2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI'm supporting Bernie, but here's what I see:
the Revolution may not be televised, but the Coup certainly will be. Although more and more people I talk to every day are becoming aware of Bernie and liking what he's saying, although I'm still sending money and putting on the bumper sticker and attending Bernie house parties, nevertheless the fix is in: Endorsements are overwhelmingly going the other way, polls are surging for Clinton, talking heads and bloggers and print scribes are honing their narratives about Trump/Carson or some Real Republican vs. Hillary.
The line is clearly drawn, and it's been loudly stated by Bernie Sanders many times: people must rise up in sufficient numbers to throw off the politics of the last 40 years and reclaim a functioning democracy, or else we'll be witnesses to our continuing decline into fear, nostalgia and decay.
I'll continue to work in my late-primary corner of the world for a better politics, but what I'm seeing in the headline-and-TV states is a coup, and its power to dazzle and numb those who might otherwise make a bold leap into something better cannot be overcome in modern America. Bernie is offering something different, but we're not ready for it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)I am just scared shitless,that all of this, will have been for nothing and the same old
bought and payed for people will remain in power.
erronis
(23,882 posts)We've all hoped that Bernie could at least bring the Democratic party a bit towards the compassionate/progressive side - where it used to be.
The front-runner has veered in comments but is still the same old, same old.
Apparently, just like our current president, the next one will be shackled by the real PTB. And of course, some nice post-presidency gifts to help their children become part of the next elite.
Dustlawyer
(10,539 posts)They will take everything from us and discard us when too old to work!
Take heart and continue to spread the message!!!
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Hillary in the primary because they are afraid that Bernie will not win. We understand that fear. That is what we are going to have to overcome in order to win. They are not voting because they like her - they are voting out of fear. The same fear we have.
The question is how then do we overcome this fear?
I think we should understand something. Hillary had a good week. She got a bump in the polls because of this. But she is not going to have a Benghazi hearing every week. And Bernie is still the same man that has caused us to follow him. It is way too early to give up. When my daughter talks about this fear I tell her that we need to wait and see. Because Bernie is still out there campaigning and drawing crowds and presenting bills in Congress and talking about issues.
I will have till March to help people in my caucus to see that he is doing better than she is. And I do not mean in the polls. The polls cover past voters for the most part and because of that I ignore them.
What does bother me is that Unions are running scared. They know who is on their side but they do not want to look like they are not on Hillary's side so they endorse her. As to all the other endorsements I think it is the same thing. They are as afraid we will lose as we are. How are we going to justify this kind of fear when everything we want is tossed away in a Hillary win?
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)We are just being continually beaten with the "OhNoYouDon't" stick.
If the tide turns during the very long time until we have a candidate for the General Election. I really hope we display far more inclusiveness then we are receiving, or as a few have shown in the recent past.
If the tide doesn't turn, I hope those who are so angry that someone could dispute an inevitable coronation, take a few minutes from a very busy day filled with the business of anger; and reflect on it being the duty of voters to question authority/ challenge candidates.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)On a large 2 foot by 3 foot foam board write
HONK
FOR
BERNIE
Go to a busy intersection and hold the sign up high so the drivers can read it.
A couple of things will happen, it might get loud with horns honking and others will realize how many supporters he has.
Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.
Then Bernie will win.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)
R. P. McMurphy
(863 posts)but it will be streamed on the internet - where the Millenials are!
Go Bernie!
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)for a Bernie loss. The fix is in is it?
Voting for another candidate is part of a coup is it?
The cause for good is going to lose to the evil ones is it?
Must be hell living in your paradigm.
Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)
Name removed Message auto-removed
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)and the jumping green one or are there others ?
That smilie is kind of lost its effect by now don't you think?
Response to upaloopa (Reply #12)
Name removed Message auto-removed
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
thereismore
(13,326 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Seems like a message of what to do since the fix is in.
Mark Grable
(23 posts)Bernie hasn't lost, he has about 3 months to win it. Here in Vermont, Bernie Sanders has been consistent for decades. He gets votes from Democrats, Republicans, and Progressives. He reminds me of my dad, you can trust him because he has integrity. He can do addition and subtraction, so you know he can balance a budget. His policies are the ones you need if you make less than $100,000,000 a year. That is why the plutocrats are pooping their pants. They don't want their welfare taken away - they paid congress for these advantages, and they don't want to loose them.
As Bernie Sanders said in the first debate, "Congress hasn't regulated Wall Street, Wall Street has regulated Congress!"
Who will break up the "To Big To Fail Banks"?
Get unlimited money out of American Politics?
You tell me.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)
welcome to DU
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)I don't see it so much as a matter of "good and evil," but as voters making a choice based on emotional elements conveyed to them by a powerful message system that's been carefully designed and controlled by people who don't have good intentions.
In other words, Hillary's smooth assurance under fire is more important than regaining our political institutions from those who've bought and stolen them: TV shows the former beautifully, but neglects the latter.
And my paradigm is not nearly the hell we will experience if we don't make the Big Change.
Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)
Name removed Message auto-removed
zappaman
(20,627 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Wed Oct 28, 2015, 07:02 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
I was wondering what would be the excuse
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=738473
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"Must be hell living in your paradigm" is rude and a violation of the CS.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Oct 28, 2015, 07:06 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: As a Bernie supporter the HRC Inevitability posts are getting old. That said, posts like this get added to a growing database of HRC supporters. That list may come in handy someday.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Wow. Alerter really struggled to find a reason to alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry, Bernie supporters have been getting away with calling Hillary supporters brain damaged, and calling Black protesters subhuman. You guys will have to clean up your own aisle first.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Must be hell living in your paradigm I agree with this. I don't see it as a violation of CS they have eroded a great deal with certain weather-vane candidate supporters, let the community see it for what it is.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Folks have lost alert privileges and that alerter might be a good candidate to join their ranks.
artislife
(9,497 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)to. Those who own and operate the media use it to manipulate people and yet sometimes people don't always do what the media tells them to do.
The Revolution will not be televised! But it will come none the less!
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)IMO this may help Bernie in the long run.
glinda
(14,807 posts)Bernie has the trust of a large amount of people.
when you don't lie and/or change your position to suit your political needs and ambitions people tend to trust what you say.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)not.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)You just stick that Bernie campaign literature in the closet next to your shortwave radio, your karate outfit and your unicycle and we'll go inside and watch TV."
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts) brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...that the Democratic Party voters and elected officials legitimately prefer Clinton to Sanders?
Response to brooklynite (Reply #15)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)but the wisdom. "The fix," as was pointed out above, is the media narrative.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)YOU could see through the media "fix" but they couldn't.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)Or to our fears and emotions?
Why do you think such a high percentage of DU support Bernie over Hillary? They're political junkies, mostly, and pretty savvy as well. Not good subjects for media campaigns.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Ron Green
(9,870 posts)But maybe not so much out there in Teevee Land.
That's my fear, and the point of this thread.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)preponderance of available messengers at her disposal . . . well that's a whole lot of advertising.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,853 posts)David Ogilvy, the father of modern advertising, said the best way to kill a bad product is to advertise it because folks will buy it, find it wanting, and never buy it again...
Maybe folks believe Hillary would be a better executive.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)if people really found inferior goods wanting, there wouldn't be so much injection molding in China.
It's the same with politicians; we've been sold the same bunch of 'em for years, and still elect their ilk.
There's only one candidate talking about the oligarchy, and a movement away from same, and he's the one not being advertised.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)But between now and Super Tuesday, lots can happen for both candidates. I'm a realist but I don't get that same sense from many of your friends. Crowing today could end up as roadkill in November of 2016.
Response to brooklynite (Reply #15)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)What THEY have to say is WHY we are fighting back!! That was a very weird question because as much as you post in Hillary's favor it would seem you understood we support Bernie BECAUSE we DON'T TRUST The Democratic Party anymore!
Not going to fight with you, just had to say I'm surprised you didn't understand this yet.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)..I fully understand the goals of your political effort; my question is whether you can acknowledge that, as meritorious as it might be, it might not be shared by a majority of Democratic voters who have reached an equally thoughtful, but different point of view.
artislife
(9,497 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)We're back to the OP stating that the only reason Clinton could possibly be (consistently) ahead of Bernie is because the "fix" is in.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Some posters here, maybe even you, convince me of it. DWS convinces me of it. The mainstream media convinces me of it.
Do I believe it will work?
Not yet, I do believe that no one has counted any ballots yet.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but it will be a helluva fight.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)
blondie58
(2,570 posts)In fact, the more i learn about her, the Less i like.
It will just be More of the Same-
And we might we might even have a war Thrown in.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...bearing in mind that 18-20 Million other Democrats will be voting theirs.
mythology
(9,527 posts)At least based on the polling. That doesn't mean every Democrat supports Clinton.
charlyvi
(6,537 posts)Nor have I been manipulated or brainwashed by corporate media: I don't even own a TV. Some of the folks in this place are sounding like Free Republic Left.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)aidbo
(2,328 posts)Just wish I didn't have to wait until May to vote for Bernie.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)That is so beneath rationality and dignity, and there is nothing to suggest that something has been stolen away from anyone. Something has not (yet) been earned.
It is easy to explain why the preponderance of elected Democratic officials are endorsing Clinton. They're Democrats, and this is a Democratic Party primary. They are going to throw their lot in with the leading Democrat in the process here. It would be highly unusual for them to throw their weight behind a candidate who is neither ahead at this point nor is a Democrat (who, in fact, has rigorously rejected identification as a Democrat). Indeed, we could say it is would be something of a coup for them to abandon their party to support someone from the outside.
It's also not a coup when Clinton rises in the polls, especially after demonstrably strong performances in the debate and the Congressional hearing. The rising numbers reflect the attitudes of the PEOPLE. And remember, the people does not refer only to people supporting Bernie Sanders. It's all the people, of all stripes, of all age groups, of all colors and geographic origins. It means all the people, even those who disagree with you.
I've supported candidates in presidential primaries who lost miserably before (in fact all primaries except for 2008, when I supported Obama), and it hurt. But I quickly realized that it was not their time and place. That the majority of people felt differently than I did. And then I got behind the nominees and even worked for their campaigns.
It's not easy, but it's not a conspiracy or a coup. It's just the way American politics works: we have parties, we have media, and we have voters. None of them are perfect, but somehow, an expression of popular will emerges. Sometimes, we don't like the outcome much, but we have to live with it.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)but what about the Facebook polls?
mythology
(9,527 posts)Discussing them is pointless. Scientific polls indicate that Clinton won the debate although Biden not entering probably had more of an impact.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)the media narrative, the sometimes vicious politics of the Clintons, and above all the absolute need in this country and world at this time for the transformation being called for by Bernie Sanders. "Highly unusual" is your term for going against the prevailing politics to support a real change, but that's exactly what's needed and agreed upon by every reasonable person I talk to in real life, although somehow ignored by the media and most other politicians. Your own experience supporting candidates in the past demonstrates that we're not getting the electees we need and deserve, and I respectfully question your last paragraph about the popular will emerging: recall 2000's result.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)That is an entirely different discussion than the one we're having here. And yet even with that fraud, a large enough majority of the American people accepted that decision--because almost half the nation (though a million fewer than Gore) actually DID support GWB. Sad but true.
Bernie Sanders might be doing differently if he were to either proudly proclaim he is a Democrat, and contribute to the Democratic party and its candidates, or to run as an Independent. (He's too stubborn to do the first, even as he uses the party and its mechanisms as the base for his campaign; and too principled to do the second, knowing it would be a spoiler race.)
Why do Democrats support Democratic candidates? Because parties are a social construct in which people can band together an accomplish more than they could do individually or in small factions. And to be a member of a party means that you lend support to others in the party. You campaign for them, if you have extra funds yourself you donate to their campaigns, you work as a bloc to offset the other party's legislation, you develop agendas together. I like parties, even with all their flaws and impossibly big tents. Because you know what? Parties are a safer bet than individual demagoguery. We have no prophets or heroes in this country. We work together, in groups, hopefully for the common good.
I realize this won't convince you of anything, but I laid out my opinions anyway. And, believe it or not, I am one of the PEOPLE.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)I don't accept that what Bernie is doing is "demagoguery." He saw that the only way to build the kind of movement we're talking about was to work, in some ways, outside the party structure. Upon attracting the kinds of numbers he has done to rallies around the country, the question becomes Who needs whom more? Bernie or the Democratic Party? I suggest that, following the rightward and Neoliberal march of the party over the past couple of decades, Bernie's principled stand offers the Dems a way to clean up their act and be a real alternative to the Republicans.
I was a Democratic candidate for office three years ago, and saw a disturbing amount of insider dealing and money-influenced bad decisions all around the State affecting my run. Much of this is just the way it is, but my point is that it can be better. And what Bernie represents is an unwavering commitment to a kind of truth in politics longed for by average people but rarely seen. To see this chance for such a clear White House message delivered every day to Americans threatened by the same old money-shuffling in our own primary is dismaying, although not totally unexpected.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)I hope it doesn't fall on deaf ears
Avalux
(35,015 posts)If they vote (when historically they don't) - then every poll, every ad, every push and propaganda piece for Hillary will mean nothing.
I have hope that they'll take their futures into their own hands and completely mess up the game.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
The hyperbolic rhetoric...
it Berns!
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts) 
mvd
(65,914 posts)But, Sanders may have finally started things going in a progressive direction. I predict Hillary would pick at least a fairly progressive VP. It's hard going against a big name like Hillary. But unlike before in elections, Sanders has shown there's strong support among Democratic Party voters for a true progressive. Win for lose for Bernie, I feel change is coming.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)"Be very wary when the powers that be continue choosing a favorite FOR YOU."
I won't choose the candidate that is spoon fed to me... EVER.
polichick
(37,626 posts)It might take a while for the revolution - and it really is a revolution, though peaceful - to grow into a power to be reckoned with.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)And reverse Citizens United.
Bernie Sanders has my vote no matter what the TV and so-called progressives on DU try to tell me.
Go Bernie!
blackspade
(10,056 posts)To reality thanks to the M$M and the corporations that own them.
zentrum
(9,870 posts)…..looking at how this is going to unfold.
The Clinton Machine and its funding will probably win her the primary. There will be much gloating among her followers. Democrats like me will vote for her in the election because I'm forced once again to vote for the lesser evil and not for a candidate I want or trust.
But then, she'll try to get something done in Washington and the Republican voters hate her with such a white hot heat that the scandal mongering, the investigations, even back to Vince Foster's "Murder", will take up all the oxygen. The main stream media will love it. Nothing on the crises we face will be truly faced. It will be distraction after distraction because for the RW, she's like scandal-porn. Innuendo and accusation is what you do with the Clintons. Because they both have so much baggage.
I even fear she'll take us to war just to have the country unite behind her when she needs it, because of all this grid-lock.
Bernie, on the other hand, though he'd have little clout in Congress has another way——he really is a movement builder, is not hated, even by the RW voter, and intends to prevail on us to pressure our representatives to support his policies. It's cumbersome but nowhere near the endless reality TV farce we'll have under an HRC administration.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)Quit freaking out. Hillary had a few good weeks. Remember one thing. In just this short time, he has more individual contributions than anyone. Single contributions mean votes. Bernie outnumbers her, and everyone else, big time. Since we are only 5-6 months into this election, and a full year to go, I'm not sweating anything. Bernie is a smart man. He'll do his best to get it back on track. After all, it can't be all uphill, all the time. Especially considering the money and background of his competition.
sorechasm
(631 posts)Ain't gonna happen. Especially since Hillary is sounding more like Bernie every day.
Let's see how sincere she is.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts) 
RussBLib
(10,636 posts)I think Bernie is right when he says that huge numbers of people need to stand up and speak out and really mean it and keep at it.
I don't think that's happening. There are not enough of them at this time. Time will tell.
I'm guilty too. I support Bernie. I've sent money. But I have not done much beyond that, except talking to friends and family about him. But I don't think that's enough. I can feel it. You need ground troops. Phone banks. Block walkers. Improvisational and performance art support. Enthusiastic celebrities. And other things I'm too dense to think of.
But I do think Hillary would be wise to tap Bernie as her VP so she brings the two biggest factions of the Democratic party together to crush the clown parade otherwise known as the GOP.
procon
(15,805 posts)These delegates are all Democratic Party leaders, insiders and VIPs. Sanders has spent his political career denying that he was a Democrat and only using the party when it was necessary to advance his position. So far, he hasn't been able to convince the powerful bloc of loyal Democratic super delegates to throw over their own party and back him as the nominee.
Clinton is well on her way with 391 endorsements from Democratic Party Senators, Representatives and state governors, while Sanders has 2. The numbers just don't add up, so how is he going to flip the math?
Metric System
(6,048 posts)garnered lots of party endorsements and racked up super-delegates.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)As we found out.
frylock
(34,825 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)confident that they have this thing by virtue of super delegates regardless of popular vote.
procon
(15,805 posts)The super delegates are the staunchest party leaders, the hardliners, all the Democratic Senators, Representatives, state governors and other VIPs that govern the party. I wish it were otherwise, but I don't see any viable path that would persuade these power brokers to ditch a fellow Democratic candidate.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)agreeing with you...the establishment super delegates will support Clinton regardless of the popular vote. Preserving the status-quo is their only goal and they will achieve it by any means at their disposal.
frylock
(34,825 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)they will ensure that her establishment counterpart is the GOP nominee, then the election can proceed unabated because they got the win-win setup they want.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)That's how it's shaping up.
waldo.c
(43 posts)Support Bernie Sanders as strongly as you can, ignoring all the possible negative outcomes. There's no guarantees and the American electorate is basically as thick as a brick, but if everyone does their best, we've tried.
DaveT
(687 posts)Before we concede the election.
Contrary to the "realism" you express here, Sanders is FAR ahead of schedule. That poses problems of its own, as this All Hillary All The Time media babble shows. Yes one good month after about four horrible months for HRC makes it look like Bernie is sinking out of sight.
I suggest that people in both camps are getting way too worked up over the headlines of the week. We are still months away from the first caucus.
The MSM are hyping her like mad. Does this surprise you?
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)For sure.... I am truly scared... I have seen a lot in my time on earth but I am just as afraid of her being elected as I was when tricky dick was winning... she has followed the political winds and talked a good talk but she will revert back if she gets the nomination... same old same old
nightwing1240
(1,996 posts).....this nation at this point in time is not ready to elect a Democratic Socialist (his own words) as POTUS and like it or not, if out of protest when Hillary wins the nomination Bernie voters stay home for the 2016 Presidential election and we wind up with ANY of those idiots running for the GOP nomination, this country is doomed. They'd hold the House, Senate, Supreme Court AND the White House. So, like Bill Maher has said; "If you can't have the fish, eat the chicken"
NonMetro
(631 posts)Bernie has created a lot of excitement and brought some ideas into focus, but anyone who thinks this country would elect a 74 year old socialist next year - well, it's not going to happen. I'm in agreement with Sanders, too, and I'll vote for him in the primary, but I have no illusions. I'll vote for HRC next year, too, and the DNC knows that, too. We're snookered!
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)most will fold and fold before there is a vote one at that.
Speak for yourself or let the DuNCe speak for you. Not only am I not voting for Clinton but none of her fellow Turd Wayers now or ever again. I'm past D.O.N.E.
The last vote was for time to straighten up and fly right and that time was squandered setting up a coronation for even more of the same and I'm not going to facilitate it anymore.
Y'all want corporate, anti civil liberties, interventionist then have at it. I won't waste their lead in my pencil in the booth to help you pick the flavor again.
I figure in 4 or 5 cycles hard heads will soften up and if not we can double down until they learn or go to the grave for relief.
Go along to get along don't get shit but taken for a ride. If folks would play to win and do so with the relentlessness the establishment rolls out of bed with we wouldn't have to have these conversations.
How in the world are you suppose to win when the opposition knows you will surrender in the end (fuck that before the game tips) no matter what.
Bullies can smell a chump from a mile away and seek them out to pummel. Guess what? When the price of fucking with you gets too high, even if you never win a fight they back off and you win the war.
This will continue as long as we allow it. For my part it is over, I'm going to make sure there are handfuls of hair, broken teeth, and blood on the floor even if it is mostly my own.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)then there never was one.
History will have a hard time showing a more devious one.
But you can't fool ALL the people ALL the time, and republicans who haven't figured out yet that many Democrats don't support the coup will vote in greater numbers than they ever have...
And those of us who support the coup may not get what they were promised. There aren't enough cabinet seats...
There's the pity of it. We're going to hand the presidency over to the republicans. And with the crazy bunch in the House, there goes our SS and other entitlement programs.
But they may be lost anyway if the coup succeeds. We are not privy to those speeches on Wall Street, which may have promised even greater wealth.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)There is no fix...no "in" from the establishment.
Bernie has not been able to make inroads with minorities, women. Missteps with BLM, utilizing Cornell West, and many other tin ear moves and statements have all come home to roost. All of these were brought up right here on DU and resoundingly rebuked by the collective Sanders id.
IMO, his team also missed a huge opportunity by not focusing on a pretty damned good record as mayor of Burlington. He did some really great things there. You can see it in my journal if you are interested.
A loss is Bernie and his team's fault...not the MSM or those who Sanders supporters see as uninformed or ignorant.
The steamrolling of anything negative about Bernie here and elsewhere is one other reason he'll lose...when you don't listen, you don't learn.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I think Hillary would still be winning, but not by as much. I think his supporters have managed to turn a lot of people off to his candidacy and OP's like this and various similar comments make it clear why.
Bernie not winning? It's either a fix, or folks supporting Hillary are too stupid to get it. It couldn't be that he is just plain losing.
When Bernie was winning, it was because Hillary was all these negative things and her supporters were all these negative things. The supporters did not concentrate their comments on why Bernie was so good.
Response to Ron Green (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)Those supporting Hillary are operating from an assumption that conventional politics is justified and will therefore produce the candidate people want (and need, because they want her.)
Bernie's supporters are saying that conventional politics has to go; it includes too much money, too many spoils, too much lying.
That's the scary-changey part; the establishment's very frame of reference must die if we're to have a truly different and survivable future.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...Remember the "Deaniacs"?
...Remember the "Ron Paul Revolution"?
How'd they work out?
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)If your definition of "successful" means good for a ruling economic class, then you're correct. Real change would require a new definition.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)onenote
(46,143 posts)Well, it is for the side that wins. Thus, for example, McGovern losing to Nixon (and I worked my ass off for George) was not a successful outcome for me, or for the country.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)There's some evidence to the contrary. In any case, such a "defensive" nomination is just pathetic.
onenote
(46,143 posts)but only if the party comes together after the nominating process. Anyone who thinks that winning this election will be a cakewalk is ignoring the reality of the divisions in this country.
The reality is that there are two Americas (maybe really more), but not the two that Edwards described. One of those Americas is the America that you heard during the repub debate -- an America that is so ideologically driven that facts mean nothing to them. That America hates Clinton, but that hate will be redirected to Bernie if he gets the nomination -- you can count on it. The same talk radio, Fox News, ideologically-driven belief that Democrats want to make government bigger, that bigger government takes away freedom, that America is in decline and only the successors to Saint Ronnie can bring it back to greatness, that immigrants that don't look like white America not only are taking our jobs but are secretly planning to blow us all up, that Democrats are not only godless, they want to force their godlessness on everyone -- that crap is going to be leveled at Sanders if he gets the nomination and if all of the folks that support Clinton and all of the folks that support Sanders and all of the folks that support O'Malley don't come together and do the hard work of organizing and getting out the vote and persuading their friends and neighbors, we will lose.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)Bernie's socialism is not about nostalgia, which is what the Republicans are selling. It's about what the Repubs CLAIM to support, which is more opportunity for more people. Their ideology blinds them to the pickpocketing by their corporate masters, disguised as "liberty" in the Culture Wars being waged in everyone's lower brain stems.
If enough voters would listen to the messages of both Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis, and put two and two together, we'd have a chance at the GOTV you mention.
Hillary's nomination is more problematic, because it's purely a defensive move against the ideological Culture War from the Right, and no real transformation of the system.
marble falls
(71,936 posts)your stamina!!!!
Response to Ron Green (Reply #95)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)Our very own Democratic Party is doing EVERYTHING it can to kick him to the side!
It's up to US! No matter how futile it seems we owe it to OURSELVES to keep pushing back. I can't give up yet, this is my last hurrah!
wilsonbooks
(972 posts)Even though Hillary has had a couple of good weeks, remember that Obama was almost exactly where Bernie was at this point in the last primary fight. I don't pay attention to the super delegates because if Bernie wins the primaries then the party would be committing suicide if they ignored the will of the people. I speak as a Democrat of more than 40 years of party loyalty. Put aside your fears and fight like hell for Bernie. We are the media.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)It's the wrong word, altogether. What you are seeing is our system functioning as it functions.
It may need changing, but there is no "coup" in the works at all. There will also be no "revolution" in 2016. What there will be is the same process of electing a new President that has been used again and again, with all of its warts and blemishes.
If a drastic change is needed, the only way it will happen is if enough people can be convinced that it is needed to vote in that change in our regular election process. Convinced. That means helping them understand what it is that a candidate thinks should happen and why that would be the better choice.
Convinced, not coerced. Convinced, not threatened. Convinced, not called names.
Convince voters to make a change and they have everything they need to make that change. If they're not convinced, the change will not occur. There will be no coup. There will be no revolution. Change happens when voters decide it's time for that change.
That's how it works here.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)works, without acknowledging that our electoral process has become a marketing job and that political life in this country is indistinguishable from consumer activity. Within this landscape, the corporate media are functioning as defenders against the very necessary changes in public participation called for by Bernie Sanders. I acknowledged above that perhaps "coup" is a bit strong, but given that a reasonable person like you claims (and seems to defend) that our "system (is) functioning as it functions," while the national and planetary needs are what they are - well, I have to imagine a big stroke is being struck.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)With 315 million citizens or so, reaching them requires much of the same technology and uses many of the same techniques used by companies to convince consumers to make purchases. That is the reality. I don't necessarily approve of that reality, but I recognize that it exists.
Given that, I make the best choice based on the realities of politics. The presidential election is a binary thing. Even the primaries on the Democratic side this year will be a binary choice. Not much room for nuance in either, really.
That's why my political focus is on legislative elections, both state and federal. Reality is a bit simpler in those, since each is more local than the presidential election.
We will elect a President in 2016, choosing from between two people. For me the choice is simple. I vote for the Democrat. But my attention is on legislative races. They matter more, really, all things being equal.
My judgment is that Hillary Clinton is the more electable of the two viable candidates for the nomination. So, my support goes to her.
onenote
(46,143 posts)What do you think Johnson's daisy ad was, if not marketing. In fact, while there were no presidential debates before 1960 (and not again after 1960 until the 1970s), there was marketing. Was not "I Like Ike" marketing? What do you think Tippecanoe and Tyler too was, if not marketing.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)Lincoln and Douglas held sway for hours, broke for supper, and resumed after people returned to stand for hours more. Of course, their audiences were white property owners, and now we (Democrats) seek to include as many adults as possible, many of whom respond most favorably to slogans and emotions.
I think you must agree, though, that today's seamless media machinery is a far cry from the quaint advertising of the past; the political sector has been firmly seized by the commercial one.
onenote
(46,143 posts)And they were around 3 hours long (60 minutes for Douglas, 90 for Lincoln, followed by 30 for Lincoln).
The election itself was won by Douglas and was decided not by popular vote but by the Illinois legislature.
(That being said, it is true that there was national "coverage" of the debates by newspapers and, more importantly, Lincoln published an edited text of the debates -- there were seven in all -- and that book helped him to the republican nomination in 1860).
And there were no Presidential debates before 1960.
There was a repub primary debate between Dewey and Stassen on radio in 1948 which drew a pretty sizable audience. There was a 1956 debate between Democrats Stevenson and Kefauver that was televised by ABC, which had an audience reach of less than 20 percent of the population at the time.
And, to be honest, with the Internet and online streaming and youtube etc etc, the debates are more accessible today than in the past and there are more ways to experience them outside the spinning of the "seamless" national media than was in the past, which makes marketing more, not less difficult.
PATRICK
(12,396 posts)The force of the frontrunner establishment campaign is at its highwater mark but the candidate herself is not fixed solid in the hearts and minds. Also, the same kind of discouragement among very enthused followers has happened before to eventually successful candidates like Kerry. making trajectories from snapshots at this stage with a bone wearying months to go fermentation is impossible.
What is really "worrisome" is wondering what organization or slow build the stronger candidate(Bernie) is doing or capable of doing. Behind the scenes what money, what organization and ground tactics, what important support? Being so unique a candidate it is hard to predict, as it was not with Kerry, the solid possibility of overcoming the poll doldrums at the first actual primary.
It is more your second paragraph. Of all the world's countries how likely is it that the Americans will be in clear revolt, even with good cause and a clear champion? That is a post in itself. It is about politics and the person, and the people only vie to find their voice represented, not take to the streets or raid TV studios.
No, the only thing that is unclear or absent is not how Sanders will reframe his presentation but how it will be politically presented and organized to win. His extraordinary feature is his completely outside the box nature, a sincere and long record winning progressive speaking on critical hardcore issues on behalf of the people with no fog of personal ambition or equivocating. The responding phenomenon would be the people recognizing and voting for said champion like a star struck populace would vote for Eisenhower or Reagan.
Sanders is no Eugene McCarthy who rode a single issue, almost single constituency into a wider disaffection with the LBJ administration. And Hillary is no Bobby Kennedy to easily brush him aside. But there is a big vulnerability, and that is all those structures and advantages controlled by by the other politicians. In my experience I believe that no amount of enthusiasm or movement can prevail without the brutal ground game. Ironically. the GOP leans heavily on the schlump grump vote, people who only get off the couch long enough to vote against their own interests. Dems nearly have to have a revolution in every election to get people to face their best interests. A spontaneous Dem intramural turnaround rarely happens even banking on charism and message to trump money and party organization.
Millions have been wasted on GOP losers and trying to decorate unchanging not so popular wannabes. Of course all the props in world can easily come to naught as scary and intimidating and arrogant as they are. No, the only thing is whether the better candidate(s) will be relatively silenced, outspun, outspent, out organized and outvoted especially in those quixotic early primary states. Performing with extraordinary success may not do enough to push momentum where winning will be defined as a simple plurality for Hillary in those early states or a "squeaker" for Bernie will be MSM presented as weakness for him and Hillary both.
I am afraid we do need to hope for a voter insurgence against the publicized establishment "momentum" and though Sanders is more the genuine leader for such a hope I wonder if the wider practical disadvantages will bury him when hope suffers attrition against the narrow focus of raw political power arrayed in the early states. It might be better not to be in the populist frontrunner position like Dean and assume those numbers will magically turn out to vote and that growth momentum, not attrition will take place.
I expect the current Hillary surge will pale in the winter months of discontent when Sanders has to be his most dogged and even "underground"
as far as the MSM is concerned) on the trail. Who is with him in this lonely Valley Forge? Success is not guaranteed against gross power. Hillary may be somewhat propped, but never enthusiastically, by the not so friendly media.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)of this winter? That's where my discouragement lurks, because the real grass-roots movement that's required has never before been accomplished, as much as it's needed to match the circumstances that have never, until now, existed.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"The fix is in", when it seems that the endorsers and electorate support a different candidate and the talking heads and bloggers and print scribes are reporting that?
And, doesn't this ...
Kind of argue against everything that preceded it.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)and that polls also do not necessarily show reality, although I may be wrong about the latter and fear that I am.
What "we're not ready for" is a politics of substance over style, representation over Kabuki theater. Despite overwhelming evidence that this bought-off system has not given us a less toxic American society, we still allow miscreants to operate in our names, even as we denounce them.
Where we need to go is eloquently described by David Korten, Gus Speth, Gar Alperovitz, Richard Wolff, and yes, Pope Francis. Electing Bernie Sanders would be a first step on that road; electing Hillary Clinton keeps the gate tightly shut.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)the way you do that is at the ballot box.
If you lose you lose. Get better organized and get better people to run if that's the case.
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)will be no match for your candidate's big-money media campaign.