OK I'll just say it: the dem establishment wants to lose this election

[restorefreedom]

I have spent years working in the scientific field, so I tend to be an evidence-based person. And the only conclusion I can reach after looking at the evidence is that the Democratic Party establishment is trying to throw this election to the Republicans. Here's my evidence and my reasoning. I expect to take a lot of crap for this post but I feel like I have to express my thoughts. So flame away if you wish.

1. it is clear that there's an anti-establishment wave happening on both sides. Bernie keeps rising in the polls while hillary keeps falling. It is looking more and more like he could end up becoming the nominee. The powers that be do not want that because that puts him closer to the presidency.

2. so in order to avoid number one, they keep propping up a candidate who has terrible trust ratings, has a scandal and possible legal trouble following her, is not particularly popular, and is losing support rapidly. She's very unlikely to win a national election against a Republican candidate, and yet they still support her.

3. as another poster pointed out in another thread (credit to attorney in texas), The "biden might run" bullshit is just chaff being thrown out to try to undermine Bernie support and to try to give the impression that he can't possibly win a general election, so the establishment keeps floating out Joe as a possibility to "save the party" when Hillary tanks. but by his own words, actions and demeanor, it is not looking like he's ready to run.

4. debates. The Republicans have had two high-profile debates already, yesterday's getting 24 million views. They keep getting opportunities to present their points of view, meanwhile, the Democratic debate is not going to be for a few more weeks. This is clearly hurting all democratic efforts, since the Republicans are getting all of the media attention and getting that all the time they need to present their platform, yet nothing is done about it.

5. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She is clearly a major liability to the possibility of the Democrats winning this election, not just the White House but all the down ticket races as well. Her blinding devotion to Hillary and her willingness to sell out the country, the party, and democracy itself is hurting every Democratic effort to win an election next year. She has totally rigged the process, and instituted what is probably an unenforceable exclusivity clause to further tamp down free-speech supposedly to "help" her preferred candidate,and the president is doing nothing about it. A simple phone call from President Obama and she would be replaced in two seconds flat. Why is he allowing this to continue?

as I said before I am an evidence-based person. The evidence and the behavior of the powers in the Democratic Party have led me to believe that they don't plan to win this election. They plan on propping up a corporate candidate who probably can't win, and if she did then they would probably be happy about it, but they know she probably can't, and they will do anything to prevent Bernie from getting the presidency.

please feel free to provide ample evidence as to why this is incorrect, and I will be happy to reassess my thought process and conclusion.

[liberal_at_heart]

1. With money and power comes arrogance and complacency. It's not that they don't want to win.

It's that they think it is impossible to lose.

[Vincardog]

26. They want a corporate candidate to win. PERIOD. Their owners have spoken, Damn the voters

[Dustlawyer]

77. Its all about the Plutocracy! They are terrified of Bernie and what he represents, that the

American people have had enough of the corruption and being openly f*cked over! Their hubris got to the point where they didn't feel the need to hide the corruption anymore. They have control over both Houses, Obama (yes they do), most of the Judiciary, the regulatory agencies, and the media. It cannot be more clear when you see how much coverage Trump is getting and how little Bernie gets despite his position in the polls. When Bernie does get covered it is almost always how he cannot win.

We will not get such a clear chance to regain our Representative Democracy for a long time if we don't get Bernie elected and have his back as we will be needed to push through the changes needed to return our country to Democracy from the clutches of Fascism. It must be now if we are going to be able to fully address Climate Change before it is too late!

This election is the most important election since Lincoln was President!

[tecelote]

113. That's the narrative.

Socialism? You worry about socialism? Sure beats the Fascist direction Republicans have taken our country!

Democratic Socialism gives the country back to the people.

Republican Fascism keeps giving to the corporations and the 1%.

[redstateblues]

275. Socialism Rocks!

Now that's winning bumper sticker.

[restorefreedom]

121. excellent summary. nt

[Vincardog]

165. This election IS the most important election since Lincoln was President! It STARTS with

Bernie and we have to stay involved and make the legislature do what WE WANT them to do.

If (When) they don't do what we want we need to kick them to the curb and
get representatives who represent us.

[Dustlawyer]

167. Yes!!! We recruit other candidates to follow in Bernie's footsteps.

We have already proven we will give support to candidates with Bernie's message!

[Vincardog]

168. ++ good

[hifiguy]

178. + a brazilian.

Bernie is the last train out of Dodge City.

[Dustlawyer]

242. Yes he is and I don't think that most people realize this!

We will not be able to run another candidate next time around with such a long and distinguished history of voting for the people. There will not be that level of trust that they will do what they say.

Obama said many of the same things, but sided with the Plutocrats on the issues that really mattered to them. Before anyone starts in on me let me say this, Obama has been a great President in many ways, but for the last 40 years to get to the White House you had to do a deal with the Devil to get elected to ANY national office. Obama had to do a quid pro quo in return for the huge campaign donations he received that helped him to compete and win the Presidency.

Bernie is doing it in a way that has not been successfully tried in a very long time, if ever in modern times. He will not be able to run again next time around unless he wins this time. This is for all of the marbles as they say.

We can hold nothing back! Assuming he wins we will still have to have his back in a way that has never been done before. It will take millions of active citizens to pressure Congress to overhaul the system in this political revolution. Our very future as a Democracy could depend upon this election and what comes after. There is no doubt about it, we currently live in a fascist state. Private corporations and individuals control our government through the campaign donations. There is no Representative Democracy if the politicians answer only to the big political donors and not the will of the people, which is exactly what we have today! even their corporate media concedes this point!

[hifiguy]

243. Well said. Bravo!

[Catherina]

252. The fierce urgency of NOW. Great post. Great thread! n/t

[restorefreedom]

257. go bernie! nt

[TBF]

284. ^ That's the answer.

Bought and paid for.

[JDPriestly]

333. You hit the nail on the head.

[DanTex]

2. LOL. Hey look, a conspiracy theory!

That scientific field of yours wouldn't have anything to do with alien abductions or faking the moon landing, by any chance...

[restorefreedom]

4. I go by what I see

and what I see is an establishment unwilling to respect the will of the people, who is propping up a candidate who is very unlikely to be able to win, and using sleazeball dirty tactics to try to undermine the person who is soon going to be the front runner.

sounds like evidence to me.

[mythology]

298. You do realize that the relevant will of the people hasn't actually been determined yet right?

There have been exactly 0 primaries or caucuses. The closest approximation are polls, which nationally show Hillary ahead and in New Hampshire/Iowa show Sanders either statistically tied or ahead. So this will of the people that you speak of, is at best what you want to believe. Even you admit that Sanders isn't the front runner at this time.

Polls in head to head races between Clinton and various Republicans generally show her ahead (with Sanders often also doing well). You can say that she's unlikely to win, but again you have no evidence other than your claim.

I will be happy to vote for either of them, or O'Malley or even Biden if had decided to run.

[restorefreedom]

299. he is ahead in the first two states

and the trendlines for her are going down, while his continue to go up. Trendlines are important.

The Republicans are itching like crazy to vote against Hillary. They will pull everybody out of the woodwork. People will be lined up to vote against her. Republicans who sat out previous elections will come to vote against her. Add in all of her tremendous baggage, her sagging poll numbers, her sagging trustworthiness, and the fact that the young people are energized by Bernie but have no interest in the bush v clinton contest, and you have all the makings for a major stay home by the Dems and a huge victory for the Republicans.

but only time will tell for sure....

edit to add...how do you think Biden would change the race if he were to jump in? i actually don't think he will, but if he does, it could change things for all the other candidates.

[kacekwl]

326. It still baffles me why the DNC or democrats

in general refuse to get involved in any investigation regarding election vote counting fraud , election machine discrepancy , refusal to release election records for inspection. It's makes me think the results are already in.

[restorefreedom]

6. you seriously don't think it is even a possibility

that the establishment Dems would rather see a centrist Republican in the White House rather than a very progressive very liberal activist who is going to turn their entire world upside down and take away their power structure?

if you cant accept how corrupt the power structure is and the possibility that some establishment Dems would rather see a Republican in the White House than someone like Bernie, I can only feel bad for you, because you're living in a fantasy world.

[DanTex]

8. No. Obviously not. The Dems want to win and the Reps want to win. No politicians or parties want

to actually lose an election.

[restorefreedom]

11. that is the way it used to be

traditionally each party has wanted to win the contest. But this is not a traditional election cycle. Millennial's are throwing out the idea of identity politics, and almost nobody cares about party loyalty anymore, it's all about ideas and plans for the country. And the power structure is concentrated between both parties, and Bernie threatens both of them. so it is absolutely not beyond possibility that the establishment types would rather see a Republican establishment person in charge then someone like Bernie who's going to take away all their power and not allow money to control people. At some point the party identity doesn't matter, it's about power.

[DanTex]

17. The GOP threatens the Dems and the Dems threaten the GOP.

Both parties want power. If Bernie wins, Dems will be happy because the Dems have power. If the GOP wins, the Dems will be unhappy.

Also, Bernie is not going to take away anyone's power, because there will still be power in congress. Sure, DWS would probably prefer for Hillary to be the nominee than Bernie, but the DNC would not rather see a Republican than Bernie. That's just silly.

[restorefreedom]

38. have you actually listened to bernie?

he's not going to be owned by anybody. And while I agree with you that traditionally Dems wanted to win with the dem and Republicans wanted to win with a Republican, this cycle is not following traditional protocol. Bernie's platform threatens the power structure. And power generally doesn't care whether it's Democratic or Republican, at some point it's just about power. I have no doubt that the Democratic establishment would rather see a Republican in the White House than Bernie Sanders because his presence there threatens their power much more than a Republican would.

[azmom]

56. Both parties are complicit in the corruption

Taking place. Some DUers refuse to acknowledge that the Dems are just as guilty as the Republicans.

The truth is the truth and when Bernie calls it out, people will respond.

[restorefreedom]

59. i just hope its not too late. nt

[azmom]

67. The Democratic Party does not want Bernie to win.

We are on our own.

It's the people against the democrats and the republicans. Both parties will try to destroy Bernie and the political revolution.

The young people for Bernie don't have loyalty to either party. They are a driving force in this election.

[restorefreedom]

73. thank goodness for the young

they might just be the ones to save this country. And sadly, you were right. We are on our own against the entire establishment. I do believe that Bernie understands this and has a plan.

[azmom]

83. He has been fighting the good fight

For years. He knows what he is up against.

He will lead us, but It's up to us not to give in to the fear that they will try to use against us.

[restorefreedom]

85. amen to that. nt

[GoneFishin]

99. You are correct. Their scam requires that both parties play along. And Bernie will fuck up the game

they are running on us.

[Tommy2Tone]

184. Ha..good luck with all that

but you are right about one thing. Dems don't want Bernie to win.

[azmom]

194. It's on. The political revolution

Against the oligarchs is going to be won with people power. Too bad you are not joining in. Are you a millionaire?

[Tommy2Tone]

196. Naw man I'm a billionaire

I piss on millionaires.

[azmom]

197. That explains everything. N/t

[DanTex]

150. Yes. And Hillary also. And I still don't believe in your conspiracy theories. At all.

Particularly the silliness about how the "power structure" doesn't care about whether it's a Democrat or a Republican. I guess the Koch Brothers who are spending a billion dollars to ensure that it's a Republican and not a Democrat aren't part of your "power structure."

What the Democratic establishment wants, obviously, is a Democrat in office. Most of them would prefer Hillary as the nominee, primarily because everyone outside of the DU bubble understands that Bernie has no chance at the general election. But if it comes to Bernie versus GOP, the Democratic party will (obviously) be supporting Bernie.

[restorefreedom]

154. bernie does not have "no chance"

but A for persistance. of course the kochs want one of the Republican buddies or puppets to be in the White House, but there are a lot of corporatists who are fairly neutral politically who would much rather see a centrist of either party then a progressive liberal like Bernie or O'Malley. When you get to a certain level of power, I'm not sure the party matters, it's all about the money

[DanTex]

159. Well, most establishment Dems believe that. You are free to disagree, but your disagreement doesn't

make it a conspiracy.

Hillary is running on a platform of higher taxes on the wealthy, higher minimum wage, union rights and employee free choice, wall street regulation, campaign finance reform, environmental regulation and investment in clean energy, and so on. These are not things "corporatists" want. That's why people like the Koch Brothers oppose her while unions support her.

[restorefreedom]

198. yes running on 12 instead of 15 an hour

keystone xl, TPP which will KILL union jobs and all jobs, higher taxes but not too high, not for glass steagall, wants to insure biotechs, MORE WAR, and whatever else she will tell us when she becomes president. that's why this battle is not between d and r but between the people and the ruling class. And she is a part of the ruling class.

[Capn Sunshine]

173. There's a disconnect here you just can't remedy.

I can't explain the importance of the financial system to anyone here without the accusations flying. How the stock market and bond market provide liquidity and credit. How it's a discount mechanism. What acceleration of M1 is all about. There are plenty of Hedge fund managers, account executives , Independent traders, and Bank executives who are registered Democrats. Who want the allocation of government resources to change. Who believe in responsible regulation. Who despise greedy profiteering Pentagon contractors. Who know what a supercharger effect single payer healthcare would have on things.

I remember when we got our bank charter, my business partner said " It's a license to steal" *
I said " Hold on. Who are we stealing from?" "Big Investment Banks" came his answer.

"Cool" I replied.

* not actual theft. Descriptor of skinning profits off big bank transactions. Because they were big banks.

[JDPriestly]

338. What is the evidence for the statement that everyone 'outside the DC bubble" understands

that Bernie can'r win the general election?

It is too early to predict anything about the general election.

Bernie is a candidate unlike previous candidates,

And the economy is on shaky ground at this time. The Fed's reluctance to raise interest rates is an admission to that fact.

When the economy is very uncertain and you have a shrinking, hurting middle class, and a candidate comes along who speaks boldly about moral and economic reform, that candidate has a chance to win.

We are due for a big dose of economic, populist reform. We need it to catch up. With our technological reform and to deal with the environmental disaster that awaits us if we do not switch from fossil fuels to new energy sources.

Hillary and the Republican candidates are too fettered to old, tired solutions to sell our country on the new ideas we need.

Bernie is the only candidate who is getting any attention and adequate support to get elected who will steadfastly advocate for the reform we need.

He can, and I think he will' be elected,

I recently flew on an airplane wearing a Bernie pin. Comments were very positive. People really like Bernie. It is astounding even to me.

Wall Street is not trusted, not at all. It is the only game in town for people who try to save money (along with some credit unions) and for that reason, I think that Bernie's message especially on trade and banking reform could draw middle class and sone Republican voters.

Our stock market tumbles due to the lack of integrity and proper regulation in the Chinese market?

Our bank interest deposit rates are this low for this long and yet so many are un- or ubderemployed?

People know something is wrong.

The Republicans are ready to blow up the world and are trying to scare people about Obama's relatively successful foreign policy? And who was secretary of state prior to Kerry.

The foundation for Hillarry's or Biden's candidacies in 2016 are being undermined. Three hours of constant blows and no response from Democrats in the form of a debate that presents the range of. Democratic points of view and ideas?

It verges on sabotage, and maybe it is.

Wasserman-Schultz needs to resign and give way to someone who is neutral in the primary contest

If we lose in 2016, she will be blamed. The result in 2014 does not say much that is good about her leadership.

[Prairiegale]

341. Koch's contribute to some of the Dems.

There are various sites that have talked about it, and makes me wonder, just as the person who started this thread. What is going on behind the scenes? Both parties are for corporations and banks, which is the big prize for all of them and a steady income. The rest of the issues are just something to keep the unwashed masses up in the air and angry, which is a good smoke screen. Underneath none of them are really for the people.
Over the last years the Dems have not put up much of a fight to refute the many of Reps lies, or call them out on their vile behaviors. I read news much of the day, as it is my hobby and I am retired. Only recently have I seen a bit more calling out, probably due to the total outrageousness of the Donald. Bernie is usually the one who is calling them out, including Hillary. Hillary pretty much keeps her mouth shut as most Dems have. When her PAC was lying about Sanders she said nothing and that is with in the same party.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/15/what-leading-democrat-politicians-took-koch-brother-money/
When I read the 1st post, I was rather flabbergasted, as I thought maybe I was the only one who questioned this.

[DanTex]

342. Third post and already linking to a right-wing site. That was quick.

[Prairiegale]

344. Look for yourself and see what you think

Just type in democrats who take Koch money .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024711327
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/koch-brothers-democrats-104787

[randys1]

138. It still AMAZES me that anyone around here thinks there is ANY remote sense of

"same" as to these two parties, ESPECIALLY since the rise of the American Taliban (teaparty for those of you who dont know what the teaparty really is).

I guess economic issues is ALL some people care about, even if there is a pretty big difference there as well.

[Mnpaul]

247. There is a difference between the two parties on economic issues?

'cause I'm not seeing it. Neither party is working in my best interest. Wages have been flat for years. Workers rights continue to erode. Sorry but there are many more like myself that feel the same way.

[mythology]

302. Then you aren't looking

Republicans not only don't want to raise the minimum wage, many of them would like to repeal it. Republicans don't want to lower student loan interest rates. Republicans fought tooth and nail to avoid the CFPB, Jeb Bush just put out a new tax plan that his a functional repeat of the tax cuts that his brother put out that sent the U.S. economy into a tailspin, Kansas elected an uber-right wing government and torpedoed their economy, Republicans voted against the Lily Ledbetter act.

Whether you want to admit it or not, there is a substantial difference between the parties.

[Mnpaul]

311. I'm not working for minimum wage

I don't have a student loan. The banks are still charging outrageous fees. I don't live in Kansas and I am not a woman. You may see a real difference but I don't. I only have to look as far as my wallet and nothing has changed.

[randys1]

335. No difference, is that what you are saying? I cant respond to a statement that ludicrous

[Mnpaul]

348. On the issues important to me there is no difference

economically or otherwise. That is why people don't bother to show up to vote. I finally made it back to the income level I was at 12 years ago. You can call it ridiculous and ignore it but that doesn't change the reality.

[randys1]

349. So Black lives, Women's rights, Gay rights, not important? Just pocketbook? How about

the environment where you breathe and eat and sleep?

[Mnpaul]

350. I'm not black or gay

and the Democrats have done little on the environment. They are more concerned with protecting their donors. I have yet to see someone in the real world praise the Democrat's work in protecting the environment. My local Democrats are considering a hazardous mine just miles from the Boundary Waters. The only one to call it out as madness was an American Indian running as an Indy(Ray Sandman).

How about government spying and their unconstitutional attacks on protesters?

The war on drugs and legalizing marijuana?

Terrible free trade deals?

Social Security and their financial games involved with it?

Corporate control of our government(and elections)?

Never ending meddling in the middle east?

Income inequality and the damage it does to our economy?

Wall St. and their reckless behavior?

You have to deal with the real underlying issues instead of treating the symptoms. If we let this country fall into full corporate control, none of your issues will be addressed. All the rights in the world mean nothing if no one bothers to enforce them.

[randys1]

351. You arent Black or Gay therefore who cares? got it

I suspect lots of folks feel that way, i just appreciate you admitting it

[Mnpaul]

352. Nice strawman argument there

I did not say that. Those issues just aren't at the top of my list and on the issue that are, there is little difference between the two parties. I also said that if you deal with the underlying issues(the war on drugs) some of the other issues go away. No war on drugs - far fewer Black persons being arrested, less funding for the police state, less people in prison.

[randys1]

353. Yes, you said the lives of Black people and Gay and Women are not on the top of your

list, that your pocketbook is, I heard you.

And I appreciate you saying this as clearly as you have, many here agree with you but wont say it.

[Mnpaul]

354. Gay rights aren't at the top of the list

because our state dealt with it years ago. The voters themselves(D,R and I) rejected attempts to ban gay marriage in the constitution and legalization came soon after.

and I told you what has to happen if you really want to address the Black lives issue. You have to deal with the underlying issues. What has your "much better that the Republicans" Democrats done to address the issue? I guess it must not be high on their list either.

[A Simple Game]

319. DWS... DWS? You mean the same DWS that campaigned for 3 Republicans in the last election?

You say that one doesn't really care who wins the Presidency as long as it isn't a Republican?

When that one is finally kicked out of office it will be interesting to see who she goes to work for.

[hifiguy]

185. Blankfein, speaking for Wall Street,

said the the Big Money is comfortable with either HRH or Jeb.

That suggest anything to you, Tex?

It does to me. Not one bit of it good.

[DanTex]

189. Yes, it suggests that he personally is comfortable with HRC or Jeb.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

[jeff47]

217. Yeah, it's not like there's a history of establishment Democrats

stabbing liberal Democrats in the back.

Oh wait! There is! And as an added bonus, one of the people who did that is now DNC chair!

[Scootaloo]

307. Couldn't tell from watching the DNC at work. n/t

[brooklynite]

65. Just like the Establishment didn't want Elizabeth Warren elected to the Senate?

I know plenty of Wall Street types who supported her in 2012...including my wife. The WSJ actually slammed her for it in a campaign story back in 2012.

[restorefreedom]

68. she had a mixed history in earlier days

in their delusion they probably thought they could turn her back to the Darkside.

[d_legendary1]

135. You mean like Arlen Specter?

Supposedly he was a by the book liberal who went Republican for a few years until he went back by helping the Dems pass Obamacare. Then he ran as a Dem and lost.

I hope those days for Warren are long gone and she stays the way she is now.

[Capn Sunshine]

179. or in your delusion you don't want to see the cooperation

Senator Warren, and I lover her to death, so don't take this the wrong way, is a beneficiary of a "different" Wall Street animal- not Bankers, but Lawyers.

She left her $350,000-a-year job at Harvard, where she was the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law. That chair was endowed at his behest by the estate of Mr. Gottlieb by the law firm he founded, big time players Cleary-Gottlieb, which is not exactly doing the work of assisting middle-class Americans with their legal interests against the 1 Percent and their "Banksters". Instead, these lawyers make their living in part by helping representing multinational banks who among other things, did not want to pay their part of moneys received from Bernie Madoff back to the victims of his fraud. Other Law firms donating to Warren's campaign include criminal defense firms repping the asbestos industry and defendants in white collar crimes.

Of course donations by Democratic-leaning Wall Street Lawyers is not in and of itself anything one way or the other.

I only posted this because idealistic hero worship precludes realities. Among them, is that Elizabeth Warren has and does take money from Wall Street. As will nominee Bernie Sanders if he hasn't already.

But she's doing a damn good job, wouldn't you agree?

[McKim]

322. The Question Must Be Asked

I have long wondered about the Turd Way Dems. I must pose the question: Are they closet Republicans who want to destroy the real Democratic Party and what it stood for? They are acting like it. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it IS a duck.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

337. Are there any "Centrist" Republicans running whom can even win their party's primary?

I don't see any, nor can I see any right-minded Democrats (and I wouldn't call them Dems if there were) wanting ANY of the current GOP frontrunners to win the WH in 2016, nor do I see any whom could beat Hillary or Bernie.

[Chakaconcarne]

14. Is it really necessary to reply to OP that way?

Kinda dickish if you ask me.

[restorefreedom]

16. thanks. i did put my armor on

for this one. I knew it would shake a few trees.

[DanTex]

20. Is it not a conspiracy theory? I mean, suggesting that the DNC is trying to sabotage the election

and hand power over to Republicans? It's an absurd attack against the party that DU supposedly supports.

[restorefreedom]

39. it is not an attack

to look at what's happening and draw a conclusion. It's called a thought process. You are more than welcome to disagree and we can have a discussion about it. But for anyone in the Democratic power structure to allow this delay of the debates to continue, giving the Republicans the floor for the last couple of months is the election gift wrapped in a silver platter in my view.

[Capn Sunshine]

182. The tone is decidedly conspiratorial

But DU'ers see what they want to see, and draw the conclusions based upon what they want to hear.

[jeff47]

219. For Dan, yes it is. (nt)

[nichomachus]

24. Conspiracy theory?

Whenever anyone trots out that bullshit, I figure they have no coherent arguments to present. So, the only way they can deflect attention from something inconvenient is to denigrate it.

Come back when you have something substantive to offer.

[ToxMarz]

64. Doesn't the original post propose what would be an actual conspiracy

And he says it is his though process, sort of a theory isn't it. A conspiracy is an actual thing, and yes most theories are bullshit as you said. Then some are real.

[restorefreedom]

112. I always try to avoid using the conspiracy term

but as you point out, when the shoe fits. I do believe this is an establishment "effort" to keep certain people away from the White House.

[Cal33]

27. Doesn't Debbie Schultz's deliberate refusal to start the Democratic

Presidential Debates sooner, and having more of them, look like an effort on her part
to make sure that Bernie Sanders would have as little media exposure as possible?
This would be of help to Hillary Clinton, of course. It also does back up Restorefreedom's
points, doesn't it?

[DanTex]

29. What does that have to do with the theory that they want the GOP to win? Nothing.

[GoneFishin]

105. Yes. You are correct. It squelches the voices of all dem candidates while allowing the Repuglican

candidates time to get their footing. It's stupid and destructive to the democratic party. But if you prefer a Republican to win rather than have Bernie win and give the voters a taste of fair policies which don't suck up to Wall Street, then you behave like Hillary Wasserman Schultz.

[Gloria]

123. No...it allows the GOP to make asses of themselves

and not get the Dems tied up into it at this point.

Really, it's about spending resources (limited) and getting a clean start... right now, until the holidays, the attention is on the jerks in the GOP while the Dems go about their business...

We will have a better idea of who to fight against as the Republicans eat their own....Maybe by November.

Sanders has plenty of media exposure, stop that victim stuff. He is doing fine with media exposure. He will be on a cover.
You may want to NOT have tons of media exposure at this point, because it may NOT work in your favor.

I'm not even that worried about where and what time the debates are...because, the media picks up all this a does its own thing anyway. There is plenty of direct messaging the Dems will be doing. Also, infighting at this point among the Dem candidates may be counterproductive. They agree on so many issues that the fine points will be lost anyway in the machine and the holidays....

There is no easy answer to all this. The Rethugs have tons of money and lousy candidates....They are totally nuts. The more they sit there on the stage railing about religion, war, etc. the stranger they seem.

[Cal33]

250. << The more they sit there on the stage railing about religion, war, etc. the stranger they seem. >>

Last edited Fri Sep 18, 2015, 11:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Strange to us, yes, but not to most of the Republican masses that have been brain-washed. After all,
they are the ones who have voted for and put these politicians into their jobs.

[Gloria]

297. YEs, but these people won't vote Dem anyway...and

Independents and Dems watching will be motivated to vote and not let these creeps into office...

[backscatter712]

317. Do not underestimate the power of the Stupid Side.

I give you 2014, 2010, Dumbya, Bush the Elderly, Reagan, Nixon, as evidence that crass manipulation and rote repetition of nonsense wins elections for the GOP.

[Cal33]

364. I agree. In recent decades, Republicans have been winning elections just as frequently as

the Democrats do. I must also say that Republicans have the tougher job. Since their agenda
includes stealing from the American public as much as they can, they have to invent lies for this
and almost every other thing they do.

They have the unenviable job of lying to the public, and then covering up their lies with further
lies. All Democrats have to do is to tell the truth. Oddly enough the Democratic leadership of
late seldom does this. Too easy? Too apathetic to open their mouths, perhaps. Bernie is going
to change this. He will call them out every time they are caught in a vicious lie. That's the
proper way to deal with sociopaths. Their lies will no longer pay when Bernie is president.

[bahrbearian]

28. 2014 Midterms "Conspiracy Theory"

[DanTex]

30. Aha, you're saying they lost on purpose. Obviously there is evidence of that. You know, some

emails, or memos, or whistleblower.

[NCTraveler]

31. "Evidence based person" yet it is overwhelmingly assumption after assumption.

Some of the assumption don't even flow from the limited facts offered. It appears to go against an analytical mindset as being sold. Not that there is anything wrong with not being analytically oriented.

[restorefreedom]

42. please feel free to offer your own evidence

The biggest piece of evidence is the Debbie Wasserman Schultz is delaying the debates to help her preferred candidate. Meanwhile, the Republicans have had the floor for the last two or three months with nothing to interrupt them from getting the American people their point of view. How does that advance the Democrats in anyway shape or form?

[highprincipleswork]

52. Please present other evidence or other conclusions to the evidence that has been offered.

If you feel the assumptions don't follow, tell how that adds up.

I'd like to hear the solid reasoning behind having fewer debates, scheduling them at times when people are unlikely to watch, letting the Republicans hold major debates with major viewership and not a sign of Democratic counterpoint, giving the candidates less time to perfect their debating skills for the future challenge, giving the Democratic voters less opportunity to select the best possible candidate.

What are the reasons behind these pieces of evidence?

[restorefreedom]

54. good additions, all.

thanks. and .i totally forgot about the debate scheduling.

i'm sure a lot of people will be watching on the Saturday night before a major holiday.

[appalachiablue]

285. Also some debates are scheduled during major sports games according to several here.

The December debate is set for the Saturday before Christmas when many have last minute errands and office parties are held. Tonight MSNBC, RM and Lawrence said after the 5 hour GOP circus last night, they have another post debate forum tomorrow night.

Many posters act unconcerned about all the GOP coverage and the major loss of reporting on Dems., and the valuable TIME AND VOTERS we are losing that cannot be recovered.

There seems to be among some an attitude of, pour me another glass of white, relax and Let Them Eat Cake. To me.

Your OP is outstanding, reasoned, very well thought out and organized. It's definitely one of the best I've ever read here. Thank you.



Louis XV King of France, 1710-1774

~ Apres moi, le deluge ~

[restorefreedom]

286. thank you so much.

very kind.

yes i had forgotten the crappy scheduling until some pointed it out, of course all to keep viewership low to protect their anointed one.

nice photo add

[NCTraveler]

80. 1) the republican debates are greatly helping our brand.

Almost every news organization is discussing them in an unflattering light. It is also giving our field excellent material and those same news organizations are printing our responses. Almost every position they are taking polls extremely low. They are their worst enemy.

2) I have zero problem with the number of debates on our side. I do think we should have at least had one at this point. I believe that is a flaw in the DNC plan.

3) Sanders has no chance of winning the general. In direct opposition to the ops "analytical" mind, every step the party takes to bolster O'Malley and Clinton is a step in the direction of them ensuring we beat the republicans.

Those assumptions are based of the same extremely limited facts being offered by the op. It is a completely assumption based op.

[Gloria]

160. I just posted something similar....

Not worried about no debate yet, though...

The media is so involved with Trump, let them do that....In the meantime, Clinton will be testifying yet again at that
Benghazi panel, so let's get through that. Then the holidays come....

Pundits saying November will show a lot about the Repug field....by the time the Dems debate they will hopefully have a clearer idea of whom to target....

[restorefreedom]

199. wrong about sanders having no chance

but you can wear your arms out beating that drum if you like. and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is clearly giving the Republicans room to sell their message to the American people. We might think that they're all insane, but there are a lot of people out there who won't. And she's giving them a lot of lead time just to protect her preferred candidate. She should be supporting all of the Democratic candidates until one emerges on their own to take the nomination, it's not a prize to be handed out to the favored one.

[jeff47]

221. Politics is not a zero sum game.

Hurting the Republican brand does not automatically help the Democratic brand. You actually have to provide a contrast to help the Democratic brand. And by not having debates, we don't do that.

If your model was correct, we would have easily taken the House in 2014 - The Republicans running it were utterly despised. Yet we lost seats. Why? We stupidly relied on "GOP Bad" automatically translating to "DEM Good" without any effort. It doesn't work that way. Instead, voters said "politicians bad" and stayed home.

Sanders has no chance of winning the general.

Based on your intuition. Polling, on the other hand, does not quite agree with you.

[gregcrawford]

74. Ease up.

A well-reasoned argument supported by valid observations was offered for discussion. Snide sarcasm contributes nothing of value to this exchange.

To dismiss out of hand the possibility that there is collusion at the highest levels is naive at best.

[restorefreedom]

88. i think its naive too

and I really did want to have a discussion and not just offer flame bait. Thanks for your comment.

[Duval]

181. So glad you posted this. Thanks. eom

[closeupready]

101. Right because there's no such thing as legacy Ivy League students.

[zeemike]

116. LOL that has become the catch all dismissal.

Because we all know that no one has ever conspired to do anything. Whatever reason is given for things must be accepted as the reason...no critical thinking allowed.

[Autumn]

170. Is that an alert talking point?

[Tommy2Tone]

183. Thanks for giving me a laugh

LOL LOL

[Admiral Loinpresser]

206. If doesn't matter if there is a conspiracy or not.

The DNC is indeed acting as if they WANT to lose.

[restorefreedom]

213. right

and I purposely avoided suggesting that there was an actual conspiracy afoot, because I don't even think it rises to the level of conspiracy. They are just being completely transparent about the fact that it's either Hillary or Republican. But no way in hell they want to be Bernie or O'Malley.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

223. +1 n/t

[chervilant]

241. Denigrating this OP,

and its author, will not make you right.

[rhett o rick]

303. Too bad you can't come up with anything that makes sense so you have to start yelling Conspiracy

Theory. Politics abounds with conspiracies. But some here want to shut down discussions that go against their world view by crying "CT it must be locked or hidden."

There are experts that have written how we no longer live in a Democracy. That the wealthy make all the decisions as in an oligarchy. And the oligarchy wants either Clinton or Bush (ask Goldman-Sachs). They are willing to let the Democrats lose the general if they have to to keep a progressive out.

It's immoral to look the other way as 22% of our children live in poverty. Elect Clinton and the government will continue to look the other way as they have for 30 years. We need change to save our children from poverty.

[FreakinDJ]

3. Just like 2010, 2012, 2014

But they want your financial support

[TDale313]

229. I think some didn't care if they lost the midterms.

I don't think they really to lose congress and the presidency, but I think they're fine with divided government where they can serve their corporate masters and blame the republicans.

[Cal33]

5. If the Repubs. win in 2016, it could be the end of what's left of democracy, and

the beginning of a total Oligarchic Fascist dictatorship for us.

[Skwmom]

7. If a Corporate Democrat wins it will be the same. n/t

[RiverLover]

21. +1 and a huge THANKS for saying this

Truth.

That is what is at stake here.

[Cal33]

40. It would be similar, but not quite exactly the same. A Corporate Democrat would, for instance,

most likely not appoint Republican justices to the Supreme Court. Politically, s/he would
make no changes, and would continue with the status quo. This would defer the death
of the Democratic Party, and allow the Democrats to have a chance of bringing in a
Progressive Democrat into the White House in a future election. Where there is life,
there is hope.

For this reason I would vote for a Corporate Democrat in the General Election, if the
Progressive one fails to win in the primaries.

[Skwmom]

90. She would hasten the demise of the Democratic Party and hand it to the GOP

probably Jeb Bush's son.

She would appoint corporate judges.

The Democrats can BLOCK confirmation of SC judges.

16 years of a corporate Democrat and Republican and there would be nothing left of this country. And they would blame it all on the progressive Democrats - which is a joke.

[RufusTFirefly]

94. Yes. Having a corporate Democrat as President effectively muzzles most Democratic dissent

With another corporate Democrat in the White House, we'll be pressured to pull our punches on policies that would've generated apoplexy if they'd been instituted by a Republican.

[jwirr]

157. As we clearly saw in the Bill Clinton administration:

NAFTA, welfare reform, the communications act, tough on crime laws, and the repeal of laws like Glass-Steagall. Had Democratic president have done this there would have been a huge outcry.

[Scootaloo]

308. I gotta disagree with you

A candidate obsessed with "centrism" and "bipartisanship" absolutely WOULD nominate right-wing justices. Why? To prove their bipartisan chops. To "get things done." Easy confirmations. On and on and on, a litany of shallow, self-serving reasons.

There is no place for bipartisanship while the republicans are a reactionary fascist organization. If a Democrat looks over at that Lord of the flies bullshit and goes "yeah, I'm totally going to reach compromises with them" then I worry. I worry a great fucking deal.

[Cal33]

371. Pres. Obama certainly was trying very hard for bipartisanship. He appointed 2 Supreme

Court justices. Both of them are NOT right-wingers.

[RufusTFirefly]

87. Absolutely. There may be a few differences, but the "bottom line" will be the same. n/t

[JoePhilly]

193. So Hillary would repeal the ACA then ... is that your point?

I mean since it would be "the same".

Right?

[kacekwl]

324. No but would she push for single payer ?

The ACA is better than nothing but it's also a giant gift to the health insurance corporation.

[JoePhilly]

340. You can not claim she is the SAME as the GOP ... and then admit that ...

... she would not repeal the ACA.

Not try to reinstate DOMA, or DADT.

Not try to restrict voting rights further.

Let's pretend Bernie is President in 2017. Do you think Single Payer passes? I don't.

Now, imagine Bernie finds himself in that position, he's President, and he determines that the best he can do, given the Congress he has, is some minor improvement to the ACA.

Is he a sellout if he takes that deal? Or should he simply not make any deal unless he's getting Single Payer?

The answer to this question is important.

[appalachiablue]

78. +1

[SonderWoman]

9. LOL. This place sometimes.

[restorefreedom]

15. always aim to entertain....nt

[SonderWoman]

43. So does Donald Trump.

[restorefreedom]

44. hey, i am with donald!

excellent, as was Hillary and her husband at his wedding

[MoveIt]

174. Don't feel too special

She can't turn that thing off, its stuck on the "smear by association" setting.

[restorefreedom]

202. lol. nt

[HooptieWagon]

10. It's the same MO they've used in Fla for years.

Clear the primary for the corporatist establishment candidate that nobody is excited to vote for, lose the election, rinse, repeat.
Why, you may ask? They keep their spot at the corporate feed trough whether the Dem candidate wins or loses. Their corporate owners win no matter which candidate wins...they've bought both. The corporations can continue business as usual, looting the national wealth.
IOW, DNC Debbie is doing the job she was put in place to do...make sure a corporate-backed candidate from either party wins.

[liberal_at_heart]

12. +1

[restorefreedom]

13. exactly.

The corporate masters, as Trump often point so himself, don't necessarily have a party identity. For them it's all about power. And Bernie threatens to take it away big time

[HooptieWagon]

23. Correction: WE threaten to take it away.

Thus the propaganda (even here on DU), the militarized police, the poor education system, the domestic spying...all designed to protect TPTB from a domestic revolt, at the polls or on the streets.

[restorefreedom]

37. correction happily noted!

bernie represents people power. thx for pointing that out.

[closeupready]

115. Yes that is exactly right. And DWS is smart enough to know that

this is how and why she's operating as she does.

[Gmak]

148. What he said...

Couldn't have said it better-or nearly so well myself.

[Prairiegale]

345. I agree!

[Baitball Blogger]

18. Debbie Wasserman Shultz is turning into the Ralph Nadar of this election.

[RiverLover]

19. MITCHELL: "The Republicans are drowning you guys out, though." DWS: "Good"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/16/dncs_debbie_wasserman_schultz_thrilled_republican_debate_drowning_out_talk_of_lack_of_democratic_debates.html

MITCHELL: But the fact is the Republicans --

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Hold on one second.

MITCHELL: The Republicans are drowning you guys out, though.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Good, because you know what? I am actually thrilled at the voters across America being able to see the 16 Republican candidates in the food-fight that they'll engage in tonight in the doubling down on extremism, alienating immigrants to the country who simply came to make a better way of life for themselves, alienating women by suggesting that we're providing too much health care funding for them, and wanting to take away the access to quality affordable healthcare for all Americans.

We're going to have a debate in one month and then we will have five subsequent debates, about one a month. We have 5 candidates; the Republicans have 16. They'll have nine debates.

We will have plenty of time for our candidates to be seen in many different forums without spreading them so thin like they did in 2008 when there were no controls put in place, Andrea, and as a result, we had 26 debates, and that was too much. So, I made a judgment call and I sought input from people who have been involved in developing the schedule in the past and this was the decision that we all thought was best.

2008? You mean the year the Democrats won???

[ibegurpard]

25. either the OP is correct or the party is led by idiots

Neither is acceptable

[restorefreedom]

62. i have left open in my mind

The tiny possibility that they really want to win, but only if it's Hilary, because she is a corporate oligarch and will play ball. but they have to see the trendlines here and they have to see the revolution it is building and how there is no way she could win a general election, even if she made it to the nomination which is very unlikely. And if that is the case, it speaks to screaming incompetence, which as you point out, is equally unacceptable.

[liberal_at_heart]

34. in other words there is no need for the Democrats to do any work. All they have to do is

blackmail the voters. Either vote for Hillary or have your reproductive rights taken away. I'm so sick and tired of Democrats not doing anything because they think they are the lesser of two evils.

[L0oniX]

75. ^^^this^^^

[abelenkpe]

145. That was a losing strategy last election

So I hope that is not the case.

[Mnpaul]

246. "Better than a Republican" doesn't work anymore

"better than a Republican" could still be just as useless. I'm looking for "better than a Democrat" and Bernie fits the bill. He has the best record voting with the party in the House and is near the top in the Senate. When he doesn't vote with the party, he does so for good reasons.

[kelliekat44]

93. How so? I didn't know she was running. nt

[RiverLover]

95. Reading comprehension? /nt

[Gloria]

162. Nobody is getting drowned out...

The on the ground stuff is maybe more important now as the Rethugs flail around looking like crazies.

The Dems plug away on the ground, organizing, where it counts.

The Dems nationally are involved in the voting issues....

This is not like 2008, you cannot equate now with then...

[hifiguy]

186. Honest to Princess Celestia and the FSM, I am really starting to believe

that DWS is a goddam Repuke mole. She's doing everything she can to sabotage the party.

[restorefreedom]

195. if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck......nt

[Scootaloo]

309. And all it would take is President Obama saying "pack your things, Debbie."

[Godhumor]

22. My guess is that the scientific community has a much different definition of evidence nt

[restorefreedom]

47. i wish a gas chromatograph could help here

but alas, we have entered the world of social science and psychological analysis. Some things are harder to measure than others.

[daleanime]

100. Tell me about, I love Sociological and Political science....

try as I might, some folks refuse to believe that these fields actually quality as science.

[restorefreedom]

103. i think they are are different

because feelings and behavior are harder to measure and quantify.

but its all fun imo

[daleanime]

218. Different, yes....

but still fields of serious study....


and some of the fun is because they're harder to measure and quantify.

[restorefreedom]

220. true, human nature

Will not follow the rules of physics and chemistry. In some ways it makes it much more challenging for those who are going to those fields.

[The empressof all]

32. I actually think there is some wisdom in not deflecting from the Republicans verbal food fight

Let them shine in all their idiotic glory! Eventually a survivor will emerge and we will know the depth of crazy we are opposing.

I can't stand Debbie Wasserman Schultz in general but I tend to feel ok about waiting the debates out for a while.

[ibegurpard]

41. Ask any non political person you know

Who's running for President. They're going to say Donald Trump. Are they paying attention to what he's actually saying? Nope.
DWS is a useless clown and she and her crew at the DNC need to be gone.

[jberryhill]

84. Yep

The election is a long way off.

The Republicans, collectively, are doing more to repel voters than anything we could hope for.

[jeff47]

226. When you don't show an alternative, shining in their idiotic glory doesn't work.

You need them to appear to be idiots and you need to show a non-idiot alternative.

"GOP Bad" does not automatically translate into "DEM Good". Politics is not a zero-sum game.

[The empressof all]

231. I don't know

I think people eating gruel for a few months will be quite excited to see that bowl of quinoa with lemon and basil. My hunch is that there is plenty of time left to battle and it's probably wiser in the long run to know who you will be up against....Right now it's a crap shoot on the right.... So why waste time and energy responding to the crazy because you know that's what's going to be coming up from debate moderators trying to make a name for themselves. We'll see how Anderson Cooper does in the first one for us coming up.

[jeff47]

235. No, they will have decided politicians all suck

and watch something else. Especially with the utterly moronic dates that have been chosen.

"Excuse me, people who have traveled a long ways to see me at Christmas. I'm going to go watch TV for 3 hours now" is not going to happen with the voters you describe.

My hunch is that there is plenty of time left to battle and it's probably wiser in the long run to know who you will be up against....Right now it's a crap shoot on the right.... So why waste time and energy responding to the crazy

Because there is still a primary election.

Believe it or not, our debates do not have to address what the Republicans want to address. See, we have our very own political party. And we're able to debate what we want to debate instead of only addressing what the Republicans say.

Or at least, we used to.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

254. I'd be more happy with a bowl of good old fashioned oatmeal and Vermont maple sugar. nt

[LWolf]

273. Okay.

Now I'm hungry.

[restorefreedom]

233. good grief, even a third grader could get it when explained this way.

why cant debbie?

[jeff47]

236. Because DWS's paycheck depends on her not understanding it. (nt)

[restorefreedom]

237. sad. but true. nt

[sadoldgirl]

33. I agree, and the corporate media do the same.

I have no idea whether Bernie would/will win the GE.
There is no doubt that HRC is a very iffy candidate.

I have warned here before that there are many
handicaps for a HRC nomination as far as the GE
is concerned, and I still think it will be a Bush vs Clinton
election. In that case:
A) The millennials stay home, and the young generation
as well.
B) 10 - 15% of regularly voting democrats will not
go to vote either.
C) The voting group of unaffiliated will stay home
D) The Repugs will close ranks and ALL will vote.

The end result : a repug WH, and a severely shrinking
democratic party.

Just my analysis.

[restorefreedom]

48. it makes sense

especially the part about millennial staying home if it's clinton v bush. What reason would they possibly have to leave their homes and come and vote for politics from the 90s? I think your analysis is spot on, sad as it is.

[Puzzledtraveller]

35. Because there is a level

where no matter who wins, the corporations win.

[azmom]

201. +1

[RufusTFirefly]

45. Respectfully disagree. I think the corporate establishment wants to win this election

However, they are playing a very dangerous game.

The assumption is that people will come to their senses and prevent Trump from securing the Republican nomination. But if for some reason he does, Democrats and Republicans alike will be falling over themselves to elect Hillary.

A more likely scenario is that in a panic, the Republicans will replace Trump with a less cartoonish nominee and that the GE will be as exciting as Tide vs. Ivory Snow (with a tip of the pen to Arundhati Roy on that one). In short, a corporate candidate against a corporate candidate.

The wild card on the Democratic side is obviously Bernie. Although I am a Bernie supporter, I think that once Hillary implodes completely, there will be a rush to replace her. Policy-wise, Biden is just Hillary in a suit and when Bernie supporters realize this (assuming they're consistent), they are no more likely to support him than they are to support her.

Enter Martin O'Malley, who is a bit of a cipher. His relatively unknown, outsider status is a drawback right now, but it will ultimately be a benefit, just as it was for the current President and for Jimmy Carter as well.

O'Malley is running as a progressive and thus will probably be a satisfactory replacement if it becomes clear to Bernie supporters that their guy isn't going to get the nomination. And there is no question that as Maryland Governor, O'Malley did a number of admirable and progressive things. What's not as well known outside of the Baltimore-Washington area is that in 2007 O'Malley co-wrote an article with DLC stalwart Harold Ford called "Our Chance to Capture the Center." In many ways, it was a Third Way manifesto:

Nearly seven years after Bush succeeded Clinton in the White House, America is facing challenges as great as we've ever seen -- a war against Islamist radicals who would destroy our way of life; global economic competition that demands we raise our game; and a quest for energy independence and efficiency that Al Gore has shown us could make or break our planet. To conquer such enduring problems, Democrats will need a broad, enduring majority -- and a centrist agenda that sustains it by making steady progress.

Most Americans don't care much about partisan politics; they just want practical answers to the problems they face every day. So far, our leading presidential candidates seem to understand that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That's why they have begun putting forward smart, New Democrat plans to cap and trade carbon emissions, give more Americans the chance to earn their way through college, achieve universal health care through shared responsibility, increase national security by rebuilding our embattled military and enable all Americans who work full time to lift themselves out of poverty.

In sum, my prediction is that Hillary will crash and burn, just as she did in 2008, and that Martin O'Malley will come out of the shadows and be our next President. I suspect that he will govern in much the same way that the current President has, by running as a progressive but ultimately by serving the interests of the corporate status quo when he takes office.

For those of us who are progressives all the time and not simply during primary season, our best bet is probably a Sanders vs. Trump GE. But getting there is fraught with peril.

[restorefreedom]

49. good analysis.

and I do agree with you that more than anything, the corporate power structure wants to win this election however they can.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

255. Guess again.

will probably be a satisfactory replacement if it becomes clear to Bernie supporters that their guy isn't going to get the nomination

A lot of Bernie supporters aren't that sanguine about O'Malley, and a lot have said it's Bernie or nothing.

And given your expectation that

Martin O'Malley will come out of the shadows and be our next President. I suspect that he will govern in much the same way that the current President has, by running as a progressive but ultimately by serving the interests of the corporate status quo when he takes office.

there's no reason Bernie supporters SHOULD vote for him, as that would make him just another wolf in sheep's clothing.

[BuelahWitch]

46. I have to wonder if the elections aren't just for show now

That each party puts up a corporate candidate, and the parties "take turns" winning two terms of Presidential elections (ie. Clinton, Bush II and Obama). So given that, it is now a Republican's "turn" to be President.
However, for the life of me, I can't tell WHO is the reasonable Republican candidate in 2016. Even Jeb! seems nuts (but his brother was stupid and nuts, so that has nothing to do with it). Will the Tea Party Patriots go rogue if their favorite is not picked?
DWS has been "in the tank" for Republicans before, it's not unreasonable to think she won't be again (she's got a cushy job in Congress, why should she care anyway?)

[restorefreedom]

50. that is exactly it

I think that's why the outsiders so to speak are making such inroads, because people are starting to wise up to the fact that corporatist don't care about party title, they just want power.

and I love how most people on du do JEb! with the ! Love it!

[Enthusiast]

51. I have considered the same factors.

I came to similar conclusions. I just hate to admit it.

[restorefreedom]

57. it did not give me any pleasure.....

just another reason to be sad for this country. It really is about corporate rule.

[Enthusiast]

63. Eventually the population will wake up and the corporations will have to relinquish power.

But that could take decades, long after we are gone. In the meantime I hate it that they are getting way with this.

[restorefreedom]

66. its sad

but I keep reminding myself that this country is still relatively young, and it might just be part of growing pains. It doesn't really help me feel better, but it's something.

[Nitram]

53. Silly. nt

[DCBob]

55. Of course its quite the opposite.

You may not agree with their strategy but they desperately want to win.

[restorefreedom]

58. agree with you IF

by "they" you mean the corporate power structure and the oligarchs of this country. and I have no doubt that there are many passionate Hillary supporters who desperately would like to see her win. But I am talking specifically about those in power in the Democratic establishment. I truly think they would rather see a Republican win than Sanders or O'Malley, because then their power would be severely threatened.

I also wonder about their strategy if it includes propping up a candidate who is so weak she can't even handle debating people within her own party. I do appreciate your optimism that everybody wants to win. Sadly, I just don't believe it.

[shenmue]

97. Of course

[leveymg]

60. The real elites don't care one way or the other. They'll get their tax breaks, wars, privileges,

profits and cushy jobs regardless of who wins the GE. That is, if HRC is the candidate. Everything else is just a way of getting to the top and staying there.

The globalized elites have been investing in Hillary for two decades to a tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. These people don't walk away from equity.

Then, there are the hundreds of party apparachiks who have hitched their careers to the Clinton machine. Where will they go, and what else can they do?

That's why it looks like they want to hand the election to a Republican.

[restorefreedom]

76. good points

I don't think they would be disappointed if hillary won, I just think that somewhere they know they realize that she can't, and they rather prop her up and lose than see Bernie or O'Malley win.

[brooklynite]

61. OK, I'll say it: that's a stupid assertion...

First, you provide no evidence at all, and offer only a "we all know" claim.

Second, the candidate you claim is beset with scandal is still the most popular Democrat running, racked up as many votes in 2008 as Barack Obama (is the establishment that big), and still beats or is competitive with every likely Republican. Add to which, if they want her to lose, why give her all the establishment money that Sanders' supporters complain about?

Third, the candidate is NOT facing "legal trouble".

Fourth, the GOP debate viewership is irrelevant: people could just a likely be tuning in for the entertainment value, and paying little attention to the political messages of the candidates. And why are the debates relevant at all if, as Sanders' supporters assert, there's a new media dynamic, and voters will get their information from YouTube and social media?

[restorefreedom]

70. you can throw the word stupid around all you want

but their collusion is giving lots and lots of free airtime to the Republicans to get their message out, All because they are trying to protect the anointed one. And what does that say when a candidate is so weak she can't even handle debating people within her own party?

yes you're absolutely correct Hillary will save us all.

[brooklynite]

69. Lets review our memes, shall we?

Meme 1: Clinton is in bed with Wall Street, which is why they're giving her so much money...

Meme 2: Wall Street wants Clinton to lose...

[restorefreedom]

71. that is not what i said

your characterization of meme one is correct. But I don't believe they want her to lose. I believe they don't want Bernie or om to win, and, knowing that she can't possibly win, they are going to prop her up anyway and toss the election to the Republicans so the corporatist still stays in power.

[retrowire]

72. i agree with you for the most part.

especially regarding point 3 and Biden.

see my thread here to hear me out on that one:http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251579939

the one part I don't agree with is that I don't think any of the Republicans could beat Hillary. they're all way too awful.

but I'm certain Bernie will win this.

[restorefreedom]

79. good op, yours

just over there and left my two cents. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about whether the Republicans could beat Hillary. I agree with you that they are dreadful, but I do think they"d beat her. And I am in complete agreement with you that Bernie's going to take this all the way!!!

[retrowire]

82. Bernie bernie bernie!!! woooo! n/t

[restorefreedom]

89. woot woot!! nt

[hifiguy]

188. Yup

for Bernie!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. Or maybe the establishment corporatists refuse to cede the field.

It could be denial of the public's mood, an honest misinterpretation or they could just be stubborn asses.

Nothing about Sanders says he can be co-opted. So, they have no incentive in passing the baton to him.

If they can't have Hillary they'll just turn their attention to Jeb.

[restorefreedom]

91. i do believe that is why

the m$m is trying in vain to shove the Hillary v jeb! contest down our throats. They want two corporate candidates, two family dynasties, and no matter who wins, the corporations win and the people lose.

[Mnpaul]

248. 'Cause the players tried to take the field

The marching band refused to yield

Do you recall what was revealed
The day the music died?

the marching band's tune is getting really annoying

[zappaman]

92. Bwhahahaha!

[restorefreedom]

134. nice to see substantive discussion

here at du

have a nice day, zappaman!

[zappaman]

187. Maybe we can also debate the existence of unicorns

with, you know....facts.

[daleanime]

96. I wish I could....

instead I have to agree with you.


And please don't take this personally but I'm not very happy about it.

[restorefreedom]

119. no worries

i am quite sad about it myself

[CharlotteVale]

98. They sure don't act like they want to win.

[Fumesucker]

102. I disagree

The Democratic party does not want an actual left-populist to win the election under any circumstances, they would like an establishment Democrat to win but are willing to settle for an establishment Republican if that will keep a left-populist from winning.

[HooptieWagon]

106. ^^this^^

[RiverLover]

111. Thread winner!

[restorefreedom]

117. thats fair.

and I agree that they won't be disappointed if Hillary were to win, because she's a corporatist and will play ball. But if she can't win which, she cannot, they would much rather in my view see Republican then a revolutionary populist. As you pointed out.

[Scootaloo]

310. Pretty much that

Under Republican rule, the democrats in power are still the Democrats in power. They're still making money, they're still wielding authority, and hey! The party voters rally for them as the "opposition" rather than the shady fucks who ceded the elections in the first place.

On the other hand, an internal sea change would upset that gig. The people running the party would likely lose that prestige if the party were shaken up. No more nepotism, no more glad-handing or back-slapping. Instead of the coals being banked, they would be extinguished.

[crystal dawn]

104. I have a hard time believing

that the Democratic Establishment is just sitting this one out, wanting to lose, and handing the election over to the Republicans because they are just as much as bought and paid for as they are. This meme that D and R's are one is the same has to stop! And it's stoopid to think Wall Street is just so afraid of The Bern because like he would actually get any real reform or completely reinstate Glass Steagal on day one because congressional opposition will cease to exist! The Democrats want to WIN this election and allowing the party of the truly stupid to air their craziness for a year of debates won't hurt anyone but the party of the truly stupid.

[restorefreedom]

108. they might want HILLARY to win

because she is a corporatist and will play ball with the powers that be. But anyone who thinks that the establishment is not going to align against Bernie, in my view, is overlooking reality. The people with money and power don't want to give up their money and power. I think it's really that simple.

[crystal dawn]

122. The Dem strategy

right now is to allow the Republicans to look as fucking stupid as they are... and putting Hillary, Bernie, and a couple of other Dems on stage night after night for a year and a half to debate on something they all pretty much agree with anyway, is to expose them to more scrutiny, more of the time, from the media. Hillary has all the same progressive ideas as Bernie if you break it down, and just because she was on the board of WalMart that one time, or has compromised with Republican policies before, doesn't make her as much of a corportists as the other side. As I said, that meme has to stop!

[restorefreedom]

141. hillary is nothing like bernie policy wise

and i never characterize her as a progressive. Her record speaks for itself, and so does Bernie's, as do their positions on current issues of which he has many progressive ones and she has none or she'll tell us when she's president.

I also do not agree that they shouldn't be debating because it's protecting them from scrutiny. Good ideas don't need protection, they need exposure.

I do agree with you that the Republicans look stupid, but that's because they are stupid. Putting the Dems out there would not make us look stupid, it would make every single one of them look like geniuses.

[crystal dawn]

169. Then you must be completely ignoring Hillary's campaign.

Here's both their official campaign websites: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/
Feel free to read through them and see they have pretty much the same platform, minus a quibbling or two on who is more "pure" or less "Corporatist."

We can also go through BOTH of their legislative and political histories and find things that we don't completely agree with, and I'm not so sure Bernie supporters realize they want start that this early in the race. You can blame Hillary for then attacking the Bern on his past, of course, when it will be the media that wants that dog and pony show.

[azmom]

172. There is a big difference. Bernie's campaign

Is being funded by the people. Hillary's campaign is funded by bankers and Wall Street.

[crystal dawn]

175. Another meme

Or loose fact that needs further clarification.

[MisterP]

225. the "meme" would stop if Ds stopped being Wall Street's little dancing poodles at every

opportunity; rhetoric and "I wished that" and "they're Dems they can't possibly be" don't count

[restorefreedom]

234. amen to that. nt

[FSogol]

107. Translation: Please provide solid evidence to counter my simple speculation.

ALCOA!

[restorefreedom]

114. in what way

does delaying the Democratic debates, scheduling during times and dates when people are unlikely to watch, not supporting ALL of the dem candidates instead of just the anointed one, and giving the Republicans a three month lead time to get their message out to the American people advancing the goals of the Democratic Party, if in fact their goals are to work for the people and to win elections?

i'm not speculating here, their very behavior is giving me a lot of reasons to suspect that their goal is not to elections or to work for the American people. Because their methods suck beyond measure for anybody that has a brain, and one thing we know, is that these people hire smart people to work for them. So if it's not screaming incompetence, it has to be intent in my view.

[FSogol]

137. DWS and the DNC are doing a poor job*. They aren't trying to lose.

Occam's razor?

* They are using the tired and true playbook in use since the '70s. They are ignoring the fact that the party and base have moved leftward. The only reason it appears that HRC is calling all the shots is because she has about 75% support of the leaders of the party. The only way for my candidate (O'Malley) or your candidate (Sanders) to win is if they can move the party out of that mindset.
Coincidentally, the only way for HRC to win is to move leftward with the base. She can (probably) do that, but it will take changing her approach to the previously mentioned playbook and her campaign.

[restorefreedom]

144. that is a good analysis

and I can accept the possibility that they don't want to lose as much as they're just screaming incompetents. But ignoring the will of the people is a bad thing to do. And as you pointed out the people have moved way left and they better start respecting that or they're going to have their asses handed to them in a big way come next year.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

258. If that's true, it was a pretty incompetent move on Hillary's part to come out and say

'she pleads guilty' to being a moderate and centrist, or whatever the phrasing was recently.

That's not the way to 'move left'.

[GoneFishin]

109. True. They would rather have a Republican corporatist in the White House than a liberal Democrat.

[fbc]

128. It certainly looks like that.

[madville]

110. When your leading candidate has a

Higher unfavorability rating than Trump you've got some problems or it's intentional.

[Eatacig]

118. Republicans are doing a good job fooling you

I would bet most of these posts are republican plants. You know Sanders is
not going to win as a Democrat. This has been planned by the repubs since
the beginning and it seems to be working. Woe to this country with a
republican president you are pushing for.

[restorefreedom]

127. i am "pushing" for bernie

and he can win. and will.

[SheilaT]

120. Have you ever been involvled in actual party politics,

other than voting? Have you attended local party meetings, been a delegate to a state convention? Run for office?

If you'd done any of those things you'd understand that no party ever wants to lose any election, no matter how hopeless it may seem. And inside a campaign the candidate and staffers are often quite insulated from the outside reality that is how they win or lose.

Various people have been posting here about the Dems losing in 2016 as a long-term strategy to win in 2020 or 2024 or maybe even 2076, but politics simply doesn't work that way.

It's my opinion that the "Biden might run" thing is actually something the media is putting forth, because they love what they consider an interesting race. Why they are so very happy with the current Republican field, as overcrowded as it is, because they get to spin that story in lots of different ways. It's not some sort of conspiracy to hold Bernie back.

The much bigger worry, in my opinion, is that too many Dems will mindlessly vote for Hillary simply because they think a woman ought to be President, don't look at her very closely, and besides it's her turn. And then they'll be shocked, just shocked, that not every single woman in this country votes for her. The longing for a female President is NOT so strong that she's guaranteed a win.

[restorefreedom]

129. i am prepared to accept the possibility

that they may not necessarily want to lose, but that their insular bubble is keeping them from the reality that the only candidate they want to win, Hillary, is not gonna be able to pull it off. I do believe that under no circumstances do they want to see a populist like Sanders or O'Malley win. This post is not trying to speak about the hordes of volunteers and people who work very hard for their candidates and very much want to win. This post was specifically about the establishment leaders and the people with power. Because I do believe the power crosses party lines

[SheilaT]

136. They do live in a bubble.

They do want Hillary to win. But the do NOT want to lose the election. Period. Even the establishment leaders never want to lose.

I have been involved in retail politics, doing all the things I asked if you'd ever done, including running for office. I feel I have slightly more of an insider's take. Aside from meeting Howard Dean several times when he was running and afterwards, I have no connections to the top party leaders, but I understand quite clearly that there is never a plan to lose.

[restorefreedom]

147. if that is the case

then they need to start accepting the reality that the people have moved to the left and do not want a centrist to represent them. They have to let go of the Hillary love and support all of the candidates equally until one emerges on their own to take the nomination. If I start seeing that kind of activity, I might actually believe you.

[laserhaas]

124. Your remarks are Spot On!,,All Bernie has to do to win

Both the nomination and the Presidency..
.
Is to convince Senator Elizabeth Warren to be his running mate.
.
The have the same ideals/ values; and the popular vote would be overwhelming

[restorefreedom]

130. that would be amazing! nt

[Uncle Joe]

125. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, restorefreedom.

[restorefreedom]

131. thx uncle joe. nt

[Gothmog]

126. You might want to share your findings with Nate Silver

[restorefreedom]

132. naaahhh

he has his mind made up.

[zomgitsjesus]

133. DWS is no liberal.

She has supported Republican candidates here in Florida over Democrats. What better way to infiltrate the Democrats than by posing as the.heas if the DNC? This woman must go.

[Garrett78]

139. "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat." ~ Will Rogers

The party establishment is inept (while the Republican Party is getting massive free advertising, the first Democratic candidate debate is still a month away). More than anything, though, I think the Democratic Party is stymied by cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, its members probably want to be progressive on more than just a few social issues. On the other hand, its members feel constrained by what Robert Jensen calls "the captains of industry and finance," who Jensen says "set the parameters of political action." So, on any big money issue (from military spending to criminal justice to tax reform to free trade to immigration), Democrats are extremely careful to not rock the boat.

So, it isn't so much that Democrats want to lose as it is they're confused about how to win. Now, gerrymandering doesn't help (and the failure to do something about gerrymandering speaks to an ineptitude), but I think the bottomline is that federal level politicians (on both sides of the aisle) simply don't know how to operate in the current climate (a climate in which moneyed interests rule and the masses are either too ignorant or too disgusted to care).

[restorefreedom]

142. if that is the case

then the party as is might not deserve to win, as much as it pains me to say that. Democrats have it over Republicans on every single major issue. If they don't have the balls to come out and say that to the American people and present their ideas as the better ones that they are, they shouldn't be in this game at all.

it is time to rock the damn boat imo.

[Garrett78]

161. On far too many non-social issues...

the 2 parties are largely aligned (with some relatively minor differences) on account of having their strings pulled by the very same entities. In other words, there's quite a bit of overlap on a number of major issues...regardless of what official party platforms and campaign rhetoric might suggest.

To paraphrase a 1992 Bill Clinton campaign slogan, "It's the system, stupid."

[Gman]

140. Good grief

Another we're all going to die post

[restorefreedom]

146. no, not die

just be dirt poor under the oligarchic rule to the point where we might wish we are dead.

[jwirr]

143. No flame from me. And one though the scandals that

Hillary is facing are in question right now. But does anyone think that the Rs would present real evidence in our primary? No they would hold off until after the primary and bring any evidence of guilt against the general election opponent when it can help them.

I doubt is the Rs want to help Bernie win the primary. In the long run they only want to win the general election.

[restorefreedom]

149. the wh is their prize for sure

I think they are just itching to run against Hillary because of all the mud they think they can sling at her. I also think they have fun running against Bernie because they could play the socialist meme until we're all exhausted and ready to vomit. And based on what I heard last night at the debate, I think that they think they are plugged into the will of the American people. Which frightens the living crap out of me.

[jwirr]

164. Yeah that last does scare me also. But I think they

are listening to the American people inside their own bubble. Our job is to make sure they are not able to pull the undecided people into the bubble with them which is something Bernie is very good at. He talks to the people and he talks to them about their real problems.

[restorefreedom]

203. bernie is resonating with the voters

hopefully the undecideds wont decide they like fiorina or carson because dws is not putting dems on a national stage.

[senz]

151. You make sense. Your argument is plausible enough

to get me wondering about it, and I wasn't, prior to reading your OP. All your major points are true. The DNC establishment seems to resemble the DLC these days, i.e., corporate-owned to some extent and not truly committed to genuinely Democratic ideals. But they could be skitterish about Bernie's "socialist" appellation and fearful of Republican media attacks, as we have seen that rightwing media knows how to hook into American fears and hatreds. So they may think that Bernie can't win -- if they can somehow square that with his stellar performance with the American people.

The only thing you wrote that struck me as implausible was your assertion that President Obama can remove the DNC chair. I seriously doubt that it works that way.

It definitely looks like the DNC is acting against Bernie Sanders, and dragging their heels on debates suggests an unwillingness to push forward for the Democrats. It looks like they are making a serious mistake.

If they're just "establishment," if that is their orientation and allegiance, then screw 'em. The highest value for a Democrat should be the strength and well-being of the American people. There is no doubt that it is Bernie's highest value.

[restorefreedom]

155. great points

from what I read, I always understood that the president had sort of an informal oversight of the party chair. I don't know how true that is, but I'd be willing to bet that if Obama gave Wasserman Schultz a call and encouraged her to add more debates, she'd be hard-pressed to say no. And if he really press the establishment to get rid of her, I think they'd also be hard-pressed to say no. but I would love to see more commentary on that issue because it's important that we get Wasserman Schultz out. And if the president can't do it, we got to figure out who can

[Hoyt]

152. The only way we lose the election is destroying the candidate with the best chance to win with

conspiracy theories, right wing bull, forgetting the Prez is for the whole country, threats to sit home if people don't get their way, etc., no matter how irrational.

[restorefreedom]

158. so if bernie or omalley get the nom

then can we hope for the full democratic machinery to step in behind them? Because that's what I would expect to see if you assertion is correct.

[Hoyt]

171. Yes. Do you think the Democratic "machinery" is going to sit out the race and

give up, like some of you have been talking if your guy loses.

[restorefreedom]

205. when i see dws come out hard for bernie

when he is the nominee then I'll believe it. But in the meantime, she should be fighting for all of the Dems equally not her anointed one.

[Hoyt]

230. The party leadership should act in best interest of the party, not your annointed one.

[restorefreedom]

232. The best interest of the party

should be and is the best interest of the people who support that party, not the party leadership or the money bosses, but the people. And the people are best served by having an honest debate and contest where the free will of the people is manifest when a candidate rises on their own to the top of the field. This process should not be rigged. That is not democracy.

[Hoyt]

244. Well, I don't think Sanders is a membrr of the party, yet it is very accomodating of him.

His supporters need to quit whining, he's being treated fairly. If he wins the nomination, the party will be behind him fully.

[restorefreedom]

245. he fully supports dems

as to them supporting him, i will have to believe it when i see it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

261. When I see them talking about finding a 'white knight' to 'save' the party from having to nominate

Bernie if Hillary tanks? Then, yes, yes I do expect them to sit on their hands if Bernie scores the nomination.

[restorefreedom]

263. sadly, i agree. nt

[Hoyt]

279. Where have "they" talked about that?

[Android3.14]

153. The DNC loves the DNC, not America.

If they keep down this path, I fear the real possibility we will be a defeated fascist nation within 8 years, and Clinton, Wasserman Schultz and the DNC are the people who could have stopped it but rammed their thumbs up their collective asses rather than help.

[restorefreedom]

156. amen to that.nt

[redstateblues]

163. C'mon. Nobody wants to lose an election, except maybe the tea partiers

If they can't get a pure candidate, but then they always vote for the R in the end. This is just paranoia with a little victim mentality mixed in. There is too much at stake for anyone to suggest the Democrats want to turn the reigns over to someone like Trump.

[Matariki]

166. Regarding the debates - the Democrats have time

The Republicans have a huge field to winnow down. I think waiting a few weeks won't hurt and will probably help. Having the debates closer to the primaries is probably better.

Kind of agree with you on Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

[villager]

176. The problem for corporate Dems is that as things continue to unravel, less "escape" is possible

...from finally having to embrace "radical" solutions to income disparity, climate change (and other eco-crises), etc.

Repubs have always been a handy excuse for never really having to change things too much.

The terror is when there is finally no way out for a Dem President, or a Dem Congress but to act-- then true intent will have to be revealed, at last.

[Maedhros]

177. I believer Debbie's thinking goes somewhat like this:

The Democrats' fundamental strategy for the last decade or so has been "we're not as bad as the Republicans - just look at how crazy they are!" This has been the only strategy available to them, because as a Party they have become ideologically bankrupt. The Party pretty much rolled over and let the Bush Administration walk all over them, the Constitution, and the American People. The Party took a hard turn toward Corporate toadyism and can't credibly claim to represent, well, anything. On those few occasions that they pretended to take a stand - "Give us subpoena power!", "Mine will be the most transparent Presidency ever!", "I'll put on my comfortable shoes and join the picket line!" - it was shown shortly thereafter that they were simply telling us what they want to hear and had no intention of actually following through.

So, from Debbie's perspective, the best thing to do is to simply divert the attention of the Democratic Primary electorate toward the GOP freak show and let their bizarre behavior scare votes into Hillary's pocket. It's a dumb strategy, but then again, the Party has been acting pretty damned dumb since at least 2000.

[restorefreedom]

207. it makes sense

compared to the Republican agenda, even a corporate centrist like Hillary sounds fairly reasonable. So that's Wasserman Schultz's plan then. Let them see what true crazy looks like and try to present a corporate centrist as someone who's more left than she really is. It's actually not that crazy, but it's still not going to work. I can't wait to see her out of a job

[Maedhros]

224. What's so ultimately stupid is the pro-Hillary argument runs like this:

Yes, we know she's cozy with Wall Street, takes money from the private prison industry, and is a foreign-policy hawk just like the Republicans, but she's good on women's issues and immigration. Therefore, we must vote for Hillary in the primary because the Republicans are evil!

What they expect us to ignore is that there is another candidate that is good on women's issues and immigration BUT IS NOT COZY WITH WALL STREET, DOESN'T TAKE MONEY FROM THE PRIVATE PRISON INDUSTRY, AND IS NOT A FOREIGN POLICY HAWK.

There is absolutely no reason for liberals and progressives to vote for Hillary over Bernie, unless those "liberals" and "progressives" don't care about income inequality, corporate dominance, institutional racism and military malfeasance.

[restorefreedom]

228. very well said. no reason at all. nt

[winter is coming]

238. One of the problems with that tactic is that if you spend a lot of time looking

at the GOP clown car, you start to feel that pretty much anyone the Dems choose could beat the GOP nominee... which makes voters less likely to back a Dem candidate they're not enthusiastic about.

[Maedhros]

240. Oh, there are many problems with the tactic.

It's almost like the DNC is putting a metaphorical gun to our electoral heads and saying "If Hillary can't have the White House, then NOBODY CAN!"

[The empressof all]

239. Can't argue with your assessment!

But if the goal is to win, I'm not as convinced it's a dumb strategy. Ultimately at this point, I think it will be a Clinton/Bush election regardless of what either party's pre convention gesticulations will be. But I'm cynical and think this will probably shake down as the dog and pony show it appears to be.

[Tommy2Tone]

180. More Bernie hot air..

If things are going so splendidly with Bernie rising and Clinton falling why do we get one of these the "DNC hates us" posts every other day. If being a Democrat is so bad he should run as an independent socialist.

[redstateblues]

272. Victim Mentality runs rampant

Even when Bernie surges ahead the paranoia and victimhood fill these threads

[brooklynite]

190. Just to review: the Democratic President WANTS his Party to lose...

...good to know.

[restorefreedom]

208. if he knows the party leadership

is in serious dysfunction and is rigging the process to take away the will of the people, to suppress free-speech, and to rig the process for one preferred candidate and does nothing about it, then I just don't know what to think. and as the president has shown time and time again, most recently with TPP., he is not a lefty at all. He's another corporate centrist, so it doesn't surprise me if he.d like to see Hillary become the next president.

[Warren DeMontague]

191. DWS sucks. And we need more debates.

I don't think there's any grand conspiracy beyond the obvious: DWS clearly has wanted a perfunctory primary process (or lack thereof) to speed along the inevitable nomination of the inevitable candidate she has assumed to be inevitable.

It's a bad plan, but I don't think it's deliberately trying to lose.

[restorefreedom]

210. how does she not see

The writing on the wall? All the wishing in the world isn't going to change the trendlines Hillary is down and Bernie is up. If she was truly in support of a Democrat winning, she would be campaigning hard for all of the candidates until one emerges on their own as the winner. She's either trying to throw this to the Republicans or she is by far the most incompetent person in leadership who has ever walked the face of the earth. I've left open the possibility.

[Warren DeMontague]

214. This is someone who teamed up w/ Sheldon Adelson to ensure FL would keep arresting sick pot smokers

She's a hack, that's the kindest way to put it.

[restorefreedom]

215. you're right, sigh..... nt

[RiverLover]

192. CNN draws 22.9 million for GOP debate

(The debate ratings easily eclipse the previous top-rated show on CNN, a special 1993 Larry King Live show with Ross Perot and then-Vice President Al Gore that drew 16.8 million. Before Wednesday's event, CNN's most-watched presidential primary debate was a 2008 Democratic gathering in California that attracted 8.3 million viewers)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2015/09/17/republican-debate-draws-229-million-on-cnn/32566595/

Our Democratic candidates....They got to tweet about it.


Thanks Debbie!

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

200. They would rather have Trump than Bernie, any day.

DWS, DNC, Dead to Me!

[underthematrix]

204. I think people of color are gonna have to get this done

because white people seem so tied to a particular DEM candidate, it's unlikely they would vote in the general if their candidate loses in the primaries. I think it will be particularly hard for Bernie supporters if he doesn't get the nomination.

The WH is starting an initiative to encourage at least 1 million immigrants who citizenship eligible to apply. Now this is where those dirty awful very bad millionaires and billionaires come in. They can help defray the cost for people who can't afford the cktizenship application fees.

Also, I don't think Trump will be the GOP nominee because they haven't started dropping shoes on him. Once the shoes start dropping, the GOP nominee will be Jeb!

[restorefreedom]

211. the media is dying for clinton v bush

not only do they get an epic contest, but no matter which one wins they get their corporate centrist in power. No way for them to lose

[underthematrix]

222. You know, I can't tell who the DEM nominee is gonna be

even though Clinton has captured quite a few of the superdelegates.

[LWolf]

276. PoC will be a factor, an important voice,

no matter who is nominated.

It will be particularly hard for me if Sanders doesn't get the nomination; it's been hard for every single primary my entire voting life, because I've never been happy with the ultimate choice. It would be harder for me this time, because I think this time we've really got a chance.

That doesn't mean I won't vote in the GE. I haven't skipped one in the last 37 years of voting, and I won't be skipping '16.

I have to say, though, that each and every one leaves me more alienated.

[BlueJazz]

209. I believe (also) that Debbie is going to kill us. A lot of Elections are won by a fairly small...

...percentage. Her refusal to allow more debates could easily cost the Dem's 3-6 percentage points. MORE than enough to sink us.

[restorefreedom]

212. not only that

but her refusal to accept progressive principles and the will of the people could end up costing us a lot of down ticket races as well. But I'm not surprised, because I truly don't believe she cares about the Democratic Party.

[HooptieWagon]

330. Not only that....

....but DWS rigging the primary for Hillary is going to kill Dem voter turnout. She's not very exciting anyway., so let's piss off progressives, youth, and swing voters too. However, republicans and independents will line up in droves just to vote against Hillary, it won't matter who the Repub candidate is.

[MisterP]

216. they've thrown Senate races, and would throw all three branches as long as it meant

the checks kept clearing--heck, they can play the underdog, not pass laws, AND blame voters all at once if they lose

[TheKentuckian]

227. I think they want to win but only with an establishment pol and

at the same time not make enough hay to even with establishment pols that anyone will expect them to actually do anything for the people.

A corporate conservative of their own in the Whitehouse and a closely divided Congress is what they are shooting for. No expectations rising repeats of 2008 and sure as hell no wider margins than that ever.

[Persondem]

249. Please don't pretend to be evidence based. You ignore facts that don't agree with your outlook.

You ignore polls showing HRC still well in front nationally and the fact that she will get most of Biden's support should he decide not to run.

Polling also shows that voters are more likely to elect a Muslim or an atheist than a socialist. Spare me the parsing over what kind of socialist Sanders is. He will be linked to Marx, Lenin and Mao in GOP ads.

He supports plan that will add trillions of dollars in tax burdens. That is a huge strike against him.

He was a conscientious objector and in RW terms, "dodged" the draft. Imagine what the Swift-boating bastards will do with that.

Yeah, so if you want to lose the general, keep promoting Sanders.

[restorefreedom]

262. your memes are played

he is a socialist, he was a co, he can't win, blah blah

he did NOT dodge the draft. but this is the type of mud i expect from someone whose candidate can't win on the issues.

you guys need some new material.

[Persondem]

282. You just don't get it ... Sanders CAN'T win a general election.

Not with baggage that would sink a battleship. GOP smear machine won't even need to make shit up.

One person's mud is another person's reality.

You really think politics is about issues?

[restorefreedom]

283. you don't think hillary has baggage??

she would give samsonite a run for their money.

he has no baggage, unless you count standing for the same things for 40 years, working for economic justice, voting against the iwr and standing up to the oligarchy is "baggage."

your candidate on the other hand.....

[Persondem]

363. Sure, I'll gladly admit HRC has baggage, but it's not like the 16 tons of lead

that Sanders has.

The RW attacks will go like this:

Conscientious objector = draft dodger
Socialist = Socialist!! and buddies with Marx, Lenin, and Mao
Tax raising liberal!! for his trillions in new taxes that would be necessary to pay for his health care plan.
He already looks like your crazy old uncle so no need for a Dukakis in the tank moment.

Sure he has some great ideas, but they take too long to explain and all those things above will be half way around the world before the policy explanations have put on their shoes. (Apologies to Twain)

[restorefreedom]

367. its all chaff

he has a great record of fighting for the people.

the only people buying the socialist and conscientious objector crap are people who would never vote for a dem in 1 million years anyway.

[Persondem]

369. Tell that to John Kerry. Swiftboat victim over made up BS.

Much easier to convince voters when the negatives are true.

[restorefreedom]

370. i do not believe thats why he lost

but yes, it is descpicable. also much easier to convince voters that negatives are true when you let one-party have unfettered access to the airwaves for months on end and the other party doesn't debate and get its candidates out in front of a national audience because the DNC is in the tank for one candidate.

[brooklynite]

251. Don't go overboard with the crazy talk

Don't go overboard with the crazy talk

Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

[restorefreedom]

264. fine. i have plenty of other things to do

if the du ptb think this is conspiracy hogwash. but based on the traffic and recs, it appears that i am not alone in positing this theory.

[customerserviceguy]

253. I'd like to take you point-by-point

First, no major party 'plans' to lose the White House. Yes, sometimes events overtake the party bosses, and a losing candidate is indeed nominated, such as McGovern, Dukakis, McCain, and Dole, for examples. I will readily admit that party leadership on both sides is awfully ham-handed when it comes to managing outcomes of their nominating process.

1. At this point in the election cycle (very, very early), yes, the anti-Establishment tide is rising. As we get into focus in actual caucuses and primaries, the Establishment often does way better than it looked like they were doing just six short months earlier. I will agree with you that the Democratic party bosses don't want Bernie, they remember the McGovern debacle from a few decades ago.

2. Some are indeed propping Hillary, but I think more of them are trying to get Joe Biden to run. Again, they fear a McGovern-type nominee who will alienate a lot of the mushy middle, without having the identity politics cards that Barack Obama had and used.

3. The "Biden might run" is something primarily sold by the news media as a way to gin up interest (and ratings) early in the election cycle, but I think that there are people in the Democratic Establishment who are truly worried that Hillary might implode. All it takes is one or two smoking guns from the deleted-not-wiped email server, and that could well happen. You're right, they will not let Bernie take all the marbles by default if that happens.

4. Debates get forgotten as the election cycle continues. Other than Rick Perry's "Oops" moment, who remembers squat about any of the GOP debates from four years ago? Oh, there was Mitt's 'self deportation' comment, but in the end, it didn't prevent his nomination, only his election in the big contest. They have a clown car full of candidates, we have only a few, and a couple of them could already be considered futile (I'm thinking O'Malley and Webb here). Debates are gaffe machines, and the Establishment knows that, thus they've limited the number.

5. Schultz. Ok, I'll give you that one. But, I think you're incorrect in thinking that just one phone call from the President removes her. At some point, even an incumbent Chief Executive becomes something of a lame duck in his own party, especially where there is not a confirmed heir apparent. Besides, (and I have nothing solid to base this on, just my gut feeling) Barack Obama would like to see Joe Biden continue his legacy. I figure the two of them have built a much stronger rapport than the President has built with Hillary.

He may well be calculating that DWS will blow things enough for Hillary that Biden can be convinced to run, and he'd back him 100%. That would be much easier if she were to implode from the email scandal, it would make it easier for both Obama and Biden to distance themselves from any foreign policy disasters that they could hang on Hillary.

[restorefreedom]

266. some very good points.

i do think that there are many passionate supporters who want their candidate to win. but i also think that corporate power desires to maintain itself. and for some, that power trandscends party lines.

i would be very curious (your point 5), as to who the president will support if biden and clinton are both in the race.

i like joe, but if his heart is not in it, i hope he does not cave to pressure to "save us."

i disagree with you on point 4. i think letting the repubs get so much unimpeded air time is hurting the dems and we might lose some ge voters we will not get back.

as to point 1, traditionally the establishment tends to regain ground over time. but it sure looks like this cycle is not playing by any of the traditional rules.

and i agree with you on 2, that some really want biden in.

[customerserviceguy]

357. Thank you

Your post seemed to ask for a reasoned discussion, and I always welcome that.

Yes, corporate power is like death and taxes, we will always have it with us. If anything, it's found more and better ways (Citizens United) to survive and thrive. And they will back anybody from any party that they think they can use.

It would be tough for the President if both were indeed in the race, and that's why I think that Biden is waiting for something fatal for Hillary's campaign to come up before he throws his hat in the ring. For now, he can play the Hamlet game, stoking interest, letting the other candidates know that he could swing into active mode, yet be able to back away from the whole thing if his moment does not arrive. I have a feeling that he's connected with people in the Justice Department who are leaking inside information to him about the email server investigation. I would not doubt that his son, Beau Biden, had just such a pipeline.

As for the GOP'ers getting airtime, they are only preaching to their own choirs. It's just light entertainment at this point, watching The Donald mugging for the cameras in the split screen every time his name gets mentioned. I mean, who remembers who won "American Idol" or "Dancing With the Stars" from last season? By this time next year, the debates of 2015 will be a distant memory, except for a few gaffes. The mushy middle is not even paying attention to them, beyond the fodder for joke material on the late-night talk shows.

As for the 'traditional rules', those were bound to change. We have a society that has, in a century, evolved from newspapers, to radio, to broadcast television, to cable television, to the Internet, to having YouTube videos literally in our pockets. Every time one of those innovations became widespread, the rules have changed. I specifically remember the analysis of the Kennedy-Nixon debate. Those who heard it on radio thought Nixon had won, those who saw it on television (and by 1960, a large number of American households had TV) thought Kennedy had won. Why would we expect anything different from the Twitter age?

Thanks again for a thoughtful discussion!

[restorefreedom]

368. thank you as well.

citizens united has to go and there's no way it will go under Hillary imo because she benefits too much from it. I agree with you that Biden is going to wait as long as possible to make up his mind and probably will leave the door open for as long as he can. I never even considered the Justice Department link in the email situation. I guess if he did announce his intentions to run, that would make me question whether he knows something bad's coming down the road for Hillary. I hope you were right about the mushy middle, but I still worry that the wing nuts are getting way too much unimpeded airtime while our candidates sit largely on the shelf or in their own personal events.

I do think this election season is going to be different than any one that we've seen before. Largely because of social media. I just hope things don't get too ugly in the primary and that the wounds can be healed with a strong progressive candidate in the general.

peace

[brooklynite]

256. BREAKING: Bernie Sanders to register as a Democrat

@Politics1com 6h6 hours ago
P2016: US Sen Bernie Sanders (I) to officially register soon as a Democrat, his NH campaign director told the Manchester Union Leader today,

Now why would Bernie Sanders want to join a Party that wants to lose the election?

[restorefreedom]

265. save it

he is more a dem than many others, and i will be kind enough not to name names.

[Aerows]

277. This is the second time that I have seen you trumpeting that Bernie Sanders

is registering as a Democrat.

I can only conclude the following:

1. You think being a Democrat is a bad thing.
2. You believe that a politician running for the nomination shouldn't register within the party they are running for said nomination.
3. Bernie Sanders trampled your petunias in 1979 and you still aren't over it.

[restorefreedom]

281. maybe #3? nt

[restorefreedom]

260. rachel just nailed it

just said that maybe many people are watching gop debates is because it is "the only game in town" and said it is still a month to the first debate.

also just mentioned correct the record hit piece and the 1.2 million raised by bernie campaign

bernie on rachel next

[NanceGreggs]

267. For an "evidence-based person" ...

... you sure rely heavily on your own opinion rather than "evidence".

Let's deal with some facts for a change.

Hillary entered this primary race with incredible poll numbers of support among Democrats, and beating all probable GOP contenders handily.

When BS announced, his supporters immediately started calling for HRC to "drop out" because she couldn't win - despite those poll numbers, which BS supporters simply chose to ignore.

Despite still being the clear front-runner, BS supporters continue to state that Hillary is unpopular. Again, any polls saying the opposite are simply dismissed as being inaccurate or irrelevant.

The fact that BS can't get a single endorsement from his Congressional colleagues is put down to every one of them being "terrified" of blowback from the "Clinton machine". No quarter is given to the idea that his colleagues don't think he's presidential material - no, it's got to be something else, something nefarious and conspiratorial.

And the PTB in the Dem Party are all part of that conspiracy, determined to take a good man down - who, as of this writing, is still far behind the front-runner in support.

Allow me to play Devil's Advcocate. It would seem that those who want to "lose this election" are the same people who think the front-runner - still HRC - should be abandoned, and replaced by a self-identified socialist who wants to lead the party he has disparaged for decades and still refuses to be a member of, the guy who can't get a single colleague to endorse him, the guy who can't get any traction with the AA demographic (which he is going nowhere without), the guy who is still lagging behind HRC in the polls - all based on the premise that he's the one who can win the GE - all evidence to the contrary.

Many BS supporters here have declared that they will NOT vote for Hillary is she is the nominee. I have not seen any HRC supporters declaring they will NOT for Bernie is he is the nominee.

Now, tell me again who is willing to lose this election: the voters behind the front-runner who will vote for whoever the Dem nominee winds up being, or the voters who think the front-runner should be ditched and replaced by the guy who is still lagging behind her in the polls?

Do I believe that every BS supporter is willing to lose this election? No, of course not. But do I believe that there are people who are allegedly BS supporters who are more than happy to advise their "fellow Democrats" to support the man who is at this point the least likely to win the GE between the two choices.

It's rather difficult to take people seriously when they speak "based on the evidence" - and then completely ignore any evidence that doesn't align with their own opinion - or reality.

[brooklynite]

268. If Bernie Sanders is nominated, I (and my "fat cat" friends) will work like hell to get him elected.

But I'dd do it with my eyes wide open as to the difficulty he's likely to have.

[restorefreedom]

270. well that is good to hear

i doubt debbie wasserman schultz will share your enthusiasm for whoever the nominee is if it isn't hillary, but this is politics, so who knows.....

[NanceGreggs]

271. "Difficulty" is putting it mildly.

There are people here still insisting the the "socialist" label is inconsequential, and the lack of AA support won't be a problem, and it doesn't really matter that BS can't get a single colleague to endorse him.

And then there's the "non-problem" of BS's dissing Obama, who is still unwaveringly supported by the majority of Dem voters, while embracing the likes of Cornel West - sure to capture the AA voters (who despise him) for sure!

Because, ya know, everyone will just "come around" eventually.

Talk about ignoring the obvious ...

[redstateblues]

274. same for me and my evil, centrist, moderate friends

[restorefreedom]

269. i never said hillary supporters want to lose

i am talking about corporate party bosses who would rather see the election go to a r than a very progressive lib who will stop the money rule.

hillary entered as a lone candidate and the "presumptive" nominee whose initial polling was based large on name rec. now that she is in a real contest she is slipping.

bernie not getting endorsements from the very people who stand to lose a lot from his presidency does not surprise me...it tells he is on the right track. and i purposely did not suggest a conspiracy..just a suggestion that the establishment REALLY does not want bernie or om in the wh.

as to who votes for whom and when...many bernie supporters believe that a vote for hillary is a vote for the status quo and would be indistinguishable from a vote for an r and would rather stay home than hold their nose, again, and vote for a corporate centrist who is likely to support wall street and get us into another war.

but i didn't post this to impune supporters for any candidate, but rather hint at the corporate corruption and collusion that exists in the intersection of political parties and big money donors.

even though i disagree with you, i do appreciate your thoughtful response

[NanceGreggs]

278. As I appreciate your thoughtful response ...

... that all evidence of HRC's front-runner status should be dismissed as irrelevant. It's all "name rec" and nothing more.

Keep telling yourself that. Keep telling yourself that the self-proclaimed "socialist" is likely to win the GE. Keep telling yourself that Democrats will embrace the guy who doesn't want to be one of them, but wants their support to put him in the Oval Office.

Keep telling yourself that it's the "establishment" that is keeping BS down, and not the Democratic voters who still support Obama and aren't exactly enthused about a guy who keeps distancing himself from that obvious support.

Keep telling yourself that the AA demographic doesn't matter, because BS will get the votes of Republicans who will cross party lines to elect a socialist.

Seriously, dude - get a grip. "Many bernie supporters believe that a vote for hillary is a vote for the status quo and would be indistinguishable from a vote for an r and would rather stay home than hold their nose, again, and vote for a corporate centrist who is likely to support wall street and get us into another war."

Keep selling that - it has no relevance to the real world, but keep selling it here on DU, where you have an audience willing to suspend all belief in the on-the-ground reality.

[restorefreedom]

280. the socialist meme works for you guys

so have fun with that.

but please work on some new material!



edit to add: actually, bernie is getting crossover rep support, and his support from the aa community is continually growing.

[NanceGreggs]

287. Sorry, I keep forgetting ...

That BS being a socialist "doesn't matter".

That BS not being able to secure a single endorsement from his Congressional colleagues "doesn't matter".

That BS not being able to connect with AA voters "doesn't matter".

That HRC still being far ahead in the polls "doesn't matter".

That Bernie still refusing to be a Democrat while wanting Democrat's votes "doesn't matter".

That Bernie having called for Obama to be primaried - despite Obama being popular among Democratic votes - "doesn't matter".

In fact, it seems that reality "doesn't matter" among BS supporters.

Good luck with convincing the voting populace that none of the above "matters".

[restorefreedom]

288. i actually don't think most of that matters

other than all d candidates needing aa support, i agree with most of what you said.

cheers

[NanceGreggs]

292. The fact is ...

... that among the voting populace, all of those things DO matter. Rightly or wrongly so, they DO.

And cheers back at ya!

[restorefreedom]

294. as with many things......

father/mother time will tell the tale

nice chattin with ya! (i really mean that)

[eridani]

365. In 2014, the non-voting population was 63% of those eligible

Sanders is involving them, and Clinton is not. Thankfully, Jeb is not doing well, as a Clinton/Bush contest would set a record for low voter turnout in a year with no incumbent president.

[mcar]

356. I cannot recommend this enough

Reality. What a concept.

[NanceGreggs]

359. Thanks, mcar.

It strikes me as blatantly obvious that those who think HRC should drop out and/or be replaced by the guy in second place - and a far-behind second place at that - are less interested in winning the WH than they are determined to have any-and-all "obstacles" removed from their guy's path. And being the clear-and-present front-runner, Hillary poses the biggest obstacle to Bernie's political ambitions.

As I've said in the past, what kind of Democrats look at Hill's poll numbers, her status as a "most admired/respected woman" in the US, as well as the world over, and says: "We've got to get someone else?"

BS has every right to run, and his supporters have every right to support him in any way they can. But attempting to take down the front-runner in hopes of giving him a clear path is not something Democrats who want a win in 2016 should be doing.

If Bernie is as awesome as his fans think he is, he should be able to overtake Hill based on his own merits, and not based on minimizing hers. If BS needs Hillary to be "out of his way" - as his supporters are continually advocating - that simply underscores his inability to move into first place status of his own accord.

That's not Politics 101 - that's common sense.

[Thinkingabout]

358. Great post Nance. We can elect a nominee in the DNC who hopefully win the GE or we can

Become very happy with a Republican president and unleash policies we do not really want to live with.

[NanceGreggs]

360. Exactly.

Unfortunately, there are people here who would rather see a Republican in the WH than anyone other than Bernie. And they've pretty much said so. They'd rather throw their vote away via a write-in or just sitting out the election than vote for any Dem nominee who isn't Bernie.

These are the same people who would have you believe that their interests lie with the well-being of their country and their fellow citizens - as long as those fellow citizens see things their way.

If DU were in any way reflective of the Party as a whole, I would despair. But it's not - not by a longshot.

Those who advocate the idea of "both parties are the same anyway" are either incredibly ignorant of the facts, unbelievably naive, or RW trolls determined to foment divisiveness among Democrats.

I often wonder if the "I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils" advocates understand that (a) if there IS a lesser of two evils, it makes sense to vote for the LESSER of the two, and (b) how fuckin' tired the rest of us are of their non-stop whinging.

[Thinkingabout]

361. The lesser would be a Republican getting elected and we would receive lesser.

If Hillary's policies are so bad, the same position held by Bernie is bad also. At least with Hillary getting so many endorsements in Congress we would have someone who could work with Congress with Hillary.

[NanceGreggs]

362. Well, you've undoubtedly seen ...

... that Bernie's lack of endorsements from his fellow congress-critters doesn't matter.

Many of them have known/worked with BS for years - but the fact that they won't step up to the plate and endorse him doesn't matter.

Bernie can't get any traction among AAs - but it doesn't matter.

Bernie can't come close to matching HRC's poll numbers - but it doesn't matter.

Bernie refuses to be a member of the Party he wants to support his political ambitions - but it doesn't matter.

I keep wondering what it is that does matter to Bernie's fans - because so far, nothing does.

[eridani]

366. Dems who support Sanders would mostly support Clinton. The ones who will never support Clinton are-

--the alienated 63% that Sanders is appealing to and Clinton is not.

[PatrickforO]

289. Interesting theory. I'm not going to flame you, but

I have a serious question for you.

Let's for a moment accept your hypothesis that the establishment Democrats want to lose the 2016 election.

What is their motive for wanting such a thing?

Clearly, beneficiaries would be:
1) the military industrial complex
2) multi national corporations
3) billionaires
4) Wall Street bankers

And those poor idiots who think they want this would also be under the illusion that they are somehow going to benefit:
1) neoliberal academics
2) Republican politicians

So, again, what is the motive for releasing these dogs on us? Because if we lose, they will descend on us once and for all. The oligarchs want to take over, end the republic. You know this. They want a fascist state where the many are slaves to the very few.

[restorefreedom]

293. i think you spelled it out quite well.

my contention is that the party and corporate rulers, not necessarily the citizen supporters, want so badly to not have bernie or om in the wh that they will lose this to repubs than risk a presidemt who will end money rule. hillarys trendlines are down and bernies are up, and it looks like more and more that she cant win a ge. so if they support her, they are either delusional about what is happening out there which i concede is possible, or they actually want to lose. no way in hell imo they want sanders in the wh.

I actually just saw something a few minutes ago, and I'm not going to copy the comment because I don't want to drag a commentor into this thread if he or she doesn't want to be here, but this person actually suggested that if Bernie becomes the nominee that the party will basically put their money and effort into congressional races and pretty much cede the presidency to the Republicans and try again next time.

and that is kind of what i was thinking when i posted this, as sad as that sounds.

[PatrickforO]

304. That does sound sad.

Maybe I can cheer you up. My feeling is that Bernie felt an overpowering need to run this campaign, not because he wants to be president, because I don't think he really does. Instead, I believe he wants to elevate the dialog; he wants to educate the American populace. This is important because a huge number of Americans, definitely a majority, don't know about this stuff. People just know they are tired. They work really hard and nothing ever really seems to come from it. They can't get ahead, they can't save, and instead struggle just to make ends meet. Baby boomers and Xers have pretty much given up hope their Millennial children will have lives anywhere near as good as theirs have been, and they are ashamed. People are a paycheck away from hunger, an illness away from bankruptcy, a sick child away from losing their jobs.

Bernie, all of us must admit, has been working his ass off. Town after town, city after city. The crowds are growing because people are hungry for his message. This debate that is set for October 12th - when it happens and Bernie's message on the issues gets out to millions, we will have reached the tipping point. I have spent a long time and made much effort to know the truth, as I know you have, and the funny thing is, once you know you cannot go back.

We've had 35 years of right wing corporate propaganda. We've watched the systematic busting of unions. We've seen pensions that workers bled for disappear. We have seen salaries of CEOs go into the stratosphere while at the same time our wages have stagnated. In the meantime, prices for healthcare, for dental work, for groceries have gone up, up, up. Corporations like Dannon have reduced the size of the package of products we buy, but are charging the same price or more. My last refrigerator lasted about 20 years. It still worked when we bought a top of the line Kenmore, and guess what? The sales guy told me that there was no way we'd get that kind of quality nowadays.

I'm white, but I sure am aware that unarmed people of color are getting killed everyday by a militarized police. I feel uncomfortable with the idea that everything I write or say is getting recorded by a giant domestic spying operation called NSA. The Patriot Act makes me sick because it trampled on what was left of the Bill of Rights. Cops routinely stop people and steal their stuff using unconstitutional forfeiture laws.

Our schools suck now. It's really hard for kids to get any kind of a decent education because of these conservative ideologues who think they can just rewrite history the way they want it. Teachers are so busy getting kids ready to take stupid tests that they can't teach them to think. Did you know that schools don't teach kids typing any more? That's right. Not on the test.

If even 10% of Americans are educated by Bernie's message, then maybe things will change. Bernie is calling for a political revolution, meaning that if we're to have a government of, by and for us, the people, then we're going to have to get active and informed and wrest it away from these corporatists.

But cheer up. All is not bad. Lots of people are doing lots of really good things at the local level. Slow money, slow food, micro lending, B corporations, employee owned coops. All this stuff is happening, because many local thought leaders recognize the neoliberal model is unsustainable and so they are seeking to expand their economies in regenerative ways. The occupy movement brought the concept of inequality of wealth into American living rooms, and now Bernie is pounding that message in all across the nation to thousands of people like us.

And you know, I hope it works, because if the oligarchs don't toss the middle class some pretty big bones we have maybe 20 years until massive social unrest and revolution. At age 57, I am glad I'll be dead by then because I don't want to live through that at all. I'm hoping we can achieve more equity over the next few years by working through the system, even though it is stacked against us.

Of course, all this may be moot if climate change accelerates as quickly as scientists are projecting. This earth might have a mass extinction of species, including us. So, let's cheer for Bernie, say 'screw the establishment' and try our best to get him elected!

Tilt at this windmill with me one more time.

[restorefreedom]

316. ok, i'll be at the windmill...

Patrick, what a great positive analysis! this should be its own op, either here or in bernie group (or both)!

and it did cheer me up. that and a new day, and i kinda am hopeful again..

[Prairiegale]

373. I have read this thread for hours and came back again.

RF I agree with you wholeheartedly and have been thinking the same things as you. IF Bernie does not win, forbid the thought, he woke up a lot of people. People are taking notice.

As having been a campaigner for McGovern, I know the agony of defeat. What would have happened if he had won? It would have been a better America, at least I think so. Damn, here it is 2015 and I see a candidate I can really get behind!

This mess started years ago and it is going to take years and years to clean up. Bernie has gotten the ball rolling again and he is just the start. If we can instill in people this is a movement and government has to be a participatory sport, maybe....just maybe. He wins, we all are going to have to support him by voting in the right people at the state and local level. We need to stay on our Congress people like stink on a skunk, because most of them are just that.

[restorefreedom]

374. i was pleasantly surprised

that more people didn't jump all over me for saying this. i guess many of us can see the corruption that has become so much a part of the system, it has almost become routine.

i agree with you that the change will take a long time...maybe a few generations to really get it fixed up...but bernie started something...he lit the match to start the fire that was already within many of us to change the rigged system. and i think like you do, even if he doesn.t win(no,no,no) the movement has come too far to stop. this will affect state and local races, governorships, even school board candidates will be looked at more closely. i would not be surprised to see dws and her ilk get primaries by real progressives.

the snowball has started down the hill...no stopping it now

[Prairiegale]

375. As a progressive I think

many of us have come out of the background and see there are a lot of us out here. When I first heard Bernie was running, I started researching him and was impressed, although I knew who he was before this. McGovern instilled in me what America could be like and that is the country I wanted to be part of as an adult. I was 24 at the time and maybe somewhat naïve and idealistic, but believed in him. Maybe that is why Bernie has stuck such a cord with younger people, as they are not as jaded as some of us older folks. Hopefully they can keep the ball rolling, and we who believe need to support them until we die. For once, I am again hopeful.

[restorefreedom]

376. i am hopeful again too

i have been for bernie for a long time and was so happy when he announced. i think you are right about the young people. they have that bouncy optimism that is hard to rekindle after years or decades of life kicking you in the guts. But amazingly, Bernie seems to have it too. So there is hope again.

oh, and welcome to du!

[taught_me_patience]

290. Umm... you do know that Hillary is way ahead in national polls right?

Thereby completely and totally invalidating the main point of your premise, which is absurd beyond belief.

[restorefreedom]

295. the trendlines are not in her favor

and as you know, elections are a collection of state races. in the first two states, bernie is leading.

[99Forever]

291. If they succeed in cramming Clinton down our throats...

... they will get exactly that.

[jalan48]

296. Hillary thought being liberal on social issues was all she needed to do to win the primary.

Along comes Bernie and upsets the apple cart. Now Hillary's conservative, Third Way, Wall Street economic policies are being exposed for what they really are, the Corporate Democrats answer to Reagan's 'trickle down'.

[wundermaus]

300. Regardless which political party "wins"

The corporate owners of our political parties and candidates will have their way.
They own the process - all of it.
Unimaginable amounts of money will be spent to brainwash the voters.
The people will be told what to think and they will do as they are told.

However,

When corporate fascism finally collides with democratic socialism it will be a blood bath.




Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

- ohn F. Kennedy

[restorefreedom]

315. the kennedys

were so greatly needed in their time, and yet they were also ahead of their time.

or, history (sadly) keeps repeating itself...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

328. John Kennedy was so ahead of his time he had a Republican head the Department Of Defense...

John Kennedy was so ahead of his time he had a Republican head the Department Of Defense and a Republican head the Department Of Treasury.



Gawd, we Democrats need to learn our history.

[sabrina 1]

301. No flaming here. I said something similar myself, that sometimes it almost looks

like some of the Dem leadership actually wants to lose this race. It was just a thought since how the DNC, or at least DWS, is acting, makes no sense at all. So it's either gross incompetence or she doesn't care if we lose.

Lots of people are beginning to wonder what is going on with the DNC, maybe the reason why they are having Funding problems also.

DWS needs to go. She helped lose us the House and the Senate by acting as if the PEOPLE'S will did not matter at all and now she's doing it again.

[restorefreedom]

314. hard to believe,

even for political hacks, that dws is an acceptable leader.

[Ken Burch]

305. It's like 1968.

They'd rather lose with the status-quo candidate(Humphrey then, HRC now), in the name of keeping control of the party, than win with the insurgent(Eugene McCarthy after RFK's death then, Bernie now).

[eridani]

306. Don't agree that Clinton can't beat a Republican--they are all really, really shitty

Still, depending on your opponents to be awful is a horrible strategy for winning.

[RiverLover]

312. Clinton can't GOTV. She's not revving people up. For ex~

[ibegurpard]

320. the people outside the normal Democratic circles

Where I am...that I see turning up at Bernie events I've never seen before...are not going to pound the pavement for Clinton. We are trying to draw them into the party by telling them how we need them to effect change locally but their excitement is not for Clinton.

[restorefreedom]

313. yes, its the

"well at least we're not as bad as THEM" approach

i like to think we can do better

[ibegurpard]

321. it has been a disastrous electoral strategy

And even Obama didn't do as well with it in 2012 as his transformational message and strategy in 08. It needs a stake through the heart.

[NorthCarolina]

318. Likely that the conservative interests in the Democratic party would rather

see the party lose to the GOP candidate than to see Bernie Sanders, a "socialist"!!!!, sworn in as the Next POTUS. To them they see it as an end political graft in a corrupt political system that they helped to build.

[PATRICK]

323. In the USPS we face this every day

and only recently have we called the top out on it. How much, if any, of the politically appointed postal establishment is deliberately gift-wrapping the public service to deliver to privateers? In all of management how much is incompetence, how much is bad theory, how much personal distaste for workers and unions, how much is deliberate destruction?

Fundamentally, it doesn't matter if the truck is definitely going over a cliff if it is deliberate, stupid, blind or a plan for the driver to bail out at the last minute. The Democratic primary is steering toward gifting the GOP. How did we end up blowing possibilities in the past? Not too differently, so it isn't all about individual candidates. It's about hugging the football, fretting over not enthusing about the primary voters, trusting computer screens rather than human voices, fawning over super rich donors as the new kingmakers, avoiding responsibility for doing the job(politics, government office), avoiding "consumers" and product alike for abstractions. Fear. Fearing the one with appealing platform and personal skills the most as too independent. Allying with rivals(media, GOP, GOP voters, soft moderate sectors) to sink anything above leadership control. No matter the damage, no matter the cost, no matter the incredible crisis facing us that needs addressing.

They don't have to be saboteurs or idiots or spiteful or afraid. Things just have to keep rolling along downhill as always, the true momentum of establishment. That vector is scientifically self evident as the people abandon the traditional parties, the Jekyll who won't or can't kill Mr. Hyde and strangely protects him.

[Hortensis]

332. It's really nice to hear concern for our grand old USPS, Patrick.

[PowerToThePeople]

355. Imo, it is self interest

If change could negatively affect the gravy train, it must be avoided at all costs. If the change betters the whole is inconsequential. It is Ayn Rand style self interest on steroids and due mostly to decades of too much right wing influence on society.

[Cosmic Kitten]

325. DNC/DWS is ignoring the "Victory Task Force" report findings

Based on their own "findings"
the DNC is hollowing the party out
and paving the way for right-wing control

http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/democratic_victory_task_force_preliminary_findings.pdf

[HooptieWagon]

331. That's certainly deliberate. Nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

336. Exactly! They can't assert ignorance following the task force report findings

Ironically, Berni is exactly
the candidate the task force
is calling for.

[Babel_17]

327. More a matter of willing to accept greater risks, if they stand to gain more

They gain a lot if we win, but they gain more if it's on their terms. Worse comes to worst, they become the heavily funded stalwarts holding back the night of the Republican driven end times.

They don't answer to us and they have an agenda we don't get to vote on. If Sanders wins, who gets the jobs, and the access? Who doesn't? I submit that the answer to the second question is the more important one.

[corkhead]

329. Very same thought crossed my mind earlier today. We are no longer dems vs repubs

we are the outsiders vs insiders and party affiliation is hardly relevant.

[Faux pas]

334. ...

[SidDithers]

339. ...

Sid

[Zorra]

343. The Dem establishment is destoying the Democratic party. nt

[Dems to Win]

346. Don't know if Dem Establishment is trying to lose, but sure not trying to WIN

The entire Dem establishment lined up behind Hillary before anyone had even tossed their hat in the ring. IMHO, that's a losing strategy right there.

President Obama won with support from antiwar activists. Hillary's Iraq War vote makes it impossible to get a good number of those activists to vote for her.

Occupy Wall Street activists aren't going to be lining up to vote for a Democratic nominee who makes $250,000 speeches to CitiBank.

Millions of people choking on student loan debt aren't going to be enthusiastic in supporting a candidate who tried to tilt the bankruptcy laws against them.

Now that Hillary might be faltering, the Establishment puts forth Biden as Plan B. He will have the same difficulty attracting votes from antiwar activists and people drowning in debt. I have to wonder if they are even trying to win.

[olddots]

347. I came to Democratic Underground

because it was called Democratic Underground .

[HereSince1628]

372. Nah, they just insist on not losing it and getting a democratic socialist president

ANY establishment politician is a better option for their donors