General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders giving pro-Clinton Democrat ‘nightmares’
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-giving-pro-clinton-democrat-nightmares?cid=sm_m_main_1_20141005_32895216By Alex Seitz-Wald
<snip>
While most dismiss Sanders chances, even some supporting Hillary Clinton are concerned he could find unexpected success against the more establishment Democrat.
I have nightmares that someone like a Bernie Saunders will catch fire and cause trouble for Hillary Clinton. People sometimes ignore who the most electable candidate is and which candidate is best prepared to lead the country in favor of the fun of being a contrarian in the moment, said one pro-Clinton Democratic operative, who asked to remain anonymous to speak candidly.
Bill Gluba, the mayor of Davenport and a longtime Iowa Democratic activist who got onboard early with Barack Obama in 2008, has met with Sanders this year and said theres a real hunger among the grassroots for a candidate willing to take on Wall Street and the 1%.
Hes about the only one really clearly speaking to the real issues, said Gluba, who has not yet committed to anyone.
..more..
cali
(114,904 posts)adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)All this shitting of pants tells something about how Hillary not being so inevitable after all. Which most everyone already knows.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)If Democrats suck as you seem to think....and Bernie is the Hero you are looking for....why does he NEED to even become a Democrat?
G_j
(40,366 posts)your question.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)G_j
(40,366 posts)The aides said hes most likely to run for president as a Democrat, with a small chance of him running as a independent, and an equally small chance of him staying out of 2016 entirely.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)if he is the answer to all the questions? What is the REAL reason he has to do that?
G_j
(40,366 posts)I think that's reason enough.
cali
(114,904 posts)and here's why. it's simple. hopefully you'll be able to wrap your mind around it: He'd become a dem because he wants to be part of the process- you know, debates, etc. and because he's not a spoiler type.
stop getting so upset about it, Vanilla. You're freaking over this and everyone can see that your claim that it doesn't bother you at all, is laughable.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)right!
YOU know darn well WHY.....even though you spend most days here trashing everything there is about Democrats up to and including claiming that they are really just Republican Lites......YET.....you do not see the hypocrisy of hoping that someone NOT a Democrat becomes one BECAUSE....the truth is.....He cannot win ANY other way.....OHHHH the inhumanity!
G_j
(40,366 posts)than most politicians who call themselves Democrats these days. And the REAL reason he is considering this, is that he cares about this country!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and it's still hypocritical!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm not surprised by that, but I AM surprised that you happily say so.
Bye, now. have fun at Conservative Cave
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You've been proving that point for quite a while now VR.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)OH and not committing to vote for whomever is chosen by Democrats as the Democratic Primary winner.......is having "Democratic principles"?
dotymed
(5,610 posts)if a proven Progressive were to return the Democratic party back to the party of the people?
Bernie can be the person to do that if we, the majority support him.
I KNOW this will not sway you at all. I m familiar with your posts.
Hopefully, it will have a positive effect on others who desire to see the Democratic party return to the peoples party status.
Honestly, nothing personal, you're the "realist" while I m still the "idealist."
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I'm starting to think you don't really understand this whole Democracy concept yet at all!
polichick
(37,152 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but OH Yeah!!!! Darn it.....you don't believe in those!!!
polichick
(37,152 posts)how far the party has moved away from traditional democratic policies and toward corporatewhoredom.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)????? You expected perfection? A magic President?
Has TPP passed yet? Did he Executive Order it while I wasn't looking?
Again letting the good be the enemy of the perfect Yee Haw!!!
polichick
(37,152 posts)It's where the parties are now - that's the point of this sub-thread.
You can pretend Obama's position on the TPP is irrelevant - but pretending is the last thing Americans need now.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I get so sick of the hatred of the Democratic party by so-called Democrats. How are we to tell if you really ARE one when you say such crap as this.....
Holding ypur nose and voting for a Democrat while you believe this nonsense.....because YOU all cannot organize and run your own Party.....doesnt exactly make you one now does it?
polichick
(37,152 posts)that the party had sold out.
Nice try though.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Thanks for admitting that now I can put you on my admitted not a Democrat Ignore list....
Marr
(20,317 posts)Seriously, I'm asking. Are you getting increasingly worked up as your attacks fall apart, or are you just trolling? I mean, the post I'm responding to here is representative of most of the stuff that comes from your corner. A bunch of sentence fragments from unconnected talking points, glued together with emotes and a desperate, sort of machine gun punctuation.
It's weird.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 7, 2014, 02:49 PM - Edit history (1)
As the previous poster just admitted he or she is not....do you really want to defend them?
polichick
(37,152 posts)that I'm a longtime activist who no longer carries the D card.
Your spin is pathetic throughout this thread.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Or as I said you are a self loathing Democrat....because you made that patently false claim against them...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Saw right through your bullshit didn't l?
polichick
(37,152 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)That's exactly what I'm talking about. It's like you're so excited to be getting attention that you slapped that out in three or four seconds and hit post. There wasn't even time to read it over and check for mistakes, much less actually consider the response. That's just trolling.
So I suppose you have answered my question, though indirectly.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)G_j
(40,366 posts)version of "truth". Why are you harrassing people who like Bernie, when all his statements indicate he would most likely run as a Democrat? I noticed you carefully avoided answering the questions about Christ or Lieberman. Trolling along...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Are the only one hallucinating!
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)Bill Clinton began the middle corporate party, called the DLC...."to get elected" we must move to the middle. NAFTA???? Ending Glass Steagal??????? I won't go on....like the trafficking of kids in Bosnia????
Now Hillary is bowing to the war machine, Wall Street, AND Monsanto????
Oh, don't forget the Keystone Pipeline!
I'm over the purity....Bernie has been more of a dem than any of them!
If you like where Hillary is going...then support her. No one is stopping you! It's called an democracy.....
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Why do Independents all seem to think it is THEY that get to say what is or isnt Democratic.
By the way are you committed to vote for whoever wins the Democratic Primary?
.
I am going to guess NO you arent....so WTF gives YOU the authority to say who is or isnt a real Democrat....because if you can't commit.....you must quit
Quit thinking you are qualified to make such a judgement.
It's actually funny to watch the hyperventilating.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)a Dem in the Primary?
I think that would be even MORE of a nightmare for Clinton.
valerief
(53,235 posts)the Republican asshole.
He wants to debate the REAL issues. He'll decide the best way to do that, but I doubt he'll run to the end as an Independent, unless the Dems endorse William "freezer money" Jefferson.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)entire Democratic party......why would becoming one be a winning position? Isn't that bad for optics? And you are expecting the entire Democratic party to just roll over for this one man coup right?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)'his supporters' do not 'hate the entire Democratic party'. They actually like him because he does a far better job of embodying the ideals and holding the positions of the party platform than many other registered Dems.
Is it bad for optics? Hell no, it's good for the Party that Bernie would even more closely align himself with the party than he always has as a Dem Socialist. One man coup? If he wins, there's no 'coup', because he has the support of the party. He's not coming in in a tank at the head of divisions of AK-armed lunatics. He's going for votes. He'll get them or not if he signs up to run and enough people decide to vote based on positions rather than name-recognition.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and no different than having Republicans in charge right? Isn't that the gist of this?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)feel free to google search any of my comments here or anywhere else - you'll never find a single instance of me saying there is no difference between the parties or that they're all Republican lite. You always seem to go to your strawman caricatures when you have no good reply.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)did I call YOU out specifically? Does one person change the rule? Or ARE YOU saying that doesn't happen on DU?
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)That is dumb to the point of dishonesty, as no one could actually be so stupid to believe that.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I remind you that most of those we are describing claim that they WONT commit to voting for whomever wins the Democratic Primary.....so even if Bernie loses that.....the Democrats cannot count on them....BUT no hypocrisy in that right?
G_j
(40,366 posts)never mind
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I'll tell you right now I'll be voting for every other Democrat on my ballot in the general, no matter who wins the Democratic Primary. So probably 20-30 Dems I'll be voting for, and one maybe.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)DUH!!!!! That's how Democracy works...YOU don't always get YOUR way! Its not about YOU! You don't get your own "Personal Jesus"!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They hate the prowar "probusiness" globalist wing...the wing that gets to run the party even though its attitudes are well to the right of most of the party.
(btw, wouldn't even YOU have to admit, after the Nineties, that there's no meaningful difference between being a "probusiness Democrat" and just plain being a Republican? And wouldn't you also agree that there couldn't possibly be any excuse for the party ever again nominating somebody as antiworker and anti-poor people as our nominee of '92 and '96?)
Rockyj
(538 posts)It appears people are just trying to point out that the Democratic Party "TODAY" is basically like the Republican Party (pre-Tea Party) of yesterday. I believe Hillary Clinton is a neo-liberal and a war hawk and she does not represent what "I PERCEIVE" are the true values of the Democratic Party.
"The main points of neo-liberalism include:
THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.
CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.
PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.
ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)And comparing the Democratic party to the Teabaggers should be a bannable offense! Especially since it is YOU that is in the minority.....
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)The poster explicitly stated that Democrats are not like the teabaggers.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Still should be banned for it...calli g Democrats Republicans......disgusting truly that is....disrespectful. Pres. Obama is one of those Democrats that have brought us from the brink of a second Great Depression....havent you heard Unemployment is 5.9% and with all the obstruction .. .. but you want to make the good the enemy of the perfect!
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)....usually by people on YOUR side, i.e. the impotent status quo side, of the issue.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Party say they are all like Teabaggers? Really??
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Here, I'll answer for you: It's a simple-minded way of trying to shut down any and all dissent from the Corporatist-Democratic party line. It is employed on a REGULAR BASIS by such types as a bludgeon against those of us here who are Populist-Democrats.
And then the icing on the cake--which you already pulled above--is the "friendly TOS reminder", again, wielded by Corporatist-Democrats against Populist-Democrats to the end of pretending that Populist-Democrats are not "real" Democrats, because God knows, you can't be a Democrat if you don't think Hillary is the second coming of Jesus.
But if you have even an iota of self-awareness, you already knew that. So I'll just point out that your attempts to entrap Sanders supporters in this thread have been embarrassingly sophomoric, and stop. You'll have your 13,000 posts soon enough without my help--and it's ridiculous shit like this that keeps me from posting on here very often. Swear to God, I have an easier time talking with Republicans than with "Democrats" like you--and I live in South Carolina, so I talk with Republicans AND Democrats a LOT.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am defending the Democratic Party....what is YOUR excuse?
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)caucused with the party since he became of member of Congress.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)smokey nj
(43,853 posts)off. No, Bernie hasn't changed his affiliation yet, but I'm fairly confident he will and I think the Democratic party will be better with him in it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)every word I said is the truth....Mr Sanders is not yet a Democrat.....THIS is Democratic Underground....
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)I've been a member here a hell of a lot longer than you have. Grow up.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)wow....
G_j
(40,366 posts)is disrupting, pure and simple.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Not to mention the Democratic Party's SUCCESSES in the face of a seditious recalcitrant Republican Party led Congress I might add...
A Democrat will be winning the Democratic Primary....
I am tired of running away from a successful record around here!
G_j
(40,366 posts)you are not defending anything
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that's it?
wow...
Marr
(20,317 posts)That whole crew has the same kind of frenetic, gibbering quality in their posts. It's always just disruption.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)...and if the Democratic Party needs YOU to defend them, we're in even worse shape than I thought!
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Sanders supporters do not Hate the party - they hate Hillary's lack of being democratic enough. Maybe some do, okay, but those are the minority weirdos -- probably Libertarians that want to stir the shit pot of divisiveness, and they don't count.
One man coup?
Sounds like you prefer the One Woman coup and get overly upset if opinions differ.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)If she is polling highest in the polls that INCLUDE Bernie Sanders...
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)polls mean nothing this far out.
absolutely nothing when there isn't even an official lineup!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you warm in the Winter...
She doesn't JUST have polls.....that was ONE example.....she also has a KILLER ground game!
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)I find it odd that you have absolutely no doubt that Hillary will win.
It's just strange. There is nothing certain in life and especially in politics.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)She has polls that shows she beats every single Republican contender head to fucking head!
and at least she IS a Democrat!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Now can he? Do you have any ppolls showing he is more popular against all Democrats?
No of course you dont!
thesquanderer
(11,937 posts)is that it's about the only chance he would have of winning in November. Small as one might consider that chance to be, it is much bigger than the chance any Independent (or any third party) is going to beat whoever is on the Repub and Dem tickets. As Sanders himself talked about on Meet the Press recently, the hurdles to even getting on the ballot in all 50 states, if you're not a Dem or Repub, are formidable.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because WITHOUT becoming a Democrat....he doesn't stand a chance. Now I ask you....IF Bernie is SOOOO spectacular that NO ONE will be able to resist voting for him instead of the Republican......Why does he NEED to become a Democrat?
Come on.....you know why......say it!
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)system that's been built and sold and packaged as a two party system? Because he doesn't want to split the vote? Seriously, what is the sagely wisdon to which you are hoping to lead us? What is your point?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)again....why? I know you can admit it....
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)what you mean.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)get elected.....
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)All that shit that doesn't belong in elections?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)And where does all that Democratic money come from my friend? I think it would be quite hypocritical to condemn the Democrats financing.....and then try to get it for YOUR candidate.....the very height of hypocrisy!
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Not me. Not Bernie. I was guessing as to your warped view of political candidate priorities and got it right. But he's not going to get the corporate dough some DLCer is going to get. He knows that and so do his supporters so what are you calling hypocrisy? Or is it just a word you feel the need to toss in each of your posts regardless of its actual meaning?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You should read the conversation before you pipe in...
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)are still as elusively incoherent as ever.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Bernie HAS to become a Democrat because he needs their cash to win.....period
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)REAL Democrats have even numbers of syllables in their screen names. ! . .. wharrrgLL1. You just can't admit that you're a right-winger off to the left of me, and if you give me just a minute, I'll say even more incomprehensible things you have no hope of ever untangling and making sense of, and then you'll understand why you should be banned.
Marr
(20,317 posts)The only thing you've "gone over" here is a bunch of heads.
I realize you think there's some big left wing conspiracy out to get you here but please-- take a deep breath.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Of money....
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Political parties are effective propaganda constructs.
There. I said it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)It would be a pragmatic decision. They have the party infrastructure that makes running possible, but he'd still need to appeal to voters to get any support. How is Sanders' running as a Democrat any different than anyone else? People aren't born Democrats, you know. Sanders is a Democrat if he says he is-- in exactly the same way that any sell-out, corporate stooge can be a Democrat just by saying so.
Would you prefer he run third party? Aren't you also one of the people who gets so freaked out about third party spoilers?
I just don't get this.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)This is Democratic Underground and I am sorry but unless he becomes one you cannot campaign for him here AND you and I both know he cant win without Democrats cash....
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)but you are freaking out.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)Would you deny the their choice?
--imm
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)Democrats can even nominate a candidate that's already running for a different party. They could nominate the Republican if they had the convention votes.
--imm
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)don't give ME your
Get one yourself!
immoderate
(20,885 posts)There is no rule that prevents this. They can even nominate Nobody. Nobody will solve all of your problems. Nobody will make you enlightened.
--imm
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)as a matter of fact...THIS is Democratic Underground....and its Mission Statement says it is for the express purpose of electing MORE and better DEMOCRATS...
so not only is it the express purpose of the Democratic Party....it is the express purpose of this very forum!
I think you took a wrong turn at Albuquerque perhaps...
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)You know, Charlie Crist,the Democratic candidate for Governor of Florida, who from 2007 through 2011 was the REPUBLICAN Governor of Florida. Charlie Crist, who ran as a Republican for one of Florida's Senate seats. Who, after he lost that nomination to Marco Rubio, ran as an Independent and was supported in that race by many Democrats, including people on DemocraticUnderground. Fact is, politicians change their party affiliation all the time. Your arguments against Bernie Sanders are ridiculous. He can become a Democrat and seek the party's nomination if he wants to. You can support him or not in that endeavor, that choice is yours. But please stop with the "HE'S NOT A DEMOCRAT!" nonsense because it's stupid.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)He said that Independents do not have the advantages that Democrats have - active parties in every state, which is the most important reason. He needs Dems to support him, raise money, have crowds at his speeches, etc., and have him placed on the Democratic nomination ballots in early state primaries...
A lot of this wonderful Democratic machinery is no doubt the product of Howard Dean's leadership of the DNC....where he put the 50-state strategy into play.
Vermonters understand politics better than most (I personally think they are too ethical and honest to go up against the Republicans and others).
sprts
(29 posts)causing Dems to loose.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Roll over for this coup? That HRC will stand down her political machine for Bernie?
Keep dreaming...
Ideologues ppppppppfffffffftttttt!
Marr
(20,317 posts)You see the party as a sort of club that's owned by insiders. The notion of some outsider getting more popular support than the anointed insider and thereby winning the nomination is a "coup" in your eyes. To most of us, that's just called democracy.
*shrug*
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Perhaps you have heard of it.....Its called Democratic Underground?
G_j
(40,366 posts)no kidding? Would you mind taking your obtuse hostility somewhere else and stop with your attempts at bullying people on this thread?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)What is or isnt Democratic????
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)AikidoSoul
(2,150 posts)to get a certain number of petitions from each state, just like Perot had to do when he ran as a Reform Party candidate. Each state has different requirements for getting on the presidential ballot -- a very complex task. My main resource during that period was Richard Winger, the editor of Ballot Access News who provided me with specific instructions for each state.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)The marginalized wishes and needs of the people are always brought forward by those on the margins of the Bigger Parties... how did this nation get to have a electoral system wherein women voted, wherein there was a child-free labor force, wherein there was a 40 hour work week (with benefits.)?
For instance - Why did women get the vote? Was it the people in power, entrenched in party politics of the Democrats and Republicans during the late 1800's, and early 1900's?
No, of course not. It was people outside the system of the Two Major Parties, and these people were usually women. (Called Suffragettes.) Although I learned about the Suffragette movement due to the excellent grammar and HS education I received, I never heard it mentioned in my history books that these Suffragettes were often jailed, and then even raped by the jailer(s), for their political beliefs.
Also, it was not the wishes of the Democrats or the Republicans, circa 1900-1919, to have that exploitation of children stop. Their friends in industry would not have been happy... So again it was people on the margins that helped with the situation. (In the early 1890's, according to Howard Zinn, the Republican Party had stood with striking workers over industry, but industry had the money to pull them away from that "stupidity."
Ken Burns excellent documentary of "The Roosevelt's" explains how even the politically-favored Teddy had to go back and forth between the major parties of his time, and even at one point he created the Bull Moose Party.
Fast forward to the Vietnam era, and you see that it was those who were outside the system hho were advocating for ending the war. (Eugene McCarthy, for instance.)
If you really think that we don't need the political maneuvering of those who are not deeply entrenched in the system, in order to get us a better society, and stop the endless wars, the endless transferring of wealth from the Middle incomed to the Insanely Wealthy, the unequal pay scales, the absurd tax situation etc, then I have this house I could sell you in Longmont Colorado, in the neighborhood of the Big Fracking Interests.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)How is that for your civics lesson for today?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)of the Big "D" Party are not Democrats either?
Watch Ken Burns documentary on "The Roosevelts" and then compare the actions of FDR to what Obama did in his first hundred days. While FDR informed Congress he expected them to have a 100 days devoted to the economic issues, and to reigning in the Big Banks, which happened to result in Glass Steagall, while Obama claimed, "Oh me, Oh my, I have to obey the strict separation of the three branches" and other such protective (for him) nonsense, you see we no longer have any real Democrats in the higher places. The current notion of Democrtic Corporate-controlled candidates, such as Hillary Clinton, and also former governor of PA, Ed Rendell, (and that Obama has now proven to be), are simply Republicans with more decent views on civil rights matters such as marriage for the GLBT crowd, and Lily Ledbetter, and women's rights to reproductive health issues.
So in voting for them we get those precious matters taken care of properly, but at the expense of ever knowing a lasting peace, at the expense of a middle class economy, and at the expense of our infra-structure, and finally at the expense of the environment.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Hilarious on its face!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Bernie has explained (for those who are so smitten with Hillary that they pay no attention to what other potential candidates say) that --
he is deciding whether to run as an independent or as a Democrat and
that his decision will be based on whether he should try to form separate organizations in each of the 50 states to run as an Independent
or run as a Democrat within the organization of the Democratic Party across the country.
Got it?
I know it is a run-on sentence, but I think it states it pretty clearly.
The concept is quite simple.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Do you want him to?
wyldwolf
(43,864 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)OTOH, there are some of us who hope his nightmares come true.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)On the other hand, though, Romney will run anywhere he thinks voters want him to.
As Ted Kennedy said of him, "He was pro-choice, he was anti-choice; he was multiple choice."
He tried to run to the left of Ted Kennedy for the Senate in the 1990s and he ran somewhat moderately in 2002. But, after Bush got reelected, Romney took a sharp right turn. As the right used against him things he has said and done in Massachusetts, he went further and further right.
I believe with all my heart that he'd run any which way he thought would get him what he wanted. That is his only guiding star.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)but will rule as a Republican much more so than a real Democrat as Sanders is.
No pretend stuff, we know who she is by her works.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)not 'serious' people at all. Thirdway democrats always willing to throw a punch at the left.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)salib
(2,116 posts)"the fun of being a contrarian in the moment"
I guess it is all seen as just a bunch of fun when you're living without fear of being one job loss or medical emergency from disaster. I do not know anyone involved in liberal Democratic politics who is doing it for the fun of it.
I know Bernie is 100% serious about the unacceptable inequality and corporate dominance in this country, and I doubt he would even be considering a run if it wasn't such a dire situation.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)it's Clinton's turn gosh darn-it! Why can't you filthy peasants just accept that already?
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)What if issues won over "electibility," "name recognition" and all the other American Idol bullshit? Or am I expecting too much of our electorate?
CanonRay
(14,013 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)our main failing is participating in a rigged system they've presented us (though those who defend the status quo are truly and hideously reprobate)
valerief
(53,235 posts)knowing she goes out at that time--to urgently tell her some clowns on one of those Housewives shows was going to prison. I don't even know the names, because I don't watch that crap.
This is what the American public thinks of as important. Until they lose their job/house. Then they hate Obama, like the TV tells them.
Wella
(1,827 posts)However, he doesn't have a chance of getting the nomination: not with superdelegates getting to override results they don't like.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and helps no one.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)so I expect will continue unabated. I plan to ignore the noise, myself.
Wella
(1,827 posts)But Barack Obama was really a centrist Dem. He's done what all centrists do: increase the burden on working people while the Dow Jones goes sky high. That's why he was safe enough to elect. If Bernie is a true socialist, he probably has a lot of Dems shaking in their boots, especially the Third Way Dems.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Wella
(1,827 posts)I saw Elizabeth Warren on RealTime and it looks like she is being primed for a position. Maher basically let her deliver talking points--good ones, but talking points. I've never seen them do that for Bernie. Warren as Veep?
merrily
(45,251 posts)One major problem for me is that I don't believe the rest of the meme they've been trying to push on us, namely, that she has the best chance of winning the general. I don't believe that at all. Didn't believe it in 2007 and don't believe it now.
valerief
(53,235 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and having most TRADITIONAL Democrats who've been abandoned by their terminal Third Way cancer infected party will be looking to restart a second party somewhere else then.
Up until recently when the Third Way infection along with the Republican already being a corporate controlled mess itself, people could accept a little horse trading behind the scenes that happened before, as long as the main focus of the Democratic Party was for its base and to do things like LBJ did with the Civil Rights Act, putting in place Medicare, etc. that worked for the people. It was viewed as a party who still worked primarily for us the people, even if it compromised at times a bit to get some of those things done. Now it is the opposite. The main focus is on satisfying the millionaires, and have a small number of compromises to do some social issue championing that the 1% doesn't care about, but that really don't deal at all with a majority of the major pain that the 99% of Americans are made to feel this last decade or so.
People are now FED UP! They aren't willing to listen any more to traditional participants in this rigged power system "bend" their talking points during an election to make it sound like they are working for them, when they turn back on them after getting elected. I think Obama doing that has at this point turned people off to anyone that plays that game any more, and that is why a consistent candidate like Bernie Sanders who consistently throws off money influences and works on issues for the people where he doesn't flip flop based on polls, etc. the way so many other politicians do these days.
There's a few others in Washington that could also succeed this time around in drawing people to them the way Bernie does like Elizabeth Warren does. One I also like is my own Senator Jeff Merkley, who I'm going to see at a campaign event of his later this afternoon. Even though Wyden is running in 2016, Merkley is the candidate that's getting my money, and DeFazio is as well if he runs against Wyden in the primaries.
Anyone have anything they want me to ask Merkley today while I have the chance? I think he's been consistent for the most part in working for us too, and is the type of politician we need more of on Capitol Hill too.
tritsofme
(17,313 posts)If Sanders is to be Clinton's most credible opponent in 2016, she has absolutely nothing to worry about, it would be kind of a joke.
It will be quite entertaining to watch her skate to the nomination while the Republicans absolutely tear each other apart.
fbc
(1,668 posts)tritsofme
(17,313 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)That's why he's president now and she never will be.
frylock
(34,825 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... when being brought corporate rule enabling trade agreements that are sure to come up the coming six years. Obama, Clinton, and all of the Republicans are guaranteed to do the WRONG thing with such authority.
And you can bet if Bernie gets the nomination, and the corporate PTB see him taking the presidency, they will push all they can to get the trade deals in now in front of Obama to get signed, and not wait for a Bernie "roadblock" to their agenda being in place. Wikileaks will be working overtime during that time and through the election to point out to Americans the ugly details of that rash of trade bills they would be pushing in secret through Obama to get passed by Republicans then that so many Americans despise. This will lead Americans even more to vote for Bernie, regardless of which party they are in. This will happen in the same fashion when they were fed up with both parties when a fifth of the population voted for Perot back in 1992 when NAFTA was the issue then instead of TPP and other newer trade deals that are NAFTA on steroids. Only this time the Democrat they have they are voting for will be on their side the way Perot was then, and will take the votes that would be lost if Bernie isn't running. And if Democrats vote against these trade deals, even if they don't get 50% of the vote then, that will help them in Senate and House races in 2016 take back both bodies, if they see Bernie and the progressive congressional caucus leading the fight against these treaties that Americans, regardless of party hate.
This is also why Republican party constituencies are pushing their party to nominate Trump too, as he's been standing against the TPP, and if he were to get nominated against Hillary, you might see that 20% of voters go his direction instead of to Bernie were he nominated.
Marr
(20,317 posts)That is, I don't think she's nearly as marketable or likeable as her fans seem to think.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... but he gives many of us reason to have real hope for the future.
Clinton? Not so much.
DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)is that she has the big money on her side. Because as far as standing up for the people, I really haven't seen her doing that for a long time. In my view, she is spending too much time with the Dominionists and has become a corporatist. Just my view. I hope Bernie Sanders gives her enough nightmares to wake up and see that he's the candidate we need.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)demigoddess
(6,637 posts)eom
fbc
(1,668 posts)I can see why republicans would support her, but if you call yourself a democrat why would you find her appealing at all?
If you are one of those Reagan democrats, go save the republican party. Don't try to make the democratic party into your right-center alternative.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)brooklynite
(93,626 posts)...of course, maybe they weren't REAL Democrats.....
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)losing on the issues.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Just like the major pundits predicted.
[h2][font color=red]
Oops! [/h2][/font color=red]
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)try to maul anyone whos an outsider. If people were only to hearing the candidates speak, I reckon Sanders would do very well. Thats why hes saying hes going to need an army of volunteers if he decides to run.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)interested.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)I inadvertently discovered a Liberal activist at my gym. She was on the treadmill next to mine, and she made a joking comment about her new Apple phone, on which she had answered a call. Pretty quickly the conversation got to the phone companies, and from there to politics.
It turned out she was pretty active in donating her time to local campaigns. She was feeling me out about local politicians. I mentioned I'd donated, very small amounts, to candidates in the past, and that I'd sent Senator Sanders some bucks after his epic protest of the budget compromise.
Her eyes lit up and we discussed HRC and her electability. But the conversation came coming back to Sanders (and Warren too, a little bit). My impression is that a run by Sanders is part of a lot of conversations amongst the Liberal and Progressives who are active and vocal.
Our opinions are registering, imo.
G_j
(40,366 posts)from my experience also.
thelordofhell
(4,569 posts)Sanders should be Vice-President.........
jwirr
(39,215 posts)We want a progressive candidate. She sometimes will say something progressive but more often waffles. Hillary come on let us know why we should support you as a progressive and make us believe it.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)would be the most you could hope for.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)Bernie not so much.
Autumn
(44,686 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts).... is that a neocon DINO like Hillary Clinton gets the nomination.
JHB
(37,122 posts)That is one of the major problems we have, right there.
It's one thing to be gnashing or grinding your teeth because the reality is that your candidate has positions that you know will grate on not-insignificant part of you voter base...
It's quite another to be absolutely blind/blinkered/bughouse over the reason why that part of your voter base is dissatisfied and wants an alternative.
dflprincess
(28,042 posts)given the near apoplectic response we see from Clinton supporters on this board whenever Bernie's name is mentioned.
neverforget
(9,433 posts)up thread is hilarious....
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Apocalyptic
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)Just my perspective of the responses on this one thread. No one looks like they're screaming that the sky if falling. But if they're a bit annoyed by the title of this thread, well, I am, too, and at the moment, I haven't decided who I'm supporting, so you really DO NOT want me annoyed and going to Hilary just because the Sanders side is coming across as boorish.
I really don't want any democratic presidential candidate to give any other potential democratic presidential candidate or their supporters nightmares. To me, that's cutting off our noses to spite our face.
In the best possible circumstances, any democratic presidential candidate should only be giving republicans nightmares. Because they think he/she can have a landslide win and change things. If any democratic presidential candidate gives us democrats nightmares, then that's a bad thing. Not something we should be crowing and laughing and boasting about. If Bernie runs for the nomination, fine. And if he wins, wonderful. And I hope supporters of the other candidate can support him if he does win. And if he doesn't win, then I hope he can support the one who does win, whoever he/she is. And I hope his supporters can support that person, too.
Threads like this just have republicans snickering at us and rubbing their hands with delight.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)dflprincess
(28,042 posts)but I think you're right.
She can always decide she wants "to spend more time with the family." And the new grandchild makes it a perfect excuse.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Iowa is not Clinton friendly. She will likely come in 3rd or lower. Again.
Then she hits Sanders' next door neighbor New Hampshire. If Sanders does well in Iowa, he will probably carry New Hampshire. Starting out the primaries 0-2 makes Clinton look unviable. At that point, she'll be lucky to pull 10% in any remaining primary.
I honestly believe the most likely result of another Hillary Clinton run for the presidency is an embarrassing flame out of epic proportion. If her friends and supporters really care about her, they should encourage her to enjoy life away from the campaign trail.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)lots of somebodies like Bernie can save them. I am loyal to Democratic principles not necessarily Party. Yeah the Party has all that money (much of it corporate) but that power needs to be challenged.
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.
Frederick Douglass
polichick
(37,152 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)"real issues"
"real issues"
"real issues"
"real issues"
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)which ones?
Marr
(20,317 posts)Should be easy to cite a few, since you're actually scared.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Love me some Bernie. No nightmares. Sorry haters.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)I love Bernie and, frankly, can't stand Hillary. But what i REALLY hate is the idea that this should somehow polarize us. We can criticize both of them and still all be good Democrats.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)They do not need to be linked in the manner they have been. As a pro-Hillary Democrat, I fully understand why some can't stand her as an elected politician. She has given us so many reasons to question her and dislike some of her positions. I call myself a pro-Hillary Democrat not because I like everything about her, but because I have great respect for her as a person doing the best she can. I fully understand those who don't feel the same way. But linking two people from two different parties in order to get ones hate on does us no good. Bernie can stand on his own merits just as Hillary can. Positive or negative. Some here seem to believe the only way to prop Bernie up is by attaching him to Hillary; whether in a positive or negative light. I think Bernie is strong enough to stand on his own.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)it is a matter of supporting someone who stands for the traditional values of the Democratic Party going back to Franklin Roosevelt and opposing a corporatist war hawk. It really is that simple, sir.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)just do the translation in your head, and you'll hear what is really being said
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)once suggested that we lefties should . .
"treat the democratic party with the same contempt as everyone else".
No group could possibly hurt the party more than the corporate wing already has . .
Go Bernie !!
frylock
(34,825 posts)yeah, fuck this guy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)candidate is'. What s/he means is 'who has the most Corporate Money, and assumes that the people are not only fully AWARE of what 'electable' now means in this country, and that they are not only NOT ignoring that issue at all, it is the very reason WHY there is a 'hunger' for someone who actually speaks for THEM.
The arrogance and ignorance of those in their small political bubble is simply stunning sometimes.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)That's a fact. Only 500 of Nadar's 97,000 votes in Florida made Gore the winner.
A Bernie Sanders run as an independent will deliver the White House to the GOP. The prediction might not have the certainty of a concrete fact, but it's a mighty safe proposition.
Bernie runs, GOP wins.
God bless Raplh Nadar and Bernie Sanders. I respect and admire them both and I respect their right to enter the race if they choose. I might vote for Bernie.
But if he runs independent, the GOP wins. The SCOTUS becomes even more conservative and remains so for another generation.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)then?
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Obviously, the outcome is the sum of the polls in every state. A different result in SC or Ohio would change the outcome. Or Florida. Take your pick.
The point isn't to bash Ralph Nadar or Bernie Sanders. I voted for Gore but considered Nadar right up until election day. I voted Justice Party in 2012.
The point is that a GOP win in 2016 will have serious consequences.
Bernie can't win as an independent, he can only spoil the Democrat. Believing otherwise is fantasy. The next president will probably replace two liberal justices on the supreme court. A GOP win will color the court for a generation or more.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)election. What they did was treason. What Nader did was perfectly legal and Constitutional. The attempt to shift the blame for what will go down in history as a travesty to someone who had every right to run for any political office he chose, is simply stunning to me every time I see it. Someone carefully prepared that talking point in order to shift the focus from what Vincent Pugliosi rightfully called 'Treason'.
But the undicted felons on the SC thank those who continue to cover for them by pointing their fingers in the wrong direction. They definitely do not want to even talk about it and are no doubt thrilled when they see that talking still popping up hoping somehow their crime will be mitigated by history. But it will not. They stole that election, period, no one else had a thing to do with it, other than their handlers.
one statistic in a myriad of factors. The SC gave it to W.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)"Not as bad", isn't very appealing to some of us on the left.
pa28
(6,145 posts)I'm looking forward to concern becoming deep concern and deep concern becoming panic.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)it would be great if Warren joined him. If elected, we could possibly get a long term (hopefully permanent) change in the status quo.
A society heading in the right direction. FDR would be proud.
wheniwasincongress
(1,307 posts)and Ann Romney thinks it's Mitt's turn, too!
brooklynite
(93,626 posts)I have no objection to anyone who wants to run against her. I'm just not sure you'll be able to convince a serious candidate.
merrily
(45,251 posts)the reality. The meme in 2007 was that she was unbeatable in the primary. That was not the reality. The more people heard her campaign, the more they voted for someone else. Similarly, the longer her recent book tour lasted, the more her approval ratings slipped.
Many Democrats don't want to vote for Hillary and many on the right despise her. And, if you think she's had everything thrown against her already, you are mistaken. Bill was the primary target of the Republicans during his administration, not Hillary; and Obama and his camp treated her well, esp. compared with how she and her camp treated him.
And she is going to have to deal with the racial parts of her campaign against him and the remarks Bill made to Ted Kennedy about how Obama would be serving the two of them coffee. Obama my have moved past that, but he got the support of the Clintons for the Presidency and he cannot move past that for everyone. There will be those who will be unable to get over that or her Iraq vote or service on the WalMart Board or any number of things.
democrank
(11,032 posts)Apparently, we`re not supposed to stand up for issues we believe in. In fact, we`re supposed to support any and all candidates who have a "D" beside their name, even if their positions on issues near and dear to us are opposite of our own.
Do I expect to get everything I want in a candidate? No, but if I`m am morally opposed to another just-like-Bush war, I ought to be able to reflect that belief in my vote. Do I want to join Hillary`s hug-a-thon with Henry Kissinger? No, I don`t. As far as I`m concerned, corporate interests have PLENTY of support in Congress, from both Republicans and Democrats. The ones getting the short end of the stick are the people Bernie Sanders speaks about every single time he addresses a crowd.
I remember how tough DUers were on Bush supporters who blindly supported every single thing he did. Sheep, we called them. Democrats should never have one of those Blind Loyalty rules. It`s so undemocratic. Bernie Sanders` participation in the debates will be very, very positive in the long run.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)Go Bernie. You have my support and my vote!!!!!
ALL THE WAY!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)HappyPlace
(568 posts)Interesting times!
PatrickforO
(14,479 posts)Bernie isn't a fad. He's a guy who is actually SAYING things we have known for years. You're darned right the establishment is cringing.