Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
274 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
How dare you question if I am willing to deal with reality when you trot that old tired excuse out???
Where there is constantly smoke, there is eventually fire.
It's the FBI after all and they only deal in criminal investigations. We'll see 
Response to bjo59 (Reply #87)
and they are getting nervous about her chances in November. For the record, I expect a dark horse if they decide to go that route due to the legal issues at play, pissing both sides in the process.
It is truly a balancing act. Because as you said, they cannot stand Sanders, and they really need another neoliberal.
As to the Supers, they could change their views al the wayl to the moment they vote. That is the way it works. For the record you did not vote for HRC, you voted for PDs, just like you will not vote for the President in November, but the electoral college, who theoretically, yes it is in the Constitution, could go, nah we don't like HRC or Donald Trump, Congratulation President Johnson. (GARY JOHNSON) That would happen at their meeting well after the November election. Is this likely? Nah. Hell, they could select anybody who is qualified, even LESS likely.
But no, you do not vote for these people, We do not live in a direct democracy. It would have it's advantages, and I for one would like to see that, and run off voting, but that ain't gonna happen unless we have a nasty civil war, in which case I do not expect the US to survive but rather to fully balkanize. (And that might be in the cards for reasons that unless you pay attention to long trends, you will not notice, I mean decades long trends)
Jesus this level of ignorance should stun me, but it does not anymore.
Can't stomach Clinton. That isn't the route I want the party to take.
But cheers to similar tastes, you and I!
Must be fun to pound your fists on reality, hoping it will break.
I don't think you really have a say in the matter. 
Well, if you are going to test that theory past June 16th, Godspeed.... 
But he will concede ("suspend "
.
...of the primary, the long fought primary, he dipped.
Clinton made the exact same argument and her surrogates even tried to pull the Jeremiah Wright controversy back up.
But, I have places to go, things to do, people to see.
I just read Robert Parry's article, "Waiting for California and the FBI" (6/1/16). He is not the first political analyst this week to discuss Clinton's faltering campaign, but he is the most convincing that the Democratic Party establishment may take action to save itself from a candidate who cannot beat Donald Trump.
First, who is Robert Parry? Parry is one of the more credible representatives of what I call the Corrupt Media. His journalistic tradition is from the old days when the corporate media tended to be less partisan, less propagandistic and more ruled by old journalistic standards of objectivity and neutrality. For instance, as his article bio states, he was an investigative reporter on the Iran-Contra stories which exposed crime in the Reagan administration at a time when Reagan was the darling of the uber rich.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/01/waiting-for-california-and-the-fbi/
What does Robert Parry say?
How should this be handled at Democratic Underground?
What is the likelihood of an "anybody but Clinton or Sanders" convention?
-----------------
Second question first, so you can see where I'm going with this:
How should this be handled at Democratic Underground?
I think that what Parry says argues strongly for DU to remain open to criticism of Clinton and to discussions of alternative candidates through the convention. It has become increasingly possible that we are going to have a contested convention and possibly a "brokered" convention. It would be unfair to DU members--including long time members like myself--to exclude from this critically important discussion anyone but Clinton supporters.
That is my position, after reading Parry's article, and taking into consideration the other rumblings within the party in recent weeks, and the increasing likelihood of a big Sanders win in California. Whether or not Clinton clinches "the math" on June 7, the main issue, after a big Sanders win in California, will be a failing campaign vs a campaign with momentum. And THIS is why "super-delegates" were created in the first place--to rescue the party from a candidate who cannot win the GE and may well wreck down-ticket races with a crash and burn.
Again, my position: DU should not "close" behind Clinton until the convention is over.
------------------------
FYI: I am a strong Sanders supporter. I am a woman. I'm 71, and have been a loyal Democratic supporter since 1960, when I was 16 and a volunteer for JFK's one and only presidential campaign and that of the first CA Governor Brown. I've been a member of DU since 2004.
-----------------------
First question: What does Parry say?
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/01/waiting-for-california-and-the-fbi/
A summary (at the top of the article):
Some Democratic leaders are privately scouting around for someone to replace Hillary Clinton if she stumbles again in California and/or the FBI detects a crime in her email scandal, reports Robert Parry.
His first paragraph:
For months now, poll after poll have registered the judgment of the American people that they want neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump as the next President, but the two major parties seem unable to steer away from this looming pileup, forcing voters to choose between two widely disdained politicians.
A bit later in the article:
...the Democrats have one final chance to steer clear, on June 7 when they hold several primaries and caucuses including New Jersey and California. If Bernie Sanders can upset Clinton in California – and/or if Clinton’s legal problems over her emails worsen – there remains a long-shot chance that the Democratic convention might nominate someone else.
As far-fetched as this might seem, some senior Democrats, including reportedly White House officials, are giving serious thought to how the party can grab the wheel at the last moment and avoid the collision of two historically unpopular political figures, a smash-up where Trump might be the one walking away, damaged but victorious.
Middle of the article: Discusses the OIG report from Secretary John Kerry's State Department, which reveals very serious issues with Clinton's private email server. Quotes Doug Schoen: "Given the inspector general’s report, a clean bill of health from the Justice Department is unlikely."
Conclusion of this part of the article:
(quoting Schoen) "...with Mrs. Clinton’s negative rating nearly as high as Donald Trump’s, and with voters not trusting her by a ratio of 4 to 1, Democrats face an unnerving possibility.”
(Parry) Besides the lack of trust, voters simply don’t like her. On Wednesday, the Real Clear Politics poll average of Clinton’s favorable vs. unfavorable numbers were 37.6 percent to 55.8 percent, an 18.2-point net unfavorable.
Thence to the section in Parry's article that is relevant to a possible "anybody but Clinton or Sanders" convention. Parry quotes the Carl Bernstein article:
“I was in Washington this week, I spoke to a number of top Democratic officials and they’re terrified, including people at the White House, that her campaign is in freefall...."
Parry's analysis of the primaries:
Whereas Republican leaders failed to suppress their voters’ uprising – as Trump torched his GOP rivals one after another – the Democratic leadership did all they could to save Clinton, virtually pushing her badly damaged bandwagon toward the finish line while shouting at Sanders to concede.
But it has now dawned on some savvy Democrats that Clinton’s campaign vehicle may be damaged beyond repair....
One surprise in the article is that Democratic insiders are not just discussing Biden and Kerry as alternative candidates (this article doesn't mention Warren) but are also considering going with Sanders!
Looking down at our country and our party from as high of a perspective as I can get to, what I see is that the people who chose the wrong horse, War Admiral, have been trying to trip up the real champion, Seabiscut, because that funny little knock-kneed horse is a joke, beneath contempt, disdained by all. They don't want Sanders to win! And we know why: They are mostly Corporate Democrats like Clinton. TPP is on the line, and Sanders doesn't like TPP nor any other aspect of Corporate Rule.
So, amidst these rumbles and rumors, I really don't think that Sanders--who has run such an amazing campaign with all odds against him--is among the alternatives that our Party leaders are truly considering. They likely would want a Clinton-like candidate, and they likely think that a Clinton-like candidate without the "baggage," and without the rotten trustworthy numbers, can pull in young voters and independents and beat Trump.
Thus, what may be developing is a contested convention, with party leaders trying to make it a "brokered" convention. And in that fight, Sanders, Sanders delegates and Sanders supporters are going to have a strong hand to influence the party's choice (whether Sanders or not) and to influence the official policies of that candidate.
Shouldn't DU be engaged in that debate--evaluating Clinton's viability and choosing an alternative if necessary? It is perhaps the most important debate that Democrats will ever engage in. Is DU going to be left out of this?
------------------------------------------
What is the likelihood of an "anybody but Clinton or Sanders" convention?
Parry concludes:
...whether the Democrats have the guts to go through the pain of denying Clinton the nomination may depend on what happens in California and inside the FBI.
We don't know what the FBI is going to do (or when), though the report from Kerry's OIG does not bode well for Clinton. The FBI seems to be proceeding normally with a serious criminal investigation that has gotten to the point of granting immunity to witnesses (and extraditing a witness), interviews of various parties including Clinton aides, recovery of Clinton's "wiped" emails, rumored pending interview of Clinton, etc. The bits and pieces of what they're looking at, that have made it onto the internet, do not bode well for Clinton. But we just don't know what the FBI is going to do, and this case is fraught with political overtones and undertones and whole orchestras of behind-the-curtain music (including distant trumpets from the intelligence agencies).
California will be a known next week. Here's what we have on California:
1) Sanders has closed a big deficit in the polls to tie Clinton in recent CA polls.
2) CA has registered TWO MILLION new voters, as of the registration deadline May 23--MOST of them young voters, MOST of them Democratic registrations--an enormous surge in Dem Party registration (increase of 218%!).
3) CA Democratic voters are farther left than CA Democratic Party office holders and leaders. And CA voters in general tend to be independent-minded (not cowed by party bosses, as in some states). So items like Gov Jerry Brown's rather cool endorsement of Clinton likely won't influence many voters, especially with Bernie Sanders being so visible and energetic, up and down the state, at numerous big rallies and other events.
4) "No Party Preference voters" (NPPs, i.e., independents) can vote in the Democratic Party primary, by mail-in (if they've requested a Dem ballot) or at the polling place on June 7, by requesting a Dem Party ballot. NPP voters cannot vote in the Republican primary. So the new NPP voters likely did not register in order to vote for Trump. NPPs will be a factor in the Dem primary.
5) NPP Sanders voters are not likely being captured by polls. The many new Democratic voters are not likely being captured by polls.
6) Sanders almost always outperforms the pre-election polls.
The TWO MILLION new voters is a very strong pointer to a Sanders blowout. Sanders' polling among young voters is very high (60% to 70%). The many newly registered voters are mostly young voters. Last poll I saw, Latino voters were split 50-50, Clinton-Sanders. Sanders poll numbers have soared in California, among Dems and among Latinos, over the last month or so, bringing him to an apparent tie with Clinton, but the polls are not likely catching all of it, especially given the lateness of these new voter registrations, more than half of which occurred in April-May.
Prediction: Sanders will win California (and if he doesn't, we need to throw the ES&S/Diebold vote tabulators into the Pacific Ocean!). (Seriously: western-style 'Boston Tea Party'!)
Guess: Sanders will win by at least 20%.
Consequences: Depending on what happens in the other June 7 states, and later in DC, Sanders will probably not reach the magic number of pledged delegates (to win a first ballot vote at the convention without superdelegate votes). Clinton may not get that number either. But, presuming he doesn't and she does, where will we be?
Clinton will limp into the convention, having lost the biggest state in the country by a significant margin, the state of which it is said, "As California goes, so goes the nation." She will have lost Oregon, recently, with blowout Sanders numbers, and a string of other primaries and caucuses. She will be a wounded candidate, whether she has a first ballot number or not. And the party bosses and delegates will have to decide whether to go with this wounded, currently losing and falling in the polls candidate, and try to put together a coalition that smothers her weaknesses and utilizes Sanders' strengths, or whether to do something else.
Clearly, this convention is NOT going to be the coronation that Clinton planned for. It is going to be a rough, contested convention for Clinton, as the primaries have been. And, despite her early wins, and despite her acquisition of superdelegates before Sanders even entered the race, she will not have a strong hand.
She has to prove:
a) that she is NOT going to be indicted and neither are any of her aides (if the FBI hasn't acted by then);
b) that she is NOT a threat to national security;
c) that she can win over young voters and independents (essential to beat Trump);
d) that she can restore some trust within the general electorate (a Nixon-like "Checkers" speech?--emotional apologies--that sort of thing? I don't know how she can do this);
e) that she will have coat-tails for down-ticket races (very important to party leaders and to all of us),
f) that she has the strong support of Secretary of State John Kerry (quite important because of the OIG report).
g) that she has the strong support of President Obama.
Looking at all of this, superdelegates and delegates to the convention must be having restless nights, dreaming of a candidate with no "baggage," with high likability and high trustworthiness, who can win half the Democratic Party voters with no news coverage for six months and then mostly negative dribbles, who can do that with small donations from millions of people and no superpac, who has not amassed personal wealth, who has served all his elected positions well, about whom the worse scandal is that his wife failed at a college fundraising campaign, who is beloved in his home state, and who has attracted young voters and disaffected voters in droves, and who can run up and down the state of California on the most grueling barnstorming schedule ever devised, and plunge himself into the Pacific Ocean in the middle of it, like he was 20 years old.
Dream candidate. Why can't we have HIM, instead of a candidate who has to START her GE campaign by proving that she won't be indicted?
-------------------------
Some scenarios:
If the FBI report comes out before the convention and recommends indictment of Clinton or her aids, then it's game over for Clinton (no matter what A.G. Lynch does, a Clinton ally, but whose own career will be on the line).
What will the convention do in that case?
If the FBI report is still pending, the convention has to face all of the above political considerations.
What will the convention do about all of the above?
If the FBI report comes out before the convention and does NOT recommend indicting anybody, but is nevertheless seriously critical of Clinton (and criticism seems almost certain and could be blistering, given the OIG report), the convention will have to assess the damage to GE chances.
How will the convention go about assessing damage to GE chances from a critical FBI report or a still pending FBI report? (Also, what implications for a Clinton presidency?)
DU SHOULD REMAIN OPEN TO CRITICISM OF CLINTON THROUGH THE CONVENTION.
Should DU be excluded from these fateful decisions and discussions within the Democratic Party on through our convention?
It's NOT going to be a coronation. It's NOT going to be easy. It is going to require the concerted efforts of all Democrats and wide variety of opinion. We need debate of these matters! And, being the "underground," we don't want the debate to occur exclusively behind closed doors. We want to provide in-put into how our party leaders assess this situation and who gets chosen as the nominee, if Clinton is not viable, for whatever reasons. That, to me, is one important role of DU. We also educate people about Democratic candidates and issues, and this helps voters and party leaders.
-------------------------
DEAR SKINNER:
I urge you to keep DU open through the convention! You need us and we need you! And the Democratic Party needs all of us doing what we do best here, arguing it all out! I'd say leave DU discussion open through the convention even if Sanders wins California by less than 10% or only ties or only comes very close. The issues that Robert Parry and others are now raising are not going to be settled completely by California. They involve factual issues (what the FBI does, for instance) and judgement issues (for instance, what weight to give to Clinton's falling numbers against Trump?).
It seems like many Clinton supporters at DU really don't want us here, criticizing Clinton and raising difficult issues. I hope you override their desire to see us gone until the convention settles all these matters as well as it can. This is a very unusual primary and a very rocky time for the Democratic Party. I hope you will agree with me that vigorous debate will strengthen us in the coming months.
But you, of course, are the judge of this, and I'm okay with that. We need rules and focus, and consensus about rules and focus would likely be impossible to achieve, especially right now. So it's best that you, the owner, decide what's what.
My personal policy is never to use the "ignore" function and almost never to vote for "hiding" posts. I want to read what everyone has to say--even posters I really dislike and disagree with (and maybe especially them!) It is all important to arriving at good policies and good candidates, and to educating and informing ourselves (myself included) and those who only read DU and don't participate.
Thank you for DU! I love this place--you've done a wonderful job creating it and mentoring it! I don't want to see DU left out of the party reform movement. I want DU to remain a vital part of the important debates and decisions of the coming months.
Peace
(Note to this thread: I'm going to post this as an OP in GD
.)
