Home | About | Donate

Democrats – Still Drifting Toward Disaster

Democrats – Still Drifting Toward Disaster

John Atcheson

And taking us with them.

In the past, they pretended to believe that the country was, in fact, center-right, but in a recent New York Times editorial, neoliberal and Clintonite, Doug Schoen, revealed the real reason Democrats won’t embrace progressivism is that they are dependent upon the uber-rich, Wall Street, and corporate campaign contributors.

The Democrats will continue to cozy up to Wall St and any other source of donations they can get from their corporate puppet masters.

And judging from their loyalists around here, they can continue taking plenty of fools for granted.


I’m not sure what the Democrats should do. Especially with the Republican Party becoming the party of Trump which means it is nothing like the party of the Bush family, Bob Dole, etc. which we were so familiar with. So, the Republican Party is now a threat to democracy as it veers toward white nationalism. I think the Democrats are a conflicted party. On the one hand they embrace progressive values of the New Deal and the Great Society but on the other hand they have bitter memories of the disastrous defeats of McGovern and Mondale. Winning one state in a presidential election does not exactly provide confidence for going in a left direction. And conversely, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama won resounding victors so put that in the centrist or center left column. Is Bernie Sanders the most popular politician in America, or so some surveys say, due is his policies or unique qualities as a politician? It probably isn’t clear. Are there any other popular progressive politicians? Elizabeth Warren? Who is the second most popular politician? And finally, who has the answer to combat white nationalism and who can save us from fascism? There are new questions out there about the fate of the country that nobody in American politics has ever had to seriously ask.

Bill Clinton’s two wins are directly attributable to Ross Perot being in the race.

Obama won in 2008 because of displeasure with the Bush Administration. He ran against the unlikable Mittens in 2012–nuff said.

An excellent article, too damn true.

The claim about Perot is highly debatable to say the least. The only state where he might have made a difference was Ohio and even that is a stretch. There’s more data to support Perot’s voters second choice was Clinton, not Bush, and the votes were siphoned from Clinton in what we’d call blue states today. This was discussed just last year here:

“But as a result of a well-funded campaign by corporations and several rich families beginning in the late 1970’s, the word “liberal” has become so toxic that even people who hold liberal views on an issue-by-issue basis are loath to identify themselves as liberal.”

Thank you for this revealing this fact Mr Atcheson. I’ve felt like the Lone Ranger saying it.

“The progressive majority in America is fed up with parties that are beholden to corporations, the ultra-rich, and special interests. By trying to ignore that, Democrats are setting themselves – and us – up for disaster in 2018 and 2020.”

Asked why he won’t take the money out of the Democratic Party, President Clinton said “he won’t disarm unilaterally”. How can we take money out of politics when political parties are totally dependent on it?

One answer is to circumvent political parties and vote directly on issues like the Swiss have done for hundreds of years:

Another accurate article describing our current political situation. It would be nice if some future articles could provide some possible solutions.

With the candidates from both Current Major Parties dependent on Big Money contributions whatever they say they stand for during campaigns or when the other CMP is in control they will only represent the interests of the Big Money contributors when they get elected or regain control over the other CMP.

How could anyone expect a legislator to have the courage to stand up to the Big Money interests on any issue as legislators dependent on the Big Money for re-election when they can’t even stand up to the Big Money interests as candidates, as Big Money Democrat Deniers claim is possible with the Big Money Democratic candidates?

But the solution is in some ways pretty simple. Stop voting for the Big Money candidates. But that alone is not enough- you also have to register a vote against the Big Money candidates. Staying home and not voting does no good.

If you want small contribution candidates you must not only demand small contribution candidates, you must create overwhelming demand for small contribution candidates. If enough of us work together we can begin to build momentum toward that goal.

See the One Demand website for more info on how citizens can work together to achieve this goal. As little as 15-20% national participation in this campaign financing approach can be effective in 2018 and elect anywhere from 10-50 small contribution candidates to Congress (includes the Senate) in 2018.

This could encourage more citizens to participate in subsequent elections reaching the point in a few election cycles when the majority of districts have competitive small contribution candidates.

see also

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama won resounding victors (sic) so put that in the centrist or center left column.

Neither Clinton nor Obama can be credibly labeled center left…center right maybe, neo-liberal certainly, and by keeping Victoria Nuland in a position of power Obama supported the neo-conservative overthrow in Ukraine. Center left hardly applies to these men and is the reason the Democratic party has no real base left.


Cling to whatever you like. Lrx called Bill Clinton’s wins resounding. They weren’t.

You mean cling to reality, right? Here’s what you said:

If you mean 1996 by his second win out of two, I have zero idea what you are talking about. Clinton smashed Dole that election.

In terms of 1992, I was being generous to say your point was “highly debatable.” It’s actually not true by the numbers. Here’s more from 538 if you are interested, but I suspect you aren’t:

No one knows this better than progressive comedian Jimmy Dore. Have a laugh at the Democrats by watching him on YouTube.

I followed the link to http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php and that table is completely wrong - what the hell. It shows % of Voting Age Population numbers > 80% for elections in the 1800s. Excuse me? Women, slaves, and most poor people couldn’t vote so how can you get these numbers? If they had sad eligible voters, then maybe they’d be right (and I could care less in that case given who was eligible made the system completely non-democratic).

A better graph is the one on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections#/media/File:U.S._Vote_for_President_as_Population_Share.png). That plot shows we hit around 37% in 1936 and have been there ever since (with some noise). I’d rather see a plot of % of eligible voters as defined today ( >= 18 years, citizen, felony rules which vary by state) but I have yet to find such a plot so this one will have to do.

So basically, my response to the author on this point is to stop pining for the past - we’ve never had a robust democracy in this country. We should try to get to one, but looking back isn’t going to help.

Wait a minute. I thought the story is that Russians ate HRC’s win, or Comy did, or “Bernie Bros” and their millennial lazy spoiled brat cohorts either voted for orange or no for one at all, or not enough folks in swing states got to know how nice she really is. Nothing to do with Wall Street derrière-kissing or Libya destruction, or her pledge to continue obama’s failed neoliberal policies, or the DNC’s willful stupidity.