2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI honestly believe we are on the verge of the birth of a 3rd Party
When the Establishment of both parties seeks to overthrow the popular candidate of both parties - you know the system is rigged
Mind you, Hillary supporters, I'm not advocating in favor of Trump.
The current uprising in the Republican party from the Establishment Republicans and their moneyed interest, AND the subtle undermining of Bernie's campaign by the Clinton's THIRD WAY political smear machine is proof to America and the rest of the Free World that America's political system has thoroughly been corrupted by BIG Money in politics.
With Third Way clearly in charge of the Clinton agenda or at least leading the charge to smear Bernie, and the Establishment Republican candidates deep within the pockets of the Wealthy Elite - Money in Washington Politics has nothing to lose. Actually the Wall St Elite and Moneyed Interest of the Wealthy Elite win either way.
Already Independent voters ARE the Majority party at 47% of the electorate and this does nothing more then alienate them further from the current 2 party system.
The 2 corrupt parties may have upended the popular revolt this cycle, but it might also be their last chance to enact new legislation that would seek to restrict formation of a new 3 party system. And to that means I am sure we will see lots of "Bipartisan Legislation" being introduced.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randome
(34,845 posts)Or, more to the point, why aren't there more candidates running as Independents?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)
Vinca
(50,261 posts)Independent candidates. I think we should have 4 parties: the usual suspects plus something to accommodate those of us who lean left and something else to pick up the batshit crazy on the right.
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)domestic argument. One wants to divorce the other, but they can't, so we get endless gridlock.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)No matter what the outcome the Working Class gets Screwed
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)political climate in this country for by far the majority of the citizens. And then MSM throttles those who might make a difference. I know some people that have said F it all, they don't care anymore, they won't vote and they won't follow what's going on. AND, that is a horrible state of affairs.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)RKP5637
(67,104 posts)buffoons in it for money, fame and to direct $$$$$'s toward themselves and their cronies, and to waltz with lobbyists. Far too many Americans are bamboozled and hoodwinked when they vote these fools into office.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)large numbers of the angry ones had a huge hand in bringing America to this point. And most of the extremely noisy ones are bloviating to cover an ignorance so profound that their enemies are still plotting to make good use of them even while they rage.
As for some "anti-establishment" third party? A bunch of yammering malcontents flaming at a nebulous "establishment" they couldn't identify in a police lineup? Large numbers would be from the far left and far right, both of which groups are notoriously bad at playing with others. It'd fall apart before it finished forming. Or maybe some charismatic leader would come along and unify the mob just long enough to give the world another Amazing America black comedy.
IF, though, this third party survived long enough to show signs of viability, the very people it was created to run from would follow and take it over.
Don't ever forget, the Kochs and their agents CREATED, funded, and directed the Tea Party. Those angry people were used as a tool to funnel vast amounts of national wealth to the few and tear down regulations meant to protect us from locusts like the Kochs. And this investment is still] working extremely well for the locusts; the Tea Party may have had its funding cut off after it went rogue broke its leash (that fatal ignorance!), but the gerrymandered districts the Kochs and their fellow conspirators got through their machinations are locked in until the 2022 election, when we may or may not have undone most of the corruption.
Bottom line: This is our mess. The way to fix it is to take charge and clean up our own house. Because we're not getting out of it any other way, no matter how many splinter parties break off.
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)You nailed it far more succinctly. 
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)because of the Clintons I used to be an independent. (irony) could go back to being one. But I could see Tea Party vs the Conservative Party
then the Liberal and Conservadem party on the left X_X which I've been saying all along
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it favors this two party system... the minor parties are there, but they barely register.
If we did go for oh proportional representation... the Rs will split into three, the Ds in to at least 3,and on of both would become the business party.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 4, 2016, 10:54 PM - Edit history (1)
That's the only way 3rd parties would have any power and that would require rewriting the entire Constitution. Yea, that's going to happen.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and actually yes, we might find ourselves modernizing our constitution sooner or later, Suffice to say, we are far from the model people follow anymore. Will this happen peacefully or not is at this point my question. We are at one of those lovely moments that might lead to that... well after the dust settles. But a rule among students of history, is never, say never.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)And I am using US history as a guide.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and that is a huge example.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Making the US a parliamentary democracy is not a matter of adding a single amendment to the constitution such as the passing the 13th Amendment. Most of the original body Constitution (the document that existed before a single article of the bill of rights was added) would have to be rewritten because it is that part of the Constitution that stipulates the roles of our three separate but equal branches of our government.
In in many parliamentary democracies there is no President, or the President has no power except perhaps to call for new parliamentary elections when parliament can no longer decide important issues. In many systems the presidential position is purely ceremonial. in some case the ceremonial head of state is a monarch. The Prime Minister who is elected not by the people, but by members of parliament, is the real head of state. Unlike our Senate and House of Representatives most parliamentary democracy have only one legislative branch. If there is another parliamentary branch, it is largely ceremonial, like the British House of Lords. Without a president to appoint them, the way that parliamentary democracies chose judges is different from ours.
The checks and balances between our three branches of governments which our founding fathers thought so important are largely missing in a parliamentary democracy. They are replaced by instability of parliament which means that the people have more of a say in the way they are governed. The Prime Minister may be removed from his/her position at any time he/she loses the confidence of the ruling party or coalition. While parliamentary elections are held at regular intervals, a sitting parliament may be dissolved and new parliamentary elections held any time the ruling party or coalition of parties no longer has the votes necessary to rule.
The description above is a generality. Different countries have different rules, but you can see that a parliamentary democracy is totally different form of government than ours. Changing our form of government could not be done by the approval of one or even many constitutional amendments. We would have to write a new Constitution from scratch which would require the calling of a new Constitutional Convention such as the original one which met between 1787–1789 which formulated our present Constitution.
So let me say this again. It isn't going to happen, at least in our life time. It is much too hard and too many (including the two political parties) have too much invested in the present system. I doubt seriously whether the American people could ever be persuaded to make such as radical change. Certainly none of our present politicians are going to try to persuade them to do so.
In our system favors the existence of only two main parties. There have been third parties the entire history of the united states, but they never amounted to much. If either the either the Democratic Party or the GOP were to split into two parties both of those parties would be doomed. Neither of the two could get the majority necessary to elect a President or even very many members of congress. One historian said that, "Third Parties are like bees, when they sting they die'. You can see what he meant.
I think that it is possible that either the Republican or the Democratic Party could fall apart and be totally replaced by a new second party similar to the time that the Republican party under Lincoln sprang up in a period of four years and totally replaced the Wig Party which disappeared from history. But we simply are not going to change our form of government. It simply will not happen!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Look south young man.. basic comparative government 101.
Your neighbors to the south elect a congress that is done though proportional representation, They are thinking of heavily modifying term limits, but they do, and they also elect a President. The system actually gives a good window into how to modify a presidential system from a winner take all, to a proportional representation system. It has also made several small parties very viable in the Mexican Congress. I mean, the greens for example have enough representatives to be able to get some of the stuff they want done. Oh and they could never be more different than the American green party, or the German Green Party. But for a small party, they actually have a say in national policy and an outside role in the adoption of climate action plans and alternative energy.
Comparative government is not the strong point of most Americans.
Oh and those checks and balances are still there by the way, Why I said you need an amendment, and I will never, say never. If we really go down crazy town, after the dust settles more than a few people are going to ask, wtf happened here? IT is after the crisis I can actually envision, that reforms will happen.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)... to adopt Mexico's form of government? The vast majority of Americans believe that the Mexican government is ripe with corruption, and there is good reason to believe that they are right. And again that would require rewriting our constitution. That isn't gong to happen either, regardless of how badly you want the Green Party or whatever, to have real political power.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)except for proportional representation... again, comparative government is not your strong suit.
Shit, the 1824 constitution was the 1782 US constitution.
And for the rest of the class, Mexico has had a few Constitutions The current 1917 Constitution preservers a President, a supreme court, and a Congress, if this sounds familiar, it should.
For historic reasons that vary from the American experience Mexico has an easier amendment process, and strict term limits (that are now under debate)
Like the US, Mexico is a Federal republic with the states replicating the County, state congress, and circuit courts
There are of course some differences. For example, the supreme court requires a super majority of the vote of the court (and it is larger) to override State Legislatures. It also is starting to adopt the innocent until guilty British Common Law system (creating a whole slew of confusion) replacing the Napoleonic system, But the system is essentially ours, and adopting a proportional representation for Congress would only destroy the dominance of two parties. In Mexico historically those where the PAN and the PRI
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)The legislative power[1] is vested upon the Congress of the Union, a bicameral congress comprising the Senate (Spanish: Cámara de Senadores or Senado) and the Chamber of Deputies (Spanish: Cámara de Diputados). The powers of the Congress include the right to pass laws, impose taxes, declare war, approve the national budget, approve or reject treaties and conventions made with foreign countries, and ratify diplomatic appointments. The Senate addresses all matters concerning foreign policy, approves international agreements, and confirms presidential appointments.
The Chamber of Deputies is formed by 500 representatives of the nation. All deputies are elected in free universal elections every three years, in parallel voting: 300 deputies are elected in single-seat constituencies by first-past-the-post plurality (called uninominal deputies), and the remaining 200 are elected by the principle of proportional representation (called plurinominal deputies) with closed-party lists for which the country is divided into five constituencies or plurinominal circumscriptions. Deputies cannot be reelected for the next immediate term.
Being a supplementary system (PM) of parallel voting, proportionality is only confined to the plurinominal seats. However, to prevent a party to be overrepresented, several restrictions to the assignation of plurinominal seats are applied:
A party must obtain at least 2% of votes to be assigned a plurinominal seat;
No party can have more than 300 seats (uninominal and plurinominal together), even if the
party gets more than 52% of the votes;
No party can have more deputies (uninominal and plurinominal) whose proportion in the
Chamber is eight percentage points greater than the percentage of votes obtained in
the elections;
Senate
The Senate consists of 128 representatives of the constituent states of the federation. All senators are elected in free universal elections every six years through a parallel voting system as well: 64 senators are elected by first-past-the-post plurality, two per state and two for the Federal District elected jointly; 32 senators are assigned through the principle of "first minority", that is, they are awarded to the first runner-up party for each constituent state and the Federal District; and 32 are elected by proportional representation with closed-party lists, for which the country forms a single constituency. Senators cannot be reelected for the next immediate term.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)except that it has strict term limits. And they are starting to reconsider those.
Why? Staff has a lot more power than congress people and senators. So they are thinking of expanding those term limits,
By the way the State of California has the same system, with wider term limits. And the state made them longer as well. As I said, comparative government is not your strong suit. My masters is in Mexican History and I was a young teen when elections went proportional It was not the end of the world. I heard predictions of doom and gloom as well.
And do you realize that congress is a BICAMERAL system as well with a HOUSE and a SENATE?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)... but I do know American history, especially American government history, and I know that no one except the few that populate third parties have any interest in allowing third parties in this country to gain any political power. So good luck with that notion.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and with that, have an excellent day. You should really do a tad of comparative government and look up PARTY REALIGNMENT... at the very least we are in the midst of one, And you might be voting democrat, I am assuming you are a center right democrat, and the left you hate, might be voting Republican in ten to twenty years.. That is assuming we really do not have that real bad crisis.
If we have it, and I have been predicting what is happening to the Rs since the Bush administration, on this very site (I can read trends), well remember, that I told you a crisis could happen.
How the parties realign, will truly depend on a lot of things. If we add to the soup a real bad economic crisis (and yes given ups and downs that is possible, cycles) we might see something more dramatic.
It is kind of funny to see what one predicted over a decade ago start to happen and take shape though.
By the way, the Ds are also in the midst of a civil war, it is just more sub-rosa, that is all.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)No one in this country is every going to allow five or six little "third parties" to have any real political power - it isn't the best interest of anyone except for small minorities of people who currently don't fit in to the two party system. The majority is never going to give those parties an opportunity to grow their membership.
Forget it! It's not something that is even in the back of the majority of people's mind. I can't see the average American getting all excited about giving the Green Party an avenue to political party. They view its members and and those of other third parties as "fringe elements".
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)as I said, never say never.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)On the Democratic side, after Bernie admits defeat, most of his supporters will fall in line and some will go back to doing whatever they were doing before he belatedly appeared on the scene. He is a once in a lifetime candidate and I see absolutely no one on the scene capable of taking up his banner and continuing to lead the "revolution".
The Republican may have a real problem on their hands. They can't win going forward without changing their basic polices which alienate growing segments of the electorate and their base is rebelling against those changes. They are either going to learn their lessons and make the changes necessary or they are going to lose quite a few Presidential elections and with them the Supreme Court.
Both the establishment and rebellious segments of the GOP will pretty quickly realize that if they split and each nominate separate candidates they will be handing the election to the Democrats. They may do that one time out of shear spite, but not twice. I suspect the next Presidential election will again bring about a nasty fight on the GOP side "for the soul of the Republican Party". And that may happen several times before they get their act together.
There are angry people in both parties, but I kind of doubt that those on far right and the far left are going to join forces. However, I do see a faint possibility that moderates in both parties may tire of their allies on the left and the right and unite to form a single centralist party. I explored that possibility in a article I wrote for my blog: Will the Current Toxic Atmosphere be the Stimulus for Real Political Change? Frankly I don't think that will ever happen. However, it would be kind of cool because it would leave the zealots on both sides high and dry without any political power.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)have a good day.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)
earthside
(6,960 posts)The two party system is written into law; independent candidacies are difficult if not impossible.
We are all governed by a system that gives almost all power to either the Repuglicans or Democrats.
In Colorado, you have to be a registered member of one of the major parties to participate in the caucus, the first step in determining which candidates are on the ballot -- that is by state law. Even if an 'independent' petitions onto the general election ballot they get last placing.
Yet all of us, Repuglicans, Democrats, unaffiliateds, Greens, Libertarians, Unity, Socialists, etc. are governed by who the Democrats or Repuglicans nominate.
And I do think a lot of folks are finally getting fed-up with this rigged system. The political environment is changing and by refusing to let unaffiliated voters participate in the nomination process, the major parties are courting disaster.
I think that is part of what you are seeing in 2016. Well over a third of voters who are 'independent' are feeling disenfranchised by the establishment Democrats and Repuglicans. Which is why you are seeing the interest in Sanders and unfortunately in Trump.
I think we would be much better off as a nation if there were more diversity among elected officials, but as we are seeing from the oligarchs in both major parties, i.e., Clinton and Romney, they are resisting change and it is causing deeper and deeper cynicism among more and more voters.
I am thinking that an anti-oligarch third party maybe a good idea, but the system is so rigged right now that it won't happen. Maybe an Independent presidential candidacy that won might break that concrete ceiling. Otherwise, if things don't change, we may get a real overthrow kind of revolution.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)It covers everything from those too conservative to be Republicans to folks in the middle to those sick of both parties to those too liberal to be Democrats.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)another 'no labels' kind of craphole party that splits the difference between the two existing parties. Dragging the country even MORE to the right, rather than a part of it back to the left.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)At least a sizable portion of his popularity plays on that
Raster
(20,998 posts)...and he's getting a shitload of mileage for being able to say it.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)are that Trump will have to turn to fundraising in the general election.
He's not nearly as rich or as liquid as he claims he is.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)parties that better serve their popular constituencies and the ideologically committed. The two old centrist parties can fight it out for Wall Street money - we don't want the corruption and ethical compromise, anymore, that goes with pay for play offers we can't refuse.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)If both mainstream parties broke in two, the new parties on each side could create a coalition to overturn Citizens United even if they disagree on everything else.
artislife
(9,497 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)centrists are already out of the party. They will become the tea party with Trump and the other crazies in their lead.
Hillary and the DLC, DNC, DWS and other corporate supporters will take the place of the old R party. I don't know what they are going to call themselves but it should not be Democratic.
That leaves us lefties regardless what party we are in recreating the values of the old FDR Democratic Party. Hopefully we can unite a real left leaning party that can offer the people of America a real choice.
Eventually this may break back down into a 2 party system again but we are in no way able to take the Democratic Party into two different directions in the future and expect it to work.
In the meantime Go Bernie Go.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)The "we" you are citing is a small minority of the Democratic Party. Third parties die on the vine in our political system. Oh they might affect a Presidential election once, but never to the advantage of their political ideology; they always help the those with the opposite ideology. That is the source of the saying, "Third parties are like bees, once they sting they die."
On the other hand perhaps it is time for the moderates in both parties who are tired of the far left and far right to join together and form a centralist party, leaving their more zealous allies high and dry without any political power. That possibility is explored here: Will the Current Toxic Atmosphere be the Stimulus for Real Political Change?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)There are already two right leaning parties.
Unless Bernie wins the nomination and then the general election I see the Democratic party falling from it's present share of 29% to a smaller size than the Republican party which is at about 26% which I also believe will lose a significant amount of members.
Left and right leaning Americans are starting to realize they have more in common with each other than they have in opposition. They realize most, yes most, politicians are in the game for themselves, not the constituents. One of the things, among many, in common is being ignored and more often screwed by their respective parties. I see a central left party forming and becoming a player within 10 years. There is a vacuum and nature and politics abhor vacuums.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Think of the historical context to understand the meaning.
Also, no third party candidate has come close to being elected President - this isn't a parliamentary democracy.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Thing ever to happen to the Democratic Party.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)in my spaceship. They had no F'en idea what was going on.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)But it was Clinton who led the way with the republicanization of the Dem Party with the DLC.
Corporate friendly policies, trimming the social safety net via prison & welfare "reforms"
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)RKP5637
(67,104 posts)deceptive shenanigans that has destroyed the democratic party. They might as well have called themselves republicans.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)The party to the right. I happen to know one of the insiders pivotal in making that happen-- I know how they worked it and I have Zero respect. One of the reasons I am so behind Bernie.
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)sat right down, and now own the place.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)And liberal democrats -- under the bus.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)-- pretty clear to everybody by now.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Democratic Liberal Caucus. Liberal was what we called ourselves up until 1980 when the word was demonized. We thought that the members were old style "liberals" - FDR style. Never did we assume that they were out to get rid of all of FDR's reforms.
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)Some just switched to Independent, and some others sadly said F it all, they are fed up with everything political in the US. And, that is not good. I told them they were playing into their hands. Therefore some voted for Bernie, feeling he represents the truth, and I agree!
KPN
(15,642 posts)and, frankly, Obama hasn't been the course correction many of us expected. The disappointment and discouragement Has been building for years. Some of us have grown weary of wolves in sheeps' clothing.
Ivan Kaputski
(528 posts)
RKP5637
(67,104 posts)there is no defined leader for a 3rd party. ... there seem to be so many dissatisfied people of all stripes.
Wednesdays
(17,342 posts)I think you have a standard-bearer, right there.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Under the current setup.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)But I'm positive we will see a series SCOTUS legal challenges to the current system unfold in the next 2 years
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Yeah right.
Legal challenges -- I have zero faith in scotus. But I'll certainly stay tuned. I think the system is paralyzed.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)nt
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)That would keep us on an even keel, more or less.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)When only two parties really count.
Yes it makes much more sense to have four parties with proportional representation
Without actual representation splitting off would mean even a greater loss of power for the marginalized groups.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Honestly do you think the revolt is against any thing other then the current 2 parties in power
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)The liberal party takes over and leaves the DLC Dems in the dust,marginalized like the liberals have been for 40 years. I don't think they would put up with that.
Or did I misunderstand you
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)No one except you is using that in this election cycle - Even Hillary is trying to claim the Progressive brand
Once she caves to Republicans and enacts 3rd Way's agenda to destroy Social Security she will seal the fate of the "Democrat" brand and unleash a Progressive Revolt
The Working Class needs a Champion for the 99% and the Progressives will be there for them
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)I guess I'll be the last remaining liberal then. Actually I like the word liberal as more specific than progressive which means different things to different people. I prefer liberal to " left" -- now that really goes way back.
Absolutely the working class needs a champion and being one I have worked for Dems for a long time in hopes of it to no avail -- and why I support Bernie.
Do you think somehow I support Hillary? Uh, no.
Sign me -- hardcore Liberal til death
corkhead
(6,119 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)It's winner-take-all.
Who has a chance to take it all? The biggest and the second-biggest party. All other parties never win anything and all they do is waste votes.
What if parties got seats in the House proportional to the nation-wide popular vote?
(e.g. Germany has a system where you have one vote on who you want to be your local representative and one vote on which party you want to win nation-wide)
The US-parties could easily split up, and nothing would be lost, because the tiny parties are still reflected in the House via the popular vote.
Liberals only get 20% nation-wide? The Tea-Party only gets 10% nation-wide? No problemo.
Imagine the Republicans breaking up into establishment and Tea-Party. Imagine the Democrats breaking up into establishment and social-democrats.
The House would maybe look something like this:
40% conservative establishment
30% democratic establishment
20% social-democrats
10% Tea Party
And in a parliamentarian democracy where you have to juggle complicated inter-party-relationships, you simply cannot afford to make permanent enemies. Politics would be way more complicated, but also way less partisan.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)More like the "Progressive Party" and I also don't think the "Conservative Establishment" will fair nearly as well as your projecting
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I have no idea if there is any path to get there, but a parliamentary system would allow representation of more diverse perspectives, much needed.
As it is, the two corporate money parties still have a monopoloy on the process, even though the largest voting block is the group of people who are so sick of both parties that they self-identify as independents, with no benefit whatsoever to them for doing so (they can't vote in a primary as independents), that's their level of disgust.
FarPoint
(12,336 posts)I don't see the outer fringe of both parties creating one more as a group/Party just yet....but change is coming.... this has been a roll-a-coaster ride this cycle....
mmonk
(52,589 posts)abandoned the Progressives. It's quite hard to do, especially since the 2 major parties have made ballot access harder in many states. It requires ballot access iniatives.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Maybe it is time for a change.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)mere shadows of their former selves. That a strong third party may also arise is a good possibility.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)at this point nothing short of complete voter revolt will accomplish that
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)When the people doing the corruption are same ones who are controlling the media for a large part of America. And it is a matter of time till they change Internet rules to shut down the dissent. And depending on this election here it might come to pass that government finally is able to get there hands into controlling the Internet.
KPN
(15,642 posts)My three kids are in their late 20s - early 30s. They and their friends have been saying this for years.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Check the popular vote totals.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)The DNC/DLC/3rd Way is only better then the Republican Establishment in their ability to mask their agenda through thoroughly "Sold Out" Blue Dog Democrats.
The whole premise of the Clinton's 3rd Way was a sell out to the Dem party
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)but Bernie has Higher ethics then that and that is what your candidate is counting on
-none
(1,884 posts)That might be a better clue as to which is the most popular.
Including the super delegates now is misleading, and that is what the Hilary camp is doing to make it look as if she is doing better than she actually is.
BTY, .02% for Hillary, is not a landslide victory, as I have seen posted a few times around here
dana_b
(11,546 posts)this is a long primary season. At one point Bernie was up, now it's Hillary. It will change again. 
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Much more so than eight years ago. Get that. It's obvious we are more united than eight years ago. The exact opposite of what you are selling.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)and you know she will - the Dem party is finished once and for all
House and Senate members will be looking for shelter from the fall out and the Progressive Party will be there
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Are you for real?
Cuz that sounds like 100% wishful thinking.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Over the last 6 months, Bernie has won over a bunch of Democrats I know (mostly are white middle-class folks under 50) and only one of them actively dislikes Hillary, and even he will vote for her. I don't see party unity as a problem, so far.
Guess that depends on the circles you travel in.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But anyone who wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee in the GE is a moron. There. I said it.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)
jillan
(39,451 posts)I really believe we are at a tipping point.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)We are more unified than in '08. A lot of that is thanks to Obama himself.
jillan
(39,451 posts)there are about half of them that have had it with the DLC, the DNC and other supposed liberal groups that are trying to control the voters.
And you cannot be talking about the democratic party for the same reason as above.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)On all points.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Oh, wait. Turnout is pathetic.
The Democratic party is in big trouble.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)you live in a bubble.
KPN
(15,642 posts)you are seeing what you want to see. Fiddling while Rome burns. I really don't think Hillary will win the GE, but if by hook or crook she does, she will be the final nail in the D Party-as-we-know-it's coffin.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Today, the real split is on basic political philosophy.
Number23
(24,544 posts)who have done nothing but scream about him and his policies for the last 8 years that you are "in denial" or "lying" but you are spot on 100% true. The Democratic party is incredibly unified right now. God only knows how long that will last.
It is one of the main reasons that Sanders' campaign is struggling as much as it is, particularly with core Democrats. Democrats support this president and mostly support the party -- right now -- which is why his comments about this president and about doing a "course correction" from his policies aren't resonating beyond a small, very narrow group.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)You are getting very, very sleepy...your eyelids are getting heavy...so heavy that you cannot hold them up..........
w4rma
(31,700 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)him. Even while she tells her neoliberal surrogates to do so for her.
I'm doubtful that she would win the general election due to her own sabotaging of Democratic voter enthusiasm and turnout and her surrogates' sabotaging of progressive candidates.
yourout
(7,527 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)
brooklynite
(94,502 posts)...or is that someone else's job?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Our voter numbers are down and that is not good. Is that someone else's job too? Obviously the Party has no problem with downward spiraling turnout.....while the Republican turnout soars.
It takes some stuffing to observe such shitty returns and then carry on as if the current staff is doing a bang up job.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)He implemented it as head of the DNC (a spot that he won despite the neoliberal campaign against electing him to the seat). And Obama immediately dismantled it upon taking office. And we've been losing seats all over the nation ever since.
Broward
(1,976 posts)More and more people are waking up. Perhaps, a third party will fill the void.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)who are beholden to no one and vote how they (we) like. The pressure of "you must vote this way or that way other wise you're a bad Dem!" doesn't hold water with us.
Honestly, unless the party has a MAJOR shift (and I only see that happening if Bernie wins) then I think it's just going to stay the corporate, anti working class fest that it's been for the past 20 something years.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Although I think one can only be created through a charismatic economic populist running for president.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)The US system does not allow for more than 2 viable parties, due to the winner takes all issue. But the two dominant parties are always coalitions, and they tend to realign from time to time. It is possible that we are starting to see the beginning of that. Or not.
Gumboot
(531 posts)But I'm not supposed to mention The Green Party around here...
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Even IF they dissolved the current congress themselves, replaced themselves with 435 people who actually worked for the people and put 20 more liberal judges on the supreme court-I. Would. Never. Trust. Them. Again.
Seriously-could You ever trust this current group of wall street suits running the show?
If one has to be forced into doing (or merely Saying) the right thing-they really aren't worth a tinkers damn (as my grandpa used to say)
think
(11,641 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)His whole career he was free to vote without any Party responsibilities and discipline required as a member of a Party. But, when he chose to run for President, he couldn't become a Democrat quick enough. The reality is that Sanders finds the Democratic infrastructure to be invaluable. Once the election is over, Bernie will be an Independent again. A bit too convenient for my taste.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)The Democratic Party is going to lose. And lose big. Hopefully the loss won't wipe out all the Democratic candidates down ticket.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)After the election, he will return to Independent without the responsibility of Party membership. He, and not me, looks at his stay with the Democrats as a short term arrangement that is beneficial TO HIM.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)You see how idiotic your argument is? Your insulting over half of the Democratic Party voters. Have fun with your "infrastructure" as a minority party. I hope, beyond all hope, that Hillary is not taking the advice of people like you.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)That's just a fact. He wants the benefits of the Democratic Party without the responsibilities that come with membership. You clearly do not understand what I mean by the term "infrastructure".
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Do you really think that Bernie Sanders needs Democratic "infrastructure" to keep his seat? And, now, he has a national following of a majority of the Democratic Party. You're being foolish, "Trust Buster".
Btw, your name is ironic, considering that you are backing the candidate who takes payola to keep the trusts together.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)I said he conveniently joined the Democratic Party to run for President and will abandon that Party label when he returns to the Senate. I think I was pretty clear on that point.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)than about the "independent" candidate who has caucused with the Democratic Party for his entire career. And who, also, supports Democratic policy better than the corrupt corporate leadership.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)He was an Independent Senator from a small New England state when he voted against the Iraq War. Hillary didn't enjoy such freedom without a backlash. Caucusing with a Party is responsibility free.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)They obviously are damaging the Democratic Party's good name.
questionseverything
(9,651 posts)senators need to vote for what is best for the country
not to worry about "backlash"
jwirr
(39,215 posts)as a Democratic candidate? Are you saying we are not part of the Democratic Party either?
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I'm not a Democrat (well...I am until after this election: switched registration from I to D to vote in the primary this year). I'm an independent, essentially socialist progressive. I vote for Democratic candidates almost exclusivity because they're usually the liberal choice with enough infrastructure behind them to be competitive with the Republican. I could care less about the party branding. Not my tribe...
That behavior on my part may well come to an end soon. The Democratic Party has been shifting rightwards. The major parties basically present a choice between far right and center-right...and that's not acceptable to me. There looks to be a very good chance that the Democratic nominee will once again be a Third Way corporatist neoliberal (read: center-rightist). All my nope...
Asking me to pick the lesser of two evils isn't going to work any more. I've at last awakened to the fact that this is like asking someone to decide between getting shot with a .22 and getting shot with a .44 Magnum. I prefer not to be shot, thanksverymuch.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Republican and both Obama and Biden just endorsed a former Republican in Florida. When Charlie Crist left the GOP and ran as an Independent, DU fully promoted him over the actual Democratic candidate, DU posters as well as admins backed recent Republican Crist over the actual Democrat. Crist did not join the Democratic Party.....
So all of that makes your application of that standard to Bernie seem oddly unique to Bernie.....
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)The truth is, Elizabeth Warren has seen more of her instrumental legislation become law in the past 4 years than Bernie has in 21 years. That's just a fact.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Democratic Party. And it's going to hurt all of us. Well, maybe not you if you are one of the wealthy donor class.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)A Bernie poster takes a shot at Elizabeth Warren. A Senator, mind you, that has a solid list of progressive accomplishments in her 4 short years in the Senate. Yet, you have the audacity to suggest that I am trying to "drive a wedge" into the Party ? Whatever you say....LOL
w4rma
(31,700 posts)You have to follow *YOUR* logic to it's conclusion to attack Warren.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Her only crime ? Not endorsing Bernie was the crime. If you want to see a REAL example of wedge driving, please re-read post #71.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Just like Hillary is well known for switching to the Democratic Party over social issues.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Bernie is just passing through. He's piggybacking of the Democrat infrastructure including voter lists which were the source of so much controversy a few months back. Once the election is over, Bernie will return to the Senate as an Independent. That's what differentiates Sanders from Warren.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)Hillary supporter here: I don't think this line of attack is helpful.
Bernie is running for the Democratic nomination. He has caucused with the Democrats in congress forever. This is a nonissue.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1410705
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)KPN
(15,642 posts)The Democratic Party has turned its back on its own fundamental economic principles, on its own people, and you are hung up on "loyalty" and consistency? Get real.
Bernie's running as a Democrat because he knows it's the only way he would get national traction and his message out. Do you see Jill Stein in the debates? In the MSM?
dana_b
(11,546 posts)because he will be running in the GE!
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)a horse in the race at all. I don't think such a thing has happened in a long long time. Their usual goal is a candidate on each side of the coin so the people can have an appearance of choice.
jillan
(39,451 posts)
PDittie
(8,322 posts)Something will have to die before something new can be born, because as others have pointed out, the existing structure prevents anything but the barest pf protest movements to flourish.
Impedimentus
(898 posts)There is no one with the courage to sacrifice themselves to a third party cause. Elizabeth Warren is the only political figure that might have the following to do so, but for all her good qualities she knows it would be a quixotic effort.
"The rich get richer and the poor stay poor." Such is then nature of he human race.
questionseverything
(9,651 posts)is so true
but here is the thing, in a democracy, theoretically WE THE PEOPLE can pull away a small piece of that control
make life for the 99 a little better
and the truth is the 1% can give up a small percentage of their acquired wealth and not even feel it
win/win
tokenlib
(4,186 posts)For it to happen, the new third party would need to be as big as one of the two established
Response to FreakinDJ (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
LittleGirl
(8,282 posts)exactly! Spot on!
Response to LittleGirl (Reply #84)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Establishment Republican: determined at the convention
Independent: Trump
Establishment Democrat: Hillary
Independent/Green/Democratic Socialist: Bernie
Both major parties are on the verge of splitting up and should in my opinion. The differences within in them cannot be reconciled because the 0.1%ers will not give up control of either the Democratic or Republican Party.
Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #109)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)democrank
(11,093 posts)Bernie is like the Democrats we used to have and a heck of a lot of people realize that. I believe this movement Bernie represents is not going away, no matter who wins the White House.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)I don't know if Bernie will pull it off (hope he does) - but he has radically changed things. And I have to say - so has Trump in poking holes in the establishment lies - just like a good bully he knows when the truth can be used as an attack.
Millions of people now know the system is rigged (largely due to the internet and the media being exposed as 100% fake), but just as importantly they know other people fell the same way. They're finding each other, learning more about the system, and growing stronger. Bernie has proved that the good ideas have tremendous support from the people - that we're not "alone" - it's just the propaganda has divided us for so long.
Not that it's all roses - but compare this to just four years ago and it's astounding.
OkSustainAg
(203 posts)Third way/Bloomberg-esk/establishment party ---- Unity Party. That the rich will have full reign in. no progressives or tea party/religious.
Just an observation and some study.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I think we may be on the verge of going back to an actual 2 party system. Which is to say, the two party system, right now, is more akin to a single party playing good-cop-bad-cop... and regardless of which persona that party is taking on, it serves the 1%, and not us.
With Bernie (and trump) being embraced so strongly, I think it's safe to say people are waking up to this notion. And they're upset that their country is being sold out from under them.
Anyway... that's my idea for an alternate possibility. Not too different from the OP really... just a slightly differing perspective.
jillan
(39,451 posts)extremely scary.
With Bernie, they just try to ignore him & then act like complete idiots when he wins NH in a landslide, wins OK which is not a liberal state in the NE, wins Colorado which has a large latino population....
Or when Tulsi Gabbard gives up her position at the DNC and goes on Maddow and slams Hillary's foreign policy.
In both instances it is very UNdemocratic, very UNAmerican.
Well said, I agree. Its really scary & should wake up every to just how serious & entrenched the power of Moneyed Interests is and how we're not really a Democracy if its left unchecked.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)
Rafale
(291 posts)It doesn't matter if the system remains unchanged. Money first co-opts and then corrupts every time regardless of ideology.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It's the only way to reform the American electoral system, or it will die.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)The smallest party would inevitably merge with one of the two larger parties in order to improve their electoral chances (and also the chances of the other party and in the merge).
Then you're stuck sharing a party again
Unless of course you think being part of an ideologically homogeneous perennial loser party is better than being in a coalition party that has a chance of winning and actually wielding power.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:28 PM - Edit history (2)
They would operate to influence the existing corporate centrist parties, but wouldn't need the vast amounts of money that the existing parties do.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Because I fail to see how there could be more than two fully realized major parties for any length of time. The likelihood is that any identifiable large cache of voters would be co-opted by one of the two major parties.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Duverger suggests two reasons this voting system favors a two-party system. One is the result of the "fusion" (or an alliance very much like fusion) of the weak parties, and the other is the "elimination" of weak parties by the voters, by which he means that voters gradually desert the weak parties on the grounds that they have no chance of winning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
leveymg
(36,418 posts)after the election, the Left base needs a home that hasn't been coopted too far by the centrist party machinery. If there's nowhere to go other than back into a Democratic Party that is moving ever-rightward and is increasingly less responsive, I believe many progressive Democrats will simply stop showing up. I also get the impression that much of the Republican base are on the verge of doing the same if Trump is somehow shaken off. Both existing parties would also benefit by having a place where their dissident populists can operate freely to agitate for change without the problems of having to compromise or conflict with the entrenched leadership too much.
The biggest structural obstacle to viability of Third Parties are obstructive state election laws. A tactical alliance to carry out electoral reform could benefit both ends, obviously, but would also give the centrists who still control the original parties at the center room to breathe and start to cooperate.
On a functional level, the biggest challenge to the viability of any party, particularly third parties, is fragmentation. But, that's also the danger of trying to force the populist base to line up behind a party leadership that is trying to move toward the center. Probably best to make it possible for the extremes to depart, land on their feet, and come back on an ad hoc basis -- in the same way that Sanders has been caucusing with the Dems for years, and now the Democrat Party has experience with a viable Presidential challenge to the party machine candidate -- rather than trying to impose conformity from above, which would alienate the populists and risk shattering the whole political process with disastrous results for all.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Always the same one-dimensional rationale 😕
What coalition, wielding power to whose ends? Personally, I feel like more of a loser, perennially handing my microvolt of power over to a party that seems to believe winning is an end unto itself. Meanwhile the country changes little or for the worse...
w4rma
(31,700 posts)The progressive - neoliberal coalition needs to remain in place, otherwise the neoconservative - conservative coalition gets to "govern".
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)a third party is no longer a smaller losing party. Personally I think there will eventually be four parties; The Democrats, The Republicans, those left of the Democrats and those right of the Republicans. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have been ignoring their base for too long now and the bases are leaving the parties. That's why there are ever increasing numbers of Independents. You cannot expect people to stay in a party that never represents their interests. And at least for the Democrats the party has not represented the working poor and the middle class for over 30 years.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)Given the choices it looks like I'm going to have from the big 2, I, for the first time ever, am doing research into all the other candidates to see if there is a more sane option.
I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Though, I'm still hoping for Sanders to vote for.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)for that matter. None of them do all that well nationally. You want to see another splinter party? Good luck with that. It's a non-starter.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)force the reforms needed to make popular alternative parties viable. In the long-run, it would benefit everyone by keeping the public engaged in the political process.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Here in Minnesota, they do. In California they did.
The Green Party
The Independence Party
The Libertarian Party
There are others, too, less well known, like the Constitution Party. They're on my ballots at every election, if they bother to field a candidate and meet whatever standards the state has for ballot eligibility.
I suspect you'll see some of those parties represented on your ballot in November, too. How will they do? Not well. Typically, they get less than 1% in Presidential Elections.
I still remember the 1968 election, when George Wallace ran as the American Independent Party candidate. He actually got 48 electoral votes that year and about 13% of the popular vote. Not enough to affect the outcome, but still...
Third parties come and go, but never really succeed. If you want one, go start one, or join one of the already existing ones. Me? I'll continue being a Democrat, along with most other Democrats.
Knock yourself out...
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)When American citizens were treated like terrorist in their own parks and city streets in this country and neither party did anything to complain about it people started waking up, and if you ask me it was about time.
randr
(12,409 posts)Trump is amassing large numbers of disaffected voters across the political spectrum. Independents who are just looking for another authoritarian father figure, disenfranchised Democrats who have given up on Obama, and the 40% of Republicans who vote with their hatred against all things progressive.
Once the early primaries are over and Trump takes the throne the RNC etal will be on their knees begging for a seat at the table. Trump will welcome them claiming to be the GREATEST uniter in history.
We are going to witness the most formidable force of political might this country has ever lived through. Events, such as possible further terrorist attacks, around the world will build and shape this into a fire storm.
This is the reason Democrats need to be prepared and put forth the best candidate; one who is capable to deflect the hatred, amass large numbers of new voters, unite the minority groups that will lose everything in the event of a Republican Presidential victory, and give our nation a new vision of the future.
Do you think we have anyone who might just be able to do all that?
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)we will be stuck with a 2-Party system at the national level. Electoral College makes three major parties pretty difficult.
WheelWalker
(8,955 posts)I expect out of this we will have the Teabots (including Trumpsters, Cruzers, etc) and Progressive Dems as two distinct "Bookend" parties, with a melding of "Compassionate" Conservatives and "Third Way Democrats" forming a single "Centrist" Establishment Party.
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)In the 80s a group of Labour MPs split from the party to form the SDP, even some Tory dissenters joined. They didn't last that long, after a few years they were obliged to join the Liberal party and became the Liberal Democrats. The two remaining Social Democrats lost their seats in the next election.
The Liberal Democrats did quite well, acting as an electable option for Tories in safe Labour seats and Labour supporters in Conservative seats, and they picked up a lot of seats through tactical voting. After entering a power sharing coalition with the Tories, breaking solemn promises in return for a referendum on voting reform they were virtually wiped out in 2015. They lost the referendum too, because nobody wanted to reward them for their treachery.
amborin
(16,631 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)Duverger suggests two reasons this voting system favors a two-party system. One is the result of the "fusion" (or an alliance very much like fusion) of the weak parties, and the other is the "elimination" of weak parties by the voters, by which he means that voters gradually desert the weak parties on the grounds that they have no chance of winning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)dana_b
(11,546 posts)I can't see the left, who has splintered off as either independents or even Greens, ever being able to agree with those whp have splintered off on the right (i.e. Tea Party).
I am one of those independents. I have been a Dem, then a Green and then an independent and now back as a Dem just for Bernie. I would welcome a party IF it were truly more progressive and to the left. I think the Greens are cool but I'm not promoting them so please don't alert on me!! lol..
Ivan Kaputski
(528 posts)
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)As any viable 3rd party's ideas will be quickly absorbed by one of the two larger parties making them irrelevant. It has happened repeatedly over time.
The Party system has been broken since Washington warned us not to even get involved with them.
As for Democrats like myself who are more to the left, the party doesn't want me or my ideas. They don't champion things I believe in anymore, but rather say they are too difficult.
There's a colorful party that espouses a far more liberal and progressive agenda than our current frontrunner. But they will always be smacked down by the big boys and girls and put in their place
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)not possibly have intentionally advanced the ball toward that goal as far as they have by sheer incompetence.
Jim Webb announcing that he's open to a third party bid and will not support Hillary sounds like an open invitation to to serve as Trump's running-mate if the Republicans screw Trump out of the nomination.
In a 3-way race between Rubio-Kasich vs. Clinton-Lieberman {or whichever stooge the focus groups tell her to pick} vs. Trump-Webb, I do not like our chances all that much.
On the other hand, Sanders-Warren or Sanders-Brown would beat all tickets.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,674 posts)You really need a parliamentary system to support multiple parties, since under that system they can form coalitions in a way our system doesn't support. However, I think we will see some significant realignment of the two major parties, and maybe they will even be renamed. The Republican party was once what we'd think of as the more liberal party, having been formed to support the abolition movement. It wasn't until the first decades of the 20th century that the parties more or less reversed ideologies. I don't know what will happen but it's going to be interesting to watch.
glinda
(14,807 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Maybe we should just eliminate them.
That would probably result in chaos, I know, but maybe a more Parliamentary system is better, in the long run, than what we have.
I'm only a registered Democrat because Maryland has closed primaries. I would have remained unaffiliated otherwise. I am so sick of the Democratic Party's uselessness. Spineless weasels and corporate tools.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)to do much during an election.
jimlup
(7,968 posts)the failure of the Republican party as we knew it. It could go several ways but I think you are correct. After or even during this election cycle a 3rd party is likely come into existance.
I'm thinking that if Trump wins the Republican nomination a significant faction of the mainstream of that party may form a "New Republican" party. This would mean twin parties courting the votes of the stupid people and the elites. I doubt that both would be viable for long so I would anticipate that the "New Republican" party might then become the mainstream "conservative" party.
I don't think that the democratic party is facing nearly as significant an event. Hillary will be the nominee and Sanders supporters like myself will fall in line behind the candidate simply because we have no choice. I'm not "giving up" on Sander and there is an intersting trend in the vote totals in many contested states that I don't think the mainstream media is noticing nor reporting but we'll see.
It is an interesting time to be alive.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)If the GOP takes the nomination away from Trump at the covention, and the "super delegates" take it away form Sanders if he wins a majority of the delegates. I could see two splits.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)you are onto something by the way
OZi
(155 posts)while giving the impression of having a choice. The 2 sides may offer different colored band-aids but it is mostly a distraction from the real power structure that rarely gets scrutinized. People may choose to not to believe it or ignore it, but it should be easier to see than ever. When powerful special interests are backing candidates in both parties, they are hedging their bets and buying the representation that voters think they are getting.
What part of "we are no longer a democracy but are now an oligarchy" are people not understanding?
There is more than one way to skin a cat. There are ways to get real change, but it will require a lot of grassroots organizing and hard work. If it becomes big enough to get noticed, you'll get no help from the corporate owned media and a lot of pushback.
I may be joining the "I don't bother to vote because it's all rigged anyway" crowd and wait until I see something worth supporting. Most of my friends and family are already there anyway. I used to think they were just lazy or goofy. Now I'm seeing things in Technicolor.