Elections produce winners and losers. There are no bonus points for participation. Democrats have been frustrated by losses in high-profile congressional races — Rob Quist bested by Greg Gianforte in Montana and James Thompson falling short to Ron Estes in deep-red Kansas. In both elections, the Democratic nominees outperformed previous Democratic showings but came up short. In the nationally publicized special election in Georgia to fill the seat of Republican Tom Price, the Democratic candidate, Jon Ossoff, is still locked in a dead heat.
Democrats face the reaction to their having sabotaged Sanders in the last election. According to the old guard Dem playbook, people will forget everything if only democrats never mention what happened.
It seems not. The Dems really trashed the spirit of democracy by sabotaging the clear choice of the people (lest we forget the independent voters) and trying to substitute an unpopular candidate. It left a deep lack of enthusiasm for the old guard Dems in the minds of voters. Nor do people still respect or trust the old guard Dems. In fact they really blew it among the voters and for all they want to act like nothing happened... people are very reluctant to consider themselves Dems anymore. No that hasn't made people choose to be Repubs but now the old Dem adage "At least we aren't as bad as the Republicans" is pretty much the only reason that many people will still vote for the Dems. If they choose to vote at all. In fact the negative reaction of the voters towards the Dems is very much part of why Trump and the Republicans are acting so draconian towards social programs. They figure that with such dissatisfaction amongst Dem voters that they can get away with being greedy bastards. Also now the Repubs have an unspoken adage themselves >>> "At least we don't sabotage our own like the Dems did to help Hillary."
People are beginning to hate the Repubs but that doesn't mean they like or respect the Dems.
I think there are many people who don't see it that way. I believe they attribute Sander's defeat largely do to his inability to get African-American votes. And to a lesser extent Hispanic votes. He lost every state in the south and northeast. He lost every large diversified state except Michigan. His campaign largely appealed to young people and white working class males. He did very poorly with older voters and women. The rules about open and closed primaries were set long before the actual primary. I think there are disagreements about whether or not non-Democrats should be allowed to vote in Democratic primaries. There are good arguments on both sides and the debate on this continues. Each state decides for itself what type of primary to have. It is not up to the DNC. Clearly there has been an attempt to spin what happened in the Democratic primary to make it look like the election was stolen from Sanders. Okay, that's politics. But I do not think the facts support that view.
Democrats are being punished. They earned it.
Any viable "new" third party can put the Ds out of business -- pronto. Create a new people's party and the public will respond. Call it "taking the country back" if need be, but do it. Anything (other than the D party) can beat the republican ideas and agenda.
The Ds are so focused on creating a legacy for Obama they don't care about anyone else. http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/30/what-do-the-democrats-want-no-one-knows/
"What would Democrats do about healthcare if they were in charge?
As far as I can tell, nada.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi’s website brags about Obamacare and its achievements. “House Democrats,” it says, “continually work to implement and improve health care reform to ensure that the best healthcare system in the world only gets better.” Newsflash to Ms. Pelosi: Actually, the U.S. has the worst healthcare system in the developed world.
When it comes to healthcare, Democrats are just like the Republicans on global warming. They won’t admit there’s a problem. So how can they offer a solution?"
This is all while Obama is cashing in, his latest $3 million for a speech (other sources say $3.2 million http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-09/obama-pockets-32-million-speaking-gig-milan). This man really has no shame. Move over JayZ: "After bringing the city to a standstill with a convoy of 14 cars, a helicopter and a 300-strong police escort, President Obama’s entourage reportedly took over two floors of the hotel." ($8,000 per night/per room)
Unfortunately, this piece is just another barf bag of a faux progressive/liberal sales pitch on behalf of a group of people who are actually more conservative than the Republican Party of my youth. Ms. vanden Heuvel is just spouting what passes for liberal comment these days. Mistaken and irrelevant observations to be endured only if one drinks the Wall Street flavored UnKool-Aide. Ms. vanden Heuvel has sold out the journalistic tradition of "The Nation" and has turned the once venerable magazine into just another mouthpiece for the Democratic Party Establishment. She is hardly objective and simply enjoys her status as part of the Democratic Party Establishment rather than seeing to it that The Nation defends We, The People against any and all who deny us our rights in favor of money! She is simply too much a part of the faux party line of the Wall Street Owned Democratic Party. How does CNN propaganda taste when regurgitated into your brain in the fit of delusional statements Ms. vanden Heuvel made? There is no Democratic Party it is the DLC Clintonista Corporatist New Democrat Party which bears very little resemblance to the FDR Era Democratic Party that brought us a few decades of progress. Remember Social Security? It came from the FDR Era. The Clintons had a signed agreement with Newt Gingrich to privatize Social Security and end all other programs that they viewed as entitlements because they benefited We, The Working People and not their disgustingly wealthy donors. And Obama did his best to stuff us seniors into the already dug mass grave through the chained CPI which would have decreased benefits dramatically over a decade or so. Another prime example of those holding themselves out to be Democrats doing what Republicans cannot do alone in the destruction of our democracy and governments at all levels that once responded to working men and women. Medicaid and Medicare? Once again the FDR Democratic Party did that. The Clintons destroyed Welfare as a productive and supportive program for those in temporary need of assistance and left a permanent underclass of the elderly, poor people, working single mothers and especially their children along with the disabled who already suffer from severely inadequate medical care and especially a very low standard of living that is viewed as the just rewards for people, who due to disabilities, cannot work. Although Hillary may claim to be a feminist the truth shows us otherwise. Being for a woman's right to choose and the rights of educated and upper class women is not feminism it is simply the hallmarks of a self-serving opportunist. I was a single disabled father on welfare due to disabilities I incurred in Vietnam when their Welfare Destruction Act was passed. It was clear that it was nothing more than another cruel act that stomped these mostly single mothers and their children deeper into the bloody mud of the permanent underclass. Trump only mocked the disabled while The Clintons took away or dramatically reduced medical coverage and especially food through all but terminating the food stamps program. Perhaps the most egregious thing they did was to repeal Glass-Steagal which places the inevitable events leading up to the Crash Of 2007 squarely at the feet of Bill and Hillary Clinton as the progenitors of The Clinton-Bush Economic Catastrophe. Of course only the middle class and the poor paid for that Wall Street folly as the third Clintonistas president, little Barry Obama, let the bankers walk and placed the entire economic cost upon the backs of working men and women of the middle class and poor. Ms. vanden Heuvel has gone all Establishment on us so please remember that it was the actions of The Clinton Co-presidency, her time in the Senate and especially her commission of treason while Secretary Of State that defeated her. When, if and as The New Democrat Party is once again in the hands of true Leftist defending and advancing the cause of working men and women we will once again see great things. Until then the Clintonistas will continue to enjoy their fat juicy bribes from Wall Street and the other wing of our Wall Street Owned One Party System (WOOPS) will continue to win elections. Apparently the real deal will always taste better than bottled sewer water the Clintonista New Democratic Party is now serving. Remember it is always much easier to forgive idiots than those who deliberately deceive us while fattening their bank accounts. Ms. vanden Heuvel it is long past time to find some courage and start attacking rather than defending the terrible Elite of the New Democrat Party. The tradition of The Nation demands no less of you.
You're right, you're right, You are freaking right!
O ye child of propaganda. Your blurb comes straight out of CNN. Must be nice and comfortable in the bubble manufactured by the Big Six Of Propaganda. Please start searching for some honest news and not the corporate garbage that apparently informs your mind.
The DNC sets the primary schedule, front-loaded in 2016 with Southern states Hillary was expected to sweep on the basis of the African American vote.
The DNC set the debate schedule, timed to keep Hillary out of the spotlight.
The DNC set up the super delegate system, again front-loaded in 2016 to favor Hillary.
The DNC--supposedly neutral--was exposed in leaked emails as anything but. As a result, their chair resigned.
So what did the DNC get for its handiwork:
Hillary lost every Southern state except Virginia. She lost Florida which Obama had won twice. Minority turnout was down, Hillary couldn't generate enthusiasm--as usual. Today, Bernie Sanders' favorability ratings are higher among black, Latino, Asian and female voters than with whites or men. Also, they're higher than for any other politician.
The debate schedule that kept Hillary out of the spotlight, was matched with a Republican debate schedule that put Trump in the spotlight. Funny how his brand of outsider political incorrectness was all over the airwaves--free publicity anyone?
The super delegates have now become a source of deep resentment in the D-Party. Seems that lining up with a pre-ordained, yet deeply unpopular candidate sets the stage for alienating the very voters you need to win.
So good ahead and believe your narrative. Hillary had big name recognition advantages, she should have beaten Sanders going away. Trump too. Yet somehow, she blew it.
The front loading with southern states began a number of years ago. It wasn't designed to help Hillary. I think the southern states did not like the fact that the primaries began with Iowa and New Hampshire so they got super Tuesday. I agree about the debate schedule, there should have been more early debates. But in the end there were plenty of debates and they didn't change anything. The demographics of voting never changed. Hillary had the demographic advantage and that is how she won. The super delegates go back quite a ways and had nothing to do with Hillary. A number of DNC people did not remain neutral as they should have but it is hard to see how that affected the outcome. The main thing that kept Bernie in contention were the caucuses. His supporters packed the caucuses and he was able to win a number of states with only a tiny percentage of the people voting. The fact of the matter is the metropolitan areas are now Democratic country and they were also Hillary country. Bernie only had strong support on college campuses and in rural areas. Bernie might have done better than Hillary in the general election but one has to win the primary to get there. Far more Democrats preferred Hillary as their candidate than preferred Bernie. In fact, many of the people who voted for Bernie were not Democrats which is another reason he remained competetive. My candidate was Martin O'Malley. But relatively few people supported him.
C'mon, surely you don't honestly believe that! Do you?
You don't think that when the mainstream / corporate media including "Not Public Radio" clearly aligned (if not actively collaborating with) DNC operatives routinely reported, early on and consistently for a while thereafter, that "Hillary had a huge lead in delegates", counting superdelegates among their tallies, that had any effect on the primary race? You don't think that many voters may have cast their votes for the all-but certain winner? Or that it had any effect on those who preferred Sanders but felt it not worth the bother to vote?
And when the same media (the AP in this instance) called the Democratic race for Hillary Clinton the night before a set of important primaries, including California... can anyone honestly doubt that it might have the effect of depressing voter turnout - perhaps the reason why it was done in the first place?
I know you've been a HIllary apologist all along, but surely after all the facts are known, you can't continue to push DNC and HRC campaign talking points!
If I could have your permission I would love to paraphrase these talking points for whenever I hear some DNC defender use the tired "But her emails" line.
It's in the public domain now. Have a ball!
What a wild load of ahistorical, self pitying crap. Medicaid. Medicare? They were passed more than 20 years after FDRs death. Defending a woman's right to chose is self serving opportunism? Opportunism!
Repeal of Glass/Steagal was wrong, but it had nothing to do with the securitization of mortgages and the derivatives that crashed the economy in 2008 (not 2007). Wrapped warmly in your intense anger, why should any facts matter.
Senator Sanders did quite well with minority voters. And according to exit polls, he kicked Hillary's butt 'handily.' He was robbed due to the sordid machinations of the Democratic Party - and so were we. May I suggest you read the findings of election statistician Richard Charnin, for some sobering enlightenment.
Election statisticians report Democrats have been receiving an exit poll advantage of10% points on average, over the GOP, since the later 1980's. For those of you who have a tendency to sigh and roll your eyes at this bit of information - exit polling, is the very science our country uses when monitoring the outcome of 'up and coming democracies'; to determine if the people's choice won the contest. Democrats have been WINNING ELECTIONS. For the love of God, when will we concentrate on the REAL ISSUE, which is: STOLEN ELECTIONS?!
Like many here, I admire the work of Katrina vanden Heuvel however - each one of these columnists need to step up their game CONSIDERABLY. If we concentrate on this heinous, anti democratic genuine conspiracy, to thwart the will of the people as a matter of routine, we'll fix this country.