Unfortunately, they're no longer Democrats.

If economic populism would bring them back, someone would have tried it in Alabama or Mississippi. Problem is they grow up hating liberals and being afraid of black people and wanting to regulate uteruses. Politicians don't have the ability to rewrite a person's political upbringing with a few speeches.

what will it take? IMO, all a person would have to do is "pay attention". How could you possibly embrace the last 30 years of political discourse? Why do folks continue to vote against their own personal interest? It just doesn't make any sense.

the wedge issues for the republicans and will continue to do so because they are all corporate owned - even the vaunted NPR.
I have a friend who keeps saying it will take a depression twice as bad as the '30s to finally get their attention.

"...it will take a depression twice as bad as the '30s to finally get their attention."

Real wealth are things like equity in your house, very little debt, enough money in the bank to get you through at least six months of no income, ability to pay for college without going into debt. The Heritage Foundation says that America's poor are not doing so badly cuz they have a car, a DVD and a microwave. These are trinkets, not wealth. Americans are trinket rich & equity poor. Sadly, there are a lot of American's who feel this way - that if someone has a computer with internet access they are not really poor. They also refuse to recognize how disadvantaged one is in today's society if you don't have digital access.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025588484

A depression that bad you don't come back from.

If anyone can talk to the American people so that they will understand that he is on their side, Bernie Sanders is the one:

Life long Democrat too. He was 23 years older than my mom. He was like a dad to my mom in many ways.

When my mom needed a cosigner for a car, she asked her rich older brother. Own business, multiple homes, a couple of Cadillacs and a practically a mansion. He was turned down. Not one dime of credit ever.

I bet you can't find that today

The Tee Vee and the preacherman tells them to vote Rapeuglican, so they do.

Count on it.

And the working class Republicans do not see themselves as voting against their own interests. They've been told that time and again and they don't buy it. They turn it around and insist that it is we the Democrats who are voting against our interests. I've personally reached the point of despair and am concluding there is no hope. Let's let the country be destroyed and maybe, hopefully something can be done to right the wrongs. But even that is a pipe dream. Because the very same oligarchs who destroyed us will be the ones guiding the minds of Americans on the solutions to fix the devastation. To conservatives, they and only they, know how to run a country. So no matter what happens, to them it is liberalism as the culprit.

this country and he is identifying the problem. I don't see him 'trying to bring anyone back home', I see him talking about Corporate influence on BOTH PARTIES.

When the Dems have the GALL to even Talk about 'Cutting SS', you KNOW those Reagan Dems are ALREADY back 'home'.

and the working class. The working class has been propagandized to believe that their loss of wealth is attributed to Democrats giving their money to the poor. Of course if they were to open their eyes, they'd see that their wealth went to the American Aristocracy.

The challenge of Real Democrats is to convince the working class (and the out of working class) to put the blame where it belongs. Sen Sanders is trying to do just that as I believe is Sen Warren. H. Clinton is still pushing the trickle-down theory.

They use the Right Wing Noise Machine very effectively to do that. Dems do it more subtly, see Clinton's 'Welfare Reform' bill eg.

Bernie is the only one hitting that nail on the head right now.

as can be seen here, that the Democratic Party Machine will push the status quo. The Powers That Be are pushing for a H. Clinton-Sachs vs. ____________ (any Republican tool) race. HRC has to decide if she is or isn't going to try to be a populist. When she does try it is so transparent that it's ridiculous.

When countries' lower classes start to starve, many turn to dictatorial rule. They are convinced by TPTB that their plight is the fault of anyone but the Aristocrats. This happened in German and Italy and other countries. Facing similar circumstances the USofA turned to a more benevolent dictator (FDR). FDR was part of the ruling American Aristocracy but believed in helping humankind in lieu of exploiting them. We were fortunate. Unless we have another FDR appear (I don't think it's Sen Sanders) we are sunk.

Sadly we can see right here in DU where the posters are theoretically "politically liberal" but are afraid to take drastic actions to save our sinking democracy. They are willing to ignore the growing numbers in poverty. Willingly distracted by the Great Middle East War, police violence, and accidents on the 405. Some of them tell you they are liberal because they champion civil rights, women's rights, etc. I support their efforts on those issues, but ask them if they support fracking and see them run.

IMHO you aren't liberal if you don't support saving SS and Medicare, don't support saving our environment and reversing climate change, don't support strong regulations for Wall Street, do support the Great Continuous Middle East War, do support the MIC, do support the very powerful NSA/CIA Security State, do support Free Trade policies and treaties, etc.

We have an uphill battle and our first challenge is to wrest control of the Democratic Party Machine from the conservatives.

those claiming to be liberal. They pass the test of what it means to be a liberal by claiming to support Women and Minorities.

But the support they give to the Third Way Corporate policies, guarantees the continued second class citizen status of those very demographics.

So on the one hand, they claim legitimacy as Dems by mouthing support for the underprivileged, while their support for Corporate Policies exposes them as the phonies they are.

'Watch what they DO, not what they SAY'.

Eg, Holder. On the one hand he is given credit for taking on voters' rights in an attempt to end the disenfranchisement of minorities.

But his policies on the Drug War guarantee that very disenfranchisement of minorities.

Again, people need to stop listening to what they say and watching what they do.

Re FDR, he was intelligent. He knew that when oligarchies become too greedy, too oppressive, they eventually see entire populations rise up against them.

He wanted a country where everyone had an equal chance to live a decent life. That of course would cut into the profits of Predatory Capitalists. He wasn't opposed to Capitalism, or Socialism in the European sense of the word, and he was right. A balance between the two gives those who want them, opportunities that are not possible with only one or the other.

What we have today is not Capitalism. It's interesting that his own 'class' hated him and his policies as they saw those policies as a threat to their own standing.

Women and Minorities.

But the support they give to the Third Way Corporate policies, guarantees the continued second class citizen status of those very demographics."

That is spot on.

"What we have today is not Capitalism." Exactly, pure capitalism would have self destructed long ago. Our capitalism is modulated by TPTB just enough to squeeze the lower classes dry but not enough to force them into the streets.

capitalism. It is as Bernie Sanders says, an oligarchy. We are approaching a feudalistic allocation of wealth.

Too many Democrats are fully onboard with the notion of "the democracy of the market".

Especially 'leaders' of the Democratic Party establishment.

Markets are not small 'd' democratic.
However, the success of the plutocrats and corporatists has been so pervasive that even many liberals have bought into the notion that our greatest power now is 'voting' with our dollars; 'voting' with our consumer choices.

Sen. Sanders is old enough and confident enough to talk about democracy in sense of its original meaning: that we can collectively decide how our government, culture and economy is to be organized; that these things are not just the results of capitalistic, marketplace 'natural laws'.

about everything and never listen.

It's about organizing the working class to demand politicians speak to their interests, regardless of what party they belong to. The Europeans all have universal health care and functional social welfare systems that their conservative parties don't even dream of privatizing when they come to power.

that belongs to them, they left and are gone forever, unless Hillary can bring them back. Bill did a little bit.

But I am supposed to believe that if I just vote for enough centrists with a "D": after their name, eventually the Dems will control things and be liberal and all.
Bullshit.

What is it? They seem grossly ineffective (except Bernie & Elizabeth) and have for a decade. At least.

and we may or may not see any change to a more liberal government in our lifetime. Or not. But vote D.

Corporate Candidates. Not sure what that is supposed to do for the middle class but so long as those candidates say they 'support Women and Gays and Minorities', they can slap a 'D' after their names and we are supposed to say NOTHING, just vote for them.

Then when they vote for Corporate interests, they contradict their claims of 'concern' for Women and Minorities who suffer the most from Corporate policies.

They will set themselves apart by social issues, not economic ones.

I once asked if you can have social justice without economic justice, because I don't think you can. I was surprised that some people responded yes. Your last sentence is exactly why you cannot.

Women and minorities can be liberated without putting so much as a centavo more in their pockets. Its how the nice enlightened professional-class liberals comfort themselves while driving their Saab to their kids' charter school.

Add to that, the handful of actually progressive senators and representatives get marginalized by the rest of the party...
because the rest of the party wants its "free lunch".

And we'll keep losing these representatives and senators as long as we continue to put-up & shut-up.

Talking the Talk...but compromising with RW Repugs while telling us that there's nothing they can do unless we keep voting for more Dems. 14 to 23 Dems vote with Republicans over and over on crucial bills. With Gerrymandering of Districts growing worse through the Decades there's not much way to get the "more and better Dems" in the foreseeable future although we try.

There's got to be an attitude change on the Right. But, so far they don't seem to see this affecting their own families...as long is Fox News and Radio RW is on all day blaming Dems supported by Koch/Alec/Think Tanks/MIC. Breeding hatred and disinformation
seems to work with more than half of the US Population. Without a strong Independent Media we have not chance of exposing what has caused all this. Even the few Dem places we have left won't acknowledge the problem if it calls any Democrat or their actions to task.

So here we are .....not much progress on jobs or standard of living. We've had some improvement in Health Care Coverage, a bit of help with Women's Job Discrimination issues and some good movement on LBGT issues...but the decline in our lifestyle just doesn't balance out those gains.

Your post is the only reply needed for this OP.

I think this is a flawed strategy because it's based on the assumption that we'll keep winning white women and Hispanics in the numbers we are now. The GOP has been especially good at ensuring that lately, but the right candidate can change that overnight.

If one votes for the Democrat (in the general election), centrist of otherwise, Democrats WILL control things and Congress WILL be more liberal.

If we controlled everything, and Hillary was prez, she would still push the TPP and Pelosi would still smile and say chained CPI was a GOOD thing.

it seems you will never be happy with politics.

revolts me. Even worse, I believe corporations control the whole thing now, anyway, so this is not even one group of citizens disagreeing with another group - this is groups of citizens voting against their own best interest because they are manipulated. It has devolved into a sort of cruel and ugly game. IMO, etc.

and supply side economics.

has Congress become more liberal?

My thoughts exactly!

It seems we are continually asked to just hold our noses and vote for those "who can win", as if it were a foregone conclusion... and each time, we sacrifice not-insubstantial progressive values... all in the name of "the win".

I'm sick of the moving goal post.

They lie.

Why doesn't he use his more effective strategy on the Socialist party?

and create a Socialist majority in the house? The Democratic party is made up of the people who contribute to it. People outside it don't get to tell it anything. They're going to listen to their own base.

either do not listen to their base (they listen to their big contributors, IMO) or maybe I am just not the base.
So hey, maybe Bernie IS using his superior strategy to get me to join the Socialist Party....

you have to convince enough people to belong to it and vote for it. Sitting around blaming Democrats for not being socialists will not work. You have to convince the Democrats to be Socialists. Why do you think you can simply demand they think like you do?

I never thought of Democrats as Socialists (and Bernie is not a Socialist, anyway), but the Corporatists have taken over the Democratic Party and spit on the Progressives. So I am supposed to suck it up and vote against my interests, or leave.
More and more of that choice coming down the road, though.

or you cannot form a majority. What's the point of being bitter because most of the Democrats don't think like you do?

If the Democratic party is too far to the right for you, the only think you can do it attempt to persuade other voters to vote for candidates with more liberal views. Or join another party and convince people to join that party.

Really it sounds like you are not a Democrat, and don't intend to form a part of the Democratic party. Join a party that will run a candidate you like and try to win for that candidate.

you do seem sooo confused, tree.

He's more of a progressive than anything else. I mean, heck, he co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus...

If he is one man and independent, he has no coalition. Our government will not allow him to be dictator, he must convince enough people to form a party. If he's not a member of the Democratic or any party, how can he do anything? It is not practical, as one needs majorities in Congress to enact anything. An Independent can talk a lot, but not do anything. I would say he's and irrelevant Senator. Does he do anything for the state of Vermont? Probably most he could have done would involve working with Democrats.

If you had, you would've read how Sanders notes considerable unity between working class Democrats and Republicans on issues such as minimum wage, climate change, increased taxes on the wealthy, and decreased corporate influence in politics. Assuming our representatives reflect their constituency (which is probably tragically naive, I concede), then they should be able to form powerful coalitions to enact these changes. In fact, a President with some historical distance from both parties might actually be viewed as more effective and -- dare I say it, more patriotic -- because he's less likely to sacrifice the country's core principles at the altar of partisan politics.

From the Salon article:

"I start off, Thomas, from the position that we need a political revolution in this country and that’s not just rhetoric. What I mean by that is that we need—and a president certainly can play a very, very important role in this—we need a massive change in citizen participation and in political consciousness. There was a poll that just came out I think yesterday. Gallup tells us that… I believe it is 63 percent of the American people cannot name which parties control the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. So you have consciousness so low, a significant majority of the American people who are very concerned about what’s going on for themselves and their kids, they don’t know who controls the House and the Senate. They can’t name which party controls both bodies. You have what the political scientists tell us is a situation where in this coming election, 60 percent of the American people will not bother to vote. That means 70 -to-80 percent of low-income workers and young people will not vote. So before you can talk about changing America, you have to change the political consciousness and the way that people relate to the political process.

Now, there is a group that relates very strongly to the political process, [and] that is the billionaire class that is now prepared to spend many hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates to represent their interests.

So you ask me, what can a president do? The main thing, I think, that the president can do is understand that no kind of progressive agenda can take place unless the American people are involved in that struggle and are prepared to put real pressure on the establishment to make it happen. It’s not going to happen in back rooms. It’s not going to happen in White House negotiations. If students, for example, want to see the cost of college go down and want to see their very high levels of debt be significantly reduced, they’re going to have to take it up with the members of Congress. They’re not doing that now. If low-income workers want to see the minimum wage raised, it cannot be a situation where only 20 percent of low-income workers vote. They’re going to have to be actively involved. That’s what a president can do."

He is not talking about the Reagan Dems, he is not talking about republican voters. He is talking about that Majority of voters who miss almost all elections. They are the ones with the most to gain and lose. Being a Dem or Rep is mostly immaterial to that. However, as he said the Dems have a full 50 state organization which may be impossible to set up for a Dem.

But it's not just the President that can do it. Anybody can try to get fellow citizens motivated.

You have to convince people to vote for these things. That's in essence all he is saying there. Why limit it to the President (who does have a pretty big job to do, after all).

People can do a lot more for themselves. Instead, they do nothing and expect someone else to do it all. Usually they focus on the President, because they are most in the limelight.

From what I read he explained that it is something that the Presidency is especially important for. Reagan used it very effectively to swap the south. As he said, they are really Republicans but just do not know it yet. Teddy Roosevelt flipped both parties by ripping progressives from the Republican Party and then many and ultimately most settled back down in the Democratic Party. Not saying those are perfect examples but they point to the importance of the bully pulpit to motivate the citizenry and the electorate. President Sanders would certainly have a much more powerful voice than as Senator from Vermont.

However he did make a persuasive argument that the two parties, and thus Congess, has little opportunity to do this or even to enact progressive legislation. Hence the need for a political revolution and hence the need for directions like he is pursuing.

vote for a Liberal majority in the house? Why do they point out the problems with the Republican Party, that party isn't going to be influenced by Democrats as we were told. We were told Bi-Partisanship was the way to go. What went wrong with that strategy? Why do Dems tell us NOT to vote for most Liberal candidates but to vote for 'centrists' instead?

if you want something different, you have to convince them. If you're a minority in the Democratic party, you have to convince the others. You have to convince the people in your state to vote for liberal Democrats. You have to convince them, not demand. That's true with anyone.

Build the Democratic party and liberals within it will have more power.

The democratic party is made of constituents... donors are a mere fraction of the party. The Democratic party exists to serve its constituency... in this case, that actually includes a rather large net of people... particularly since the democratic party tries to appeal to a many and myriad variety of groups... independents are in fact, one of these groups. By simple nature of the Democratic party wanting the votes of these individuals, the Democratic party must indeed listen to what people of all walks of life have to say.

So, your assertion that "People outside it don't get to tell it anything" is only true insofar as the willingness of the party to give up on those votes.

And what exactly is your problem with a revitalized left within the Democratic Party?

There seems to be this idea that the leaders must control the voters and not the other way round. That goes against our form of government.

People take the luxury of blaming the Democrats for not being liberal enough without realizing you have to convince them. Instead you demand that they adopt your opinion and further, convince other voters of your opinion for you. Even if they don't agree to start with.

You may like what Bernie says, but he hasn't convinced anybody in the Democratic Party to do things his way. Which is rather presumptuous for someone who isn't even a member of the party.

and your comment is virtually meaningless considering there are only 2 viable parties in the U.S. Sad that you don't even know something that basic. He's an independent.

Sen Sanders and the populists. They support the status quo where the American Aristocracy rules.

I can remember when socialist policies like SS and Medicare were what the Democratic Party was all about. Not like now where our Democratic president chooses expanding the Great Continuous ME War, killing American jobs via "Free Trade"/TPP, and fracking.

The Conservative Wing of our Party disparage Sen Sanders because he reminds people what Democrats should stand for.

It used to be we were a Democratic Socialist state... rather than the Oligarchy we've become.
I'm hoping, within my lifetime, we'll get back to Democratic Socialism... I want to see people re-empowered and corporations disempowered (and in some cases, disemboweled... but I digress).

Sanders more fully embodies Democratic Socialism than any other potential presidential candidate at this time.

And the Turd Way supporters don't want to hear it.

And why would they fear Sanders and "the populists" (whatever that means) if it is true that this alleged "conservative wing" controls everything?

They seem happiest if they can occupy the slot abandoned by moderate republicans 50 years ago. Since no one is threatening them on the left, They see no need to go there.

The Media is always pushing the nuttiest of RW'ers and encouraging their conspiracy theories. Conversely, you never see anyone on the left given a free ride to espouse their positions, and instead they are mocked or shouted over, or just ignored.

Also, there are no Koch Bros equivalents supporting large numbers of far left candidates with millions of dollars.

If one is honest, one has to admit that there are a large number of voters who vote based on name recognition alone. That takes money to achieve.


One may say that anyone left of center doesn't have any hope, well, they are fighting an uphill battle against these forces. The far right fights a downhill battle. Thus the difference.

primaries but did so well that they changed the rules to marke sure a future populist would have a much harder time.

be a candidate of choice for those lamenting the state of the Democratic party.

The corporatist wing of the Democratic Party is not some new thing that just happened in the last decade. When Jackson was making a serious bid for the nomination he represented the left, the voiceless, his rainbow coalition was the last time the left wing of the party made a serious run for power.

editing to add: Warren's point still stands:

and funds them rather than the 'left' candidates every time. Hell, Dems even ENDORSE Republicans over Dems, see Christie where the entire NJ Dem Party endorsed that idiot over their own candidate?

Put it this way, if you were on a team trying to win a contest and your managers were supporting the other team, how on earth could you possibly win?

I would argue that Obama was a "Threat from the left". I'd make this argument because the country was in the midst of some rather strong momentum, moving to the right. When election season rolled around, I think people woke up and realized what was happening, and wanted to push back closer to center. The vote proved successful, and we got to move a little ways back toward center.

That, and during the debates, every time a candidate who was to the left of Obama pounded home a point, He'd adopt that point as one of his own.

There is a very definite desire to have a president who is far more statesman than politician... more people-power than corporate power. We can have that in our next president... providing we're willing to support and advocate for exactly that.

We don't have to settle for someone who is merely okay or better than the alternative.

or stay out of it.

If our candidate does not win, we have to live with the consequences. Elections matter.

People are not going to vote for someone for President who is against "the corporations." That's not practical. They are not going to vote for House members who want to do away with banks and corporations unit you convince them to.

This is a straw-man argument. No one is "against corporations" in the strictest sense. People are against the abuse, corruption and unethical acts often perpetrated by corporations.

"They are not going to vote for House members who want to do away with banks and corporations" - Again, a straw-man argument. No one wants to do away with banks or corporations. As you said before: That's not practical. People do want solid and enforced regulations keeping these groups from cheating the system or cheating people.

Managing to stay in power longer than the other guy isn't actually winning if you've done so by narrowing the range of choices from LBJ to Barry Goldwater to Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater.

If we are to survive as a nation, the time has come. The obligarcy must be destroyed. Our true enemies aren't brown people thousands of miles away, they are monsters of the multi-national corporations that are bleeding us dry, with the aid and complicity of our government.

I like Sanders, think he's doing a great job and love his ideology. But he's starting to get annoying with all this criticism from the outside.

He could be making some positive contributions to the Democratic Party and policy, but all he seems to be doing these days is whine and criticize.

over the Corporate candidates they ALWAYS support? See what happened to others like Bernie who were in the Party.

When was the last time the Dem Party went all out to support a Candidate who has a voting record like Bernie??

Has been reduced to stopping the repukes. Or should I say, TRYING to stop the repukes.

Foreign Policies and 'putting SS on the table' and the lack of a fight for the PO and now, the TPP etc.

no choice for us to make there.

He gets his funding because of his common sense ideas and his work ethic and his honest and forthright manner instead of chasing corporate dollars.

Its rather refreshing isn't it?

Yes we do Bernie. Yes we do.

Kinda like playing poker with the idea of just not losing.

Yay, Bernie!

Inequality For All, by Robert Reich. So eye opening.

I love Bernie.

Progressives like him, who have prominence, are few and far between.

"Truth to power, Senator Sanders. It burns the selfish part of the 1% like hell fire."

That's what I posted at Salon. Can we get some more comments?

P.S. If you have Facebook, you can log-in using that option. So, no need to register if you have that or a google account.

Senator Sanders needs to do more of these. More interviews and interactions will help Sanders get a feel for how his message is getting through. People who hear the rationale behind his positions, and his considering the daunting task of seeking the nomination, will come to get a real feel for the person who states he wants to buck the system.

These are important things that have to happen in order for Sanders to make a difference, and for him to win.

K&R

can offer shelter to the former Republican who, despite their lungs being full of water, still manage to bark out orders and demand we make them captain of the ship, there is more than enough room in the lifeboat for people like Sanders, who, at their farthest points, were more like Democrats than the GOP. If there is no room in the lifeboat, then throw a millstone around some DINOS necks, and toss them overboard.