Far be it from me to provide analysis that the powerful, well-positioned, and well-funded pundits, politicos, paid surrogates, and other professional prognosticators have already given about the presidential primary season. I should know my place, and I should fall in line. If you think I am referring only to what the Democratic National Committee would like me and millions of others like me to do, you would be sadly mistaken.
Yes, if the DNC wants people to vote for them, they must provide reasons to do that and not just reasons to vote against the other side. Otherwise, we have no reason to be loyal to a party that has not been loyal to us.
I agree, I do not think Bernie lost the nomination I the DNC took it. Only problem For them it is a hollow win, the truth has escaped and the paradigm has shifted. How fast change occurs is now the only question. If neoliberalism continues waterboarding Greece and the other euro nations trying to resist it's austerity economics the change may start quickly and spread to America before it gets Greeced.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
The DLC play book prioritizes sustaining corporate money flow over winning elections. The Clintons and Obamas are second to none in attracting corporate money. The DNC is not going to let the goose that lays the golden eggs get away.
You're painting a false picture by saying the DNC can buy votes with their money. Maybe you like that idea. Need some " walking around " money? Try campaign reform instead of saying " show me the money " and I'll vote for the ACME Bribery. & Plutocratic Party. Scott Walker and Jeb Bush would be the Republican ticket if that were the case. Cynics should blog for Hillary or Trump. And. AIPAC and The Kochs, for that matter.
Hoping that Bernie would run an independent is a waste of time. One of the reasons we are devoted to him is that he is a man of his word. And he has given his word that he will not be running outside of the Democratic Party. Sanders would see such a move as a betrayal of the Left because it would split the Democratic vote and allow Trump to win the election.
For my part, if Bernie can't win the nomination, I'd like to see the vote split. Better that Trump should win than Clinton. The lesser of two evils.
Progressives must do everything possible to increase the likelihood of Bernie's nomination including going to the DNC in Philadelphia in overwhelming numbers. Lining the street. Marching. Camping out. Yelling with bull-horns. Sit-ins and love-ins. Occupying. All in a scale that could not be ignored by the MSM and that would send a message to the DNC that if Sanders is not nominated, it would be the end of the Democratic Party's hold on the Left.
There is no space between the DLC and the DNC. But, $27 Xs 7.8 million contibutions says, " the shit is about to hit the fan " around July 25th in the city of brotherly hate. And , Sen. Sanders can't stop it. Time's Up.
"When Hillary said so clearly that we would “never, ever” have single-payer in this country, that sounded pretty much like what many Republicans might say.
We are still waiting for the Republicans to offer some sort of health care plan. We know the oppose Obamacare and successfully avoided the public option but they still have not put forth a plan. Well actually Donald Trump has put forth a plan. It is a plan to do away with state borders for private insurance plans. According to Trump this would create competition and lower costs. Others say it would wind up with people only have access to plans in states with the least requirements. Of course, Hillary Clinton is for universal health care coverage as is the Democratic Party. This does not have to be single payer. HIllary's plan in the 1990s was a plan for universal coverage I believe and involved private insurance companies. It was sunk by attacks from those companies and the pharmaceutical companies. Single payer would be an option if the Democrats could take control of Congress away from the Republicans. At the very least congressional committees could go over single-payer legislation and then perhaps approve it for a full vote in the House and Senate. Hillary now says she supports the public option for Obamacare. If enacted it would probably reduce the costs which would allow more people to take advantage of Obamacare. But again, the big obstacle would be Republican opposition. The answer seems to be defeating more Republican candidates for Congress and then being successful against corporate opponents.
The GOP did not "successfully avoid the public option", Lrx.
The Democrats controlled the White House, and both houses of Congress during the 2009-2010 ACA creation. Zero GOP votes were needed to pass the ACA and zero GOP Congresscritters voted in favor of it. Recall then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's unending mantra during those two years: "I don't have the votes" whenever the public option or other patient friendly actions were discussed. He was referring to votes from Democratic Party Congresscritters.
The GOP did not even need to give the Democrats any rope with which to hang themselves during that era, they hung themselves in the 2010 election.
Clinton's 1990s plan was to require all employers to provide medical insurance...far from "universal health care coverage".
Lrx, America needs a leap now, not baby steps. I can't keep up with Hilary's latest positions on health care but, as I've said here dozens of times, it doesn't matter what her positions are on anything. It's apparent that she'll say anything to get elected. And in the end, her corporate elite sponsors will tell her and us what kind of health care they'll allow.
It is an utter mystery to me why you and other Clinton supporters are not alarmed by the hijacking of the American democracy. Isn't it obvious to you and everyone else that you no longer have any pull with your elected officials because big money is pulling the other way? Isn't it obvious that too many Americans, in the richest country in the world, are living like refugees? Isn't it obvious that the MIC is taking more than half your tax dollars for useless wars we don't approve of? Isn't it obvious that big pharma, big health, big oil, etc. and Wall Street are ripping you off and sending their enormous profits to tax havens?
Isn't it obvious to you that Clinton is the candidate of no change? Please explain how you could possible want all this to continue.
Please step out of your gated community and have a look around at the real America. When a small group of people control an entire nation, it's called fascism. How far down this road to you want to take America?
Thanks for the Happytown video. Love the WE-R-U sticker. Best station in the nation. Stream it weru.org.
Democrats in Congress got increasingly fewer and fewer and fewer in the elections of 2010 and 2012 and 2014, and I'm darned to see them trotting out Obamacare w/o the public option for the election in 2016.
From what I've been told, this is the definition of insanity!
... The above from a Trump fan.
How about answering the question, Siouxrose?
I'm not speaking for Siouxrose but I think voting for change just for change sake is problematic. In regard to Trump, he is a wildcard - know one know quite what to expect. Except for I think we do know what to expect in areas related to treatment of women, minorities, immigrants, Muslims. etc. which is awful with him at the helm. So Trump for Prez? NO!
Not just for Change's sake. For urgently needed change.
Not if the "urgently needed change" is worse than the status quo! What good change do you expect from Trump?
Trump is already moving in the direction of being an ordinary (bad) repub.
With mob connections. He's Mussolini in a golf shirt! Hillary is a religious fanatic with a head injury. It's the devil or the parting of the deep blood red sea. Yikes!
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.