Message to DNC; Next time protect the brand and let independents run

[CK_John]

on their own dime.

Not some OCD creep that turns around and the only down stream effort is to support a primary challenge to the DNC Chair.

[aikoaiko]

1. This is a much better result for HRC than if Bernie had run third party;

Much better.

[brush]

2. Nah! If he had run 3rd party we'd hear about him as much as we do Jill Stein

Maybe less.

[aikoaiko]

13. Maybe less than running as a Democrat, but more than Jill. We will never know.

I know HRC supporters are unhappy with Bernie for having the audacity to campaign all the way through the primary.

You underestimated Bernie (really his agenda) in the Democratic primary and you're underestimating him as a third party candidate. You never know what could happen in 2020 -- especially if HRC is disappointing or Trump blows everything up.

[brush]

15. 2020 is hardly the issue. He knew he couldn't get traction as an independent for 2016 . . .

so he joined the Democratic Party, but now all he does is attack the Democratic Party establishment.

Come on, that's what all the protesters in the '60s were saying — attack the establishment — is he still there?

How do you do that when you joined the Democratic Party establishment (for name recognition and national TV exposure in the debates) without coming off as a hypocrite?

[aikoaiko]

16. Because its really not about party -- its about the agenda and the goals.

I'm sure you noticed that 45% of the Democratic primary voters have had no problem with Bernie's fluid party affiliation.

It probably won't be Bernie in 2020, but someone else might pick up the ball and run.

[brush]

17. If it was about agenda and goals, why did he join the party then?

[aikoaiko]

23. Because at least 45% of the Democratic primary voters agree with him.

And the Democratic party nomination process would give him more access to those individuals.

[Land of Enchantment]

52. same old tired, baseless argument...different thread. nt

[brush]

55. Thanks for the well reasoned and thoughtful response. It was invaluable.

[Land of Enchantment]

58. No sweat. Your replies today are like a vine--same thing over and over.

It would be interesting if you could come up with some new, fresh ideas. This has been hashed over so much it has turned to mush.

[brush]

63. Another nothing contribution.

[nc4bo]

3. Hmmm.......guess a whiner's gotta whine. Here's some cheddar to make it better. nt

[IMG][/IMG]

[timmymoff]

4. Please please DNC protect our brand of mediocrity.

Anything other than status-quo scares us. No we can't! No we can't!

[Trust Buster]

5. Both the RNC and DNC didn't understand the full implications of Citizens United.

Citizens United makes an Independent run all but impossible. They both should have anticipated Trojan horse candidates entering the two parties to hitch a ride. In the future the DNC should require that a candidate be a registered Democrat for a minimum length of time before they have access to their infrastructure.

[procon]

6. It should be obvious, when it's called the Democratic Party, that means its for Democrats.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[HooptieWagon]

61. Good plan! Zero votes from Independants then.

With those that leave the party the party will be under 20% of registered voters. Good luck winning any elections with that. You conservative democrats really don't think things through, do you? You sound like the knee-jerk teabaggers who want to secede.

[procon]

72. Why register as an Independant and then complain because no one brings you candy?

You made bad choices. Now you want everyone to cater to you even beyond what concessions Hillary has already offered. Why do you expect to have preferential treatment if you aren't even a Democrat and you backed the losing candidate? You don't have any interest in being a Democrat, but you're essentially using extortion to demand Democrats give up their policies and replace them with yours... after your guy lost.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Yes!! Make the Democratic Party less democratic!!

Great plan!! Perhaps we could introduce Democratic Party Uniforms, badges, tattoos, secret handshakes, and, of course, Loyalty Oaths!!

[Art_from_Ark]

57. I think they've already introduced the loyalty oaths

[peace13]

8. Maybe all candidates should take a test to see if they are really Dems.

I pick Integrity as the litmus test!

[Art_from_Ark]

59. Integrity would make a great litmus test

[cali]

9. Your hate of Bernie is long-standing.

But whatever.

[CK_John]

14. I was going to respond but I truly believe you are more than one person.

[cali]

24. Huh? First of all, you did respond. And if you're calling me

a sock puppet, spit it out.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. protect the brand- dont put someone who allies herself with sheldon adleson to send granny to prison

For eating a pot brownie to quell chemotherapy nausea, out there as the public face of the DNC.

[ancianita]

44. Agreed.

[Contrary1]

11. Take it to the next logical step...

Don't ask Independents to vote for the Democratic candidate.

[jillan]

22. Exactly!! And of course if the independents were breaking for her, this wouldn't even

been an issue.

[msongs]

12. bernie sold out his own values for democratic party $$ and now he thinks hillary = evil? epic loser

[jillan]

18. Who are you calling an OCD creep? Bernie?

[passiveporcupine]

19. CK John, your message tells me all I need to know about you.

Not some OCD creep

Not only is your description of Sanders vile and repulsive, but you lie as well. He has promoted and shared donations with at least three other women down ticket.

You are not worthy of my time. Buh Bye!

Plonk

[dflprincess]

20. The Democratic "brand" has been going downhill since the '70s

keeping out the people who want to drag it back to actually meaning something for the working and middle classes will not help improve it at all.

[Demsrule86]

27. Keeping out Bernie

Last edited Mon May 23, 2016, 09:55 AM - Edit history (1)

who showed by his 'Sunday talk' yesterday' would have been much better for everyone. I haven't liked him in a while but now...he showed who he is and little he cares about this country;he won't help Hillary-yes he said it...I despise him and want nothing to do with any sort of revolution with his name on it. I am a liberal by the way...way more liberal than Obama and maybe Hillary. I think she is more liberal than people think. I was interested in much of what he said initially...but no more.

[Broward]

29. Calling yourself a liberal doesn't make it so.

I suspect your nothing of the sort.

[Demsrule86]

34. Spare me your condesceding bullshite

I have supported liberal causes my entire life...and would bet money...more than you. I have worked as volunteer to register voters, in every election, worked for candidates every election and not just presidential years, I work food pantries,pack school supplies, and bookbags...marched for LGBT, ...my daughter is gay you know, woman's right, ERA,pro-choice...including Washington marches the earliest 20 years ago, occupy (spring was held at my house),. I actually do stuff and not just sit behind a keyboard and complain. People like me are the boots on the ground every election. That is a small amount of stuff I do. I don't attend rallies and think I am some sort of revolutionary.

[Exilednight]

39. that's a long rant for someone who can claims they

"sit behind a keyboard and complain."

You just undermined your own argument.

[Demsrule86]

45. I am tired of BSSER's who have never done anything

except attend rallies tell me who is a liberal and who is not...they know little to nothing about how hard it is to work for years towards a goal. We were going to have a good year this election...take back the Senate...and then the Bern arrived who like those who prefer berning it down to working toward making things better ruined it...As for long winded, yeah he annoyed me...when I think that BSSERS could literally destroy the progressive movement...it makes me sick. What do you suppose happens if the GOP gets the courts? Bernie may well go down as the worst thing to hit the liberal movement in my lifetime.

[Broward]

41. A self-professed liberal that's backing Hillary I presume.

That's a major disconnect.

[Demsrule86]

43. You know what a major diconnect is

A person so out of touch he thinks you have to like Bernie to be a liberal. When this campaign started, I didn't think Bernie could win...and liberals like me know if Trump gets in then kiss the progressive agenda goodbye for a generation. There are five justices over 80... but I liked Bernie's message enough to vote for him in Ohio...I didn't think he could win Ohio, and it is an open primary by the way...he didn't win... three of my kids were for him too. They will vote for Hillary in the fall. I am a liberal and will proudly vote for the Democratic nominee in the fall ...Hillary Clinton. As for you, I think you mistake enthusiasm for a candidate with being a liberal...it is not the same thing. No true progressive would allow Trump to win...I despise Bernie Sanders at this point...because he has risked the general...but if he were the candidate...I would have no choice but to vote for him. He would lose badly in the general after the swiftboating coming his way...but I would do my part to get him elected...you all talk about purity and you want it all now...it does not work that way...and what happens is people like you and your sorry candidate destroy the progress that has already been made...easy to bern it down ...but to build it up that takes work.

[JRLeft]

40. Hillary wants to continue the income inequality gap's expansion.

Read the book "Listen Up Liberal! "

[Demsrule86]

36. So start your own party

[MoonRiver]

46. Why do you, or Bernie for that matter, want to be part of a party you despise?

I keep asking this, but nobody answers. Hmmm

[dflprincess]

47. After 44 years of being active in the party, I have begun to ask myself that question

and if Bernie hadn't been running this year I might have skipped the caucuses for the first time since 1972.

But, he was and a lot of new people showed up and if they stay involved we just might pull the party back to what it used to be. I'm probably deluding myself (again) but I did go ahead sign up for another 2 year term on my state Senate District Central Committee (still can't bring myself to try and get back on the State Committee). -- I hope that's okay with you.

At least in Minnesota we have had some successes and have not gotten quite as bad as the national party, but there is work to do.

I might ask you why you don't just join the party whose principles you actually identify with and leave my party alone.

[MoonRiver]

86. I AM in the party whose principles I actually agree with!

Oh, and I'm not here to judge you. I was just asking a question that really mystifies me. Thanks for the explanation.

[KingFlorez]

21. That would be for the best

[Bad Thoughts]

25. The New Deal is the Democratic Brand. Protect It First

The party should not act like a talent agency.

[rjsquirrel]

31. The new deal

Depended on segregation and happened seventy years ago.

No living voter voted for FDR.

We have deindustrialized and belle a world power in that time.

And poverty and racism were much worse in the 40s-90s than now.

New Deal nostalgia is a white privileged fantasy.

[Demsrule86]

37. Did you ever see the letters from family members to Roosevelt during the depression

Begging for help to get their Black family members back..they had been taken and enslaved. Roosevelt never responded...this nostalgia for Roosevelt who I admire is the same as the GOP tea types who live in the past.

[Bad Thoughts]

42. Only if you consider it to be static

New Deal principles were expanded in both scope and reach, applicable to all groups in the US. It still covers people who work at the worst paying jobs, and is becoming more relevant as income inequality worsens. People who work in service and retail depend upon it in many places. The elderly--the products of industrial society--depend upon it.

Calling the New Deal irrelevant is a GOP talking point. It has been since Reagan.

[dflprincess]

50. The Vichy Democrats would prefer to forget the New Deal

and not have anyone remember what the party should be fighting for.

[dflprincess]

48. There are living voters who voted for FDR

The first vote my eldest aunt ever cast was for FDR in 1944. She's 94, sharp as a tack and planning to vote this November. The only thing that would stop her is if she's no longer with us. And she will, as she has always done, vote Democratic.


And while the New Deal did not do as much for POC as it should have, the first big move of African American voters (in the state where they could vote) came in 1936 when FDR received just over 70% of the AA vote. That percentage held steady through his next two elections.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/

[rjsquirrel]

71. Ok my math is a bit off

I should be a Bernie supporter lol.

There are a few very old people still alive who vioted for FDR. But 1933 is 83 years ago and I do believe the voting age then was 21. So if you voted for FDR in 1933 you'd be at least 104 now. There are a few dozen centenarians in the whole country.

The point is that the "New Deal" was a long time ago, on the heels of an major depression of a sort we haven't seen since.

And by the way if you think that was a golden age, you're probably nostalgic but wrong. Poverty was much higher, life expectancy much lower, segregation the law of the land, and lynching at an all time high. So for people of color there was not much gold in that golden age other than poverty alleviation (blacks still got second class treatment under original new deal programs by the way and the reason social security starts at 65 is because that was life expectancy -- the government never intended to subsidize retirement for the middle class into our 80s and 90s).

We no longer live in an industrial economy and by every single measure Americans are better off now than they were under the early phases of the New Deal. It wasn't the New Deal that raised the American middle class anyway. It was WWII production providing massive stimulus and America's transformation into a global exonomic power and free trade had a lot to do with that.

Name a progressive president since the New Deal. Name one democrat not beholden to the rich or business interests or what you folks now charmingly call the "oligarchy."

All democratic presidents have been centrists. Even Carter only became much more leftist after he was drubbed out of office as a failed president after his first term (and I love the man, it's just true).

The socialist folks here are nostalgic for an America that really only existed for a few white people.

[islandmkl]

80. "The socialist folks here are nostalgic for an America that really only existed

for a few white people."

sounds more like what all the 1%/Rightwing/non-'socialists' are nostalgic for...including a great many 'new' Dems.... who constantly misrepresent the scope and expansion of the New Deal by cherry-picking examples to offset any and all substantial economic and social gains the New Deal initiated...

comparing 'statistics' from today versus the '30s is an invalid argument....comparisons should be made pre-New Deal to post-....

but that would defeat the premise that 'new' Democrats pursue...that the Right was right all along, and the Third Way/DLC was the only way to compete...

[rjsquirrel]

81. I'm not saying the right was right all along

I'm saying America and the world have changed a lot in 80 years -- in no small part because the New Deal drove progress, without question. But it also depended on the maintenance of racial segregation and inequality. Those of us who feel the driving force of American history is racism, not capitalism, have a legitimate critique of a left politics that continues to advance class politics as the solution to inequality. The New Deal and the Civil Rights Movement (and the Great Society programs, and on and on) have a complex relationship to each other. But we still live in a racist society and a sexist society and those issues are not being addressed through a singular focus on income inequality and oligarchy, since no small part of the racism still emanates from the white working and middle classes defensively protecting their privilege (for which I claim they are nostalgic for an earlier era of white privilege). And unsurprisingly, minority voters aren't having it.

[islandmkl]

83. i fail to see how the current power structure of the Democratic Party is making inroads into solving

the inequalities you address...

Crime bills, Prison expansion, Welfare 'reform', Telecommunications 'reform', Financial Institution 'reforms'...and expanded military interventions/exercises, foreign policy blunders...TRADE AGREEMENTS....

i don't see how anyone sees an improvement, let alone any positive change, in our society becoming less racist and sexist as a result of the status quo....

yeah, gay marriage...how deep was that support until lately...?

evolution apparently does not mean advancement, just movement....backward or forward...

[rjsquirrel]

84. If you don't see it you're not looking

Yes there are setbacks and we have a long way to go. But much of that is due to white backlash politics, which operate in the dem party to pull us to the right it's true.

If you were a person of color, you'd agree that this is in fact the best time in American history, prison pipeline and police violence included. Most black Americans are not in prison or living (as Sanders mistakenly seemed to think) in "ghettoes."

[islandmkl]

85. "if you were a person of color, you'd agree that this is in fact the best time in American history."

I'm not sure you or I can prove or disprove that statement.

It sounds like it would be conjecture, maybe from a merely personal scope, on either of our parts...

ON EDIT: I am not referring to the broad scope of history...I would be addressing the recent history of the past 20 years, where I would say any gains from the 50s, 60s, and 70s pretty much stagnated momentum-wise or were at least slowed...

[rjsquirrel]

90. We will have to disagree

Momentum may be lost in some ways but the trajectory has not changed.

[dflprincess]

89. While more should have been done more the New Deal was not a complete bust for African Americans

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/african-americans-and-new-deal-look-back-history/

[div class = "excerpt"]
Judged from the standards of today, of course, there is much we can criticize about the New Deal/Roosevelt era. It did not bring to an end the tremendous injustices that African Americans had to suffer on a day-to-day basis, and some of its activities, such as the work of the Federal Housing Administration, served to build rather than break down the walls of segregation that separated black from white in Jim Crow America. Yet as Mary McLeod Bethune once noted, the Roosevelt era represented “the first time in their history” that African Americans felt that they could communicate their grievances to their government with the “expectancy of sympathetic understanding and interpretation.” Indeed, it was during the New Deal, that the silent, invisible hand of racism was fully exposed as a national issue; as a problem that at the very least needed to be recognized; as something the county could no longer pretend did not exist.

This shift in attitude, as Havard Sitkoff, the noted historian of the African American experience in the New Deal observes, helped propel the issue of race relations onto the national stage and usher in a new political climate in which “Afro-Americans and their allies could begin to struggle with some expectation of success.” In short, the New Deal, and the rhetorical support given to the cause of civil rights by both Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt gave the African American community hope; the chance to dream of a better future, no matter how difficult the struggle might be along the way.

It is also important to recognize that this hope was not merely based on empty promises of change, but on the actual words and deeds spoken by Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and taken by the federal government at a time when racism was deeply seared into the American psyche. With respect to the critical issue of employment, for example, we know that by 1935, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) was employing approximately 350,000 African Americans annually, about 15% of its total workforce. In the Civilian Conservation Corps, the percentage of blacks who took part climbed from roughly 3% at its outset in 1933 to over 11% by the close of 1938 with a total of more than 350,000 having been enrolled in the CCC by the time the program was shut down in 1942. The National Youth Administration, under the direction of Aubrey Williams, hired more black administrators than any other New deal agency; employed African American supervisors to oversee the work the agency was doing on behalf of black youth for each state in the south; and assisted more than 300,000 Africa American youth during the Depression. In 1934, the Public Works Administration (PWA) inserted a clause in all government construction contracts that established a quota for the hiring of black laborers based on the 1930 labor census and as a consequence a significant number of blacks received skilled employment on PWA projects.

African Americans also benefited from the Federal Music Project, which funded performances of black composers; from the Federal Theatre and Writing Projects, which hired and featured the work of hundreds of African American artists; and from the New Deal’s educational programs, which taught over 1 million illiterate blacks to read and write and which increased the number of African American children attending primary school.

As the leader of a political party that was heavily represented in Congress by racist Southern Democrats who supported segregation and even opposed the adoption of a federal anti-lynching law as an infringement of state’s rights, FDR had to choose his battles carefully and at times appears timorous in the face of racial injustice-especially when viewed from today. But this is the President who appointed a far greater number of blacks to positions of responsibility within his government than any of his predecessors, so much so in fact that this group became known as the “Black Cabinet” or “Black Brain Trust” in the press. FDR was also the first president to appoint an African American as a federal judge; to promote a black man to the rank of Brigadier General in the Army; and, incredible as it might seem, the first president to publicly call lynching murder — “a vile form of collective murder”-which W.E B. Dubois applauded as something that sadly was long overdue. Overall FDR’s administration tripled the number of Africa Americans working for the federal government, including thousands of black engineers, architects, lawyers, librarians, office managers, and other professionals, and under his leadership, and with the strong support of Eleanor Roosevelt, the Democrats included the first specific African American plank in the party platform at the 1936 convention.

The New Deal was not perfect. It could not and did not eliminate segregation, or the pernicious discrimination in employment, wages, and working condition that plagued so many African Americans during the difficult years of the 1930s. Moreover, in spite of the best efforts of federal officials like Harry Hopkins to forbid discriminatory practices among neighborhood relief agencies, such practices often continued at the local level, especially in the South. But in spite of these and other shortcomings, the willingness of the Roosevelt Administration to recognize the existence of a racial problem in American and to take steps at the federal level to ameliorate that problem, was, as Sitkoff notes, unprecedented. It made it clear that the federal government had a responsibility to ensure the civil rights of all Americans were protected; rendered civil rights a core part of the liberal agenda; and inspired a generation of African American leaders to continue to pressure not only the federal government, but also the federal courts, to strike down the laws that underpinned the widespread racial injustice that African Americans had endured since the promise of reconstruction.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

77. Maybe like a century ago

When swing was popular and movies were in black and white. It's not out brand today.

[Demsrule86]

26. Absolutely

Bernie has stabbed Democrats in the back and took what would have been a good election for us in all ways and destroyed it. Hopefully, we can beat Trump without Bernie's assistance because he made it clear on the talk shows...he won't help.

[My Good Babushka]

28. The democratic party is not a "brand"

Last edited Mon May 23, 2016, 08:27 AM - Edit history (1)

to be sold to consumers. That you think of people as consumers rather than citizens with interests and concerns is telling in itself. Maybe the party can get a law passed that forces people to buy your democratic "product", then the shitty spiral of the death of democracy will have finally reached its nadir.

"OCD creep" - your bigotry towards the mentally ill is duly noted.

[Vinca]

32. If the "OCD creep" had run as a third party candidate, we'd be inaugurating Donald Trump.

Guaranteed. You really should edit your post. "OCD creep" is over the line. I thought about alerting, but since I'm in favor of free speech I decided against it. Your post is very distasteful though.

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. Make damn sure their check marks are in the right place!

Because dammit... that's what constitutes being a "real Democrat"!

[pinebox]

35. I wonder how long you'll last here?

"OCD creep", eh?
I have OCD myself along with ADHD, you have a problem with that?

Welcome to my ignore list. Nobody has time for stupid games to win stupid prizes.

[Art_from_Ark]

62. That was certainly a below-the-belt remark

You're right-- no sense trying to engage posters like that.

[Orsino]

38. How dare he challenge DWS on her record of success...

...when she doesn't have one?

[HooptieWagon]

64. It's slightly better than Hillarys Sec of State record.

DWS hasn't killed anybody yet, nor is she the subject of an FBI criminal investigation. But yea, she sucks at the job. Silver lining is she and HRC are going to OWN the Nov down-ticket bloodbath, and be permanently discredited.

[fun n serious]

49. Yep. I think independents need their own party

Oh! They have one. The green party. Lets tighten the reins of our own.

[dubyadiprecession]

51. Were crossing that bridge, when lessons are learned...

playing with fire and not getting berned.

[Mnpaul]

53. You want to protect the brand that has lost both houses to the Republicans?

personally, I would rather go in a different direction.

Remember, admitting you have a problem is the first step.

[HooptieWagon]

65. Yes. Apparently they think the Dem Party should downsize further.

[Mnpaul]

68. Minimize the number of voters at every chance

I don't get it.

[HooptieWagon]

73. They're working hard at it.

I too am confused by the 'turn off as many voters as possible' strategy, but I'm sure it's part of some grand plan involving Clinton Math. Anyway, it's good that they aren't needing votes from Sanders supporters, because they aren't going to get many. It's the price you pay for representing the 1%.

[BootinUp]

54. I think it is going to work out the best for everyone in the end.

Too early to know for sure.

[Kall]

56. Why stop there?

You should ban Independents from voting for Democrats in the general election too. For a bunch of people that complain about purity tests...

[tarheelsunc]

60. A potential candidate should have to have been a member for some amount of time.

Makes no sense to let carpetbaggers come in and take advantage of the party infrastructure when they have no interest in doing anything to help party members get elected.

[Art_from_Ark]

67. Carpetbaggers?

You mean like what Hillary was when she ran for the Senate in New York, a state which she had absolutely no previous ties to?

[Cheese Sandwich]

66. So you would rather have seen Sanders run with the Green Party, who would love to have him?

Be careful some day you might just get what you want.

[bjo59]

69. Wow what a sad commentary on this country. Political parties = brands.

The corporations won a long time ago, didn't they? Their biggest coup was fundamentally changing the way people think. Screw democracy and up with marketing, right?

[Art_from_Ark]

70. Yup, it's becoming the political version of Coke versus Pepsi,

except with real-life consequences

[Lizzie Poppet]

88. Sad, indeed.

All the party stands for anymore is, well...the party.

[CobaltBlue]

74. CK_John—This isn’t the Democratic Party. They are Diet Republicans.

I have reached the conclusion that everyone who is taking a dump on Bernie Sanders, and doing the same to his primaries voters, is a Republican who appreciates that Al From and Bill Clinton destroyed the New Deal-type Democratic Party. These are people who choose today's Democratic over the Republican Party because of branding. (It is pathetic.)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

75. The DNC may not be that suicidal. We'll see.

[slipslidingaway]

76. Another 'independents are not needed in this election' post, please go away ...

go away independents, join another party, stay out of the GE, you are not needed.

Great message!

[Ned_Devine]

78. What's nice about a post like this is...

...by seeing all of the people that agree with it, it becomes easier to figure out who to add to my ignore list.

[highprincipleswork]

79. Perhaps we should just take your advice and allow him to run as an Independent now!

I can tell you who I'd vote for.

[islandmkl]

82. referring to Bernie as 'some old OCD creep' isn't, won't be, probably shouldn't be

reason for a hide...

whereas, if i would say the poster was an WITLESS FUCKING ASS it would most likely be hidden...

so i won't...

[Lizzie Poppet]

87. Supporting DWS' primary challenger is just ONE of Bernie's wonderful actions.

Oh, and fuck the brand. If it doesn't stand for progressive policies, I couldn't give a rat's ass for the brand.