2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSalon: Bernie must drop notion that everyone who disagrees with him is corrupt or a dupe
Right is left and left is right again.
The Wall Street Journal, Fox News and even Donald Trump have been quick to jump to the defense of Bernie, offer him a forum to air his grievances against the Democratic Party, or argue that Bernie, not Hillary, would be the stronger candidate in the general election. Conversely, some traditionally liberal publications have called on Bernie to discontinue arguments that the nomination process is rigged or corrupt, which could lead voters in the end to simply abandon the party or the process. For example, here is one Bernie supporter on Vox explaining why in response to Bernie's rhetoric, he will be leaving the Democratic party forever:
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11778158/shaun-king-democratic-party
The result of Bernie's revolution could very well be that it backfire as it causes folks like Shaun King to become disenchanted with the political process and decline to vote, or to simply cast Nader-like protest votes, which allow the radical right to consolidate power. Indeed, rather than focusing on the issues, Bernie's increasing willingness to make personal attacks against Hillary, and adopt right wing arguments on the ground "Donald Trump and other Republicans will seize on it,” suggests that in the end, Bernie's revolution is remarkable in how conventional it has ultimately become.
Of course, the downside of arguments that the political process is corrupt or that votes do not count is that the logical inference of such arguments is that one should not vote. Indeed, it creates this strange dynamic that losses are not legitimate and the only legitimate voters are Bernie votes.
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/23/bernie_insults_voters_he_must_drop_notion_that_everyone_who_disagrees_with_him_is_corrupt_or_a_dupe/
Unfortunately, Sanders is also injecting one of the most wrong-headed and frankly embarrassing aspects of lefty thought into our discourse: The tendency to dismiss people who disagree with you as dupes who have been misled by a shadowy cabal of evil masterminds who brainwash the masses in order to perpetuate economic injustice.
This is the premise of Sanders’ “political revolution” argument: That the only reason voters hadn’t backed a socialist in the past is they never really had a chance to. But once they heard the good news about democratic socialism, they will throw off their shackles, embrace the truth, and usher in our socialist paradise.
That sort of rhetoric is harmless enough when it’s a pitch to win over voters. But now Sanders is losing the nomination. Rather than accepting the possibility that the voters heard his pitch and disagreed with him, however, Sanders has started to dismiss his loss as inauthentic, the product of shadowy forces misleading the easily duped voters rather an an authentic rejection, by the voters, of his ideas.
“I don’t want to see the American people voting for the lesser of two evils,” Sanders told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News on Sunday. “I want the American people to be voting for a vision of economic justice, of social justice, of environmental justice, of racial justice.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)was an independent most of his adult life decided to run for president at 75 as a Democrat. It seems so strange to me. Bernie could have run as an independent like Ross Perot who did quite well in the general election. It seems to me there's more to the story of why Bernie chose to run now and run as a Democrat, a party he continues to demonize and call into question the legitimacy of their nominating processes. I wanna read that book.
he came from sixty points down and still has a (slight) chance to win the entire nomination. He has done more than any socialist in decades to get people to discuss socialism and has forced people to acknowledge that socialism doesn't equal Stalinism. For non-Americans, that's obvious, not in our country. Given all that he has faced, I'd say he made the correct choice, but I also think that we are all seeing the limits as to what the modern Democratic Party will allow as far as structural change.
TimPlo
(443 posts)Think socialism is something different like you said. And worse because America is a nation with many socialism policies already in place. It is just people like OP buy into the GOP talking points and don't know it. SS,Medicaid, VA, Post Office etc are all forms of socialism. Then we have true disgusting things like Bailing out Wall Street as socialism that Clinton Drones actually support. But if you say let us give everyone medical care so they don't die like most of non-3 rd world nations get, you are called a lazy socialist cause you want free stuff.
Rhiannon12866
(205,552 posts)And welcome to DU! 
well said. My socialism also included things like public banking, worker owned cooperatives and a more participatory democracy. Things that have strong support from people.
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)underthematrix
(5,811 posts)That's fine. What I find puzzling is why he ran under a party that he feels is corrupt and whores to corporate interests, etc. Bernie's followers may be purists but Bernie is a pragmatist. Bernie attended a Warriors game on Monday evening and sat in a section that cost thousands of dollars. Who paid for it? At the same time, Bernie attended the WHCD and refused to wear a tux to make a statement about corporate interests.
This is why I would love for someone to do an investigative piece on just why Bernie chose to run under the banner of an alleged corrupt party.
LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)zero, zilch, zip, nada. Ain't happening. No way no how.
And he only has himself to blame.
Clinton is toast, toast. Even if she limps into the White House, and that is now very much in jeopardy because of the FBI investigation, the Republicans are going to have a field day with her, her foundation and her e mails. A lot of the right wing smears against the Clintons were baseless, but the Clintons have done horrible, unethical and corrupt things in the last decade or so. IF she she squeaks by the most unpopular nominee in polling history, she will be a nightmare for her party and future congressional races. She already isn't liked or trusted, and the only thing that may improve that is if the Republicans go too far and people have some sympathy for her, and that likely wouldn't last long.
She's a horrible candidate and it wouldn't surprise me that an emergency nominee has to be put in her place between now and the election, given all that is now happening. If it is anyone but Sanders or someone like him, it'll be a train wreck and will anger lots of people. The biggest winner in all of this will be the Green Party. The biggest loser in all of this is the American people, since they have to chose the two most disliked nominees in polling history if these horrible choices stay.
brush
(53,792 posts)"They committed a series of fatal strategic errors mostly attributable to incompetent staff work and an unforgivable lack of preparation against the Clinton Machine.
Among the bullet points in the campaign’s post-mortem, we can’t help but to note that Bernie & Company mistakenly went negative against Hillary, unnecessarily careening onto and embracing the low-road. Bernie, meanwhile, deeply excoriated the Democratic Party establishment and the superdelegate system, only to circle back, groveling now for establishment support after it’s too late. The Bernie get-out-the-vote effort failed to turn impressively massive rally crowds into actual votes, time and time again. Bernie himself stoked discontent and conspiracy-mongering within the party by misleading his supporters about delegate math while also failing to properly educate his ground-game activists about voter-registration and primary rules state-to-state.
Perhaps his deadliest error occurred when he pledged to run his campaign solely on individual donations famously averaging $27 when, in a general election matchup, he would’ve suddenly confronted a stratospheric pile of GOP cash that would’ve invariably crushed his chances unless he backpedaled. The list goes on and on. And now he’s willing to participate in a stunt — a debate between the GOP winner and the Democratic loser. A political exhibition bout.
These are all factors to take into consideration, and a farcical stunt-debate between Bernie and Trump wouldn’t have ameliorated Bernie’s self-inflicted damage, nor would it have sufficed as a last-minute Hail Mary. At the end of the day, it only would’ve managed to illustrate how a failed Democratic candidate was just as willing as Trump to debase himself within the idiocratic narrative."
— Bob Cesca is a regular contributor to Salon.com.
GRhodes
(162 posts)He came from sixty points down, as a democratic socialist, and has come close to beating a candidate that has immense political power, massive amounts of money from Wall Street and other corporate interests, massive support from the establishment media, totally biased behavior and conduct the entire election cycle by the DNC on her behalf. It's a miracle he has gotten this far, no one as progressive as he is (no one that sites Eugene Debs as a personal hero) has gotten nearly this far in the entirety of the Democrats' history. The only one that came nearly as close was Henry Wallace and look what the Democrats did to him after FDR died.
She's a horrible nominee, if she doesn't get indicted, is historically unpopular, disliked, not trusted and is tied with the most unpopular major party nominee in polling history now. The Democrats couldn't have chosen a worse candidate in 2016 if they tried.
Sanders has exposed lots of people in power and in the media, and has shown just how much structural change the modern Democratic Party will allow, which is not much at all.
brush
(53,792 posts)He treated her with kid gloves. My god, can you seriously argue that he was more critical of her than she was of Obama in 2008? She and her husband said outright racist things, at one point she said that she and McCain were qualified while all Obama had was a speech. Give me a break. You think what he did was "negative"? Have fun with Trump and the Republicans, if she actually limps into office.
By the way, he didn't "go negative" any damn way. Her being corrupt IS negative. Her being hawkish IS negative. Her backing her husband's right wing economic policies WERE negative, and she hasn't even hinted that she believes in another economic model. Negative is getting personal, doing what Trump does by bringing up Foster and Lewinsky. The things he pointed out about her should be critiqued by the damn left, yet her supporters have been providing cover for those things, and look where the party is as a result.
Whatever, I won't bother responding again to you. People like yourself are the reason that independents are such a large and growing percentage of the public.
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)clearly wanted to make a splash before it was too late, and knew his best bet was to be part of a major party. It's just too bad that the Dems didn't place more requirements on him, and just accepted him at his word - that he would be loyal and play by the rules.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)being loyal to what I want him to be loyal to. As a democrat myself, he's being loyal to my vision of what that word used to mean to me. He'd be worthless, just another corporate stooge, if he didn't take the party and the DNC to task, no matter how badly it transgresses against the welfare of American citizens.
flor-de-jasmim
(2,125 posts)underthematrix
(5,811 posts)a nomination. He doesn't seem to be able to translate his principles into policies
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)
You might say that he's a cynical politician out to get his. I don't know why you'd say that because it's something entirely not borne out from his long career in politics, but saying he's a corporate stooge seems to entirely miss the point of what a corporate stooge does.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)and caucus with the Democratic Party who he now says is corrupt in order to get choice committee assignments he would not have gotten otherwise. So what does that make him? If the Democratic Party is corrupt than that makes him corrupt as well. But even worse, I find his holier-than-thou attitude to be annoying and wearing thin since he has benefited from using the Party's resources when it suited his purposes and now constantly threatening to burn it down if he doesn't get things his way.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)down the party, he is, at half of the Democratic Party's bequest, attempting to change the party for the better, and calling it out where it needs to be called out, again, because many of us "legitimate" democrats want him to.
Yeah, generally people who are a little corrupt don't trust an honest man. No, taking resources from a broken system and calling out the broken system is not corrupt. It's the very antithesis of it. That is proof in the putting, that despite benefiting from the established system, he is not softening his message about that system.
Your argument is pretty funny don't you think? You would find him less corrupt, less contemptible, if he had used party money and just shut up, showing proper gratitude to the establishment. That sounds to me like accepting bribes. Now, I didn't think that was what our campaign finance system was set-up to be, and I tell you what, if the actually progressive voices in our party begin to have any sway on it, it will not be what it's used for.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)But no one else can. Got it.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Besides, the DNC is not a uniform institution. You may as well say, "so he can be in congress even though he says congress is corrupt?" Yes, you can do both things. The point is to change it. Nearly half of the Democratic voters, including myself, want him here, calling out the worst aspects of our institution to force it to change through pressure from the democratic voters who want their party to be better.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)And the more conservative people would run with the more conservative party, and the more liberal people would run with the more liberal party.
In this case, the more liberal party is called the Democratic Party, and anyone who wants to win the election who is liberal is going to run in that party.
It is not a conspiracy or weird.
GRhodes
(162 posts)that in order for a political system to maintain itself, it has to produce decently equitable outcomes. For a system to maintain itself, you need a large percentage of people to benefit from that system. That way, they feel compelled to defend the system from groups seeking structural/radical change. If any system doesn't produce equitable outcomes, if it benefits fewer and fewer people, you will start to see more and more people calling for radical changes. You seem to think that radicalization isn't possible, which is kind of nuts, because it's clearly happening. Look at the polls on the issues, look at how well Sanders polls versus Trump, how many people now refuse to identify with either party, and look at how horribly capitalism is polling. Frank Luntz, of all people, has been telling Republicans to not use the word capitalism...in the United States.
You could just as easily have been in Romania in 1985 and said, "everyone knows we have one party, the Communist Party". The question was whether or not the system benefited enough people that they felt compelled to maintain the system. Wasn't the case there, and increasingly not the case here. I'm not saying that there will be an anti-capitalist revolution soon, but people are becoming radicalized as a result of the systematic failures. The two parties have been a disaster for working people and we are quickly approaching ecological collapse. The more "liberal" party isn't as "liberal" (whatever that word means) as the Republicans were 50 years ago, and it shows.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Bernie would run as a Democrat. I am not talking about larger political issues.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)brush
(53,792 posts)and to be included in the TV debates.
He used the party because he couldn't get the above as a little-known independent socialist from a small state.
lmbradford
(517 posts)This has been happening for the last 8-10 years. Quit blaming Sanders for people noticing the corruption within the party. They were noticing BEFORE Sanders ran. Why do you think Independants make up 44%of the voters.
Geez, I switched to Indie 15 years ago. I switched back to D to vote for Obama and now Sanders. I dont owe you my loyalty bc I get nothing in return but corruption and frankly, governing that a group of apes would find ridiculous. Until the Dems put out an effort to represent the people again, i and millions of others will switch back to Indie.
That is not Bernies fault. Thats on the Party.
yourout
(7,531 posts)I didn't leave the party......it left me.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Bernie!Bernie!Bernie!
the person he is running against has gotten massively rich by corporate interests. She has gotten more money from Wall Street than all the other candidates combined, banks and other corporations are her largest donors over the course of her career, and she and Bill have gotten a total of 3 billion dollars from these groups since they entered politics. They have also put in place a wide range of policies that have benefited those groups. You don't like calling that corruption, fine. What would you call it? She and her husband have massive political power, thanks to their status, their money and their foundation, and they use that power in ways that benefits them.
Same goes with the political system, the politicians, which overwhelmingly back Clinton. It isn't a "lefty" secret that the system is entirely corrupt, and that there is a huge gap between popular opinion and government policy. The recent Supreme Court cases have made the situation worse. It, again, is entirely accurate to call the politicians within government largely corrupt, because they are. Look who runs the DNC now as well, DWS. How in the world can someone deny her obvious corruption, as head of the DNC and her elected position?
Same goes with the damn media. The media itself is owned by giant corporations, which would be harmed if Sanders were to win and put in place institutional change. The people on TV, the "journalists" and their guests, are almost entirely rich and far more well off than the majority of their audience. They have a clear class bias, and it has shown this election cycle. Hell, some media companies, and owners of papers (like the Washington Post) have given lots of money to Clinton, and it has impacted their coverage of her and this election.
Calling this stuff baseless is itself baseless. The system is corrupt. While some people backing her do so for their own reasons and are progressive (like Sherrod Brown), it's clear that they oppose Sanders because he wants to change a system that has benefited THEM, and they don't care how inequitable the outcomes of that system are at all. They have benefited from the system and see no benefit from someone changing that system.
TomCADem
(17,390 posts)To begin with, if Bernie were to actually win, he could not deliver on half of his promises, particularly with a Republican Congress. If he refuses to compromise, the government would get stuck in stale mate. If he does compromise, then someone will pull a Bernie and attack him from the left for selling out.
Also, your post is just character attacks on Hillary Clinton. There is no defense of Bernie's policies or an explanation of how they are implemented. For all the so-called high-mindedness of the Bernie campaign, it is run like any other Karl Rove type campaign that focuses on tearing down his opponents whether they be the party or his opponents.
Bernie talks about coalition building, but Bernie has always played the role of outsider. People attack Democrats who supported Hillary, because she has helped support them in the past, but isn't that part of coalition building?
Hillary is definitely not perfect, and I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that she lacks charisma. But I do think that characterizations of her as dishonest are misplaced relative to pretty much any Republican. Trump and Cruz lie with every other statement, while Hillary on the other hand seems to pay a heavier price, because the narrative is that she is dishonest.
Now, if Bernie's priority was to wield influence and actually work to pass his policies, then he has a far greater chance of doing so with Hillary in the White House, rather than Donald Trump. But, if simply wants to be the center of attention and create a splinter protest movement, a Leftist Tea Party, then it will be far more ineffective than the right wing Tea Party, because Bernie's folks actually want government to take action, rather than shut things down.
Bottom line: What is Bernie's 10 year plan if he does not win the Democratic primary? I don't think he has one. He says he wants to create a movement. But, if he simply succeeds in fracturing the Democratic party, then it is wishful thinking to believe that Republicans would not institutionalize their agenda through Supreme Court picks and additional tax cuts while the left recovers from the fracture.
First off, structural change doesn't happen overnight. So, it makes no sense what so ever to think that it would come about immediately. It wouldn't, and it wouldn't unless there was an outright revolution, which isn't going to happen. Sanders has said it wouldn't happen overnight and he couldn't do it alone, and he's right. He doesn't believe that, and neither do most of his supporters. I challenge you to name a single movement of historic importance, one, that lacked a long term version that wasn't "realistic" in the short term. Did the Civil Rights movement have a vision that was "realistic" in the way you seem to want to argue? Of course not. The labor movement? Did they push for things that they thought would immediately happen? Of course not. They had long term visions, and those visions were used to organize people and to force those in power to implement structural change. That's how it has always happened, without exception. You all have created a straw man argument that Sanders and most of his supporters don't believe in.
On the other hand, there is no way to ever get things like universal health care or college unless you state the vision and give people the chance to organize around that vision. No one said he was a freaking messiah either. He is just the only one addressing those issues and the only one running with a coherent vision that the country actually wants (take a look at the polls on the issues and how he polls nationally). There is a huge, proven, gap between popular opinion and government policy, more than anything because of corruption, which Clinton is guilty of. God forbid anyone want to come along and change that.
I also find it curious that people like yourself call his push for a strong environmental policy, like a carbon tax, to be unrealistic. I have news for you, we don't have tons of time and there is no realistic way to avoid ecological collapse with moderate solutions. Sanders' call for a carbon tax is called radical, which just shows how far right wing the conversation has gone. In fact, it isn't nearly enough. I would guess that you're older, so you aren't going to have to deal with that. Your kids and grandchildren will though, and you should think long and hard about what is coming for them environmentally, what environment your generation is passing and has passed on to the next. There is no way to avoid ecological collapse without structural change, period, and we don't have much time. Some scientists in fact think it's too late.
"Also, your post is just character attacks on Hillary Clinton."
Name a single thing I pointed that isn't factual. Her being corrupt isn't a character attack, it's factual. If you think a person being corrupt says something about their character, then you should analyze her character, because she IS corrupt, and there is no arguing against that, unless you want to change the definition of corruption. She is also hawkish, this is common knowledge, and does have a center-right economic record.
I also think your argument about Clinton getting things done is comical, at best. You seem to think that Hillary Clinton, Hillary freaking Clinton, is going to work with the Republicans and "get things done". They froth at the mouth when they say her name. Even if the Republicans in power think she's okay, it doesn't matter, since their base hates her to their core and those Republicans won't get re-elected if they do what she wants. They do, whether or not that is rational. You might have a case with another center-right Democrat, but not her. She is no more likely to do anything she wants to than Sanders would be. The truth is that the right has to be fought, battled and beaten back, the "center" has to be dragged back to the left, where popular opinion is. Thinking it would come from someone that has gotten massively rich off of corporations and gotten so much from Wall Street is naive, the ponies and rainbows thing the Clinton folks have been talking about.
I'd like to hear what you think is going to happen though if she's elected. She's a "centrist" (of what exactly?) and is negotiating with the right wing. A negotiation always results in a position between two negotiating parties. So, if she negotiates with the right and is already in the center, where would the compromise be? Be honest, she'll "get things done" if/when she sells the store to corporate interests, just as her husband and Obama largely did. Our political system is well to the right of where it was decades ago, and the Democrats like Clinton haven proven that they don't have it in them to drag it back to the left.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)you find so offensive? Ah yes, they want to stand up to the Oligarchy that you revere so highly and when they do they get disparaged by those that support the Big Corporation domination of our government.
Sen Sanders isn't afraid to speak truth to power and that bothers the authoritarian followers that blindly follow Clinton.
TomCADem
(17,390 posts)...then you are corrupt, dupe, DINO, oligarch, etc.
Bernie is not the be all and end all of the left. Unfortunately, both he and his campaign are about as intolerant as anyone on the right when it comes to opposing viewpoints.
The irony is that the article talks about how the Bernie campaign treats anyone who disagrees with them as corrupt or a dupe. And what do you do, you say say that Bernie "stand up to the Oligarchy that you revere so high." So, you just validated the article's point.
She and her husband (according to the Washington Post, which is owned by someone that supports her) have gotten three billion dollars since they entered politics 40 or so years ago from corporate interests. The Clintons DID rise ot power in Arkansas with Walton/Walmart money. The DLC, which they headed, was funded and supported entirely by corporate interests, including the Kochs. These are all facts, not opinions. Opensecrets has her top donors over her career, take a look. Banks and corporations dominate. They've gotten $150 million from those groups in the form of speaking fees the last decade or so. She has gotten more money from Wall Street than all the other candidates combined in both parties this election cycle, and just a few weeks ago her team was reaching out to Bush's Wall Street donors, and letting them know that she shares their interests. She and her husband also passed and supported legislation that has benefited those groups at the expense of working people. This too isn't debatable, if you care about the data, facts.
It doesn't matter if someone supporting her agrees with that, and it doesn't matter whether or not their intention is to further enrich corporations or the already rich, or to increase inequality even more than it has increased in recent decades (which has grown steadily under Obama). If you support her you support the interests supporting her, the very interests that have benefited from the policies she supports. You can't back someone that has all but announced that she doesn't want to structurally change the system (so where would she even begin a negotiation with the far right?), given how inequitable and corrupt our system is, then claim that you aren't supporting the emerging oligarchy. It might annoy you, but the propaganda doesn't match the actions, and it isn't the fault of those pointing that out.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)know that's a hard concept for the Clinton fans to grasp. We don't revere personalities, we revere principles. You know like supporting those in need and not those that are wealthy. For some reason you've rationalized that your candidate can accept well over one hundred million from special interests and not be biased.
As far as the Sanders supporters being agitated, again it seems the Clinton fans can't grasp that some of us don't just fall in line to the demands of the authoritarian leaders. We won't "sit down and shut up" like good little soldiers like those that disparage us. The billionaires and corporations think they can bully citizens. And typical of bullies, they and their minions whine like crazy when we stand up to the bullying. You know like the bias of the DNC, the bias of the Corp-Media and the corrupted election system.
There are two sides in this class war and Clinton, Goldman-Sachs, Koch Bros, Wall Street and the neocons are not on the side of the People.
Why do I think the Clinton supporters would have objected to our founders standing up to the British Aristocracy.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Knew we could count on you!
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)is a misogynist or wants trump to be president. Deal? Didn't think so.
TomCADem
(17,390 posts)You wrote, ""OK, if Hillary drops the notion that everyone who disagrees with her is a misogynist or wants trump to be president. Deal? Didn't think so."
So, how is that different from Trump's attack that, "The only thing she's got going is the women's card"?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/27/trump-if-clinton-were-a-man-i-dont-think-shed-get-5-percent-of-the-vote/
NEW YORK — While celebrating sweeping victories in five primaries Tuesday night, Donald Trump mocked the qualifications of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and suggested she was playing "the women's card" to her advantage in the presidential race.
“Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don't think she'd get 5 percent of the vote. The only thing she's got going is the women's card,” Trump said during a news conference at Trump Tower. “And the beautiful thing is, women don't like her."
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s wife, Mary Pat, who was standing behind Trump, appeared to react negatively as he made the comments.
The episode is the latest in a long line of Trump remarks widely seen as sexist or offensive toward women, and it underscores the serious difficulties Trump will face in garnering support from female voters if he is the GOP nominee.
merrily
(45,251 posts)under our laws while we end "welfare as we know it," and cut SNAP and fuel subsidies to the poor proves nothing. NOTHING!
Shame on him.
lmbradford
(517 posts)People are hurting. They work day and night at shitty jobs that dont pay their bills. They ask for a little help and instead they get stuff camoflaghed as help, things like ACA, foodstamps, ss, etc. But those things dont help enough and just when people think they can make it again, the govt cuts one of the programs, they lose their job to overseas, they become sick and they cant pay the deductables or copays to actually use their insurance that would not have paid entirely anyway only to add to their pile of bills.
But hey, look at those millionaires in congress setting the rules and regs for us so that we get less and less and they and their millionaire friends get more and more from us.
I finally found a man who is not just all about money. He actually cares about people. Imagine that. And if you think Hillary can ever be the candidate for me, then you didnt read a word that I just wrote.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I think they do see. I think we have to stop excusing them with things like "They just don't get it."
And even if believed they don't get it--which I don't--I'd have to say willful ignorance, callousness, etc. aren't much of an excuse.
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)That is what he set out to do and that is what his followers have donated over a hundred million dollars to make that possible. If he doesn't win, and that is very possible no matter how well he does over the next few primaries, his campaign has raised issues that the Democratic leadership really would prefer no one raise, at least not seriously.
Most campaigns founder and sink because they run out of money and simply cannot carry on. This has not happened to Sanders because his "one issue" repetitive message talks the talk many people want to hear. That being the case, the people who agree with him dutifully support him with their hard earned money. A whole lot of people agree with him, ergo, the band plays on.
Secretary Clinton has gotten millions more votes than Senator Sanders up to this point and certainly more pledged delegates. If she wins the nomination most of the Senator's supporters will cast a vote for her in the GE. That will be determined at the Convention.
See you there.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)The money corrupts politicians. The Princeton study proved it.
Triana
(22,666 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)
Dem2
(8,168 posts)If that's not a proper summation of the condescension/contempt of a large number of Bernie supporters on DU, I don't know what is!
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)She's a long time Bernie hater doing her best the smear Bernie for having the audacity to challenge HRC.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and has lost it's impact.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Those who disagree with that ARE corrupt or dupes.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Notwithstanding.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)But all corrupt dupes are against Sanders.
Amanda Marcotte is exhibit #1.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)So of course if the Democratic party rejects his dogma, either we are evil or a cabal of shadow figures have manipulated the process to block his shining holy path to the future.
Pick one.