Home | About | Donate

The Democratic Stockholm Syndrome


The Democratic Stockholm Syndrome

Peter Bloom

After weeks of hard and increasingly heated campaigning, Hillary Clinton scored a decisive victory over Bernie Sanders in last night’s New York Democratic primary. Despite losing a majority of the state’s counties, she won in huge margins in New York City and the popular vote overall. The triumph was a potential serious blow to Sanders’ progressive momentum and a just as dramatic boom to her now seemingly inevitable march to the nomination.


I will not vote for this woman:


Once Hillary starts her no-fly-zone nonsense in Syria with an all out assault on their air defenses, including Russian ones, you won't have to worry about more than a few more days of Hillary, or anything else, as WW-III begins ...


I said it before and I'll say it now. On Tuesday, Wall Street voted for their candidate. Look at the map.

Hillary won the greater New York metropolitan area where the banksters, traders, and the 1% live and Rochester, another corporate town. Buffalo is a virtual tie, and Bernie took Albany, along with every other county.

Bernie won New York, but Hillary won Wall Street, and that should be all that's needed for voters to get behind Bernie in the upcoming contests.


I think Bernie supporters, just like HRC supporters, just want to win this thing and get it over with. That would be nice and it would have been wonderful for Bernie to have pulled off a big win in NY last night. But the reality is, it's going to be a long, hard, uphill battle for Bernie supporters with many nights like last night... and that's the upside of not giving up and forging ahead. Even then there's no guarantee of victory. This thing has been dominating my whole life. I too, am cranky a lot and frustrated and I'm so distracted I feel I am neglecting many other parts of my life... many of them important. But I'm 60 years old and this is the first time in my life I've ever thought a candidate for any elected office could make a huge difference. Bernie actually gives me hope for the future. I'm not quite ready to give up on that yet.


Inevitable march to the nomination for Hillary, Peter? Not so fast! Lets not jump to conclusions.

Look at where Bernie was a year ago compared to now and I fail to see where HRC is inevitable. Lets re-word that if HRC gets away with her lies and corruption she is no doubt inevitable. HRC needs to be exposed for all the blood she has on her hands in many countries like Honduras and Libya.


Me either. I can't bear the idea of the coronation of Hilary the Red Queen.


My response to the NYC results?

I donated another $30. to Bernie.

And regardless of who wins the nomination, over the next 4 years I will not be voting for any incumbent who didn't endorse Sanders.

The establishment Dems need to go.


I think Bernie needs to reword his stock phrases. I mean that he should keep saying the same things but he needs to say them using different words. Rephrase them so they are more approachable to new listeners. Also Bernie needs to compare more not just say what he would do but say what the differences are. Hillary is expert at rewording so that she makes one thing sound like another while Bernie keeps saying the same words. They resonated with people up to now but Hillary's wordsmiths are making her sound different although she hasn't said anything new. Bernie came into NY saying exactly what he said in the same words he used two months ago. He needs to say the same things but use new sound bites.

I am wondering why people are seemingly counting Trump out? I don't see it myself. If the Dems succeed in forcing Hillary on us, we may see a backlash where Dem voters don't vote at all and a Trump presidency. Obviously the Dems figure Hillary will counter Trump but they assume (or hope) that Hillary isn't indicted. Should Hillary win the nomination then we shall see whether the Republicans who hounded Bill about the meaning of is endlessly, will simply give Hillary a free ride? In the meantime, they will let the rigged game favor Hillary and trash Bernie for them. Bernie would beat Trump and the Repubs know it.

So much is at risk here... Amazingly that includes democracy itself thanks to the machinations of corrupt political parties.


I disagree. The problem isn't that Sanders' message doesn't resonate with people who hear it, the problem is the media blackout on Sanders has stopped people from hearing it.

And in New York, if you were registered to vote but not registered as a Democrat, you would have had to change your party affiliation to Democrat before November last year to be able to vote in the Democratic primary.

A lot of people who only learned about Sanders in the last few months had no opportunity to show their support - and that includes people tossed off the rolls or whose party affiliation mysteriously changed. Coincidentally, none of the people with registration issues seem to be Clinton supporters.

So I don't think the problem with votes has anything to do with the consistency of Sander's message. I think people appreciate that.


Stop putting words into my mouth. You aren't even reading what I write I think? Where am I talking about the primary vote? Stop putting words into my mouth and then discussing something as if that was what I was talking about. I was not offering an explanation of NY but responding to Slithytove's comment about it will be a long, hard uphill battle.



Apparently someone else is posting as you. I was responding to the above, and similar statements in their post.


Rule #1 for a successful progressive "revolution": Do not give aid and comfort to the enemy. The sentence "This does not mean abandoning the fight to ensure that a more retrogressive Republican alternative does not take power" implies that it is in the interests of Sanders' supporters to make a tactical alliance with the dominant corporatist wing of the Democratic Party in order to ensure that the Republican presidential candidate does not prevail in November.

To my mind, such a strategy guarantees that the American Left (such as it is) will continue to have zero leverage in terms of challenging the dominant neo-liberal dogma, and that candidates like Clinton who embody lesser-evilism will continue to flourish, since it has been demonstrated time and time again that even those voters who abhor corporate Democrat policy positions on a wide range of issues can be successfully herded back into the Democratic voting bloc merely by pointing to the evil Republican boogeyman who represents the only viable alternative.

Truly, this makes about as much sense as a herd of gazelles making a tactical alliance with hyenas in order to protect themselves from lions. But the Democratic Party could not continue to exist in its current form without a substantial number of voters being willing to buy into that absurd scenario.


Well said.


Me either. And already, many people I know are saying "Posting negative things about HRC (on Facebook or other social media) only helps the Republicans." And "I support Bernie, but if Hillary wins, I'll vote for her." What is wrong with people?


What evidence do you have of fraud in the NY Primary vote?


Give me a break okay?


Well quit being so testy. We both support the same candidate.


Concluding that poor people in New York voted for the same system that is screwing them over is no different from calling poor people who work three jobs lazy because they are still poor. You have eyes but you can't see. New York worked overtime to ensure that it disenfranchised poor people they feared might be receptive to Bernie's message. There were warnings for weeks that voters were being purged from the rolls but no effort was made to fix anything until AFTER voting began.

Yesterday, New York experienced an awakening, much like Arizona. Now, it is difficult to observe the peasant revolt from inside the castle, so allow me to give you an update. The pitchforks are coming. The tigers are not going back in their cages. Sorry!


This is a good example of what I've sought to point out about the rebranding of key terms to mean OTHER than what they're intended to mean:

"However, there is something else at play as well. She is heralded for her promises to continue the “progressive” legacy set by Obama. Suddenly the President who has pushed for Drone Wars, further Wall Street bailouts and the TPP is a paragon of modern progressivism."

The 1% intend to maintain their status by controlling the masses, and the first line of control is executed through PERCEPTION.

To retain policies that favor the military industrial complex, a reprehensible collection of lobbyists, and corporations that endanger citizens in every way imaginable ... words become a critical tool in the war for not just ideas, but the capacity to manage the multitudes.

If the term Progressive is linked to the very things normally indicative of right wing (pro-aggression/MIC, pro-big business) policies, the ideological field is invaded in a way that gives the occupiers hegemony.

What common term (or language equivalent) represents those who stand for justice, equality, a peaceful world, and a commitment to energy systems that go gently on this wounded, Green-Blue planet?

The nefarious tactics now used by elites to maintain the status quo are so insidious that it must have taken some very dark and diabolical strategists to dream them up... no less implant them.