2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe system is rigged
The superdelegates should have been done away with a long time ago. It was never a good idea.
Supposedly, it was put in place to give the sensible pros a way of getting around a popular choice like McGovern. Ironically, this time, the people are right and the "sensible Democrats" are corrupt down to their socks. They take money from corporate execs and do their bidding. For those who believe that a politician who takes money by the boxcars from sources like Wall Street bankers doesn't try first and foremost to keep their sugar daddies happy, all I can say is that you are either terribly naive or trying desperately to fool yourself.
The establishment Democrats are committed to the status quo. That means four to eight more years of voodoo economics or supply-side economics or Reaganomics. Trickle-down economics is a good term, sense it lends itself well to the ironic rejoinder than after three and a half decades of it we're still waiting for the benefits to trickle down. For three and half decades, since the election of Ronald Reagan, that second-rate matinee idol, we have seen tax cuts for the rich, public services cut, manufacturing jobs vanish, unions busted and ever increasing income inequality as the middle class goes the way of those manufacturing jobs.
Why do you think ground zero of movement to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour is the fast food industry? After all, don't they just employ high school students trying to get some work experience? Today, with all those manufacturing jobs overseas, the typical fast food worker is a young adult with a family obligations. I'm sure you all heard that, but did you try to connect the dots how that all fits together? Of course, I'm sure I don't need to be the one to tell you sensible Democrats that you can't keep a family of four fed, clothed, pay the bills and keep a roof over its head even working 40 hours a week at $7.50/hour, or, for that matter, with both parents working 40 hours a week for $7.50/hour.
That is the face of America today. For me, it hits pretty close to home. My son has graduated from college, is in his early thirties lives with his mother and her husband and looks forward to the day when he can quit his job delivering pizzas and start a real career..
Trickle down economics, the system endorsed by the oligarchs who foot the bill for most politicians' re-election campaigns and has been the economic article of faith for every president starting with Reagan, whether Republican or Democrat, has destroyed the American dream.
I want that system to end. It's termination is not just a nice thing to have, it is a necessity and history demands it, screams for it. Today, February 9, 2016, with the New Hampshire finshed and Bernie Sanders, the only candidate for president in either major US political party with the courage to speak about putting an end to the nightmare began by Ronald Reagan, having won three fifths of the popular vote, but still has not even half of New Hampshire's delegation to the Democratic National Convention committed to vote for him.
Tell me that system isn't rigged.
I will tell you that we will have a political revolution, whether Bernie Sanders, the people's choice, is elected president or not.
Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)we have lots of work to do
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)pnwmom
(109,441 posts)mdbl
(5,381 posts)a juggernaut crook like Nixon and all his GOP minions constantly using illegal slush fund money to influence everything. I don't think that had anything to do with it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)mdbl
(5,381 posts)how do you suggest we change that?
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)A transformative candidate in a time of discontent. Without transformation, our party and perhaps the country will be lost. Our current path is simply unsustainable. I believe we are at a moment of historic transformation.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)as governor of NY.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)McGovern ran as a peace candidate against an incumbent, wartime president. Also, McGovern self-destructed and was not an effective campaigner. He was a great man, but a very poor candidate in a crowded field.
By contrast, Bernie is a very effective candidate running for an open seat. Instead of the prosperity of 1972, we have a shrinking, alienated middle class in 2016. I remember McGovern winning the nomination almost by default in a crowded field. Bernie is proving his worth against one extremely formidable political organization.
tech3149
(4,452 posts)During the primary, the entire McGovern ground game were McGovern supporters, not part of the party structure. During the general the party hung him out to dry.
That's why there are super delegates.
If the same thing happens this time the party is done.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)pnwmom
(109,441 posts)his socialist positions -- like a guaranteed minimum income -- led to his loss.
He was no more a peace candidate than Bernie , who also is against unnecessary war. And just as much of a socialist, if you examine his programs.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)McGovern's campaign was centrally identified with his opposition to the Viet Nam war in my recollection and I believe that is the main reason he got the nomination. But his campaign was a disaster after he secured the nomination. It started with giving his acceptance speech at 2am and within a day or two his campaign was in free fall because he nominated Tom Eagleton for VP, said he was behind him "1,000 per cent," then within a day replaced him with Sargeant Shriver. He received no support from the Democratic establishment as I recall.
By contrast, Bernie has come out of nowhere, with no money and no name recognition and is on the verge of seizing the lead in this primary race. The social conditions in 1972 were very different than now, and particularly the economic conditions were much, much better in terms of minimum wage and upward social mobility. So there was not the sense of economic anger, which is so widespread now.
Also, I did not have a sense of McGovern being a transformative figure. Bernie fits that profile to me, in the same way as FDR and Reagan and, to some extent, LBJ. That's what Bernie represents to me--historic change in the direction of America and the fulfillment of the promise of the New Deal (i.e. a New Deal for everybody).
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I was 20 years old during the 1972 campaign; during the Spring, leading up to the California Primary, I was chairman of the McGovern at LA Valley Community College, then (and I believe still) the largest community college in the country,
I remember 1972 much more as the Admiral does. I think pnwmom must mean something else when she says that MvGovern was not a peace candidate; if McGovern wasn't a peace candidate, then he was nothing at all. I don't believe the two campaigns can be compared, mainly because McGovern was running against an incumbent president and because Nixon neutralized the issue of the war at least until after the election. The thoughts are fleshed out on pnwmom's thread.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Chakab
(1,727 posts)state that they're going to support a particular candidate at the beginning of the election cycle before the first debate has even happened.
...and the are a bunch of people running around this forum thumping their chests because of the NH superdelegates who committed to Hillary months before the primary even happened. How anybody can be enthusiastic about this anti-democratic bullshit is beyond me.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Low turnout, it turns out, is good for Hillary. It generally favors republicans, and it never bodes well for Democracy.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Clinton led Obama by more than 2-1 in 2008, but by the time Obama got the nomination, he led by at least 2-1. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Superdelegates are not idiots. They won't go against Bernie if he keeps winning.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)To violate the Obama precedent could well mean the end of the Democratic Party, at least as a major force in American politics.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)because the party could afford to be magnanimous - he was another establishment dem. With Bernie, I fear, that premise falls apart. They're in the same place Hillary is with the Goldman Sachs transcripts, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
If Bernie wins and tries to throw the moneylenders out of the temple, they're screwed. Otoh, If the party establishment totally subverts democracy to prevent that from happening, they're doomed.
I see something coming down the road, something along the lines of
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)That's all they're worth right now.
When Bernie goes to the Convention with the POPULAR VOTE *WE THE PEOPLE *, the Super Duper Delegates will switch their support to Bernie.
At this point, the SD are nothing but window dressing and a prop for Clinton...to make it look like she's "inevitable" and she's not.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)The corporate crooks are very adept at corrupting the system.
Superdelegates tend to be "leaders" (we should use that term advisedly nowadays), professional politicians who habitually take the establishment line. It appeared Mrs. Clinton would have smooth sailing to the coronation, so they announced support fot her. Actually, a superdelegate isn't committed until he actually votes at the convention.
Nevertheless, as professional politicians they need to run for re-election sooner or later. It's not too much to imagine Legs Dimon or Pretty Boy Lloyd giving a superdelegate a bribe generous campaign contribution to hold the line for Hillary.