General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Sic semper Naderus. (A response to the recent pro-Nader posts) [View all]Laelth
(32,017 posts)They're not, if by "valid" we mean that they reflect the expressed desires of the majority of Democrats.
The country is rapidly becoming far more liberal, yet we are supposed to believe that the primary system will produce a candidate that actually reflects a consensus among party members and likely Democratic voters? I don't think so. My goal is to head off another pro-Wall Street, corporate Democratic candidate for President. I do not believe that the Democratic primaries are fair, nor do I think they produce the best possible candidate that we could run. I'll live with the system, of course, because it's the only one we have, but I will not concede that the primary system produces candidates that are representative of Democrats, nor of the desires of the American people as a whole.
The Party establishment is not all powerful. With that I agree. On the other hand, the Party establishment is, still, very powerful, and my fear is that the establishment will hand us a candidate that does not advance the common interests of the American people. As I've argued before: 1) demographics say we win no matter what in 2016, so why not run a real liberal? 2) the Republicans are going to paint our candidate as the most liberal so-and-so since Lenin, so, again I ask, why not run a real liberal? These questions remain unanswered because the party establishment is as much in the pocket of big, monied interests as are the Republicans.
This can not continue if the Party wants to survive. The 3rd Way has got to go. The Democratic Party has got to start representing the interests of the people. Otherwise, the people will go elsewhere.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
-Laelth