Hand-wringing over party unity misses the point. No one cares about your precious parties.
That was refreshing! Direct, clear, and real. Thank you.
Yes, it's obvious that you don't care about the party. Like Sanders, who has only used it to his advantage (http://bit.ly/22ikSkM).
Explain how Bernie and Hillary differ in that regard. We do know that the Clintons, as the article mentions, have benefited from the party while running it into the ditch at the state level. Bernie on the other hand is bringing lots of new voters, which clearly benefits the party. It's not clear to me how he benefits from the party, as he's been in politics for decades with little or no help from Democrats. So, again, please explain.
Regardless who has the best chance to beat Trump according to anyone's opinion millions of people have voted in the Democratic primaries and a clear majority so far has favored Clinton. So should the will of the voters be overturned to pick who some people believe have the best chance to beat Trump? Why have voting at all? Why not just have match-up polls and let the party leaders decide which candidate is most likely to win. The nominees used to be chosen in smoke-filled rooms in that way. That system was done away to give voters a big say in the process. So why go back to old-way and eliminate the voters. There is certainly a racial side to this that should be addressed. It is largely due to African Americans that it is almost certain that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. And it is almost all white people who are calling for the will of the voters to be overturned and that Bernie Sanders should be the nominee instead. Whatever is going on here it doesn't look good with regard to racial justice. Moreover it it dumb at this point to think Bernie Sanders has a better chance than Hillary Clinton against Trump. Does anyone think Trump would not use anti-semitism tactics to defeat Sanders. He already seems to have the KKK on his side. We know Trump will and has resorted to anything he can use no matter how disgusting. And then there are taxes that Sanders would impose. Those would be high as it is and certainly Trump would exaggerate. Trump isn't young but he certainly would not let people forget that Sanders would be 75 years old when his first term started. Would Sanders really have the energy for the job, even if he remained fortunate with his health? I think we should go with voters. They have apparently made their choice and I for one am willing to live it. You can't get more democratic than that.
The way you get more democratic than that is to have open primaries, and from the accumulated experience thus far it is sensible to speculate that Sanders would have been the clear winner in that case. The thing is, the election in November will be much more like an open primary, with independents participating in full force. Remember, it is independents who decide elections, and they despise Hillary.
Thank you. This reality must sink-in to the Dem establishment, the super delegates and the milk-sop public drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid.
We must get thru to those so blind and/or corrupt, they will harm us all for their own power, ego, or those they are beholden to.
I have been getting increasingly cross about this as many others I'm sure.
Please take a moment to view something to take our minds off ugliness and self-interest and politics for a moment.....the legacy we leave is for the children.....The children Bernie is fighting for......
The Clintons have BUILT the Democratic Party. Sanders has never even been a member until he decided to use the party to further his presidential ambitions.
And he's gotten plenty of help from Democrats over the years. I guess you didn't read the link above. Here it is again: http://bit.ly/22ikSkM. Read and learn.
But now he and these voters he's "bringing in to the party" are blowing it up. Change it, yes. Fix it, yes. But destroy it? No.
You're delusional. The Clintons DESTROYED the Democratic party. But keep posting, please, i appreciate a good laugh.
Examples, please. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Bill and Hillary both have donated millions to downticket Democrats. And campaigned for them. For 25 years.
Here is an explanation....it is fairly comprehensive.....
Clearly you haven't read the article. I'll stop wasting my time.
Caro is half correct in saying "the Clintons built the Democratic Party".
When the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was formed in 1985 the Party's mission shifted from the New Deal model over to a focus on GETTING MORE CORPORATE MONEY THAN THE GOP.
The DLC's first major victory was "bipartisan" 1986 tax reform, the most regressive, corporate friendly tax reform in history. Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign and two terms of New Deal destruction attracted corporate money to the extent that the Party has seen annual revenue of a billion dollars or more ever since, nearly all from the 1% and their corporations.
So, yes, by accelerating the destruction of the New Deal, the Clintons built the 21st century Democratic Party that prioritizes sustained corporate cash flow over winning elections. Nominating Clinton sustains the corporate money. Nominating Sanders risks losing most of it.
Few billion dollar organizations voluntarily eliminate 90% of their revenue.
Hillary is favored by low-information voters who have no interest in judging her candidacy based on her track record. She has exercised poor judgement with her email server scandal and her hawkish record on Libya and Iraq. She is one of the shiftiest, most untrustworthy politicians I have seen in my life. Her cheerleaders are obsessed with her celebrity status and see her as a victim of Bill's dalliances. They believe it is " her turn" for the nomination.
She is a deeply flawed candidate, and if the party leadership had any integrity, they would convince her to concede her front-runner status and hand the baton to Senator Sanders. Hillary cares about winning, and wants to become President for the wrong reasons. Senator Sanders, one of a handful of legislators who is not wealthy, is in the race for the good of the country. Have you every seen a contender more worthy of the Presidency ? In over thirty years of voting, I have not.
Sanders voters care about the Party and want to move it away from Corporate Brand Clinton and back toward Roosevelt's New Deal, which is where Bernie's Democratic Socialism is centered. Plus, best chance to beat Trump.
That is kind of important for the Democratic Party, too. You are welcome to help unite the Party and feel the Bern.
As Ms. Ball notes, the math in the general counts the most.
You're harming yourselves. You could be starting a real revolution by working like crazy to elect more progressives to Congress and to state and local offices. That's what's going to allow more progressive legislation, not just one person in the presidency. Didn't the Obama election teach you anything?
Eyes on the prize.
Sure. You have to destroy the village to save it. Smart thinking. It's worked so well in the past.
I listened to Bernie speaking earlier in Santa Fe. He made the point that over 400 super delegates pledged Hillary before anyone else was even in the race. Then he went on to say that if you go this route you may not end up with the strongest candidate.
This is exactly what happened. To drive the point home, consider if Sanders had been given a 400 delegate head start.
" Hillary is favored by low information voters."
Soooooo true! Only the most naive voters can fail to see Hillary, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and most of the DNC are rotten to the core.
90% of our local low information voters have never commented on the election except to say that Clinton can beat the GOP in November and Bernie can't.
They have nothing else to offer and won't let facts get in the way of their story.