she IS the Democratic candidate.

So now what are you going to do?

members from what are probably every political orientation. That's why. Even most of Bernie's primary voters are liberals who, because they are liberals, are happy to have HRC as their second choice. That's why.

As to who's in the party, in addition to a majority of liberals, we are reinforced in the end by the choices of other Democratic factions, such as

* White conservative Dems, most of whom cross the ballot to vote Republican.
* Those few libertarians whose social liberalism outweighs libertarian economics vote Dem.
* Racial/ethnic minority conservative Dems, most of whom either don't vote or vote Dem.
* Various far-left factions Dems, who usually vote for the majority Dem candidate, are too disgusted to vote at all, or cross the ballot to vote for some far-right candidate whose anti-moderation/change stance pleases them.
* Various religious, cultural, ethnic factions who may not be liberal but vote Dem.

For the last 225 years, from its inception in the days of Jefferson and Madison, the Democratic Party has almost always been the party of liberals, and the two largest personality types in any population are liberal and conservative. So, here we are dominating the very diverse Democratic Party. Of course. (That damned math thing again!)

Until we break the stranglehold that the two parties have on our electoral system (getting money out would be a huge first step toward doing that), far too many Americans either hold their nose when voting or just stay home. That's what I call a really piss poor way of running a country -- especially one that proclaims to be the greatest democracy on earth.

are usually even more dysfunctional and prone to corruption.

One really has to be naive to think that we don't have absolutely and completely corrupt electoral and governance systems. Hard to get more than completely.

2. No need to imagine. Go read.

But don't bother if all you read is stuff that reinforces preconceptions. In that case, my best suggestion is to take up gardening.

And I'm not just talking about reading radical Fringe far-left hippie journals. All you gotta do is listen and all you gotta do is look below the surface of what's not being covered or mentioned in the media.. It's a corrupt system. Much more than is reasonable to expect.

were not involved in politics. That'll cheer you up. The answer is clearly to get rid of us.

Or, if you don't accept that as an answer, maybe read about systems that have functioned sort of well in spite of some inevitable incompetence and corruption. They exist, we even have had them in our nation, and to my mind are proof that we can do better and really need to clean up and restore our house, do some upgrades and ad-ons.

And if an achievable "sort of well" like in Scandinavia and Canada won't do, my best well-meaning advice is still to take up gardening and join the many happy millions who never watch the news. In fact, just cutting back dramatically on the 99% of political news that's worthless petty irritation that affects nothing should help. I should take my own advice.

I actually try to read a lot. As an example, on trade issues, I made a point toi read a book making the case for free trade agreements called "The Splendid Trade". It made some theoretically good points, but in practice, the theories haven't quite worked the way the author sees them working. Of course the author is a retired neurologist who's second career has been investing and writing about investing/finance -- so things have probably worked out very well for him.

Any other good reads you'd suggest?

or international business expert, and since most of this discussion has taken place over the past few years, rather than a book or two, I'd suggest searching for archived articles in reputable journals of various slants but all well regarded. The ones I browse most often for interesting articles are probably The Atlantic, The Economist, New Yorker, National Review and Weekly Standard (to see what they're thinking), Mother Jones. Foreign Affairs allows one free article a month, but if you sign up for the weekly newsletter, you get access to the articles listed. At least I did and do.

I just checked my bookmarks folder for sources that have impressed me and there are so many good ones, the kind of journals experts with reputations to protect write articles for. Rand Review, Harvard International Review, World Politics Review, and on and on. There are so many. As you can see, for educating myself about complex things I don't know anything about I prefer organizations that can afford to pay genuine experts to investigate, analyze, and produce solid articles. I notice I don't have any business journals, a real lack, but I sort of assume they're overly represented in general.

Not a journal, but I'd forgotten about Public Citizen's site ChamberOfCommerceWatch.org. I have a special hate on for that evil organization; it more than represents business all by itself. Also http://www.about.com/newsissues/ - I'd forgotten that mundane About.com's issues section can do a surprisingly good job of reducing complex issues to understandable summaries. I think I read their piece on the pros and cons of the TPP some time ago and recommend it as a jump-off point. http://useconomy.about.com/od/Trade-Agreements/fl/What-Is-the-Trans-Pacific-Partnership.htm.

No site is the beginning and end, of course, and it's impossible to assess bias properly when new to a topic. Nevertheless, a quick search in ProPublica will often pull up several good articles on a topic -- they vet what's out there and make recommendations. I just looked and a search on the TPP didn't pull up an investigation on that topic, but I see they just won a third Pulitzer and offer recommendations for a lot of major political figures (big surprise).

I now have a dozen sites open that I haven't browsed in a long time, so thanks for asking.

my Masters was in Resource Economics -- worked in natural resources throughout my career as a land use/resource management planner, land manager. Also spent three years working in Africa in the 70s ... so I do have some international economic experience, but mot an expert by any stretch.

My take on economics is its loaded with assumptions that are somewhat subjective in terms of the economic ideology of the theorist. Economic modeling often relies on assumptions a fixed (finite) set of variables -- and therein lies the rub. The assumptions are often flawed geared toward It has always seemed to me that the economics toolbox has more accuracy and utility when applied to affects analysis after the fact using real, verifiable, reliable data. -- But I will bookmark this thread check the site you mentioned re: TPP as I've wanted to look into it further anyway.

I think the point of my comment was about the dominating presence of corruption in our electoral and governance systems. I stand by that point. I've read more than enough about our politics, parties, party history, campaign finance and its history, political memoirs, etc., to convince me of that.

Did you happen to watch 60 Minutes last night (4/24/16)? An excellent demonstrative source in itself. Google it if you haven't seen it. By the way, just because behavior is legal does not mean it isn't corrupting. We have a corrupt system. Time to end that.

taking a stand that gravity is a drag. Any pretense that one Democratic faction "owns" an anti-corruption position is very silly, and a "conclusion" that liberals/Democrats must thus be for corruption profoundly dishonest and delusional to the Nth degree.

Absolutely no one argues that wealth inequality and the balance of power between business and the electorate are not extremely out of balance. They are, to the point that our democracy is genuinely threatened. No exaggeration. Absolutely no one believes that, now that we can, we do not need to reverse both trends and restore power to the electorate.

The choice is not between pro-corruption and anti-corruption, but rather between the genuinely silly pretense that we can fix it all quickly and easily by voting for Bernie Sanders' nonexistent "revolution" versus the intelligent recognition that we are a superior force engaged in a lengthy trench warfare against a nevertheless very powerful and very well-dug-in army of special interests. A war people like me have been anticipating must be fought for 30 years as the situation deteriorated.

Btw, these days 60 Minutes is always long behind the curve as it waits for others to lead the way and cannot pack into even a half-hour segment (including commercials) a fraction of what a good written article can convey. The female interviewers always do have good legs on full view, though, a trick it picked up from Fox News.

words like silly, unrealistic, etc., on the basis that Bernie can't just fix things just like that. Nobody, NOBODY is saying that Bernie will accomplish the things he is proposing all by himself or that he even will accomplish them in his time if he is President. You can go ahead can thar silly argument right now. As for "long trench warfare" o whatever you described it as, that warfare has supposedly been going on for 40 years and it doesn't take a ro c ket scientist to see which side has been winning, and on the economic front, continues to win. What Hillary represents is more of the same Third way neoliberalism; in theory it sounds good but in practice it sucks big time. What's that definition of "insanity"? Incrementalism is what got us where we are today ... it took 40 years to get here! It makes absolutely no sense to wait 40 years to recover. By your own admission you've waiting 30 years. Maybe it's time you consider casting away the paradigm you have adopted and step out of the box. If you want real change, you need a leader who talks about real change - not marginal adjustments.

Bernie or bust for this 65 year old!

I am amused by the Sanders supporters and republicans praying for an indictment http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/waiting-clinton-indictment-dont-hold-your-breath

If you are a Democrat, you vote for her...if you vote for Trump...Republican...if you vote for Stein...stupid and not a democrat....if you vote for Bernie (write in name) you are stupid and not a Democrat...if you stay home you are not a Democrat.

It must be nice to have others do your thinking for you. It's kind of republican-esque.

If she gets the nod at the convention, I will personally become an Independent. Until then, I am a Democrat supporting MY preferred candidate.

This does not make me a Trump supporter, which is an insult.

process going forward.

Are you telling me you don't think I should support them because I don't like Hillary (who isn't even the party nominee yet)?

That is crazy.

wasn't saying you should not support other Dems. It's bizarre that you should think I was.

And while the Presidential nominee is OBVIOUSLY important, part of my larger point is that I can be a Democrat who supports other Democrats who just hates Hillary UNLESS the "purity test" of "Hillary Love" is the new definition...

I am still struggling with this myself, so please forgive if I am not clear.

Whether you vote for the Dem, the Rep, the Green, or even sustain or spoil your ballot, your action is not at all irrelevant.

You might want to dismiss anyone that disagrees with your choice, but that doesn't change the reality.

If you vote Republican, you're a moron, and there is really nothing more to say about that.

Voting for Trump either directly or indirectly is not a good idea

QED

and everyone thinks that their version of real democrat is the only real democrat.
And that is okay.
We are individuals.
We are not mass produced.

They seem pretty clear to me. Civil rights, pro-choice, medical care, labor, transparency in government, etc.

by a well known Hillary supporter who stated that the Democratic Platform is irrelevant.
Just jaw dropping.

respective ranks. There are so many differences in today's US, that it's hard to believe two political parties can represent all of the interests in the US, especially when the two dominate parties are internally split. Watching the D and R parties is like watching a perpetual domestic argument and often little is accomplished. The US has been in gridlocked polarization for sometime now.

The business oriented Grand ol' Perverts. The "Center" party. Until then, we cant say anything about how close their policies and attitudes are to each other...because, reasons.

It sounds cozier, now that he's adopted his new soulmate.

As long as pols like Hillary are deemed "liberal" and represent the left pole of the debate, most Americans will continue to lose out.

"Why do Hillary supporters think they own the definition of Democrat, because HRC is NOT a Democrat."

I don't know whether mark this up as hypocrisy, irony, self-caricature, or simply insanity.

You tell me.

As far as people thinking theirs is the ONLY way to be a Democrat - that describes the Bernie supporters to a tee.

That's the whole point of having a big tent. We're supposed to be inclusive, and have people with a variety of opinions, but who believe in the same basic principles.

but in practice we have people here, in the media, and even within the Democratic party itself, claiming Bernie is not a real Democrat .. that many of his voters are not real Democrats.

There actually seems to be a group of Democrats that do indeed think there is "one" definition.

do you have that list? It would be interesting to see what's on your list and what you leave off.

Don't forget that 😊

who uses their own narrow, personal definition of what a democrat is supposed to be.

Just registering and/or voting is not specific enough for allegiance.

You're making the "my own personal and narrow definition" argument.

If you think anything at all beyond registering and voting is "narrow," that is extremely telling and WOW is my only reaction.

No ideological litmus tests required.

That's why they're unable to rationalize that somehow, endless war, fracking, "free" trade, and stripping the privacies of American citizens aren't actually true Democratic ideals.

(also, I'm mostly only back to lurk, because now I know I've got enemies.)

Just a hunch.

You can always hang out in the Sanders Group.

Gold spray paint's a little gaudy, though. :p

It was straw, not tin foil, but someone obviously got to you.

(True story about the hat. It was awful.)

A Democrat is a member of the Democratic party and there should be no ideological litmus tests. We should be a big tent that welcomes everyone, even those we don't agree with 100% on every issue.

Which why ideological litmus test are bad.

FDR was from NY and LBJ from Texas. They would have recognized each other as Democrats.

Leave those for the Republicans. We should be better than that.

A democrat is someone who registers as a member of the Democratic party.

Party platform, what's the point? Also, you are now just repeating the things you said several posts ago. that doesn't seem useful. Have a great day.

and no one really sticks to them anyway.

Litmus tests don't seem useful to me.

is more moderate, but still right.

The democratic party will be reborn. As you post, there is no democracy in the democratic party. Do you know how may former republicans are in our party? Do your research. Not just Hillary, and those you know....check locally.

We had a primary, the people voted, and they voted more for Hillary. That's the end of the story.

Says Hillary supporters have a lot of NERVE ... then requests politeness.

Too funny.

who do not like discussion about the plethora of problems with her as a candidate, including her upcoming FBI interview.

It takes a helluva lot of NERVE to go there, but it does serve the purpose of negating any value my opinion might have by PRETENDING that I am not a "real" Democrat, doesn't it? And that is why it is done.

And I have not called you a Trump supporting Republican.

If you want "polite discussion", you might start with your own OP.

on the part of HRC supporters that underscores the need for civility.

And not by us.

more than that!

I also think there is an evolution within the parties -- the understanding of what it "means" to be a Democrat or a Republican, and even an American, is very much identified with the leadership.

They don't mind telling people that. That's ALL it is... a check mark on a registration form.

They say a check mark makes them part of "The Club". That's all; just check the right box. It doesn't matter what your ideals are as long as you put your check mark in the proper place. Boy, are THEY wrong.

I'm straying from the herd.

And Berners are winning the battle if not the war. One step at a time if necessary.

I expect any candidate to cleave pretty close to that. Any incremental progress is fine beyond that, but that's the definitive baseline. I always chuckle at these "I'm a real Democrat!" "No you're not, I am!" threads when there already exists a grassroots, non-PAC, non-"corporatist-oligarchic-M$M" or whatever derived list of what Democrats have already agreed being a Democrat means.

Senator Sanders has steadfastly remained I-VT for his entire House and Senate career. While he has caucused with the Democratic Party, he has refused any closer association until this year.

You mention labor. Membership matters. Union members naturally resent non-member workers who gain the benefits the union fought for, but have no stake in the union itself. That's how many of us feel about Senator Sanders. Yes, if he'd been D-VT instead of I-VT for the past 20+ years, I'd feel differently about him. As it is, if he insists on being independent, he should have skipped the primaries; he should skip the convention; and he should run as an independent (no party affiliation whatsoever), a Green or as the P & F Party candidate.

Going forward, I'd like to see these reforms: 1) only registered Democrats vote in Democratic Party primaries (exception: Minnesota, where the Democrats are the DFL), 2) we end taxpayer support for our primaries, and go to a vote-by-mail format, and 3) only registered Democrats will be allowed to run for partisan offices as Democrats. If so-called independents want a say, they should join the party. If they want to be above partisan politics, they should resign themselves to only voting in the primaries on non-partisan issues (bond issues, non-partisan offices) and do whatever they want to do in the GE.

You don't see Hillary as a real Democrat, while I know empirically Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat (he's an independent running as a Democrat). Bill Clinton was the best President in my lifetime, and from my perspective, the Clintons represent what I see as being good about the party. Everyone has a different view.

I think both parties are in the process of splitting and reforming. 1948 was an example of such an election. A Republican (Dewey), a Democrat (Truman), a Progressive (Henry Wallace), and a Dixiecrat (Thurmond) all ran for the White House. If you looked in todays news, you'll see that the King of Spain is having difficulty getting factions within Parliament to form a government because their parties are in flux.

Rather than a set of ideas

You just listed issues that aren't issues, but rallying points put out by Karl Rove. We pint this out, because when you fall for this stuff, you are pretty much a Republican to begin with.

You just called me a Republican. You have been here less than a week (Wed Apr 20, 2016, 11:34 AM) and you call someone who has been here TWELVE YEARS a Republican?

Thank you for proving my point.

They branded us for our political parties at birth. That is why it takes NY 6 months to switch your party registration because they have to contract the "CENTRAL DNC HATCHERY AND CONDITIONING CENTER" to update our records.

Very well done. Thank you.

a division of Corporate America. All rights reserved. Not available in all areas - check your local listings for details.

And as such it represents the people who are members of that party. That's it.

At the moment, Hillary is the front runner for the Democratic nomination. And her husband was one of only two Democratic presidents we've had over the past 36 years, and she was a key member of the administration for the other one. So whether or not you agree with their politics or if you think they're betraying what the Democratic party should really stand for, the simple fact remains that they are not only members of the party, but are leaders in the party.

You can work to change that, but it doesn't make sense to claim that they and the millions of voters who support them aren't real Democrats, particularly when your own standard bearer was literally never a member of the party until he joined recently to get media coverage.

I hear so much slamming of Sanders supporters demanding a party purity standard, but from where I sit it sounds like projection from the Clinton camp. Thanks, IdaBiggs.

The Democratic Party of FDR is dead. Bernie is trying to revive it, but how many Democratic governors, Senators and Congressmen are supporting Bernie's candidacy and agenda? Maybe 3 or 4, while Hillary has probably 200 or more.

Today's Democratic Party is about corporate money, the military-industrial complex, and preserving the status quo for the upper 10% or so. Read the book "Listen, Liberal" by Thomas Frank if you have any doubt.

It's absurd nonsense, just like 99% of what they say. Calling people Republicans is projection and deflection from legitimate points raised about HRC. That's all they have. There are no actual defenses for Hillary, and she has no actual Democratic agenda. So phony stuff is all they've got. You'd think that would be a clue that they're backing the wrong candidate.

I've been a Democrat longer than a lot of these people have been living. I'm not interested in their baseless assertions and hairsplitting controversies over words, i.e. their talking points.

And Hillary is reminding me more of Nixon every day (only worse, surprised that's even possible).

Good thread, Ida.

I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers