"The cream separator" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE5fOJfKRNk
Worth noting that he's called the
"Greatest Canadian" because 15 years ago the CBC did a two-stage cross-canada survey, starting with a list of 50 nominees, and then a run-off amongst the top 10 from round 1, and Tommy Douglas won.
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.
Other than the Canadian healthcare system
he is also remembered for the "old age pension" (at 65 years), hospital insurance, and unemployment insurance.
He got a lot of other things passed into law but those examples stand out the most when anyone stops to think of what life in Canada might be like without those programs.
(About Mouseland, every time I watch that I think of Obama when the mice elect a half-white half-black cat, who is no different than every other color variation of the other Cat Leaders)
Good bio "Tommy Douglas Remembered" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mv252WMsSY
Losing is profitable:
alllowing them to avoid taking any responsibility for anything is just a side benefit.
They'll do anything to keep losing. Then, their (highly-paid) consultants can go back to their (filthy-rich) donor base and say "Man, we almost had it. Just give us more money for the next cycle, and we'll make it happen Next Time For Sure!".
Gotta keep that sweet, sweet donor cash flowing to the consultants, doncha know. Momma needs new Louboutins...
Way true
Lie Obama was a dream for republican fundraising, Trump is going to be a mega moneymaker for the dems, and no sharing the cash with us lefties.
I am convinced that the Democrats
can no longer be considered a viable political party interested in winning elections, but have instead become a patronage machine.
The overlords allow them just enough of the swag to keep them quiet.
Mary Bennett
Patronage machine is good description.
I remember thinking watching video of crying Hillary supporters that maybe it was more for lost jobs than anything elese.
Absolutely.
This was pointed out on a thread last week. While staffers in the Midwest were desperately trying to get the attention of Klinton Central, Tanden et al were divvying up cabinet positions they were sure would be theirs once Herself won, that is, stole, the election.
Mary Bennett
Talk about counting chickens before they’re hatched
Or, as Germans say, divvying up the bear’s pelt before it’s been shot.
As Michael Stipe once said,
"This machine can only swallow money."
"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 could go on about this all day
For a start, no party that wants to win keeps hiring Bob Shrum or Donna Brazile. Shrum worked for 8 Democratic Presidential candidates and they all lost. He was good at writing concession speeches. He had lots of practice. A naive person like me might think that one might think twice before hiring a serial loser, but to Democrats he was a guy with a lot of experience. Brazile was also a serial loser on top of being dishonest, etc. When the Democrats had control of the Presidency and both houses at the beginning of the first Obama administration, they really had to scramble to water down the ACA. (Remember the rotating villains.) If you have control of government, people will begin, eventually, to ask why you haven't delivered. Obama shut down OFA, replaced Howard Dean as head of the DNC (no love lost for him, but he was the most effective DNC head we have had in a while) and the Democrats have had their asses kicked at every level. Being out of power allows Democrats to raise a lot of money by campaigning against Trump and the Rethugs, while accepting a lot more money from their corporate sponsors. Funny thing now, however, is that people seem to have figured out that the DNC is dishonest and ineffectual because their donations are down.
After 2020 they might have to get a real job
cuz if tRumpolini wins it will be a blowout
and the D party as is will cease to exist...
Rich people will not need to donate to losers
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
i always think of Penn and MacAuliffe
their only real success stories have been their very own selves.
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.
Like Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront, they're paid to lose.
They bitch and moan, "I coulda been a contender", but take a dive (and pocket the cash) every time.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efHzGxEzDQA]
"Cranky Bernie" Story
This is a little OT, but the Democratic establishment has lots of help from the media in thwarting progressives. This little stink bomb just appeared on my MSN News Feed and discussed Bernie visiting a California restaurant recently. I've noticed for some time that the MSM is working to portray Bernie as a crank.
When Elizabeth Warren visited a different restaurant, here's what was reported in the same article:
That restaurant owner gave lotsa money to Harris
Typical David Brock baloney.
https://twitter.com/SFGate/status/1166038375050035205
Look at comments for documentation.
Again with the staffing!
Bernie's people should have known to not take him to an establishment owned by a Harris person. I suppose this is some sort of iconic place to be seen or something like that, and you have disrespected the entire neighborhood if you don't drop your C-note there?
Bernie is a deservedly successful guy and can eat where he likes, but it is not like there is any shortage of great restaurants in SF. Do you smell set up? I do.
Considering his age and accomplishments, I think he can be as cranky as he feels like. I'd like to know just what did happen. I'd guess he was on enemy territory and someone was deliberately provocative.
Mary Bennett
I don't believe any of it
The paper didn't even bother to seek or print any collaborative claims by restaurant staff who were there or any of the Bernie people there. The place is a popular hangout for local reporters, too. I didn't come across any similar reports. The paper also failed to look into the owners' political background. Piss poor journalism, I'd say. But pretty much par for the course these days.
And the owner said Bernie lost his vote?. Nonsense! Bernie never had this guy's vote.
I suppose there will be slip ups every now and then on the part of Bernie's staff. My guess is that they figured it was a public place where many people were there, including reporters, to act as witnesses. If it was a set up. there would in all likelihood have been video cameras there.
So, I figure it was just a hit job. There will be many, many more even worse. They never figured Bernie would still be in contention at this point and they are freaking out. Bernie's polling numbers in the lastest Emerson poll released today were way up at 24% (9 pts above WARren) and rising within striking range of Biden's whose numbers went down.
Edit/Add tweet:
Concur. Probably
an intended hit job. How convenient of the reporter and paper to rush this propaganda piece into print while trying to cover themselves professionally by saying update expected, hopefully with Bernie's people giving their side. Yes, that would be nice. Meanwhile this one-sided version hangs out there.
Another reason never to automatically trust legacy media.
So what explains the massive losses since Obama won
The democrats certainly don't mind losing given how the democratic party since Obama came to office lost so many seats and governorships. The party of the president historically sees a dip, but what happened since Obama was real historical ass whipping. And man, has that have horrid ramifications in terms of gerrymandering and absolutely no push backing to the growing devastation of abortion rights.
I think the republicans have done their part in democratic capitulation. Fundamentally, the gop has ensured that the democrats who run the party and gain financially from it are left alone. In return the democrats police their base and keep them from getting radicalized. This is why I think AOC will probably lose the next election--the establishment will not make the mistake of ignoring her.
Mostly it's that the Democrats prefer Republicans in power
to anyone on their left flank. And the left flank is all too willing to capitulate because "the Republicans are worse."
"The Resistance will be patchwork at first, but we’ll find each other
quickly, a constellation flickering to life.." -- Malcolm Harris
that Dem majority was horrifying!
especially when they got to 60 Senators! Yikes! They'd have to do something!
As everyone else has noted, it's all about bringing in money. If the Dems could create a utopia (I could, you could, surely it's theoretically possible for the Dems to do so, too) they'd balk because then they'd be out of business.
As some pundits noted. Dems afraid to use power.
During the Obama years suddenly the office of president had no power to do anything in pushing for progressive policies. Obama and his cronies could get little done because of republicans, or this and that. Well, I should say the poor things had no power to oppose the gopers when it came to liberal policies. This is what scares both parties--that someone like Bernie will take the power and use it. Hillary and Biden basically ran and are running on that they will not use the power of the Oval Office to change jack. One of Hillary's most emotional speeches was basically denouncing universal health care.
You said it.
"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
But that was the people who didn't vote for them fault
it's never up to the democrats to do things that people want and get their votes. Oh no..no matter what democrats do we have to vote for them dammit! Yippee..
Apparently holocaust denial is not an issue anymore. Lots of people are denying the one in Gaza with absolutely no repercussions.
If they win it’s still up to us to “hold their feet to the fire”
It’s always on us, never on them, even though all the sweet cash and perks go to them and never to us.
https://theecologist.org/2014/jul/29/obamas-achievement-us-worlds-bigges...
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4766478/obama-americas-biggest-oil-produc...
At this point
your father's Democratic Party is the Democratic Party of Tip O'Neill. Better than the one we have now, but not particularly inspiring of confidence.
And a pretty large amount of their comparative superiority comes from the fact that they were operating in a republic. A sinful and damaged republic, but one which was still staggering along. In other words, there was enough rule of law, and enough sense that politicians had to keep from pissing the public off too much or they'd lose their jobs, that the Democratic Congress was actually able to complete a partial investigation of the Iran-Contra mess (as well as the Savings and Loan mess). That's why Admiral Poindexter had to fall on his sword and become a sin eater for the Reagan administration.
I say it was a partial investigation, because they 1)allowed Poindexter to do that, 2)let Robert Mueller run the Noriega money-laundering part of the investigation and 3)gave John Kerry no support when he wanted to continue to investigate. Later, he would send his own Senate staff down to Nicaragua to find things out. What he found out was interesting, pertinent to later history, and would have been nice to have cleaned up before it got completely out of hand, but never mind.
Here is a great article by Robert Parry on the subject:
https://www.salon.com/2004/10/25/contra/
I thought Kerry, in connection with this, had also uncovered a network of banks that were money laundering for these drug kingpins and mercenary death squads--and the CIA (or am I being too repetitive?) but I don't see that in Parry's article.
Anyway, I bring up this story because it's a good illustration of how much better the Democratic Party of our fathers was than the one we've got now--but it's also a good illustration of how the rot was set in pretty deep even then.
"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
Not only would it mean more 3rd-party support
amongst the populace, but also would mean that they'd have to be somewhat accountable for what they did. Look at how hard they had to work to erode the public's comprehension of the fact that in 2008 the Democrats were essentially handed two branches of government. They got a President with a 65% approval rating, a large majority in the House, and a large majority in the Senate (for 4 1/2 months, a supermajority). Think how hard it is to convince the populace that the mean Republicans are keeping you from doing anything under those circumstances. That's why the policy passed into law is so terrible, and why the good policy almost never gets passed, and is, in fact, being driven out of the discussion altogether. It's the mean Republicans and their mean, racist filibuster. Remember that.
If Obama had been white, they'd never have gotten away with it. The bankers weren't the only ones he was protecting from the torches and pitchforks.
"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
It's all too granular.
We started with slaves in a genocide nation.
There has never been a Left in America. There has never been a political party that represented the Left.
The Democrats and Republicans are both right of center. Two peas in a plutocratic pod.
The Parties are far to the Right of the American electorate. The spectrum of discussion in the US is the narrow span between the duopoly. Everything else is loathed and feared as radical. The lack of intellectual context and human nature in national discourse has made the people gullible and dim. Unfit to govern.