I doubt they're in the 1%, perhaps there's some other financial reasons for them to support corporate control of government.

I've read variations of: "Go easy on them, so they can do wonderful things for all of us!"


When has that ever occurred in human history?!? Is this some deranged offshoot of the Great Man Theory? As if these politicians--90% of whom are narcissists--are inherently good people.

I say badger them until they become useful narcissists!

You've just describe how many on the site see politics. It's not a small contingent. It is a whole lot of people who rest all hope for the future in a political savior. It's people who decide gun control, violating campaign finance law, and other issues are less important than promoting their guy. It absolutely is the great man view of politics, but it is pervasive here.

It's not just about the primaries either. The NSA surveillance issue became all about Snowden and Greenwald as individuals rather than the more important issues of privacy and the Fourth Amendment vs. security interests.
Certain individuals are exalted above the rest of humanity, and no one is allowed to question them. The worldview is, as you say, a great man view of politics that belongs in another century, yet it nonetheless is dominant.

of people, it is about the violation of the rights of people, not just in this country, but everywhere the NSA has violated the rights and sovereignty of other nations.

Please speak for yourself when you make claims that do not apply to the majority of people here and elsewhere.

Democrats support Whistle Blowers, but there is and always has been small contingents of people who do not support Whistle Blowers. I cannot even begin to speculate what their reasons are for this.

Contingent " outside of DU that supports Hillary?

In a separate thread someone put me in the 1% category, not having any idea who I support in the Democratic primary. In fact the only statement I have made is I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is

Funny thing about generalizations

Do any Hillary supporters suppose they can win the general election without Bernie supporters?

Do any Bernie supporters suppose they can win the general election without Hillary supporters?

is the candidate who has crossover appeal. The Dem base has shrunk to just 32% of registered voters. Even if a candidate were to get all of that vote, they cannot win. Bernie who has gone from a complete unknown has succeeded in just two months in getting 20% of the base so far, but his campaign is focused on the largest and most important voting bloc, Independents now at 42% of the vote and non-voters, people who gave up on the system, but are now coming back because they are learning about a candidate they can support because he supports them.

As a progressive Independent, I keep reiterating this point here on the forums.

I have been met with insults, disrespects, ToS threats, and derision.

We are the biggest voting block. We will be the deciders both in the primary AND in the general. That is just the reality of it. I will not speak for others but I do see many in my demographic who are angry at the neo-liberal New Dems. We demand and need real change. Sanders offers that very real possibility. We are not seeking ponies, unicorns, or any of the other dismissive shit that is used to label the very real real things that we ALL need.

I will be registering as Democrat just so I can participate in the special election here in AZ only allowed by party. That is so I can vote for Sanders twice here during the primary season. I know others who are doing this as well. Why? Because of Sanders. We could give a shit about another fucking Clinton. That is the last thing we need.

If you don't express full-throated support for Hillary all the time, Scott Walker and his running mate, Hitler, will win!

Is this another persecution post? I just don't see it.

And they certainly were not 'forced'

That's just off the top of my head. Pithy sayings don't really belong in serious debate.

This is the time we get to put pressure on the corporate Democrats. Telling them we are going to vote for them regardless is ridiculous. We don't have to vote for them, they need to know this, otherwise, the "but the Republicans are worse" argument will go on forever.

The Third Way corporatists only exist because they can deliver votes. If we stop voting for them, the money will dry up quickly, they'll go back to being republicans (if the nut sacks accept them) , and we get our party back.

bad without any Dem calling them out (and not then *underhandedly fighting their own party to pass exactly the policies they called them out on*)

it invalidates everything they just said and makes it sound like the real problem is DU critics not voting (when they do) instead of the party/candidates being highly unattractive to the great mass of voters

The Democratic primary nominee has yet to be chosen, but once that person is chosen, perhaps one should understand the DU Terms of Service:

"Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side."

I'm from the old "underground" school so I'm not as quick to vote the party line.

The cretins on the right aren't used to getting pushed back. I'm on the left end of the spectrum so the more pushing the better. Some of these folks are modern day Birchers, there's really no reasoning with them. They basically need to be told to sit down and shut up-we've had enough. My two cents worth.

where we are, every election we are told that we probably won't get the candidate we want but we need to commit to voting for the nominee so that the evil ones on the other side don't win.

Well, times have changed, and a whole lot of people are not going to do that this time, and the party needs to be put on notice.

Look, I totally get that a lot of people believe that a more progressive Democratic candidate would get more votes in the General than a less progressive Democratic candidate would. I acknowledge that that is a valid view and that one could marshall (some) arguments for it. However it is not a view I hold, and a lot of the party agrees with me on that. It is equally a valid view that any increase in progressive turnout from a candidate who moves farther to the left is much, much smaller than the moderates and conservatives we lose from that same movement.

You don't have to agree with that, but I'm amazed at how resistant some people on DU are to even acknowledging that that is in fact our thought process.

is that as you choose more RW candidates to win votes from that side of the spectrum, those candidates govern that way too. So you may (or may not) gain votes by moving right, but you certainly lose quality of living/quality of governance (from a leftist's perspective anyway) by voting for more RW candidates.

I will acknowledge that big money candidates such as Clinton have a larger and more established campaing infrastructure and can make the large ad buys we are conditioned to expect from "viable" candidates.

That may not play out as many think it will. In California, both Fiorina and Meg Whitman went down in state-wide elections despite having the advantages of money (I haven't checked their actual record of money spent verses their opponents, so I am only guessing here, but my main point is that their massive campaign financing wasn't able to buy enthusiasm for their candidate).

If the message and candidate don't resonate with people, money can be defeated. It isn't easy, but for many of us it is the ultimate victory, beating the candidates and interests of large corporations.

There's no definitive way of knowing how the general election will play out, it's why we hold the elections. I choose to vote for the change in direction our country truly needs rather than accepting the party establishment's canididate of choice, and I hope Bernie's message catches on like wildfire, it deserves to and we deserve a candidate who serves us with true conviction, rather than humoring the poor left which so obviously has nowhere else to go, I'm very tired of that act and I've been seeing it played out most of my life to terrible results.

Bernie isn't reliable on gun control.

https://reason.com/blog/2015/07/16/bernie-sanders-and-gun-rights-more-than

They are explaining how Bernie's support for gun rights is unreliable.

Gun control is not my main issue, but I find Bernie's position reasonable.

It's pretty simple. Just like I won't vote for Clinton because of her unreliability in re the finance industry.

on Wall Sreet reform and Capitalism in general, he won't get anything done other than social issues, which means more guns, less regulation.

is actually malicious interference in the Democratic Primary?

progressive pressure. Without such pressures we'd be living in 'God is in the mix, one man, one woman' territory still.

Me, I learned from 2000, 2010, 2014, and a variety of other years that taught when you offer up candidates who refuse to support the left, they lose elections.

How do we ever expect to make progress on gun violence if people just "follow the leader" when he decides to grant the gun industry legal immunity?

Scut Farkus!

Worshiping the Wall Street candidate and mocking the Main Street candidate expresses a fundamental set of values that is all too familiar to students of US history. That set of values has been characteristic of the Republicans for most of our lifetimes; but alas that doesn't mean "trust the wealthiest to do the right thing, because their wealth is a sign of God's grace" is an attitude than can't infect Democrats. It can and does.

not so much.

is conveyed through a member of the political elite. I don't know if people are discouraging activism. I haven't seen that. They simply disagree about who would be the best candidate for the nomination, which is (or should be) an entirely separate issue from what you are discussing. It disturbs me that people conflate the two, that they so easily surrender key issues in order to promote a politician's political fortunes. Activism is not about advancing the career of a member of the political elite, but far too many care about little else.

and not by policy or ideology. To that end, "progressive pressure" on a given Sainted Democratic Politician is viewed as a negative attack that will be used by Our Enemies to hurt the Sainted Democratic Politician. Therefore no such pressure is to be tolerated.

Because remember: our Sainted Democratic Politicians are entitled to our votes, one and all, simply because of pedigree.

when it takes billions to win? How do you get that person in the Oval Office and then have to deal with a gerrymandered Congress?

The older I get, the more pragmatic I become.

is needed too.

or at least haven't been harmed (yet).