Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:51 AM Feb 2016

The 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.

29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The system is rigged (Original Post) Jack Rabbit Feb 2016 OP
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Feb 2016 #1
just another thing to do during the revolution SoLeftIAmRight Feb 2016 #2
K&R nt Live and Learn Feb 2016 #3
HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT Feb 2016 #4
A popular choice like McGovern -- who lost 49 states. A lot of good he did. nt pnwmom Feb 2016 #5
Yes, what a fair election, running against mdbl Feb 2016 #8
Well, there is Mondale, Carter (2nd), and Dukakis. Hoyt Feb 2016 #10
I guess there's just no room for decent politicians then mdbl Feb 2016 #12
I believe the most apt analogy is Reagan or FDR. Admiral Loinpresser Feb 2016 #13
Well, FDR was a rich man who was not particularly progressive when taking office. Hoyt Feb 2016 #15
Actually he ran on a progressive record Admiral Loinpresser Feb 2016 #17
I do believe the McGovern analogy is inapt. Admiral Loinpresser Feb 2016 #11
I think you might be missing an important point tech3149 Feb 2016 #16
Excellent point. n/t Admiral Loinpresser Feb 2016 #18
McGovern was an effective campaigner in the PRIMARIES. It was the general where pnwmom Feb 2016 #20
I have a different take. Admiral Loinpresser Feb 2016 #27
To Adm Loinpresser and pnwmom Jack Rabbit Feb 2016 #28
See post 28 ^^^ Jack Rabbit Feb 2016 #29
The most nonsensical part is that they're allowed to come out and openly Chakab Feb 2016 #6
And I've seen them hopeful that turnout will be low. Wilms Feb 2016 #9
The Superdelegates will switch if Bernie keeps winning Onlooker Feb 2016 #7
That's right. Admiral Loinpresser Feb 2016 #14
I fear that sanity only prevailed in Obama's case farleftlib Feb 2016 #21
K&R We live in the most reality shareholders will allow. nt raouldukelives Feb 2016 #19
Is the term "Democratic" party false advertising? Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2016 #22
That thought began ocurring to me during the Clinton Administration Jack Rabbit Feb 2016 #24
..+1 840high Feb 2016 #26
Just ignore the Super Delegates! The Corrupt Corporate Owned MSM is using them to PROP UP CLINTON! in_cog_ni_to Feb 2016 #23
Superdelgates need to be watched carefully starting now Jack Rabbit Feb 2016 #25

Response to Jack Rabbit (Original post)


(4,982 posts)
8. Yes, what a fair election, running against
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 06:09 AM
Feb 2016

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.

Admiral Loinpresser

(3,859 posts)
13. I believe the most apt analogy is Reagan or FDR.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 06:52 AM
Feb 2016

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.

Admiral Loinpresser

(3,859 posts)
11. I do believe the McGovern analogy is inapt.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 06:49 AM
Feb 2016

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.


(4,452 posts)
16. I think you might be missing an important point
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 07:20 AM
Feb 2016

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.


(109,177 posts)
20. McGovern was an effective campaigner in the PRIMARIES. It was the general where
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 01:43 PM
Feb 2016

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)
27. I have a different take.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 04:54 PM
Feb 2016

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)
28. To Adm Loinpresser and pnwmom
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 06:39 PM
Feb 2016

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.



(1,727 posts)
6. The most nonsensical part is that they're allowed to come out and openly
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 05:32 AM
Feb 2016

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.



(26,795 posts)
9. And I've seen them hopeful that turnout will be low.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 06:21 AM
Feb 2016

Low turnout, it turns out, is good for Hillary. It generally favors republicans, and it never bodes well for Democracy.



(5,636 posts)
7. The Superdelegates will switch if Bernie keeps winning
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 05:36 AM
Feb 2016

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)
14. That's right.
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 06:55 AM
Feb 2016

To violate the Obama precedent could well mean the end of the Democratic Party, at least as a major force in American politics.



(2,125 posts)
21. I fear that sanity only prevailed in Obama's case
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 01:54 PM
Feb 2016

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


(41,600 posts)
23. Just ignore the Super Delegates! The Corrupt Corporate Owned MSM is using them to PROP UP CLINTON!
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 02:19 PM
Feb 2016

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.


Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
25. Superdelgates need to be watched carefully starting now
Wed Feb 10, 2016, 04:04 PM
Feb 2016

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.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The system is rigged