Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumWhat is wrong with a system that allows two people with huge negative approval ratings nationally
to be their parties' frontrunners?
I wonder if there is a cogent analysis of this phenomenon. Is it a function of a two-party system, itself being a function of a winner-take-all general election model? Is our society that polarized that a candidate can be winning among a fraction of the electorate and be despised by most? I don't think it is an accident that this is happening in both parties at the same time.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)If he doesn't, Jill Stein will get a huge number of votes that otherwise would have gone to him.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)if Bernie doesn't win the primary.
He's got name recognition, is not a slave of the two party paradigme, has lot's of liberal/progressice ideals and not afraid to take his sledgehammer to any debate. He can cause havoc for both establishment candidates.
But it would be telling if a theocrat or corporate clown, and a corporate shill be running against an ex. wrestler who dwarfs them all in wits, policies and ideals. Poliucy wise he's got more in common with Bernie Sanders and the old democratic principles than the 3rd way "democrats".
He once ran as independent due to a local environmental cause. In other words, he's all for green power and uses only solar pannels himself.
Just my two cents.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)with FDR and JFK than Hillary and her surrogate Chris Matthews will ever have.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)thats just ridiculous
Turbineguy
(37,342 posts)self destruction.
bjo59
(1,166 posts)Moving towards the day when the global institutions will appoint world leaders and have done with this ridiculous democracy business? Back in the 1973 (Trilateral Commission Report) multinational corporate interests called too much democracy "democratic distemper" - something that needed to be "cured." Look where we are now.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Foundation aspires to be the most powerful of all global organizations if she gets control of the might of the US military and economy.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Everything that she did under the radar as SoS was in promotion of global corporate
rule. Her rabid determination to win this election at any and all costs only makes sense
if you factor in that her work is not finished toward establishing a total police state
and globalization of corporate hegemony. Oh, and making herself even more obscenely
wealthy than she already is.
jalan48
(13,870 posts)The Democratic Establishment knows Bernie's ideas are popular and they've known it for a long time. Look where he's at in only one year, basically running as an independent. What if the DLC had been pushing a similar agenda all along, the election would be a slam dunk for whoever ran. The question of why the establishment Democrats don't support Bernie is the answer. The party backers don't agree with Bernie's ideas. Hint: well paid, private speeches to Wall Street are an indicator.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)It's just not about us anymore.
We think there are 2 different parties but with the Thirdway running the Democrats for 30+ years, the only difference is one will throw you a "cost effective crumb" to remind you they're the good guy's.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
As another poster said:
because taking over the Third Way party will not
be permitted."
Tired of being tossed crumbs all the while being told I'm fucking lucky to get them. Talk about the definition of crazy, people are getting ready to vote Thirdway again, for the Third time, expecting different results.
Sorry, the middle class will continue to disappear.
So be the audience and watch the play, or move on.
I'm pretty close to the latter.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)a good disaster..
thereismore
(13,326 posts)open some Das Kapital soon.
If Bernie doesn't win, he better not disappear into the Dem party machine. He can't change it from within. We need an actual political revolution, as in getting rid of the two-party system. We need an actual people's party alternative, not the cost effective crumb party!
Phlem
(6,323 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It has become a matter of normal procedure to use a variety of options to rig elections and short of the UN coming in as if we were a third world country, our votes are mostly for show and are manipulated as needed.
One assumes not for the benefit of any one party, else the party harmed by it would be digging hip deep in the large mound of evidence available that could be used to end it.
No, it is likely part of a larger, more important level of power, considering we are living in a global gilded age, I conclude perhaps larger players than mere politicians (basically hired help at this point) are moving the chess pieces as best suit them at any given time. They are I believe using that power a bit too obviously and a bit too noticeably for them to avoid repercussions to such hubris. They are over-reacting to a popular uprising against (the hired help) politicians which harm and have harmed enough of the population that are actually rising up as best they can, unfortunately they simply still lack the knowledge just yet to realize that it may not be possible politically within the establishment as it currently stands (in both parties). To do so
I have followed the research into the corruption of our election system since 2000 (there are many good books by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, among others that have shown the many ways it has, and is done, and their research is quite convincing)
There are old fashioned ways to affect outcomes, but since at least 2004 they have really perfected the art of using technology to achieve pretty much any outcome they wish and along with more technical means - they still use caging, targeted disenfranchisement and voter purges (rather effectively in NYS), old fashioned as they may be they are as yet still quite effective.
My conclusion, is that after the reality sets in that working within the establishment political systems, that are currently in a not so subtle state of realignment within each party towards corporate (global neo-liberal goals) at all costs. The goal that actually unite (disregard the puppet show) the two separate parties - this hubris and obvious machinations against the true will of the majority of the citizens, will eventually cause some very unpredictable outcomes, among those may include the splitting both of the parties and/or an "awakening" that hopefully will lead to a new paradigm more aligned with the near entirety of that which the people want.
If not, we are looking at a fully Corporate Right Wing Party that ignores our wishes, playing tag with a Fascist Corporate Right Wing Party that also ignores our wishes, collectively these two purchased political parties can and will lead us to our own extinction, and that of many other species, because quarterly profits and the pursuit of wealth at all cost does not leave room for environmental reparations on either the scale, or within an adequate time frame to avoid such a fate.
Personally, I hope for what I have often refereed to as "an awakening" - leading to new leadership, not among the parties as they exist now (both being lost causes) but rather under newly formed parties, born of the people's well polled and clear wishes after such hubris leads to splits, and then the deaths of the parties that are no longer serving their intended purpose.
Or unlikely as it now appears, with ever decreasing hope, a newly reformed Democratic party, that is reborn to a time before the Corporate "intellectual leveraged buyout" as envisioned by Al From and Bill Clinton and described in From's book in those terms
thereismore
(13,326 posts)I weep for my grandchildren.
RussBLib
(9,019 posts)Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)They are both anti establishment candidates. Everyone on both sides are really fucking pissed at the ruling elite and beginning to see the man behind the curtain.
Impedimentus
(898 posts)at the end of the line with the rest of us 99% 'ers.
FEEL THE BERN - 2016