The Rise Of Bernie Sanders Has Turned The Democratic Party Upside Down

[99th_Monkey]

The Rise Of Bernie Sanders Has Turned The Democratic Party Upside Down
By Jason Easleymore from Jason Easley * August, 14th, 2015 * Politicus

It isn’t a coincidence that as Bernie Sanders is being forced to move to a bigger New Hampshire campaign headquarters due to increasing popularity, Democrats are actively searching for more serious candidates to enter the 2016 field.

The Sanders campaign is so popular in New Hampshire that they have to move to a bigger headquarters. Kurt Ehrenberg, the New Hampshire coordinator for the Sanders campaign, told The Washington Post, “We’re ramping up our campaign. We’re hiring new staff every day. We’re opening new offices. Things are going extremely well….Our volunteers don’t just want to come out and see the candidate. They actually want to work for Bernie because Bernie instills this terrific enthusiasm in them.”

While Sanders continues to grow both organizationally and attendance wise, other Democrats see Hillary Clinton as a vulnerable frontrunner and are worried about what the Sanders rise might mean for November 2016.

Some Democrats are clearly fishing for another established candidate to enter the Democratic race. There was a brief flirtation around Al Gore, but that was quickly squashed. Most of the serious chatter is coming from supporters of Vice President Biden.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/14/rise-bernie-sanders-turned-democratic-party-upside.html

[Agschmid]

1. Yes it has.

Kicked, good high road.

[99th_Monkey]

3. LOL - Thanks nt

[DJ13]

2. It isn’t a coincidence that ......... Democrats are actively searching for more serious candidates

Panic!

The party "leaders" cant allow a candidate that has no loyalty to big business interests to win, no that wont do.

Quick, get anyone else!




Calling Al Gore......

(That says all I need to know about Al Gore...)

[99th_Monkey]

5. What I don't get

is how this is going to work for the Establishment, since -- unless Hillary
totally gets out of the race altogether -- Biden (or Gore for that matter)
would cut way deeper into Hillary's votes, than it would take away from
Bernie's.

How will they work the choreography & timing of a Biden bid, to somehow
translate all of Hillary's support to Biden, unless she totally drops out of
the race?

[DJ13]

9. ........unless she totally drops out of the race

Thats what the leadership would want Hillary to do before they promoted another Turd Wayer.

[delrem]

12. There is NO WAY Hillary would ever consider dropping out!

Lordy, there isn't a human being on the planet who wants anything so bad as Hillary Clinton wants to be POTUS.
She DESERVES it!
She EARNED it!
She's THE MOST ELECTABLE!
It's HERS!

And that "trust thing" is just a minor nuisance.

[RoccoR5955]

67. Earned it?

The only way one earns a candidacy is in an election.

Most electable? You mean you will not vote for Sanders when he is the nominee for the Dems?


Interesting.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

76. I was reading that as being sarcastic.

That he/she was suggesting how Hillary thinks of it.

[L0oniX]

85. LMFAO

[delrem]

86. Comedy as pain relief.

I was just reading how Bill collected $105million in "speech" payouts between Jan 2001 (GWB inauguration) and Jan 2013 (HRC ending her term as SoS). Mr. and Mrs. Midas, themselves.

It's awful! But you have to laugh, too - for the sake of sanity. The sheer depravity of that kind of payola, long connected with a leading Dem politician and current candidate for POTUS, is something that almost can't bear to be seen. *blink* *blink* *blink* ...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. Ding ding ding! We have a winnah!

Exactly - anyone they consider a 'good' candidate is not going to eat into Sanders voters, but into Hillary voters. So, please proceed, gentlemen.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. People forget that Clinton's pick of Al Gore pissed off Liberals because he was too conservative....

Clinton claimed he needed Al Gore to balance the ticket because he was too liberal to get elected without him.

Later, Al Gore made his own run for the White House and could have picked anyone for his running made and he chose Joe Lieberman.

[Samantha]

26. Clinton picked Gore because of Clinton's "sleaze" factor

There were just too many lurid stories in the press about Clinton's "part-time" side activities. Al Gore was known as a very smart, honest, but straight-as-an-arrow family man. As I have said before, in Washington, DC there were about 5 people one would could count to be trustworthy, and Al Gore was one of the 5. He just had that type of reputation.

Clinton thought the addition of Gore to the ticket sent this message: if Al Gore thinks I am okay, the rest of the population will think I must be okay too if Gore is willing to run with me. And that was it in a nutshell. It gave the overall Democratic ticket a stamp of legitimacy. In exchange for Gore's consideration, Clinton offered Gore (who had said he would not run in 1992 because he wanted to spend time with his family following the accident Gore's son had been seriously injured in) in effect a co-Presidency. It was an offer Gore could not turn down.


Sam

[Spitfire of ATJ]

28. In DC you're expected to get drunk and flirt. Gore was known as a "stiff"....

His voting record though was very conservative.

[BlueStateLib]

33. Gores voting record more liberal then biden and half of the democratic senators

http://voteview.com/SENATE_SORT101.HTM

[Spitfire of ATJ]

38. Actually, that's not saying much when you think about it.

[Bluenorthwest]

100. That explains why DC hates LGBT people and cannabis, in one quick comment.

It's a big drunken heterosexual key party. Gross.

[TM99]

37. Clinton & Gore were both in the DLC.

What else really needs to be said?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

39. They were among the founders.

[TM99]

40. Yup.

[Binkie The Clown]

30. I recently read that most politicians are conservatives

in the sense that they do not want to disturb the status quo. They resist change and work hard to conserve business as usual. FDR took bold steps forward. Over the years the conservatives have whittled away at what FDR gave us, and today's "liberals" are satisfied with trying to get back just a little bit of what has been taken away from us over the years since FDR. But nobody will risk taking bold steps like FDR, because nobody wants to rock the boat with the real powers that be; our corporate overlords.

[Rod Beauvex]

58. Your first gif seem oddly appropriate for this post.

[Hydra]

4. The establishment on both sides seems to be really confused

It's almost like they started to buy into their own bull- that they were really as awesome as they made themselves out to be.

Hitting the hard wall of reality must hurt.

[99th_Monkey]

8. I just wish 'our' establishment was more in touch with it's base ...

because it comes back to bit us in the butt. But I guess
that's the way it's become inside the "DC Bubble".

[SoapBox]

13. Exactly.

On Rev. Al's show today...I think it was Bill Richardson, extolling the virtues of HRC...

I just kept thinking...Third Wayer, DINO, "DC Bubble", Banksters and Billionaires.

[Enthusiast]

35. The Democratic Party establishment simply does not want the same things the base wants.

The party establishment wants oil poring out of every orifice, they want the TPP, the TTIP and any other trade deal they can come up with, they want low low taxes on the wealthy and corporations, they don't want to hassle corporations over a little pollution, they want student loans to be high interest, they want to cut Social Security and Medicare, they do not want to hold Wall Street accountable, they essentially favor any scheme the financial services industry can conjure up, they want more war or at least more military spending and they do not want single payer health care.

The base has an entirely different, diametrically opposed set of priorities.

Yes, I suppose that would constitute a bubble.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. Many favor the idea that both sides should get along....

Meanwhile, their side has had a string of defeats and there's this stupid notion floating around that we need to give them a minor victory just to make them feel good.

[azmom]

60. They take billionaires money and then are obligated

To push their agenda. Bernie doesn't play the game.

[musiclawyer]

6. That it's assumed the DNC really doesn't want Bernie speaks volumes

Because that means a critical mass know the party is broken and only Bernie will try to fix. Which means he is a heart attack serious candidate who could win, especially if HRC remains a mediocre campaigner, with no vision, and the email issue gets worse. It's not unrealistic to see her failing badly in the primaries. She needs a turn around and real fast. Her best option right now is probably to simply lie to the voters -- tell them she won't approve keystone, TPP, wants a climate change , national solar law. Problem is an almost critical mass will know she's lying. One slip up late in the game and a Republican becomes POTUS and we'll all fucked.

Surely someone at the DNC paid to think long term is planning for a Bernie win and how to deal with him if their own sabotage in trying to find a corporate alternative to HRC does not work.

[ibegurpard]

7. They will throw it to the Republicans

Too much money and power at stake. I'm convinced they would actively work to undermine Sanders.

[JDPriestly]

23. It wouldn't do them much good.

He has an "interesting" youth but is now a very serious person with values that will appeal to a broad range of Americans including the jobless, those who lost jobs in recent years, those who lost homes, those who are paying back student loans or hoping to send kids to college or go themselves, those who got burned by Wall Street in 2008 and since, those who have Christian values of compassion and love for others, just a long list of people with values that are not represented at all in either the mainstream Democratic Party of the the Republican Party.

It's about values. You can't dial for dollars all afternoon, make a photo op appearance in Congress every once in a while and then expect ordinary voters to think you would make a great president. But that is what most of our politicians do.

Citizens United.. That decision betrayed the corruption of D.C.

[dreamnightwind]

43. One of the best things about Bernie

is that he recognizes this problem, is not part of it, and also knows that it goes much deeper than Citizen's United. In his stump speeches he regularly advocates overturning C.U., but then continues to make the point that even that isn't enough, we need publicly financed elections.

Before C.U., politicians were already spending most of their time in office dialing for dollars, and their solutions had little to do with what the public wanted.

[FlatBaroque]

83. Look to the New Jersey/Krispy Kreme election as an example

They will most definitely undermine (try to) Sanders.

[azmom]

63. The oligarchs don't want Bernie. They

Will support any democrat or republican they think can beat Bernie. The only support Bernie will get will come from us the people.

Bernie's campaign is based on class war. Something that the oligarchs that control our government will fight against like crazy. The Occupy movement knows what they are capable of. Disinformation, infiltration, co-option, violence. They will do anything to keep Bernie from office.

[Gregorian]

10. It has certainly made a distinction between conservative democrats, and liberal dems.

I never knew our party was so broad a spectrum.

[Hydra]

11. It's because of 2 major issues(possibly more)

That gave gotten worse with time. The first is the DLC revolution ushered in by Bill Clinton- the idea that everyone is secretly a Republican, but doesn't want to be called that. The Second is how that overwhelming shift to the right from our leadership affected the base. The Left had/has nowhere to go unless we elect a lefty(against the party leadership's wishes) or we go form our own party.

The Grand Ol' Perverts comprise less than 20% of our country, and less every day. We're basically the ONLY party right now...and that's why the fault line keeps getting wider- we can't have a party of both Conservatives and Progressives at the same time.

[delrem]

15. "we can't have a party of both Conservatives and Progressives at the same time"

That's correct.
There's a fundamental, essential, contradiction. The DLC even explicitly knew that, when they defined themselves as they did. It was a Trojan takeover, from within.

Witness how this swift-boating of Bernie has gone from first denying his (and our) right to discuss economic justice as it has any connection with social justice. That spells "DLC/Third-Way" in a nutshell, to my mind proving that this swift-boating has been a Third-Way campaign strategy and in NO WAY organic and grassroots. I won't even try to describe where they've taken the swift-boating from there, having denied our voice, demonizing "white progressives" and "white liberals" and "Bernie supporters" for unmentionable crimes - based on "tweets" and "facebook posts" and "forum posts".... it's one of the ugliest of precision swift-boating campaigns I've ever seen, and in no way do I associate it with "infighting among the liberal left". Campaigns like that are designed to take "the left" right out of the entire GE equation.

You betcha that if Bernie Sanders wins the primary the superpacs will combine forces to attack him in the GE, and "the establishment" (so much nicer wording than "corporate stooges&quot will duck out of sight, while helping every way they can.

IMO the Democratic Party can't be redeemed.
But that's a song I'll wait to sing another day. Right now, I'm happy with the faint hope that Bernie's surging popularity (which definitely proves something about the viability of a distinct Progressive Party, if a proper ground is laid) gives me. In truth, for real hope I'm looking beyond this election.

[Hydra]

17. The swift boating was a sign of how clumsy or unconcerned HRC's tacticians are about being subtle

It was practically wallpapered here the minute it started by all the usual people, and they all sang in perfect key together.

And I'm with you- I don't think this election will save us, and honestly I don't think we have the time to waste on all of it...but it's looking like a groundswell sea change is occurring, so maybe we can have something happen from the bottom up.

[delrem]

22. Although the swift-boating started by attacking Bernie's strength,

his record and platform on economic justice (which, in fact, encompasses affordable universal healthcare, education, and some other necessities of a viable and happy democratic state in the 21st century - even though these are "social issues&quot ,
it also had the correlative effect of outlining Hillary's (and Third-Way's) weakness.

Which brings it down to "that 'trust' thingy". How can she deliver for the investment capitalists who're all into war profiteering and investment bank privateering, which costs the entire US economy and leaves nothing for ... nothing for her campaign promises, which are feel-good statements cribbed mostly from the opposition and which avoid making any connection with economics, with providing a rational basis for PAYING for them and IMPLEMENTING them.

A war economy isn't into providing consumer goods. Those can be imported from elsewhere. It isn't interested in creating and sustaining a school system that excels, from kindergarten to community college degree. It isn't interested in creating a universal health and pharmacare system, building the community networks of health care providers needed for sustaining and improving it (they would spot the first flaw and use it as an excuse for killing the project entirely). A war economy is hardly even interested in maintaining an adequate material infrastructure, except as forced, and even then done entirely for profit of insiders.

Hillary is your basic neo-con neo-lib hawk. Her political friends are hawks. She hearts Kissinger, but that's just the tip of the iceburg. But she's not running on her record. She's running from her record. There's no way Hillary's campaign will even TOUCH her "Friends of Libya" and "Friends of Syria" adventures. Hell, even leftists on DU don't care to go there, it's so revealing - and upsetting.

[JDPriestly]

24. Great post.

Hillary is going to have trouble covering up her many false steps.

Here is just one that you point out:

"There's no way Hillary's campaign will even TOUCH her "Friends of Libya" and "Friends of Syria" adventures. Hell, even leftists on DU don't care to go there, it's so revealing - and upsetting."

[99th_Monkey]

25. Hillary's not running on her record. She's running from her record.

Wow. so succinct, and so true.

That a meme right there.

[KoKo]

102. "A War Economy isn't Interested....."

Well said....and that's what concerns so many of us who were against the Iraq Invasion and now our endless wars in the ME bringing death and destruction to innocents who had nothing to do with why we invaded. We've spent money on ramping up our military which has depleted funds for infrastructure renewal, social programs and health and educated with our fake crusades of bringing "False Freedom & Democracy" to those targeted by the MIC interests.

A war economy isn't into providing consumer goods. Those can be imported from elsewhere. It isn't interested in creating and sustaining a school system that excels, from kindergarten to community college degree. It isn't interested in creating a universal health and pharmacare system, building the community networks of health care providers needed for sustaining and improving it (they would spot the first flaw and use it as an excuse for killing the project entirely). A war economy is hardly even interested in maintaining an adequate material infrastructure, except as forced, and even then done entirely for profit of insiders.

Hillary is your basic neo-con neo-lib hawk. Her political friends are hawks. She hearts Kissinger, but that's just the tip of the iceburg. But she's not running on her record. She's running from her record. There's no way Hillary's campaign will even TOUCH her "Friends of Libya" and "Friends of Syria" adventures. Hell, even leftists on DU don't care to go there, it's so revealing - and upsetting.

[Enthusiast]

36. I think you have it pretty well nailed down.

Demonizing "white progressives" and "white liberals" and "Bernie supporters" for not being concerned enough about black lives can not possibly be a spontaneous phenomenon. Especially in light of the fact that they are, as a group, outside of actual black people, the people most concerned about racial justice.

Sorry, I was not born yesterday.

[Nay]

44. That demonization, IMO as well, was partially or wholly orchestrated by god knows

who. I won't deny that some black people may feel that way, but the complete takeover of dozens of threads with that meme was suspicious in the extreme. Personally, I think the couple of women who shouted Bernie off the stage were suspicious. Maybe demonstrators do have the right to scream in someone's face, and maybe that's the only way to change things, but . . . they were screaming in the wrong face.

And then the comments from posters who said they didn't care about Bernie's participation in the civil rights struggle 50 years ago -- that was in the past -- WHAT??? As an old, I cannot fathom the ignorance of someone who would say this. White people who stepped up in the civil rights struggle back then were VILIFIED by their neighbors, coworkers, bosses, church . . . it was a way to instantly make a pariah out of yourself. And that means nothing? Well, none of the other goddamn candidates did a goddamn thing back then, except be Republicans, so yeah, I think it fuckin' meant something. Historians will tell you it meant something.

[Enthusiast]

54. I agree.

[azmom]

61. They did not necessarily invent it as much as exploited

An issue that they know would divide us.

[Enthusiast]

64. It was a meme created by the far right.

The far right has always claimed that Democrats (liberals) created welfare and entitlements to gain control of minorities. It's a ridiculous claim but that doesn't matter much when there are so many infiltrators bolstering their claims.

[MisterP]

69. guess Carson's claims about AAs being eugenicided by patronizing white liberals didn't get traction

of course there was an actual period where well-meaning white progressives badly harmed Blacks with sterilizations--but that would mean bringing in the facts and that's always dangerous to the whole system our political culture's set up

with OA they can get people to apologize for bringing up the truth, and that just keeps everything in a fact-resistant bubble

[Enthusiast]

73. If one advocates forces sterilization they can hardly be termed "progressive"

except by the misinformationists.

[MisterP]

74. it was a signal element of "progressivism" 1900s-40s

back then eugenics and spreading civilization via colonialism were seen as even more important than vaccinations or crop yields or electrification or clean water, since you couldn't have any of those things without controlling the locals

this is in Stephen Jay Gould and Edwin Black's landmark book--but you're absolutely right, since Black argued that current progressives are being proto-Nazi when they dare criticize Israel, and sorta builds on War Against the Weak--and yet the earlier book doesn't suffer that much for his attempt to link past and present progressives

this is all a very tangled issue and thus everyone has to tread carefully

but mostly I was commenting on how Carson's accusations were dismissed so quickly while Seattle is suddenly some surefire barometer of how the left half of the party is the one that has this glaring race problem

[rhett o rick]

80. What a great subthread here. Thanks to all that contributed. I agree but have a comment.

The Democratic Party must be redeemed. There is no other option. While I am very outspoken villainizing the 1%, those that save us will have to come from the 1%. Both Roosevelts were members of the 1%. We need some members of the 1% to recognize that everyone will lose if our capitalism is allowed to continue. It's best for everyone to have a thriving middle class.

[99th_Monkey]

16. Sigh ..

I wish what you are saying here ^ weren't so damn true, but it is what it is.

So, like in a card game called Hearts, Bernie is 'shooting the moon', because
"enough is enough" ... the Left has to rise up, along with a growing segment
of the broader populous that's awakening fast & pissed that Corporate Oligarchs
have all but totally subsumed the US Gov't, and how that won't go so well for
them, unless they're at least a millionaire.

I'm not sure it's ever been more 'now or never'.

[Hydra]

19. It simply hasn't been more now or never in a LONG time

Climate change is here, in our face- and it may be too late to stop it. Meanwhile we're staring into 100 major social and economic problems created by the "Elite" that they have forced onto us and they are loath to back down on.

I don't think we can afford to wait until 2017 to try and fix this- but this is our last chance to do it legally. We may as well give it our best shot.

[99th_Monkey]

21. give it our best shot.

You just reminded me to make another donation to Bernie, however
inadvertantly. Thanks.

[delrem]

27. Human induced climate change is happening

and it's been happening for some time, and at an accelerating rate.

Consider: Shell is drilling in the Arctic (it recently got dispensation to do so from on high) just *because* the Arctic ice is no longer considered an insurmountable problem, and not because our drilling technology has become better, but because there's significantly less ice to deal with.
Does that make environmental sense? No, it's totally counter-intuitive.
Then why was the decision made to go forward on it?

Human induced climate change isn't just happening, it's on an accelerating path.
First we have to stop the *acceleration* - as e.g. the new input from drilling in the Arctic will act as an accelerant on existing inputs.

Even after having stopped new accelerations we will have to deal with the existing momentum, which the Earth being a slowly evolving mechanism will not adjust to quickly, will not adjust to in anything except the most long-term of human timeframes.

[Hydra]

45. Oh, I agree, and we are decades late in dealing with it

But we are now far enough along that it's impossible to ignore, and we're not prepared to deal with the changes it is wreaking. Now or never, and it's quite possibly too late to stop the feedback loop.

[BlueStateLib]

34. Before Clinton

the democratic party lost 5 out of 6 presidential elections

[Hydra]

46. Considering that Poppy Bush made an secret arrangement with the Iranians to keep the hostages longer

The case can be made that there hasn't been a legally elected Republican for more then 30 years.

Also, you could just as easily make the case that Clinton and the DLC are working for Poppy Bush, and that the 1979 treasonous takeover has never really ended.

Either way, Clinton and and the rest have done massive damage to our nation by forcing Republican policies under a Democrat flag. If the left are really such "Losers," then they should have run as Republicans and it would have been officially R policies for 30 years. Instead, we're all seen as not having answers.

Cool huh?

[tavalon]

18. I did

It's one of the reasons DU does better when we have a common enemy like a Bush. I suspected we would fall into chaos when a Democrat was President and I can't say I'm happy to have been right.

I've been a Democratic Socialist for years and have jokingly said that Bernie Sanders is my Senator. There is no where in my philosophy for conservatism so I don't get along well with those who love the Third Way.

[JDPriestly]

20. I like Biden, but his 2008 campaign was not very strong even though he is a nice guy.

And we like Bernie in part because he has remained aloof from the wheeling and dealing and corruption and the nearly totally materialistic values that have taken over the Democratic Party since Carter.

Biden is part of that system and has not taken a strong enough stand against that corruption and those misplaced values.

[azmom]

62. Bernie is one of the few honest politicians

That have not been corrupted by the system.

Bernie or bust!

[mvd]

29. Very proud of Bernie. Whatever happens, I think his..

Support and message may lay the groundwork for a successful progressive campaign sometime in the not too distant future.

And for those in the party who equate those on the left with those on the far right, there is a huge difference: left/liberal policies actually make sense. The true equivalent of those on the far right (which is most of the Republican field) would be those who want near complete income equality. And pretty few support that. After all, the Repukes want a system about as unequal as it can be in the U.S.

[MisterP]

70. they always say "we're for equality of opportunity, not of outcome" and then allow inheritance

right-populism has always been a chimera

[NanceGreggs]

31. Oh, I know, I KNOW!

But HRC is still the frontrunner in all the polls.

I know that means nothing on DU - but in the real world, where voters actually determine the presidency, Hillary is STILL the frontrunner.

"While Sanders continues to grow both organizationally and attendance wise, other Democrats see Hillary Clinton as a vulnerable frontrunner and are worried about what the Sanders rise might mean for November 2016."

Cool story, bro. Did I mention that Hillary is STILL the frontrunner? I wouldn't want anyone on DU to have missed that late-breaking news.

[NorthCarolina]

48. It's still early

and her "front runner status" is based largely on corporate media push polls.

[tblue37]

55. As she was at this point in 2008. Name recognition. In 2004 Lieberman was the

early frontrunner, since the 2000 campaign gave him a national profile among voters. Trump also benefits from name recognition, but unlike Hillary, Trump loudly tells his party's base what it wants to hear.

[George II]

95. In 2008 she was ahead by only 10% and she was running against a DEMOCRAT. Big differences.

[onehandle]

82. Both math and reality have a liberal bias.

Unicorns and leprechauns are the legal tender of the Internets.

[pablo_marmol]

32. While I still believe in President Obama, I've been disappointed in many of his decisions.

His campaign was the first in which I donated cash --- and I donated the maximum legal amount. I told myself "never again".

Now I'm ready to drop the lever again for Bernie......as he has a proven track record of supporting liberal causes. In fact, I think I'll find his website right now and donate $500.00. I can handle that for now.

[99th_Monkey]

57. Awesome! I've already given more to Bernie than I EVER have in the past

I did voter a lot of registration work for Obama in 2008, but was poor as a church mouse
then, and could't donate $$ .. Fortunately, I'm in better financial shape this time around
and I can't resist sending him $$, and it feels SO good to do it!!!!!!!

[pablo_marmol]

65. ".......and it feels SO good to do it!!!!!!!"

Yup. Looks like I'm officially committed now.......and I'm very much alright with that.

I'm working full-time while battling fatigue, so giving $$ is the best I can do right now.

Let's see if I can muster the effort ---- hey.......looks like I can!

[beam me up scottie]

42. Kicked and highly recommended!

Some folks want us to believe that only DUers are dissatisfied with Hillary and that we just like Bernie because he promised us a pony.



Feel the Bern!

[Hydra]

47. Pony! Magic wand!

It's kinda funny how much "Truthiness" is going on in DU. The "Adults" are certainly back, telling us all what's "sensible" and that we have to keep supporting the establishment...cuz who else is there??

Newsflash! Your policies are NOT working for normal people! We don't want them! You are busy chasing OUR ideas to get votes!

[beam me up scottie]

49. Hillary 2016: Because she's better than a Republican!

Who wouldn't fall all over themselves trying to get on board with that?

[Hydra]

50. lol

Ya, the bar's gotten pretty low, like Trump's comment that he's smarter than the rest of the Republican Candidates. That's not hard to do Bro!

[DCBob]

51. I think the demise of Hillary is greatly exaggerated.

[MuseRider]

52. So the "established" candidate seems to be in a bit of trouble

and the crazy old socialist is picking up steam. Their response is to find another "established" candidate?

Is there any wonder we are doing so pitifully in this country?

If there ever was an indication these people need to get out of Washington, stop the gym schmoozing (lol) and talk to real people who don't happen to be their biggest fans this is it.

Look at my state, Kansas. It is the very epitome of this kind of behavior. The few Dems we have just repeat over and over a losing strategy. Once in a while it will work but usually because the other side is so so terrible, but like here that will stop working eventually.

[Babel_17]

56. I got a call from the DCCC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Congressional_Campaign_Committee

Very nice young woman on the phone who rattled off a very long list of reasons why we needed to roll back the Republicans. I thought she was from the DNC at first so she got to hear my litany about them and DWS, and the debate schedule. She laughed and said "I hear you" a few times. Told her I was donating directly but I'd research their organization and might respond favorably to an e-mail solicitation for funds. I think she was a Sanders sympathizer or supporter as when I mentioned my support of him she sounded animated when she laughed and said "I hear you!".

I complimented her speaking skills and that was that. I got the impression that the DCCC callers have been getting an earful.

[NobodyHere]

59. So which party leaders are panicked?

How I know that this just isn't hype from the media? I haven't heard any party leaders talking about Gore or Biden, just media talking heads.

Am I wrong on this?

[99th_Monkey]

66. Establishment 'panic' isn't likely to be broadcast on purpose now, is it?

Well, at least not deliberately. So no surprise here that DWS/DNC isn't
calling a presser to announce "Hey, we're in a panic here!"

But it doesn't take a genius to recognize the "Anyone but Bernie" machinations
going on behind the scenes.

[colsohlibgal]

68. Oh Bernie Is The DNC's Biggest Nightmare

I don't doubt the Wall Street branch is worried about Bernie.

[sabrina 1]

71. If we had non-corporate controlled leadership in the Dem Party, they would be backing Sanders

right now, because he IS the most likely candidate to beat Republicans.

If that was the goal of course, Dems would never have endorsed Chris Christie over a good progressive candidate in NJ.

[Motown_Johnny]

72. Or, it was upside down and now it is right side up.

Should this party really be the "top down" huge corporate donations dependent type of should it be a "bottom up" small donor and labor union supported type?


I think we all know what it should be. We had just given up hope and accepted what it had become. Take Heart! Bernie is running.

[99th_Monkey]

78. Right Side UP we go!!!!!!!!!! Go Bernie!!!!!!!!!!!

Or .. maybe .. is there even such a thing as "LEFT Side Up"

Nice post.

[lewebley3]

75. No it has not turned the Dem party upside Down: HIllary is leading with by 20to30 points

[99th_Monkey]

79. That's right. There's absolutely nothing to see here

nothing except a POLITICAL REVOLUTION in the making.

Please proceed to support our "inevitable" front-runner. no problemo

[lewebley3]

103. I support Hillary the best candidate the Dem's have: Hillary is still leading the Dem 55

[99th_Monkey]

105. I kinda got that from your first post

but thanks for re-stating the obvious.

[Thinkingabout]

77. The rise of Bernie in states other than NH is not following NH as this article reveals.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/13/how-far-can-bernie-sanders/vAovsuNBPCHtJesExx5MBI/story.html


The need to rise in all states in order to get the required delegates.

[99th_Monkey]

81. "But early polling isn’t a great predictor of electoral outcomes."

It's a quote from your article. There's still LOTS of time for this to
shake out, and trends don't favor the 'inevitable one' at this time.

[Thinkingabout]

84. This is exactly right, this is early polling and causes me to wonder why the polling results is any

Indication when of a victory for Bernie since the majority of states still has Hillary in the lead, as you say not a trend which makes Bernie the "inevitable one".

[99th_Monkey]

89. To my knowledge, neither Bernie nor even ONE of his supporters has EVER said that

Bernie is "inevitable"

Give me a fucking break.

[Thinkingabout]

94. I do not recall any Hillary supporters saying she was inevitable or she was going to be coronated.

This is a talking point which has been said by others, not by her supporters so the break will be a good thing.

[99th_Monkey]

96. "But HRC is still the frontrunner in all the polls."

"Hillary is STILL the frontrunner. "

"Did I mention that Hillary is STILL the frontrunner? I wouldn't want anyone on DU to have missed that late-breaking news. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=519671

And all three of these quotes are from just ONE post, not three, not two, but one post. If I didn't know
otherwise, this sounds like a claim to 'inevitability' to me.

[Thinkingabout]

97. You posted this:

There's still LOTS of time for this to
shake out, and trends don't favor the 'inevitable one' at this time.

Who are you referring to 'inevitable one'?

[99th_Monkey]

98. I did post that.

So you don't smell the same air of inevitability I do in
the post I linked, well then I don't nose what to say.

I'm heading to beady-bye at the moment, but will find
some more for you tomorrow.

It shouldn't take long, once I poke around a little more
over my morning coffee.

(to be continued)

[99th_Monkey]

99. I'm not the only one who's noticed: The Guardian "Hillary's coronation"

Hillary Clinton supporters’ main concern seemed to be a fear that her coronation as the Democratic candidate for president would leave her unprepared for battle with the Republican nominee.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/15/email-setbacks-bernie-sanders-but-hillary-clinton-still-favorite

I don't mean to belabor this, but just saying'...

[Thinkingabout]

101. Has the Guardian endorsed Hillary? I do not fear her ability to handle the duties of president,

Sometimes the talking points with some become cognitive dissonance and gets much more than giving the truth.

[Triana]

87. The Rise of Bernie Sanders Has Turned the Democratic Party Rightside Up.

It's been upside down for about 50+ years. Bernie is uprighting it - or trying to. The Democratic Party has long lost sight of and forgotten about its own Democratic principles. So much that even so-called Democrats call his principles "too far Left". Sanders demands a return to them. And many Democrats don't even recognize them, or what he's doing.

It's pretty amazing to see - and also pretty sad to see how far Right Democrats have moved in the past half century or so.

[99th_Monkey]

91. Exactly. You are not the only one

who think that. Take a peek up-string..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251519500#post72


GO Bernie !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[L0oniX]

104. ^^^this^^^

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

88. Good. I think the party needs to move far to the left, but if it has to be turned upside down first,

than so be it!

[99th_Monkey]

92. Hell yah! nt

[SMC22307]

90. 'Squashed' or 'quashed'?

Gore and Biden have had their time... move on.

[99th_Monkey]

93. 'Squashed' or 'quashed'? Either way, we win.

Elect Bernie, so we can FINALLY begin the work of undoing all the damage the GOP/DNC
'bipartisanship' has done, so we can move on to a much more humane and brighter future.