the backrooms are a lot less smoky and there's now a facade, but they're still there

[cali]

and they're still inhabited by the same types. Wasserman-Schultz serves quite well for exhibit A.

Yes, there are still party bosses and they still control things.

Just one more way in which our so-called democracy is compromised.


It's an insiders game. And we, the voting public, are more or less, the pawns on the board.

It would be naive or ignorant to think the process was ever untainted, but one thing has always been true: It's an insiders game.

And if the party insiders who control the party machines, oppose someone, that person will not be the nominee. That goes for Trump as well as Bernie.

[restorefreedom]

1. dead on, cali

i have no doubt that GOP insiders are doing everything they can to tank trumps efforts, not that I like the guy. As for dws,, this is going to beyond shameless, this is pathetic transparent and a complete affront to democracy and to the principles of the Democratic Party. She should be ashamed of herself.

[TwilightGardener]

2. This may be true. It won't affect my vote, though.

[Hortensis]

3. I'm sorry, but how could anyone watch what is happening in both parties

and think some string-pullers in 2 back rooms chose these candidates and are running things? This era is ENTIRELY different. What today's would-be candidates need is money from a billionaire and nothing from the DNC or RNC. Plus, the back rooms didn't choose extremists. They liked sensible people who'd proven themselves over time and were willing to work within the system.

Jeb or Kasich MIGHT be on the GOP list. They've been around long enough to be known quantities and Bush is an insider name.

Likely no one running for the Democratic nomination would be chosen. The conventional men are too obscure, and certainly not Hillary Clinton, who has never been a party insider, and has never been a man. Bernie might as well be on Pluto.

[reformist2]

4. Just wait... the Empire *will* strike back.

[cali]

6. hard to take the ludicrous claim that Hillary is not a party insider, seriously

[truedelphi]

35. More than ludicrous - the statement is part of the Big Lie.

There are other parts of the Big Lie - for instance, before Trump broke on the scene, Hillary was being painted by the Main$tream Media as being an underdog, as being misunderstood, as suffering tremendously due to her gender, and on and on - in what amounted to ten minutes if not more each day of free advertising by ABC, CBS and NBC. (Our CIA knows full well that Americans support an under dog - notice of all the things that are said on the Main$tream media, they never offer up the coveted ""Underdog" moniker to the true underdog - Bernie Sanders.).

But now apparently good Old "The Donald" is going to be the media favorite, as the MIC owned media realize that he wants war with Iran, the sooner the better, and faster than Hillary would have provided for.

[cali]

5. I'm sorry, but you need to read more carefully. seriously

I didn't claim that string pulleys chose the candidates. I did say that they will not let a candidate who they don't want be the nominee.

And it is utterly laughable to see anyone claim that Hillary is not a Democratic party insider. Astounding. She is the fucking quintessential insider. What a steaming pile.

[Hortensis]

9. Cali: Carter for Democrats. Romney for GOP.

Party structures no longer have the power to choose nominees. They may do a little smoothing for the best of the options they're presented with, but that's all.

As for the second, zeal does not turn your term into reality. Insider Washington has never accepted the Clintons. It might help to realize that even being elected president does not gain acceptance into elite political society, although invitations to social events they wish to attend will usually be available during the presidency. Presidents come and go, mostly to and from the "outside."

Notably, those at the top of "insider" society do not consider someone automatically an equal just because he was a president. Far from it. Never have. After all, just anyone can be elected president, and so many lack "suitable" background and attitude. These days most are downright poor compared to the wealthier insiders.

Roosevelt was accepted, Truman was not. Kennedy was accepted, Johnson was not. Etc.

[RiverLover]

28. The Party is doing it with not only media & debates, but also Superdelegates. Popular vote will be

fighting against them if New Hampshire is any indication.

...Hillary Clinton picked up the endorsement of New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan Friday, adding the state's top Democrat to a list of backers that also includes Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the state chapter of the National Education Association, and a small army of current and former government and party officials.

She's also getting campaign-trail help from two top Democrats that come from rival Bernie Sanders's neighboring home state of Vermont — Gov. Peter Shumlin and former Gov. Howard Dean.

This validation is coming at a time when Sanders leads Clinton in polls in the Granite State: by 4 percentage points in a WBUR survey and by 7 percentage points in one from Monmouth University.

The paradox there — that Democratic officials are swinging in line behind Clinton even as Sanders is showing strength in polling — speaks both to the skill Clinton's demonstrated as an inside political player and the kind of advantage that gives her in a primary race that many pundits insist is closer now than it really is. It's also one of the many factors that could figure in Vice President Joe Biden's decision about whether to jump into the race....

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/20/9359405/hillary-clinton-endorsement-sanders-biden

Quintessential insider nails it.

[Hortensis]

32. Exactly. The DNC/backroom does not choose the nominee, only massages what

is felt to be the best chance in the general along. There is nothing corrupt in that. The primary is not the goal -- the presidency is. Also hundreds of other national and state offices.

Note that HRC endorsements and delegates were not handed to her. The organization she put together and heads has been working hard for a very long time to make this happen. This is what experts mean when they point to the importance of organization.

[Chan790]

31. Um...there was probably nobody in the 20th C. who was more of a party insider than LBJ.

There are all these really amazing narcissistic quotes from LBJ from his time in the Senate because he knew that he was the political machine. He called the shots, he made the decisions...not the caucus, not the White House, just Lyndon Baines Johnson. FDR wasn't any more accepted than Kennedy...and Kennedy wasn't accepted. Truman just less so than either...but LBJ...Lyndon Johnson was an insider political dictator. You couldn't get a non-binding proclamation to wish your grandma a happy birthday without kissing the ring or kissing his ass.

He was also a bully.

[Hortensis]

33. Senate insider. Not the DC in-crowd. Johnson's actually my

favorite president, never boring. He did pull everyone's strings.

[zeemike]

7. Yep, sensible people who are willing to work within the system.

That is almost the definition of an insider.

[Gman]

8. There's always a few from organized labor

The Black caucus, LGBT, and Mexican-American Democrats in those rooms. Yup, call them party bosses in a derogatory way, but they don't care. They're there looking out for your best interest too.

Because the party is nothing without these.

For as long as I can remember, progressives complain about not being included. Here's the thing. There are two ways to have influence in the party and be a "party boss". Either have a boatload of money or be able to deliver large blocs of votes. Progressives can't deliver either. But they still rant about not being included. That's the way the world goes 'round.

[Roy Ellefson]

23. and yet

and yet I'm sure you blame Progressives for Gore "losing" to Bush in 2000.

[Gman]

25. And Nader

And stupid but deadly things like the vote trading scheme for Nader and actually believing there is no difference in the parties. They're stupidity along with Nader led to two wars and much more. Yet they to this day, regardless of the consequences of what they did, just blow it off like they did the right thing.

[Scootaloo]

26. But not the two hundred thousand registered Florida Democrats who voted for Bush.

I live how the left is never to be considered during the campaign, but is solely to blame after the loss.

[Gman]

29. The event of 2000 are why they can't be considered

Because they can't be relied on. As I said above, they don't carry any clout because they damn sure can't raise money and can't deliver votes. Why should they credibly be considered?. You need look no further than posts here on DU, much less 2000, to see they can't be counted on in the general election to deliver large blocs if votes for the nominee.

[Scootaloo]

34. We didn't make 200,000 Florida Democrats vote republican

We didn't demand a moderate "appointed heir" candidate who would run against the most popular president of 30 years. It wasn't our idea to saddle this lame donkey with a right-wing nutjob like Lieberman in an appeal to "look moderate."

And you're really proving my point of the whackjob thinking of Democratic "centrists" - the Left is of no consequence, but solely deserving of all the blame. It's insane

[Gman]

36. You don't see it

but you describe exactly why the party can't count on progressives for anything in the party, including supporting the nominee even if you don't like him. That's why progressives will not have clout in the party for the foreseeable future.

After all the party is a coalition of groups. Progressives are not one of the groups because they cannot be counted on to deliver their vote as a bloc. They are welcome to vote for the nominee as is anyone else not part of the party structure.

[Scootaloo]

37. ...Because we don't act like republicans?

Fascinating. Tell me more.

[trof]

10. Too true, cali. It's a fixed game...

but like the old gambler said "It's the only game in town."
I vote Democratic because it's the lesser of two evils.
if Bernie should somehow pull it out I could finally vote FOR somebody.

[Demeter]

11. The pawns are upsetting that gameboard, this time around

and there's going to be significant fall-out in 2017. I can't wait. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of incompetents.

[bvar22]

12. DURec.

I had the unpleasant opportunity to see this Up Close & Personal in Minneapolis in 2005.
I was donating some shoe leather to help a Liberal, Grass Roots candidate, Scott Mortensen,
for and open seat in the House of Reps.
Scott Mortensen actually posted to DU back then,
so if you bother to go to the link, be sure to read the whole thread.

Did you know that Rahm has REAL "henchmen", or at least he did when he ran the DCCC,
and he sent them to Minneapolis to derail Mortensen's campaign and insert their own Conservative candidate who would owe Rahm "favors"?
He told us more in person than what he posted to that thread.....which was bad enough,
so the reality is much worse than what he posted to DU.

I got all angry again after reading that old thread.


DCCC King Making
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=160&topic_id=14207


The DCCC, the DSCC, the DNC, or ANY national Party Organizations have absolutely NO BUSINESS interfering in LOCAL Democratic Primaries!
When ever they do, it is to deny the Will of The People in choosing their candidate.


If you Work for a Living, never EVER donate your money to the DNC, DCCC, DSCC.
They will use your money against you.

[Scuba]

24. /\_/\_This_/\_/\

[RiverLover]

30. Thank you.

I didn't know any of that. It really is like House of Cards, esp Rahm. I feel like I need another shower now!

And I'm sorry I wasn't around DU in those days...or maybe not. Ignorance really is bliss.

[Flying Squirrel]

13. And yet

Sometimes change does happen, and the establishment is overturned with astonishing speed -- and few ever believe it will happen beforehand.

[Uncle Joe]

14. It's an uphill fight for sure, but on the positive side if the pawns can make it to the other side

of the board, we can become the most powerful pieces in the game.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

[Garrett78]

15. Given the influence of moneyed interests...

the party primary should be seen as more of a selection process than an election process. You're exactly right that neither Trump nor Sanders stand a chance of being nominated. It amazes me how many people think one or both of those guys will be representing their respective parties a year from now.

Anyone who deviates too much from the party establishment script (Sanders, Trump, Paul, Carson, Huckabee, Santorum, Cruz) or is "hostile to moneyed interests" can forget about being nominated. This is why among the non-politicians Fiorina is much more likely than Trump to be nominated, though I wouldn't bet on her either. With Fiorina as a possible exception, the nominees will more than likely be career politicians who follow the script. Clinton or Biden vs. Kasich or Bush or Rubio or Walker.

[Uncle Joe]

16. You give up too easy and your link makes a valid scenario for Bernie, while also omitting

a critical factor in his favor.

But if Sanders eventually overtook Clinton, the establishment might resign itself to the prospect of nominating him. There are some loose precedents for candidates like Sanders winning their nominations, especially George McGovern in 1972 and Barry Goldwater in 1964. If you’re going to sacrifice a presidential election — and Sanders would be unlikely to prevail next November4 — you’d at least like to shift the window of discourse in your party’s preferred direction.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/stop-comparing-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders/

McGovern never had an the Internet working for him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251602173

WASHINGTON -- The presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) raised more than $1.2 million in the past two days off of an attack launched by a group supportive of Hillary Clinton.

The haul, collected through the website ActBlue, is an impressive feat even for a candidate who has outpaced the Democratic and Republican fields in online fundraising. And it illustrates the intense difficulty that Clinton will face in campaigning against him as the Democratic primary heats up. Any attack the former secretary of state or her allies launch against Sanders risks sparking an outpouring of support, financial and otherwise, for his candidacy.

"We've never seen an immediate donor response like what the Sanders campaign received on Tuesday. At one point, it drove 180 contributions through our platform per minute," said Erin Hill, executive director of ActBlue. “Over its 11-year history ActBlue has sent money to over eleven-thousand campaigns and committees — and the Bernie Sanders campaign holds the record for the two biggest donor days ever for a campaign on our platform."

[Garrett78]

17. I haven't given up on anything.

In my estimation, Sanders was never going to become the nominee and that isn't what his campaign is ultimately all about. As I've stated here and elsewhere.

Not only does Sanders threaten the moneyed interests and not have the kind of infrastructure that Clinton has (or that Biden would have), he simply can't win enough of the early primaries (too many southern and midwestern states). By mid-March either Clinton will have the nomination wrapped up or she'll be battling Biden for the nomination.

[Uncle Joe]

18. You misinterpret Bernie's statement that we need to create a grass roots movement

as being an admission that he doesn't believe he can be elected to the Presidency.

And I'll close with something I've written elsewhere. I don't think the Sanders campaign is truly about winning the nomination. His campaign is, in his own words, "about creating a grassroots political movement in this country." So that one day we might have a POTUS and a legislative branch that truly does represent the will of the people. And not a lesser evil with strong ties to seedy corporations and firms. Because, as we know from numerous surveys, when you set aside that election results are driven by perception and money (and the Cult of Personality) and that most don't really follow politics very closely (or know what socialism means or what neoliberalism is), large majorities - when asked directly how they feel about various issues - share the same political philosophy as Sanders whether they realize it or not.

Sanders said, "...no matter who is elected to be president, that person will not be able to address the enormous problems facing the working families of our country. They will not be able to succeed because the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of campaign donors is so great that no president alone can stand up to them. That is the truth. People may be uncomfortable about hearing it, but that is the reality. And that is why what this campaign is about is saying loudly and clearly: It is not just about electing Bernie Sanders for president, it is about creating a grassroots political movement in this country."

Sanders is simply stating that he needs the movement as well, he can't do it alone, he's not stating that he can't do it.

Bernie is doing everything in his power to create this grassroots movement now and be elected, he's reaching across racial, gender, regional and religious lines to make this a reality today and in 2016.

His message is resonating and the people on the Internet have begun responding, this will spread like ripples across our national pond.

[Garrett78]

19. Of course he won't outright say he can't win.

And I'm not misinterpreting anything. Whether Sanders truly believes he can win or not, I don't think he can and I think his campaign is ultimately about sparking a grassroots political movement.

Have you looked at the primary/caucus schedule? There aren't many Sanders-friendly states to begin with, and most of them don't hold a primary until after most states have held theirs. By the time Oregon and several New England states get around to having their primaries, it'll be too late for Sanders.

[Uncle Joe]

20. Then you will be voting against him. You see the early primary/caucus schedule of states

from a static point of view.

Perceptions and realities change and nothing is speeding that process up so fast as the Internet.

Never in the world's history has there been that kind of game changer; where people en masse can instantly communicate with one another for the whole nation and beyond to see without a big money, corporate media filter.

The evolution of ideas, concepts, beliefs and knowledge have been mega-transformed in speed from our provincial past, we're light years ahead of just 15 years ago.

[Garrett78]

21. Most people don't follow politics very closely.

And most voters don't participate in political discussions online. I'm not sure what "Then you will be voting against him" means. I happen to live in a state with a late (and likely meaningless) primary.

Anyway, I guess only time will tell if Sanders can win states like South Carolina, Nevada, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Mississippi, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, etc. Because if he doesn't win a bunch of those states, it's game over.

[Uncle Joe]

22. So then if Bernie makes it to your state, you will be voting for him?

Most voters do talk to their friends and family about politics and people on the Internet that are passionate about and do discuss politics on line have friends and families, it's a ripple effect.

Even people that don't inhabit political discussion boards can't help but be exposed to political messages on social media outlets as well.

I would wager that Bernie's speech to Liberty University among other speeches and political images have received quite a bit of cross pollination on the Internet.

[truedelphi]

27. I tried to point out back in 2012

Last edited Sun Sep 20, 2015, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

that we Progressive Dems needed to be looking at what Ron Paul's followers were dealing with.

Those followers studied the rules, regs and by laws of the Republican Party's Primary policies.

And even though those followers, many of whom at the top level, were attorneys, they still found their candidate losing Primaries that he had won. Apparently, votes for Paul were left uncounted, and at the end of at least two state Primaries, Mitt Rmoney was announced as the winner even though Ron Paul had won.

Of course, my efforts to point these things out were denounced as my traditional enemies here at DU (The DNC crowd, Third Way crowd) took my efforts and made them as "proof" I was a Paul supporter.

But now more than ever, we Bernie supporters need to understand the history the indies following Ron Paul and also to fully understand that it is not our votes that count -- it is who counts them! And who announces the vote count.

Here in California, out of all the heads of County Registrars, there is only one out of 67 Registrars who is honest and that is the woman here in Lake County.

The Registrar of Voters in Marin is corrupt - and same of Alameda County. (Unless people got Alameda County straightened out lately.)

SO as one example of what I mean: I was not that shocked when the "Label the Food whether it is Monsanto or conventional" effort supposedly got smashed at the ballot box. Those of us who understand the "electoral policy" knew that the victory was handed to Monsanto even though a full one millin ballots had not been counted. (More than enough ballots to swayt the election results of that proposition!)