The "Democratic" Party has lost its soul.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

I have never been a big fan of Alan Grayson because he's kind of a loose cannon. But I got this email today, and this time I agree with him 100%:

The Democratic Establishment: corrupt, mendacious sellouts.

There, I said it.

You’ve seen what I’ve seen. Take the Presidential campaign. The Democratic Party schedules Presidential debates during NFL playoff games, to try to ensure that no one takes any interest whatsoever in our Presidential campaign or our issues, so that name-recognition will carry the day. The Democratic Party cuts off one Presidential candidate’s access to the most important tool of campaigning, the voter file, not long before the first primary. The Democratic Party quietly repeals the prohibition against accepting campaign contributions from lobbyists.

God forbid that our voters might choose someone that our party elites might not want – someone who is not as corrupt and feckless as they are.

Why don’t we just call it what it has become: the UnDemocratic Party.

And the funniest/saddest thing is that the Party Politburo does it with one excuse and one excuse only: that they are choosing “the strongest candidate for November.”

Excuse me?

These are the losers who have taken us from +20 to -8 in the Senate, in just six years.

These are the losers who have taken us from +83 to -59 in the House, in just six years. Including the biggest wipeout for the Democratic Party in more than 100 years.

Six years ago, the Democrats controlled 16 state governments (House/Senate/Governor), and the Republicans controlled eight. The party bigwigs – these are the losers who now have left us with control of only seven state governments, while the Republicans control 27. They have taken us from +8 to -20, in just six years.

Our Party Politburo is so deeply incompetent that they shouldn’t even be choosing lottery ticket numbers, much less candidates. Based on their track record, I wouldn’t even trust them with paper vs. plastic. They would screw up a one-car parade.

And yet the party bosses want to seize the power – from our voters – to decide whom our candidates should be. Their motto is simple: “the voters be damned.” Or as Joni Mitchell once put it, “don’t interrupt the sorrow.”

I think we're screwed.

[cantbeserious]

1. This Revolt Has Been Building For Years - The DWS, DNC, DLC, Third-Way Has Only Themselves To Blame

eom

[MrMickeysMom]

75. I agree, cantbe...

It's as stupid as the way Republicans behaved, which now mystifies them seeing "The Trump".

[840high]

102. ..+1

People are fed up on both sides.

[musiclawyer]

104. Clinton v sanders is a proxy war

Corporations v People. The RNC long ago tethered themselves to the corporations. Now the democratic establishment is doing the same to preserve their creature comforts. Neither really really give a damn about people. Nature hates a vacuum --enter Bernie and the new politicians following him. Pledging fealty to the people and not corporations will be a thing, very soon.
The DNC is dead man walking. It just doesn't know it yet.
Bernie has a very good chance of pulling this off as the race leaves the poverty / low info voter states. If he fails this year, President Trump will assure a clean sweep of all third way corporate Dems out of office within 4 years. Then Bernie's successor will walk in with a favorable congress without much effort as the boomers will have died out in sufficient numbers to let the millenials take politics where they want

[cantbeserious]

109. Yes - There Are Effectively Six Parties In America - The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Own Three

Republican - Corporate - Ownership Obvious

Republican - Teaparty - Funded by O, C, B

Democratic - Corporate - Compromised by O, C, B Through Efforts Of The DNC, DWS, DLC and Third Way

Democratic - Progressive - Sick and Tired of The DNC, DWS, DLC and Third Way

Independent - Sick and Tired of Both Establishment Parties

Apathetic - So fed up that voting is not worth the time and effort

[wyldwolf]

2. Again??? This seems to happen at least once a day

https://www.google.com/search?q=lost+it%27s+soul&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl

Usually when 'progressives' are pouting about not getting their way.

[Gregorian]

7. It's sad to see what has happened to the Democratic party.

[wyldwolf]

9. Like what?

[libtodeath]

15. Like having a candidate that is cozyer to Goldman Sachs then the people.

[wyldwolf]

16. so your misgivings haven't actually happened yet.

[libtodeath]

18. Huh?

[wyldwolf]

20. Hillary (at least your impression of her) isn't our candidate yet.

[Hiraeth]

23. thank god.

[Bubzer]

26. I think you're missing the point.

The main reason she's gotten this far is because of corporations and banks, and insider influence.

This is a tug-of-war between corporate money and voter dollars... between the elite insiders and the will of the American people.

The reason many are saying the democratic party has lost it's soul, is because the party elite are doing what they want, instead of what the people want.

[AlbertCat]

41. corporations and banks, and insider influence.

Name recognition.

The feminist...riding her husband's coat tails....

[Bubzer]

43. +1

Good point about name recognition. I think corporations and banks, and insider influence are quite a bit more powerful though.
Just my two cents.

[A Simple Game]

170. Your last sentence would be ironic if she were in fact a feminist in more than just words. n/t

[Unknown Beatle]

142. I don't have an impression of Hillary.

I know for a fact that she's not who she pretends to be. Just look at her record past and present and you'll see more flip-flops than a thousand fish out of water.

Whatever your argument may be in defense of Hillary, facts are facts and truth is truth and all the spinning in the world will not make it so.

Whenever it's convenient for her, she'll say she misspoke or that she regrets making those statements or that she's evolved. How can anybody say they will rein in Wall St and Big Banks when at the same time taking huge amounts of money from them?

Before the New Hampshire primaries, Hillary cancelled a fundraiser hosted by Jonathan Lavine, managing director of Bain Capital affiliate Sankaty Advisors. After the primary, she attended the fundraiser. At the debates she's always going on about how she will regulate Wall St excess.

I know that no amount of facts and truth will deter you from voting for Clinton.

To me, this article perfectly encapsulates Hillary supporters. The most depressing discovery about the brain, ever

[maddiemom]

82. At least she doesn't owe them a million bucks, unlike some...

Actually, I'm behind Bernie, but I fail to see what all the D.U. Hillary bashing will gain us.

[Ferd Berfel]

140. They made a Faustin Deal

[Armstead]

35. Like instead of welcoming in new energy and enthusiasm....

and instead of welcoming a new message and loosening its ties to Big Corrupt Wealth....

They have chosen to circle the wagons, use lies and distortions to market themselves, throw Proactive Liberalism under the bus and harden up a rigid status quo that has sold this nation down the river for 40 years.

[AzDar]

74. Well said.

[bbgrunt]

87. exactly like that.

[jmowreader]

96. What "new message" would that be?

Oh yeah...that's the one where anyone who creates something new and useful, or who figures out how to earn a lot of money, has to just hand it over to fund free this, free that and free something else.

There are two extremes: one is where rich people and huge corporations can earn all the money in the world, never have to pay any taxes, and be a total burden on the populace. The other is where people stop innovating, stop taking risks, stop growing because they might accidentally cross an arbitrary line in the sand and have it all taken away. Somewhere in between is optimal, and it's where we'll never go if either Bernie and his Gimme Gang on one end of the political spectrum or Laissez Faire with Squirrel Hair at the other win the White House.

Like it or not, the only way we'll ever get to the point we need to be - where working people are able to get the things they need and at least some of what they want, where unemployed people are able to join the ranks of the working but won't starve or freeze before they get the opportunity, and where rich people and corporations pay their fair share but also have the ability to seek the rewards that should come with risk - is to support Hillary.

[Armstead]

111. We are much closer to the first extreme than the other

"where rich people and huge corporations can earn all the money in the world, never have to pay any taxes, and be a total burden on the populace."

We've been moving in that direction since the 70's at an ever escalating pace.

Hillary represents the forces in the Democratic party that was silent about it as it was happening, and enabled it and still want to deny it and allow it.........She's been dragged kicking and screaming into sorta acknowledged it, but it's lip service because she is too embedded within it.

[aggiesal]

113. We already had all that ...

It was between the 1940's and 1980.

We had the strongest middle-class the world had ever known and
the big corporations couldn't have a strong middle-class.

Along came Ronnie McIdiot, and told us that "Government was bad"
and proceeded to prove it.

After killing free college education in California, because "why should
I pay for students to get a free education, then protest against everything
I stand for?" (paraphrased of course), it was off to "Inside the Beltway",
to institute his "Government is bad" policies.

Bernie's plan is FDR policies.

Yes we can get there again, but not with Hillary!

[jmowreader]

115. Please stop impugning the good name of FDR by attaching Sanders' handle to it

FDR's intent was to pull the economy out of the Great Depression by throwing money at it. Sanders is going to cause a depression by causing capital to flow out of this country at record rates: why the hell would I keep my bank or my factory in the US when there's a president who's spending all his time trying to close it? The US has NEVER had a president like Sanders, and Buddha willing we never will.

[Lucky Luciano]

150. Here ya go...

http://www.freerepublic.com

Maybe this site will be better for you.

[sammythecat]

155. I was going to make the very same suggestion

but I didn't know if it was allowed.

I promised myself I wasn't going to come here tonight and lo and behold, here I am. But just long enough to thank you for responding to that bunch of shit. I don't even know if I'm going to stay on this board if thoughts like that become the norm around here. I don't belong in the Democratic party anymore if it means aligning myself with people like that.

Anyway, thanks for making that "suggestion" to him. Now I can leave here a little calmer than I otherwise would've been.

[BillZBubb]

151. Jesus Friggin' Christ you don't have a clue about FDR.

Nor do you have a clue about Sanders. Yours is one of the most ignorant posts seen here in a long time and that is saying something.

[Armstead]

194. The usual centrist fear mongering hogwash

I remember the same bullshit lines being pushed by Corporate America and the GOP in the 70's and 80's.

That's a crap Orwellian meme. "To save your job we have to eliminate your job."

"To protect competition we must merge and form monopolies."

"To save the Middle Class we have to lower your wages and cut your benefits, while we obscenely reward the leaders of industry because they need incentives to drive growth."

It's hogwash, hogwash, hogwash. It's a shame that has also become the New Democrat mantra.

[JEB]

141. Riiiiiight.

Trickle down bullshit is so 1980's.

[AllyCat]

169. Cannot believe how conservative this statement sounds.

This is exactly what I hear from conservatives about how helping everyone will stifle business.

[pangaia]

177. I can not believe a 'democrat' actually wrote this---

"...that's the one where anyone who creates something new and useful, or who figures out how to earn a lot of money, has to just hand it over to fund free this, free that and free something else. "

"There are two extremes: one is where rich people and huge corporations can earn all the money in the world, never have to pay any taxes, and be a total burden on the populace. The other is where people stop innovating, stop taking risks, stop growing because they might accidentally cross an arbitrary line in the sand and have it all taken away. Somewhere in between is optimal, and it's where we'll never go if either Bernie and his Gimme Gang on one end of the political spectrum or Laissez Faire with Squirrel Hair at the other win the White House. "

It is just beyond my imagination.

[Duval]

193. +1 nt

[Raster]

42. Like this:

Since 2008, the party has lost 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats, more than 900 state legislative seats, 30 state legislative chambers and 12 governorships.

Across the nation, Democrats hold 3,172 of the 7,383 seats in state legislatures, or 43 percent. Of the 99 legislative chambers, Democrats only have a majority in 30.

Wasserman-Schultz has been an incompetent ninny, more concerned with making sure her "friends" are taken care of, instead of taking care of the party's actual business. And the outright in-the-can behavior for Clinton has been beyond the pale. If the shoe were on the other foot, you and the rest of the "H" people would be screaming bloody murder. But it's seems quite OK if it happens to "the other guy."

But you go ahead and play your little emoticon games....

[bbgrunt]

90. except that "other guy" is the one they are browbeating to vote the party in the GE

[democrank]

108. Like what?

Go back to the top and start rereading.

For starters, look how much we have lost in the Senate, the House and state governments.

Instead of mocking Democrats to the left of you, listen to how much discontent there is.

[AllyCat]

167. Giving up on a health-care system driven by people in favor of profit for a few

Putting social security cuts on the table. Refusing to work for a living wage ($10.10--just enough to keep the poor from qualifying for services). Not protecting the vote.

[Jack Rabbit]

112. Yes, it happens at least once a day

At least once a day, an apologist for establishment Democrats comes on DU to tell the progressives that there's nothing wrong with the Democratic Party or neoliberalism or a widening income gap or crooked Wall Street banks; and the we should sit down, shut up and vote for the corrupt candidates you "sensible" people choose for us and pretend we like being screwed.

How long do you really think that's going to last? How long do you really think we peons will play dumb for the benefit of corrupt politicians and their crooked paymasters like Legs Dimon and Pretty Boy Lloyd in an economy that gives us an illusion of prosperity as one bubble expands but always brings us back to a terrible reality when it bursts?

Let me try to express this in a way that has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or any of the Republican clowns still standing. The most consequential president in our lifetime, dwarfing all the others, was Ronald Reagan, and that is not a good thing. He is consequential because his administration (not Reagan himself, he never knew what he was doing) ushering in the era of neoliberalism. He'd be horrified to call it that, of course, but it goes by other names: supply-side economics, trickle-down economics, Reaganomics,etc. Lately, I've taken to calling it really fucked up economics. Whatever it's called, it is the Zeitgeist of the day since 1981. It presumes, falsely, that a deregulated market will work at least as well if not better than a government regulated market because the elites, being wise men or they would not be so wealthy, will make rational decisions and not try to take such an advantage over their rivals in the market because that would destroy the market that benefits them. And they would create jobs by reinvesting profits into their magical wealth creating corporations and everybody lives happily ever after.

A person who believes that probably believes in rainbows and unicorns. We've been waiting for trickle-down for three and half decades. If that were a workable scheme, we'd all be rich and happy by now. Instead, we have a situation where the middle class is shrinking and most new income goes to the corporate elites and stays there. It's like were trying to have capitalism without a middle class to buy the products generated in factories or on farms. A Marxist would call that a contradiction. I didn't go to an Ivy League university like the reprobates who run industry and government, but a mere state university, so I just call it unsustainable. Anyone with common sense would observe the situation, subject it to scientific analysis, and conclude that it just doesn't work.

Except for those who profit from really fucked economics, and I think they're just trying to hoodwink the rest of us.

[bigtree]

118. advocating against the Democratic party

...in the middle of our Democratic primary on a Democratic message board.

Charming.

[Rockyj]

131. POUTING?

From a #Hillary supporter? LMAO!

[Loki]

173. Interesting how they don't fear a complete meltdown if the

US if Mr. trump should possibly make it to the White House. You know inmates have taken over the asylum in the Republican Party and not a peep from Mr. Sander's. Just bash Democrats.

[truebluegreen]

180. Duh. It's the primary and Bernie

is running against what the Party has become.

[Loki]

184. Really, you don't really know me

and I'm a member, life long of that party. So was my father, my mother, well, let's just say my whole family. My son is 24, he's not voting for BS, so don't tell me that you are all perfect and that your idea of what a party should be is perfect. You're blinded to reality and the rest of us live in reality.

[truebluegreen]

186. My my, did we hit a nerve?

You must be psychic (or something) if you got all that out of my post.

[Loki]

188. Really?

Lalalalalalalala watches as you put finger's in your ears, just like a two year old doesn't want to hear anything but what they want to hear. Now does that make you feel better? See I can see you through this computer, just like you know everything about me.

[truebluegreen]

190. Really.

You seem to have missed the point that I said nothing at all about YOU, until you made your fatuous assumptions about me. But Hey! Don't let it spoil your fun. Enjoy.

[Kip Humphrey]

3. The record of 3rd-Way conservative Republicrats will cost my kids 50 years of republicon rule.

These are the losers who have taken us from +20 to -8 in the Senate, in just six years.

These are the losers who have taken us from +83 to -59 in the House, in just six years. Including the biggest wipeout for the Democratic Party in more than 100 years.

Six years ago, the Democrats controlled 16 state governments (House/Senate/Governor), and the Republicans controlled eight. The party bigwigs – these are the losers who now have left us with control of only seven state governments, while the Republicans control 27. They have taken us from +8 to -20, in just six years.

INSANITY is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result (also the definition of a republicon science experiment!). With Hillary crowned as the Democratic nominee, kiss the presidency good-bye.

My children thank you.

[mountain grammy]

59. +1

[appalachiablue]

69. +1

K & R Glad you posted Grayson's viewpoint.

[Fuddnik]

76. I'm about ready to start calling it the "Democrat Party" myself.

I'm sick of this republicanized bullshit mess they've created. They keep recruiting and supporting converted republicans, over progressives. Then they play the kabuki "well, the other side won't let us" game with each other, and nothing ever changes.

We're fucked.

[Loki]

189. Republican governors and their plan to redistrict that crap out of their states?

Has had not effect on voting? We let this happen, and they abused their power to excess. They have always had a plan to do this, as far back as Lee Atwater. They knew exactly what they were doing. We thought we could win on principal. They win by gaming the system. Draw a district with 5,000 Republicans and 25 Democrats, which party do you think will win that election? Make incumbents safe especially in crazy, religious districts, make them fear gays, abortion, AA, taking their guns away, and we just looked aghast and thought this would never happen. These crazies get out and vote, and we sit at home thinking just because our candidate has the better ideas, the better plan for the disadvantaged, taxes, health care.......no hate always wins. We should have known better. We, and I mean every Democrat out there that has stayed home and not voted, has allowed this to happen. It's not the DLC, DNC or the party. They now are working to make it even more difficult for anyone but a white male Republican to vote. You think you will be able to get your socialist agenda through that?????? I have to laugh at that one. Or we will get exactly what we deserve, a Trump presidency, a republican house and senate and they will destroy this country. Hope your house is paid for or you have a safe place to go, it's going to make the Great Depression look like we lived in Disney Land.

[Kip Humphrey]

192. We??? Sorry, but your lauded 3rd-Way conservicrats are responsible for letting this happen.

At least Bernie is enunciating a clear plan to deal with this situation that your 3rd-Way ignored to the point of democratic collapse. Hillary has no plan. Also, Hillary will lose so your prognostications of doom rightly will fall at your feet, not mine. So, is your house paid for and DO YOU have a safe place to hide?

[TDale313]

4. Yeah. I wish I thought he was wrong.

The Party's a total mess. And they're doing everything they can to shut us irritating grassroot folks out of the process. And who woulda thunk that'd end up suppressing voter turnout and enthusiasm on the left?

[fredamae]

5. Yes, and it's Way past time

to have open dialog about this.

[Arugula Latte]

6. We're circling the drain.

[ladjf]

8. He should have spoken up sooner. It might have helped. nt

[platitudipus]

160. He could've been feeling some heat.

A few weeks ago he was talking on Thom Hartmann's show (I think during the old Brunch w/Bernie time slot) and defended DWS's actions. I couldn't believe what I was hearing, even Thom cringed a bit.

[Jefferson23]

10. They rely heavily on blaming Republicans, it is not a winning message.

If you look at the number of people who don't vote and keep blaming
your counterpart for your losses you'll just keep losing.

[SunSeeker]

78. Tell that to Bernie. Blaming his opponent seems to be his campaign strategy now. nt

[Jefferson23]

85. I am talking about the DNC and our losses overall..not about Clinton and Bernie.

We blame Republicans too often and it makes us sound and look weak.

[SunSeeker]

94. When Republicans stop destroying our country, I will stop blaming them. nt

[Jefferson23]

105. They're not going to do that and they're well placed to continue to do so if

we don't address low voter turn out on our side.

[SunSeeker]

135. Hillary has a positive message, unlike Sanders.

Yes, she places blame where blame belongs, but she also inspires with a positive message. She calls for expanding opportunity and breaking down barriers. She talks about how America's greatest days are still in front of it. Her 16-minute victory speech in SC wonderfully encapsulates her message.

[Jefferson23]

139. The DNC is not doing their job for GOTV, the losses across the states have been massive and

low voter turn out is real. Clinton nor Bernie are going to fix that on their own.

[SunSeeker]

143. The candidates are supposed to get out the vote for themselves. nt

[Jefferson23]

147. Huh? Again, the party is suppose to increase voter turn out, as I said earlier, it is low.

2014

The Democratic National Committee is launching a new campaign to get supporters to pledge to vote in the midterm elections, an effort to mitigate the party’s expected drop-off in turnout this fall.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/campaign-committees/217089-dnc-launching-voting-pledge-campaign-to-boost-turnout

[SunSeeker]

148. Certainly the DNC & DCCC can "reinforce" Dem candidates' efforts.

Those efforts tend to be at November general and midterm elections, as your link notes.

But ultimately the candidate is responsible for getting his or her supporters to the polls, particularly at the primary stage.

[redstateblues]

152. I thought Bernie was supposed to drive turnout to historic levels

[SunSeeker]

161. LOL

[truebluegreen]

185. "No, We Can't" is a positive message?

Who knew?

[SunSeeker]

197. Those words were nowhere in that video. Her message is about expanding opportunity.

Figures, you have to create a strawman to have something to bash. God forbid you should listen to her actual words in the speech.

[truebluegreen]

198. Those words are implicit in darn near every policy

proposal / stance she has taken as a pragmatic progressive. But thank you for playing.

[SunSeeker]

202. On the contrary, pragmatic progressive means she wants to get things done. nt

[Rockyj]

132. The moderate Repulican Party is the Democrat Party!

[SunSeeker]

133. No. No portion of the current Republican Party is equivalent to the current Democratic Party.

An exclamation point does not make it so.

[Dragonfli]

144. You are correct that's why there are no longer any moderate Republicans (now extinct in the R party)

The Moderate Republican viewpoint can now ONLY be found in the Democratic party, here is why:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12774832

[DhhD]

175. Hope to see this reposted on GD:P. Thank you to Dragonfli.

[Dragonfli]

204. If you mean the OP referred to in the post, I would ask the public here if I should post it in GDP

If there are others that think it will/can do some good, I would be happy to Xpost it in GDP.

[beltanefauve]

127. They continue to go with

the "we suck less" message. In the past few months, I have gotten more emails from the DNC asking me to watch the Republican debates, while soliciting me for money.

[Ferd Berfel]

11. The Party didn't Loose it soul. It was SOLD out from under us

in the mid 1980's by a group of neocons that included Bill and Hillary Clinton. And they sold the Party to the Koch Bros, among other corporate 1% ers.

[wyldwolf]

12. ooh! An alternate theory is introduced!

[Ferd Berfel]

27. Not alternat theory - History

that is if the facts matter.....


The Rightwing Koch Brothers Fund The DLC
February 09, 2006

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

Do deep-pocketed "philanthropists" necessarily control the organizations they fund? That has certainly been the contention of those who truck in conspiracy theories about the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations funding liberal and neo-liberal organizations. As for the rightwing, journalists such as Joe Conason and Gene Lyons uncovered that the "vast right wing conspiracy" -- or the New Right network of think tanks, media outlets and pressure groups -- was marshalled under rightwing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife for his Get-Clinton campaign. Prior to the work of Conason and Lyons, Russ Bellant extensively documented in "The Coors Connection" how the Coors Family, Scaife and other wealthy rightwingers have funded the New Right movement since the early '70's. Among these rightwing benefactors are the Koch brothers. But the Kochs have been working both sides of the fence. As Bill Berkowitz writes, the Koch brothers have also been funding the Democratic Leadership Council.

According to SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, the brothers are "leading contributors to the Koch family foundations, which supports a network of Conservative organizations and think tanks, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Manhattan Institute the Heartland Institute, and the Democratic Leadership Council."

Charles Koch co-founded the Cato Institute in 1977, while David helped launch Citizens for a Sound Economy [now FreedomWorks] in 1986.

This is no less stunning than if Scaife or the Coors family were funding the DLC. So do the Kochs just throw money at the DLC -- as long as the Council supports a free-market" (i.e. unrestricted/unregulated corporate power) agenda that the Kochs generally agree with. Or is it more than just that -- does this really buttress what Greens and other disaffected liberals contend -- that the DNC has just become a party of "Republicrats", thanks especially to the DLC? They would say that corporate backers like the rightwing/libertarian Kochs have co-opted the Democratic establishment -- a hostile takeover of (what was once) the opposition.

[wyldwolf]

32. Psst! Do some research on the Democratic Business Council... a half decade before the DLC

Cherry picking history - the 'progressive' way.

[Ferd Berfel]

39. So you're saying that the Clinton's (and others)

didn't sell the Party to the Koch Bros (and other corporate interests) ?

huh.

[wyldwolf]

40. yeah, unless you can show proof of that

Which you can't.

[Armstead]

117. here ya go...

http://prospect.org/article/how-dlc-does-it

Of course, it is easier to be contentious when you are well financed. And the DLC message of pro-market moderation is just what organized business wants to hear. ....One by one, Fortune 500 corporate backers saw the DLC as a good investment. By 1990 major firms like AT&T and Philip Morris were important donors. Indeed, according to Reinventing Democrats, Kenneth S. Baer's history of the DLC, Al From used the organization's fundraising prowess as blandishment to attract an ambitious young Arkansas governor to replace Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia as DLC chairman. Drawing heavily on internal memos written by From, Bruce Reed, and other DLCers, Baer says that the DLC offered Clinton not only a national platform for his presidential aspirations but "entree into the Washington and New York fundraising communities." Early in the 1992 primaries, writes Baer, "financially, Clinton's key Wall Street support was almost exclusively DLC-based," especially at firms like New York's Goldman, Sachs.

The DLC's investment in Clinton paid off, of course, after the 1992 election. Not only did the DLC bask in its status as idea factory and influence broker for the White House, but it also reaped immediate financial rewards. One month after the election, Clinton headlined a fundraising dinner for the DLC that drew 2,200 to Washington's Union Station, where tables went for $15,000 apiece. Corporate officials and lobbyists were lined up to meet the new White House occupant, including 139 trade associations, law firms, and companies who kicked in more than $2 million, for a total of $3.3 million raised in a single evening.

......While the DLC will not formally disclose its sources of contributions and dues, the full array of its corporate supporters is contained in the program from its annual fall dinner last October, a gala salute to Lieberman that was held at the National Building Museum in Washington. Five tiers of donors are evident: the Board of Advisers, the Policy Roundtable, the Executive Council, the Board of Trustees, and an ad hoc group called the Event Committee--and companies are placed in each tier depending on the size of their check. For $5,000, 180 companies, lobbying firms, and individuals found themselves on the DLC's board of advisers, including British Petroleum, Boeing, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coca-Cola, Dell, Eli Lilly, Federal Express, Glaxo Wellcome, Intel, Motorola, U.S. Tobacco, Union Carbide, and Xerox, along with trade associations ranging from the American Association of Health Plans to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. For $10,000, another 85 corporations signed on as the DLC's policy roundtable, including AOL, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Citigroup, Dow, GE, IBM, Oracle, UBS PacifiCare, PaineWebber, Pfizer, Pharmacia and Upjohn, and TRW.

And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

[Agony]

166. *** Crickets *** ***

hypocrisy and ignorance that is damaging our society, willful or otherwise...

it is hard not to be angry and sad

[HooptieWagon]

13. No surprise at all.

DWS did the same thing in Florida...I guess peep weren't paying attention.

[Enthusiast]

91. It was not so long ago that the Democratic Party was competitive in Florida.

Gore won Florida in 2000 despite massive cheating by the Bush Administration.

[HooptieWagon]

120. To put the damage DWS has done in Florida into perspective,...

It's highly likely that the top three Democratic candidates on my ballot are all former Republicans... HRC for POTUS, Patrick Murphy for US Senate, and Charlie Crist for my House District. Fuck me. I can't vote for Republicans, no matter what letter they put after their name in disguise. I'll have to leave the party...after 40 fucking years.

[Enthusiast]

121. It's sad. I understand your sentiments.

[BernieforPres2016]

14. While I agree with this particular message

I think Grayson is a corrupt scumbag and not somebody progressives should support.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. I am no fan of Grayson and I usually delete his emails

(which I don't know why I'm getting in the first place). But this one was entitled "Our Party Politburo," which made me curious enough to read it. Grayson is not someone I'd want to support if I lived in his district, but I totally agree with what he said here.

[mdbl]

30. why is everyone so down on Grayson

I am inquiring honestly. I don't know what he has done other than some support for Israel no one seemed to like.

[Historic NY]

62. Apparently your not in the know ....

everyone putting Hillary to bed with Wall St. but Grayson out offshoring his hedge fund loot gets a pass.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/alan-grayson-hedge-fund-cayman-islands/2015/10/14/id/696186/

[mdbl]

70. Please link to a credible source

I will never look at Noozmax.

[Historic NY]

88. Look it up you find ton.

[Enthusiast]

93. Newsmax = pure shit.

[Historic NY]

106. Really...its gone mainstream

[Historic NY]

110. People are so lazy they won't even check here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027604217

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027603874

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141131901

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10453852

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027523580

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141262681

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141138598

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10453615

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027610592 here's a boo hoo....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026667519

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027604589

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141241078

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1045&pid=3852

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027454664


there is more

[mdbl]

138. Thanks for the info

[SkyIsGrey]

164. So Grayson "the champion of the people" is doing this.

Wouldn't that kind of imply that Clinton, who is to the right of Grayson on pretty much everything, is more corrupt?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

178. It's his personal life, not his political one.

He had a long term relationship with a woman that turned out to be her second marriage, since the first one never was properly and legally ended. Used the fact that it was bigamy to smear her and avoid paying her a ton of cash, even though they'd lived as man and wife for years, had kids. Calls her a 'gold digger' while leaving her on government assistance.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

179. And look downthread.

Apparently he's done a number of shady business deals to get those millions in the first place.

[jhart3333]

29. "I think Grayson is a corrupt scumbag"

Howso?

[BernieforPres2016]

119. Took me a while to find it, but here's a link

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/grayson-loses-millions-in-ponzi-scheme

This is an older story on Grayson that has been overshadowed by a more recent controversy on Grayson running a hedge fund in the Cayman Islands that many say violates House ethics laws because it has his name on it and based on the partnership filings he receives compensation from it, though he says he doesn't. You can do a search and find plenty on that.

This older story is the one that persuaded me that Grayson is a crook. It is a bit complicated to understand what's going on if you don't have much knowledge of finance and investing. You can read the story at the link and come to your own conclusions. Here is what I believe happened:

Grayson made tens of millions of dollars off a company that he actually didn't have a lot of involvement with when it went public. He was looking for a way to minimize his taxes. He came across people peddling an obvious tax dodge that was based out of the Cayman Islands. They said investors could hand them big chunks of stock, then borrow back 90% of the value of the stock in cash. Their losses on the stock were supposedly limited because the people running the funds were supposedly going to hedge them. And if the stocks appreciated, the investors would get the appreciation and somehow avoid U.S. capital gains taxes.

Several investors in this fund were prosecuted by the IRS for tax fraud. Somehow Grayson avoided that. And unfortunately, it turned out to be a Ponzi scheme. The people managing the fund simply sold the stocks that investors handed to them, paid back 90% of the proceeds and kept the rest. You can see the details of the money involved in the article. Grayson actually lost about $2.5 million based on handing over $28+ million in stock and getting back 90% plus some more money back over time that was supposedly proceeds from lending the stock. Grayson claimed damages of about $34 million because the stock he handed over (in an effort to avoid future taxes) appreciated after it was sold, when he thought it was still being held.

Like I said, read it and draw your own conclusions. I have a background in finance and as far as I'm concerned this was nothing but an attempted tax dodge in which Grayson took some losses because of his own greed and immorality. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

[FlatBaroque]

129. He seems to be an opportunist, and practices situational ethics. /

[kgnu_fan]

19. kick

[MaggieD]

21. He's a loser

[AlbertCat]

44. He's a loser

Stated with the depth and intellect expected from the Clintonchicks!

[Hydra]

58. I know, a profound statment, isn't it?

Actually, sadly it is. Win at any cost. That's all that's important. You're either with us or you are a traitor.

[Enthusiast]

95. Huge +1!

[whereisjustice]

22. Think middle class, middle age suicides are bad now, wait until Hillary ships another million jobs

to Asia. The Democratic Party is literally (yes, literally) on their knees serving Goldman Sachs and Citi and meanwhile Democratic voters too weak and insecure to vote for their own best interests are privately praying that Hillary doesn't fuck them over too badly.

[litlbilly]

24. I think Elizabeth Warren needs to come out now for Bernie. It's the county's last chance IMO

[litlbilly]

25. And, we need to triple the ground game for Bernie, it's just us and no one else who can get it done

[Svafa]

200. I will be incredibly disappointed in her if she doesn't

officially endorse him. She aligns with him on almost any issue. I can only see her efusing to endorse him (or god forbid endorsing Clinton) for political motives (e.g., vying for a Clinton cabinet position). I would hope she has more integrity than that. We shall see.

[brooklynite]

28. Maybe he could use some of his hedge fund money to pay for a reform movement?

[AlbertCat]

49. Maybe he could use some of his hedge fund money to pay for a reform movement?

Well, Hillary isn't. She thinks things are just okey-dokey!

[VulgarPoet]

31. Yes. Yes it has.

Hillary's rap sheet:

Foreign Policy

Iraq

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/hillarys-pro-iraq-war-vot_b_9112232.html

"Hillary has now apologized for her Iraq War vote. But even her apology feels more like political calculation than genuine contrition. A meaningful apology would be directed to the Iraq war vets and Iraqi civilians who lost life or limb, to the American taxpayer for wasting over a trillion dollars, and to the rest of the world for making it less safe.

Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 Democratic nomination to Barack Obama in large part because of her Iraq vote so she must now try to immunize herself with her weak apology in the hopes that 8 years later, Democratic caucus and primary voters have short memories.

Moreover, none of her apologies give any indication of what she learned from her supposedly mistaken vote. Has she learned that using American military power to instigate regime change in the Middle East leads more often than not to chaos, anarchy, increased terrorist threats, refugee crises, and even the destabilization of Europe?"

Syria

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/19/hillary-clinton-isis-strategy-ground-troops-airstrikes-no-fly-zone-syria

"Hillary Clinton distanced herself from Barack Obama’s strategy for defeating Islamic State extremists on Thursday in a sweeping foreign policy speech that called for greater use of American ground troops and an intensified air campaign.

Though ruling out deploying the tens of thousands of US troops seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the former of secretary of state made clear she would take a notably more hawkish approach than the current administration if she is elected president."

Libya

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region&_r=0

"This is the story of how a woman whose Senate vote for the Iraq war may have doomed her first presidential campaign nonetheless doubled down and pushed for military action in another Muslim country. As she once again seeks the White House, campaigning in part on her experience as the nation's chief diplomat, an examination of the intervention she championed shows her at what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as secretary state."

"Libya's descent into chaos began with a rushed decision to go to war, made in what one top official called a "shadow of uncertainty" as to Colonel Qaddafi's intentions. The mission inexorably evolved even as Mrs. Clinton foresaw some of the hazards of toppling another Middle Eastern strongman. She pressed for a secret American program that supplied arms to rebel militias, an effort never before confirmed."

Saudi Arabia [y'know, the people who made ISIS's brand of Islam]

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/01/10/445291/US-Hillary-Clinton-Saudi-Arabia-/

“It’s tough to call her comments anything except ‘the pot calling the kettle black,’” John Miranda said in an interview with Press TV.

The Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign have enjoyed “numerous donations from Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia’s various corporations and princes that have dealings with the United States,” he noted.

“For her to say that we need to talk to them [Saudis] about this; she honestly could care less,” he added.

Miranda said that Saudi Arabia is committing the same crimes that the American people associate with the Daesh (ISIL) terrorist group rather than a long-time US ally in the Middle East.

“Everything that’s happening with the unrest in northern Iraq and Syria, they are doing the same exact things that happen in Saudi Arabia,” he said.

“Saudi Arabia is also one of the countries that is funding the terrorists in Syria and northern Iraq, so obviously they are practicing the same type of things,” the analyst added.

“Hillary Clinton is a complete hypocrite. That is the only way I can describe her,” Miranda stressed.

Honduras

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/exclusive_hillary_clinton_sold_out_honduras_lanny_davis_corporate_cash_and_the_real_story_about_the_death_of_a_latin_america_democracy/

Though it’s less sexy than Benghazi, the crisis following a coup in Honduras in 2009 has Hillary Clinton’s fingerprints all over it, and her alleged cooperation with oligarchic elites during the affair does much to expose Clinton’s newfound, campaign-season progressive rhetoric as hollow. Moreover, the Honduran coup is something of a radioactive issue with fallout that touches many on Team Clinton, including husband Bill, once put into a full context.

Colombia

http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-pushes-colombia-free-trade-agreement-latest-email-dump-2326068

"One of the 2011 emails from Clinton to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and Clinton aide Robert Hormats has a subject line “Sandy Levin” — a reference to the Democratic congressman who serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees U.S. trade policy. In the email detailing her call with Levin, she said the Michigan lawmaker “appreciates the changes that have been made, the national security arguments and Santos's reforms” -- the latter presumably a reference to Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. She concludes the message about the call with Levin by saying, “I told him that at the rate we were going, Columbian [sic] workers were going to end up w the same or better rights than workers in Wisconsin and Indiana and, maybe even, Michigan.”

Froman — a former Citigroup executive who as trade representative was lobbying for passage of the deal — responded by thanking Clinton for her "help and support.” Hormats, a former vice chairman of Goldman Sachs who subsequently was hired by Clinton at the State Department, later chimed in, telling her “terrific job” and “GREAT line on Columbian [sic] workers!!!!!”

Social Policy
TPP Support

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160129/23451533466/hillary-clinton-flip-flopped-tpp-before-so-big-business-lobbyists-are-confident-shell-really-flip-back-after-election.shtml

Isn't politics just great? Politicians aren't exactly known for their honesty on things, often saying things to voters just to get elected. But Hillary Clinton's views on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement have received quite a lot of scrutiny. After all, while she was at the State Department, she was a strong supporter of the TPP, and so it was a bit of a surprise last October when she came out against it. Of course, the fact that the deal is fairly unpopular with the Democratic Party base probably contributed quite a lot to that decision -- and Clinton's weak attempt at revisionist history to pretend she never really supported it.

But, of course, when you do a pandering flip flop like that just to get votes, you have to remember that plenty of people will see right through it, and some of those people might reveal the strategy. Like, for instance, the head of the US Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest lobbying organization, who is leading the charge in support of the TPP. Its top lobbyist, Tom Donohue, flat out admitted recently that he knows that if she actually got elected, she'll revert back to supporting the TPP, because of course she will:
The Chamber president said he expected Hillary Clinton would ultimately support the TPP if she becomes the Democratic nominee for president and is elected. He argued that she has publicly opposed the deal chiefly because her main challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has also done so. "If she were to get nominated, if she were to be elected, I have a hunch that what runs in the family is you get a little practical if you ever get the job," he said.

Destruction of internet freedom

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/09/hillary_clinton_and_internet_freedom/

What Hillary Clinton is condemning here is exactly that which not only the administration in which she serves, but also she herself, has done in one of the most important Internet freedom cases of the last decade: WikiLeaks. And beyond that case, both Clinton specifically and the Obama administration generally have waged a multi-front war on Internet freedom.

First, let us recall that many of WikiLeaks’ disclosures over the last 18 months have directly involved improprieties, bad acts and even illegalities on the part of Clinton’s own State Department. As part of WikiLeaks’ disclosures, she was caught ordering her diplomats at the U.N. to engage in extensive espionage on other diplomats and U.N. officials; in a classified memo, she demanded “forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications” as well as “credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers” for a whole slew of diplomats, actions previously condemned by the U.S. as illegal. WikiLeaks also revealed that the State Department — very early on in the Obama administration — oversaw a joint effort between its diplomats and GOP officials to pressure and coerce Spain to block independent judicial investigations into the torture policies of Bush officials: a direct violation of then-candidate Obama’s pledge to allow investigations to proceed as well being at odds with the White House’s dismissal of questions about the Spanish investigation as merely “hypothetical.” WikiLeaks disclosures also revealed that public denials from Clinton’s State Department about the U.S. role in Yemen were at best deeply misleading. And, of course, those disclosures revealed a litany of other truly bad acts by the U.S. Government generally.

Manhattan Project against encryption

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-like-project-to-break-encryption/

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has called for a "Manhattan-like project" to help law enforcement break into encrypted communications. This is in reference to the Manhattan Project, the top-secret concentrated research effort which resulted in the US developing nuclear weapons during World War II.

At Saturday's Democratic debate (transcript here), moderator Martha Raddatz asked Clinton about Apple CEO Tim Cook's statements that any effort to break encryption would harm law-abiding citizens.

PATRIOT Act support

https://ballotpedia.org/Hillary_Clinton

Clinton voted in support of HR 3162 - USA Patriot Act of 2001. The bill passed on October 25, 2001, by a vote of 98-1. The bill allowed law enforcement more authority in searching homes, tapping phone lines and tracking internet information while searching for suspected terrorists

.

Secure Fence Act

https://ballotpedia.org/Hillary_Clinton

Clinton voted in support of HR 6061 - Secure Fence Act of 2006. The bill passed on September 29, 2006, by a vote of 80-19. The bill authorized the construction of 700 miles of additional fencing along the United States-Mexico border. The Democratic Party split on the vote.

H-1B Visa support

This is the so called pre-ordained candidate for the Democratic Party. And when candidates like this are being fielded, an an Independent who is more democratic than the whole DNC put together has to come in and save the fuckin' party, the establishment has some serious soul searching to engage in, that is, if they still have souls to search.

[kenn3d]

51. Please make this an OP - nt

[peacebird]

63. Please make this an OP!

[hifiguy]

79. Her Majesty is a lying piece of crap

in the style and on the same level as Richard Nixon. There, I said it. I trust her no farther than I can throw the sphinx.

She is as morally, ethically and financially corrupt as a human being can be.

The grifting Clintons are the worst thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party. Crooks to their rotten cores.

[Enthusiast]

98. I wish I could disagree.

[Duppers]

122. Yes, any one of these issues should be an OP!

Important points, really important.

Bookmarking.

Thanks, Poet.

[VulgarPoet]

130. :)

[onecaliberal]

33. They didn't lose it, they sold it.

[GreatGazoo]

34. The scheduling of the debates said a lot about DNC strategy

They obviously wanted the smallest audiences possible. Two possible reasons jump out -- 1. the more people of see of Sanders the more they like him. If you want to suppress Sanders and the the issues he champions you have to ignore him, talk about rather than to him, and keep a lid on expectations.

2. The DNC wants to sell Hillary to the conservatives as the alternative to Trump in November. They didn't want anyone to see her trying to out Left Sanders because it will make it harder when she tries to out Republican the Republicans after the convention.

[litlbilly]

36. Hillary winning with a 12% turnout, just like winning a baseball game because the other

team didn't show up. the type of win any repub would be proud of. We've got some work to do people

[fredamae]

60. Bottom Line-Neither Dem Candidate Will Win

with numbers like this.

[hifiguy]

99. SC won't mean a thing in the GE.

Nor will any other Confederate state. They've been blood red racist Repug for decades. Why should they influence the Democratic primary in the least? No Democrat will ever win them in the GE.

[4lbs]

37. The VOTERS are choosing Clinton over Sanders, not the DNC.

Mainly, the minority voters.

Every state which has a huge minority population and Democratic electorate, Clinton had or has a large lead.

Every state which is 75% or more white of the Democratic electorate, Sanders has the lead.

Clinton led SC by 35 points going up to the primary, and won by almost 50.

Clinton is currently leading by 30+ points in Georgia and Tennessee.

Clinton is currently leading by 20 points in Texas.

Clinton is leading by almost 20 points in Florida.

Clinton has a big lead in New York and California as well, although those primaries are a ways off.

What do all those states have in common? Minorities make up more than 50% of the Democratic party in those states.


Look at all the states that Sanders has a sizable lead over Clinton. What is the common ethnic makeup in them? They are hugely white Democratic electorates.

Furthermore, the youth vote, while being passionate, has historically been unreliable at the voting booths. Makes for great TV screenshots and cell phone snapshots on social media of the rallies, but what about the voting booths?

Why did Sanders lose SC so badly? The "youth" vote (ages 17 to 30), did not show up at the voting booths and caucus places. Sure, they filled up his rallies with lines a mile long. But when it came time to actually vote, they didn't.

In SC, the older voters (45+ years old), showed up in nearly the same amount as in 2008.


This Democratic campaign isn't about the big bad evil DNC, but more about two things:

1.) Minorities overwhelmingly support one candidate more than the other.

What does it say when one candidate has a 60 to 70 point lead over the other, among African-Americans?
What does it say when one candidate has a 30 to 40 point lead over the other, among Latinos?


2.) Young voters show up at rallies, but not the voting booths.

What does it say when older voters show up in the voting booths at almost the same amount and rate as in 2008, but the young voters don't?


Clinton is getting her supporters out to vote. Sanders isn't.

Clinton has huge support among minorities. Sanders doesn't.


There is no great conspiracy. The voters are speaking with VOTES. Well, not all of them. Some just go to rallies and don't vote on the day of their primary/caucus.

[EndElectoral]

38. Good, let's ask HRC to demand that superdelegates votes not count as it's undemocratic to the voters

[PWPippin]

50. I agree. While we're at it, let's do away with caucuses.

Those who can't make it to the caucuses, unless they knew well enough in advance that they'd have to vote absentee, aren't represented by the caucus system. How is that democratic?

[4lbs]

65. It's not like they keep the date and time of the primary/caucus a secret. They were announced

long in advance, at least 6 to 10 months in advance.

I'm in California. I know that the Democratic primary in California is June 7. It was announced in August. That is 11 months in advance.

So, I made sure I will have that day available, no matter what. Friends want to go to the movies or have a dinner that day? Sorry, gotta go vote. I'm treating that day like a national holiday. I'm not doing anything that day but voting in the primary.


Super Tuesday has long been known to be March 1. It's not like they announced it just last month.


The General Election is November 8. That's 8 months from now. I've set that day aside to vote. I won't be going out or doing much of anything that day except voting.


See how it works? If you truly WANT to vote, you MAKE TIME to vote.


I'm what a pollster calls a "reliable voter" or a "likely voter". One that can be counted on to vote in nearly every election, including primaries.

[zalinda]

83. Tell that to some one who absolutely needs to work

and can't take a day off to caucus. These people have no voice.

Z

[4lbs]

92. The Iowa Caucus was done from 5:00pm to 9:00pm local time. The Nevada Caucus was on a

Saturday, from noon to 4pm local time.

They do try to schedule them so that 85 to 90 percent of the Democratic party electorate has the opportunity to vote on that day at the time range given.


The South Carolina primary had every possible advantage for Sanders to at least make a good showing. It was on a Saturday and the polls were open for 11 hours, from 8:00am to 7:00pm Eastern.

Nevertheless, Sanders' main constituency did not show up like expected. Why? Did they have other things to do that day? The primary date and time was known 6 months in advance.

Voters 17 to 30 showed up at a very low rate. Those that did, were majority for Clinton. Clinton did get the older vote (45 years old and older) at almost the same amount and rate as in 2008 and 2012.


One can make it as accommodating as possible for the party's voters to participate, and yet there will still be a segment that won't do so.

[PWPippin]

126. In addition, how is it democratic to have to vote publicly?

I live in Maine, which is a caucus state, and I caucus and deal with it. However, I was struck about how unfair and undemocratic the caucus model is during the Nevada caucuses. There were six casinos where workers could caucus, therefore not having to take too much time off work. Your boss and your coworkers can know how you are voting. Why doesn't that put pressure on someone, perhaps feeling they need to please their boss or vote with their union. I'm really curious what others think.

[4lbs]

54. Interesting, in 2008, the superdelegates went the way the people wanted.

In 2008, Clinton won more states than Obama, but Obama had more delegates because he won more of the bigger states, and states that had large minority populations. That resulted in him having a delegate lead going into the convention, before the superdelegates were added. However, it wasn't enough to reach the 2400 required (actually 2383). So, the majority of the superdelegates went to him to put him over the top.

Seem familiar? In 2016, Sanders may win a sizable number of small states, with large white populations, but Clinton may win the large states and those with large minority populations.

Just like in 2008, the superdelegates will pledge to the candidate that wins large states and has the support of minorities. Clinton will have the delegate lead going in to the convention. Just like in 2008, the leader won't have enough to win the nomination outright, and the superdelegates will decide the last 5% needed.

When were superdelegates created and first used? In the 1984 primaries.

Why were they created? Because Ted Kennedy dared to primary Carter in 1980.

[kjones]

56. She won't even need them...nt

[AZ Progressive]

48. Hillary couldn't win in Iowa and Nevada if the party wasn't putting the thumb on the scales

They went all out to get her to win in Iowa (with questionable shenanigans) and in Nevada with Harry Reid's help.

[redstateblues]

153. Always someone else's fault

Bernie's one note, one size fits all campaign is the reason he is not winning.

[Enthusiast]

100. This Democratic campaign is about the big bad evil DNC. It is a conspiracy.

Of course you don't see it if you don't want to see it.

How do you think Hillary attained much of that advantage with minorities?

[4lbs]

103. Really? I remember seeing earlier in the week before the SC primary, how Sanders was

campaigning at a lunch/dinner that had a huge number of African-Americans at it.

Almost all the people there ignored him and were busy eating food.


That's a DNC conspiracy? I don't remember seeing any DNC shills or Debbie Schultz there. Just Sanders campaign people and African-Americans.


Sanders didn't even campaign in SC the final week, well maybe two brief stops. Clinton, even though polls had her about 30 points ahead, still made dozens of stops in SC.

One other thing, that could be pointed to as a mistake by Sanders:

His statement after Nevada about "On to Super Tuesday!", and totally not mentioning South Carolina at all.

Many voters in SC took that as a brush off, especially the minority voters. That's why Clinton won minorities age 17 to 30. The youth vote. That was supposed to be Sanders' strength.

[Maedhros]

203. Low information voters overwhelmingly support Clinton

because they haven't paid attention to the horrific things she's done.

[Mufaddal]

45. The Dems, like the GOP, remain a wholly-owned subsidiary of corporate America

It's sad to see so many people here willing to defend or excuse that. At some point in the relatively near future, the corporate dems are either going to get booted out of office, or the party will go into full meltdown and we'll end up with an actually separate progressive party (whether that will be a new group or an existing group has yet to be seen).

[kjones]

57. Damn! And I forgot to ask for stock options...nt

[Mufaddal]

61. Thanks for illustrating my point

For you, money in politics is apparently just something cute to joke about. I'm actually really glad you're okay kidding around about that publicly, because it's a refreshing kind of honesty.

And therein lies perhaps the key difference between many Hillary and Bernie voters. For once, we have a really easy primary. If you think money in politics is no big deal, then obviously your candidate is Hillary, who is fine taking massive amounts of that cash. If you think it's undermining democracy, then the right candidate is Bernie.

[kjones]

68. This whole "bought and paid for" stuff...it's all crap.

A lot of the people raising a stink over Hillary and donations and PACs and all that...
they hated Hillary long before Citizens United and whatnot.

Just the latest in a long line of character smears against her, and a lot of other
decent people.

Money in politics is a big deal. Still voting for Hillary.

Meanwhile, racism, sexism, police brutality, gun violence, bigotry, et al are
big deals too...and pro-Bernie OPs that shit all over those causes and those
people affected by them get Rec'd to the rafters. So don't pull that "holier
than thou" shtick, it's disingenuous at this point.

[Mufaddal]

72. Candidate's actual funding = smear

Good to know. It's also interesting to note that you seem to think money in politics doesn't make it much, much harder to do what's necessary to change everything else wrong in this country today.

Question: Why do you imagine that Wall St., the insurance industry, pharmaceutical companies, and other big money interests give so much cash to Hillary and others, Democrats and Republicans alike?

[davidthegnome]

86. We could go back and forth on this for quite a while.

Your final paragraph illustrates the ugliest side of this debate quite well. On the one hand, we have a few extreme, over the top Sanders supporters, who have indeed made some very ugly statements. On the other hand, we have a few extreme, over the top Clinton supporters telling us that all Bernie supporters are nothing more than misogynistic, racist trolls.

The ugliness, ignorance, manipulations of the truth and general, broad brush statements flying around like a plague of locusts... makes me cringe, every time I see one of those posts.

As for the bought and paid for stuff? If you think money in politics is a big deal, you should consider where most of the money for the individual candidates is coming from. This stuff isn't being made up, corporations, lobbyists, lobbying firms, for profit prison industry, Walmart, Monsanto, the fossil fuel industry, the Koch Brothers, millionaires and billionaires and corporations who's practices are despicable if not illegal. I'm not just talking about Clinton here, either. Much as I dislike and distrust where a lot of her campaign money is coming from, the republicans are getting the same kind of "contributions". Do these moneyed interests have an interest in getting their candidate of choice elected President? Of course they do. You don't spend that kind of money for nothing.

Having said that - the actions of a few individuals does not represent or indicate the sentiments, philosophies, principles, or intentions of the group as a whole. The holier than thou shit does get tiresome, regardless of which side is doing it - and I have seen it from both.

[MisterP]

46. and they're only running on "we're the only faction that can win in the GE"--it's their STRONGEST

POINT, somehow!
we've got to pop this politics of illusion

[GoldenMean]

47. "They've paved Paradise""

"And put up a (limousine) parking lot."
"Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got (Bernie)
Till it's gone"

[hfojvt]

52. translation - I and my candidates are not winning primaries

it's the Party's fault.

[Armstead]

64. The OP expresses a frustration that long predates Sanders

[stonecutter357]

53. South Carolina just did not like him.

[bvf]

55. The Democratic Party has drifted so far to the right

that it has become unrecognizable to anyone who is opposed to war at the drop of a hat.

[AZ Progressive]

137. Definitely

[dembotoz]

66. Seen this going on in my state so much it is almost like a joke

A very sad joke.
We say the right stuff
We chant the right slogans
And then we get candidates whom we have to hold our noses to vote for

[Samantha]

67. I generally agree with this with one big exception

His words: Why don’t we just call it what it has become: the UnDemocratic Party.

My words: It is the Third Way element which has crept its way into the Democratic party to the dismay and disgust of the FDR Dems. They need to leave and form their own party. There is not enough room for both components, and it is the FDR Dems who have a heritage of Democratic policies as well as legislation to protect. The Third Way needs to be on its way to another party from which it can promote its own positions.

Sam

[felix_numinous]

162. ^^^Agree! 3rd Way is profoundly different

philosophically than Democratic Socialists, so would be best as a separate party. Third way, or center right ideology needs its own party because they do not identify, include or tolerate socialist or liberal views. We get dissed, and end up with no voice or representation.

We waste time thinking we can change each others' minds but end up spinning our wheels. And isn't that what TPTB want, but a populace without clear identities or a clear voice?

We are all adults and should just vote our conscience. Your post was excellent, though I wonder if this suggestion goes against DU rules... Oh well.

[Politicub]

71. Because Sanders lost in SC?

Okay...

[Vote2016]

73. kick & rec #100

[highprincipleswork]

77. I'm only in it to vote for Bernie, even though I've been a member for forty-six years.

[2banon]

80. I received the same email, not sure how I got on his list

but it certainly caught my attention. It's actually spot on.

I haven't yet replied to the poll on an earlier email asking which way he should cast his superdelegate vote.

I was tempted to post it on du..but haven't yet.

[SunSeeker]

81. Ironic accusation coming from a guy who abandoned the mother of his 5 kids to live on welfare. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

116. Nobody's defending Grayson as a person -

his personal life seems to be a disaster. But that doesn't mean the points he makes about the mess the Democratic Party has made of itself are wrong. He's spot on about this, even if he's a dickish human being.

[NurseJackie]

84. No we haven't. This is silly.

[Enthusiast]

89. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations!

Sometimes I wonder if this wasn't intentional.

[Uncle Joe]

97. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, The Velveteen Ocelot.

[basselope]

101. Bill Maher talks about the GOP bubble, but the dem one is just as bad.

To even consider Clinton as a viable candidate is laughable.

She represents EVERYTHING that is wrong with politics over the last 40 years.

[noiretextatique]

107. The third way is a losing stategy

Most definitely.

[democrank]

114. Look at what we`ve become....

We`re supposed to be cheering for someone who:

hired DAVID BROCK, the same man this board was totally against when he was a rightwing smear merchant.
voted for the Iraq War, the biggest foreign policy catastrophe in recent history.
who supports the death penalty.
who used racism against President Obama in 2008.
who says "We need to bring them to heel."
who lied about sniper fire.
who over and over and over displays bad judgement....think Libya.
who actually said she and Bill were "dead broke" when they left the White House.
who likes and trusts advice from war criminal Henry Kissinger.
who charges a quarter of a million dollars for a one-hour speech.
who a majority of voters polled said they do not trust her.
And there`s plenty more.

[Duppers]

123. Bravo for this thread

And its comments.

[CharlotteVale]

128. He's right.

[PowerToThePeople]

134. He had a straw poll last week.

Sanders must have crushed HRC in it.

[pdsimdars]

136. Brilliant

He lays it out very cleanly.
We have to hope for some grace

[ananda]

145. We've been infiltrated and co-opted by "moderate" ..

.. read "progressive" Reeps.

They're not quite as batshit crazy as the now Reeps, but
they're plenty mean and corporate.

[Corey_Baker08]

146. Well We Know His You Choose Who My Superdelegate Goes To Is A Scam...

He's Running For Re--Election And Obviously Used This As A Scam To Get Democrats To His Site Where He Has A Poll Up Vowing To Award His Superdelegate To Whoever Gets The Most Votes...Of Course After Voting You Are Asked To Donate $10....

What a Scam, A RipOff & A Sham

[BernieforPres2016]

159. And to cast a "vote" you have to enter your email

And then Grayson can bombard you with campaign solicitations and sell the email list to others to spam you. The emails from Nigerians looking for financial help can't be far behind.

There's no way I would ever give that crooked son of a bitch my email address.

[PatrynXX]

149. think the Democratic party is gonna split between ahem the conservatives and the Liberals

like it always has before

[TIME TO PANIC]

154. Say what you want about Alan Grayson, but he's speaking the truth here.

[SoapBox]

156. Wow...

This is one of the best things he has ever said...and it's the Truth.

[ScreamingMeemie]

157. I sat for a long time...

thinking about this today.

And I realized (because I'm old enough to remember) Reagan, but today's standard would be an establishment Dem in many ways. Too many ways. We've let ourselves be pulled ever so slightly to the right over the years...

...and now we're stuck with pro-corporations or pro-corporations + Crazy Christianity as our options.

[billhicks76]

158. What Lame Excuses To Clintonites Have For This

[Betty Karlson]

163. This party is going to split.

It is unraveling at the seams. And DWS is doing everything she can to unravel things a bit faster. She remaking the party in the image if the old Republican Party. She is abandoning everything that made the Democratic Party the Democratic Party. That leaves so much room to her left, that we might as well leave her to it and start anew.

[jbeck]

168. This is exactly why I refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton

I have been watching this situation - horrified during this whole debacle.

[Major Hogwash]

171. "Including the biggest wipeout for the Democratic Party in more than 100 years."

I'm not sure about that, it seems the political makeup of Congress in the late 20s and early 30s were far more Republican leaning than they are now.

Take heart, the pendulum has only begun to swing back to the left.

Obama is the catalyst, and we are the ones that we have been waiting for!!

[c-ville rook]

172. Bernie as a third party

As all the Clinton people have been busy vilifying Bernie as "not a Democrat" or "not clean (in party terms) to dare speak of the legacy of FDR". What happens to the party if he runs as an independent?

Clintonites best hope he has more loyalty to the party than they accuse him of having.

Otherwise it could get sticky on election day.

[WillyT]

174. K & R !!!

[raouldukelives]

176. Every dollar in Wall St is a dollar against bottom up democracy.

I agree with the anger, it's just misplaced. Maybe a glance in the mirror is in order.

[yuiyoshida]

182. Tweeted

now K&R

[freebrew]

183. Now, I get email threats...

from DWS 'in person'.
I'm not gonna get an official DNC card. Damn, the pain of it all.

If her 3rd way and 'other party' friends wouldn't cut Social Security and other programs, people like me would be able to donate.

The DNC ignores my emails, now theirs are in the trash.

Can't wait for new leaders...did somebody say screw?

[Freddie Stubbs]

187. You left out the fundraising link in the email

[MaeScott]

195. Kicked. nt

[ChiciB1]

196. I Will Vote For Alan Grayson! n/t

[Svafa]

199. The current Democratic party is more in line with the Republican party

of yesteryear than its (the Democratic party's) own platform. The rightward movement is disturbing.

[senz]

201. Take back the Democratic Party for the people!

Let's make it live up to its name.

[Recoverin_Republican]

205. Morning Consult National Poll: HRC 51%, SBS 35%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511374432

[hifiguy]

206. Sit down and shut up, you proletarian pigs.

We want nothing but your money and your vote.

So kwitcherbitchin' if you still want to get those crumbs Goldman is so graciously willing to let you fight for or we will take those back, too.

With utter contempt,

The Third Way