Blaming Bernie!

[DrDelirium]

The sad fact is that both parties are sold to the highest bidders. The Democrats could have listened to the people who wanted not only a New Deal, but a Fresh Deck of pol's who looked out for the country rather than their own re-election.

"If" Bernie had won, and there is evidence that he might have, don't you think that the lemmings would have followed his lead. The DNC might have saved the country from the Trumpanzy, however they didn't and they are becoming less influential by not having a "Bold Strategy" that really challenges the right wingers.

The tepidness of the Democrats and lack of conviction in their program has left the people who want a different direction with nowhere to turn. In desperation they gambled on Trump, and lost again. Blaming Bernie for not being a Democrat is silly, he has shown more of the old New Deal Democratic zeal than 1,000 establishment assholes.

"New Deal Democrats" were an illusion. The Dems fought FDR for quite awhile, and when they cooperated with him it was because they were afraid of revolution or defeat at the hands of foreign gangs of capitalists. The red left lead their people in the labor movement into this alignment, in the process giving up all struggle against the bourgeois labor unions and even the capitalist class. This was largely at the behest of Stalin, under the slogan 'Socialism in One Country,' the Soviets gave up the Trotskyist push for global revolution NOW in favor of preserving the USSR from the German invasion, and the US agreed to support them in return for peace in the factories at home. The foreign policy of the US only ceased being anti-Russian until the defeat of the Nazis, and well before then a considerable portion of the US power structure was only in favor of fighting the Germans to keep the Russians from occupying the whole country. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was at least as much about keeping the Red Army from advancing across Europe as it was about defeating Japan.

I think that all the evidence is that if Bernie had won, he would be having exactly the same experience as Trump is having, right down to being a Russian dupe. I don't believe for a moment that Sanders is any kind of socialist, but if he was, he would have precisely zero people he could fill the big seats in his administration with. Not being a socialist, he'd have filled them with the same corporate lackeys that Clinton would have chosen, people only marginally different from Trump's second round picks, if not exactly the same individuals in some cases.
This is a case of systemic control of the entire mechanism of government by a handful of billionaires and CEOs and their associated think-tankers, generals, Senators, high-level executive branch flunkies and media barons- who in many cases are the same individuals. Bernie, Trump, Stein, Gary Johnson, it doesn't matter, they were all outsiders with no support in the apparatus of government, and they all would have been hung out to dry.

 

[DrDelirium]

These are all good points and you're right. It's a generally academic debate because we don't know what would have happened. Just two quick points:

1. You're right you need qualified people to run government. But look at who Trump has picked: every single one extremely unqualified to say the least. I think you can certainly agree that Bernie would have at least selected people who weren't say his son-in-law with no previous experience outside of whatever Daddy gave him.

2. They voted for Trump because he promised all those things AND he allowed them to feel it was OK to be a bunch of racist clowns. It's a nifty psychological trick.


This goes back to the larger point of class warfare. A bunch of rich white people playing the working class/poor white people for suckers. They do it will all kinds of wedge issues (this is another Thomas Frank book What's the Matter with Kansas?)

The difficulty with your first point is that by definition, anyone 'qualified' to hold these offices is someone who is part of the system that Trump or Sanders or most of the American people want to get rid of. Trump now has 'qualified' people in high level positions, and they are engaged in Clinton/neocon policy making on the international front already. We will have a minimum of four more 'one year wars' in Afghanistan, we're arming the Nazis in the Ukraine, we're talking about invading Venezuela, we're conducting the biggest ever joint maneuvers with Sweden on the Russian border while claiming that Europe is threatened by the same old rotational exercises (which mostly involve local police and emergency agencies) that the Russians do in one of four regions every year. This is exactly the opposite of what Trump and Bannon wanted, and what all those racist clowns voted for.

As for your second point, Trump won't quit the alt-right because he won't get anything in return if he does. It's like Ghaddafi giving up his weapons of mass destruction. The reward is death. And frankly, it's a good thing he doesn't, because if/when he does, the alt-right crazies will be a nucleus for a much broader segment of angry white people, a huge number of whom also happen to be in, or have served in, the military, the security services, the police, and live in bread-and-butter country. It's not that all these people are racists (in fact i know some that are black), but that if Trump turns his back on the policy positions that racists support, it will be seen as a complete betrayal by his entire base. Because for a shitload of Americans, illegal immigration is a serious survival issue, not an abstract question of 'social justice.' Control of the border is the first step in regaining some kind of control of their lives. Calling them racists because they want the kind of policies that will protect their livelihoods and their families from economic disaster is counter productive and plays into the hands of the corporate globalists that Sanders' supporters claim to hate.

Indeed the rich white guys are playing the white working class for suckers. They are also playing the white middle class for suckers. And the white academic class. And black people of whatever economic status, and Latinos, and Asians, and immigrants both legal and illegal. What did black workers ever get from the Democrats? What did the black middle class get? They got their houses stolen, is what. The got the repeal of Glass-Steagal and the sudden transfer of many decades of accumulation of black wealth to the banksters. CLINTON DID THAT. They lost their jobs, and if they have jobs now, they're mostly part time and minimum wage- just like an ever increasing number of whites. Everybody who isn't a billionaire is being played, they're all falling for the same stupid tricks. It's going to get ugly when they stop falling for them, though.

 

[JackLuis]

I leave this here to make the point that there is evidence that our voting system is a fraud until we can change the system.

Yes, Hillary Did Steal the Democratic Primary and Bernie Would Have Beaten Trump

Let's get one thing straight. No matter how much the media says Hillary Clinton did not steal the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders, she did. Anyone who was paying more than passing attention to the 2016 Democratic primary knows that the willingness of the Clinton forces to cheat was obvious from the start, as far back as the Massachusetts primary when Bill Clinton himself illegally campaigned inside polling stations during voting hours.

The artical goes on to show the collusion in California, Nevada and other places during the primary. And it concludes with:

https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13095873_f520.jpg

Some may ask: why bring this up now? Why dwell on the past? Simple. If the thwarted will of the people in the 2016 Democratic primary is swept under the rug, it will happen again and again. This is why election reform is not a pie-in-the-sky debate among wonks and academics. Were it not for the cheating, America might look very different right now. The object lesson of 2016 might be: Democracy Works. When we have it.

The second point I'd like to make is: Do you think that Trump is as Honest as Bernie? IF you can not trust a President to be Honest why would you even tolerate him?

 

[Hypoxia]

Bernie was not a Democrat. Had he won the Dem nomination and the presidency, as Tromp overthrew the GOP, he'd now be in a Trompian position: no legislative allies, no coherent executive team, hostile media, little popular support, and probable violence. Tromp and Bernie both positioned themselves as Not The Establishment but alas, the Establishment functions politically and outsiders don't.

Can and will the (D) party restructure itself to be less corporate and more populist, more Sanderish? Don't bet on it. Can the most powerful nation in Earth's history survive political restructuring? Oh fuck I hope so.

 

[jaF0]

Something for y'all to chaw on ...

Did the Cocker Spaniel Schultz cause the Monstrosity? Had she not perverted the Primary process, would thew Good Ole Fools Party have chosen someone less extreme? Were they so outraged at Clit'n that they decided to screw the country as bad as possible?

 

[dan_c00000]

Calling them racists because they

are racists. Come on even you know that. They want a "more secure border" not because the immigration system needs an overhaul because they're afraid of brown people.

 

[DrDelirium]

are racists. Come on even you know that. They want a "more secure border" not because the immigration system needs an overhaul because they're afraid of brown people.

I suppose that depends on who 'they' are. There are certainly racists on the right, and there are racists on the left, as well. There are many blacks, Americans of Mexican and other non-USA American descent, and legal immigrants of all colors that want tighter border security because they understand that illegal immigration undermines their ability to make a living. It busts unions, it drives down wages, and it creates a host of problems for people who are here legally, one way or another, and aren't white. The idea that only redneck KKKers are against illegal immigration is a racist meme in itself.

I would suggest that no matter what the motives of some of Trump's supporters may be, the immigration system needs massive reform, as do the international trade system and the laws on offshoring profits and production. You sound like someone who doesn't want the fire department to put out the blaze in their house because one of the firefighters is an asshole. Maybe if we solve some of the very real problems the assholes are up in arms about, we'll discover that not that many of them were assholes to begin with.
It's clear enough who benefits from illegal immigration, offshoring of jobs and sovereignty-busting trade agreements, and it's the people that Berners claim to oppose. But it's much easier to rail about other people's racism than it is take on your own employers.

 

[JackLuis]

Bernie Sanders the most popular politician in the US according to new poll

Senator Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America, according to a new Harvard-Harris poll. In fact, the Vermont senator and former presidential candidate is the only politician in the U.S. a majority of voters like.

The poll, which drew responses from 2,263 voters across the political spectrum August 17-22, found 54 percent have a favorable view of Sanders, while 36 percent view him unfavorably.

Is it fair to blame Sanders for the end result of the election? There is evidence, at least, that a significant portion of Sanders' supporters played a big role in Clinton's loss.

According to an analysis of voter data by the blog Political Wire, less than 80 percent of those who voted for Sanders in the primaries voted for Clinton in the general election.

Meanwhile, 12 percent of those who supported Sanders ended up voting for Trump in the end.

In short, it could be argued Sanders voters helped swing the election to Trump.

It could also be argued that those 12% wouldn't have voted for Hillary if she handed out $1,000 bills!

 

[ishtat]

Jack. Get yourself a copy of "Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream" by Doris Kearns Goodwin - Americas finest political biographer.

You will learn something about a politician who though obnoxious in most every respect, actually got things done.

A Johnson is a much better bet than a Disney Princess like Sanders or Carter who just wring their hands at the wickedness of the world.

 

[JackLuis]

Jack. Get yourself a copy of "Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream" by Doris Kearns Goodwin - Americas finest political biographer.

You will learn something about a politician who though obnoxious in most every respect, actually got things done.

A Johnson is a much better bet than a Disney Princess like Sanders or Carter who just wring their hands at the wickedness of the world.

I agree that LBJ could get stuff done but he also was captured by the anti-Communists who couldn't allow the Viet Namese to choose their own course. LBJ might have been our most effective President, certainly a better leader than any of the last 50 years.

I'm perhaps biased a bit, as he sent me and my generation off to fight for the enrichment of KBR- ne Halliberton.

 

[sr71plt]

And yet you can't "get it" when I post being in favor of backing someone who, although no homecoming queen, can get something progressive done (or at least hold onto what has been accomplished) as opposed to someone with nice ideas and no history--or prospects--of doing anything and all pie-in-the-sky talk. I've even used the example of LBJ several times. Your naivete and stubbornness on this issue have been quite irritating. You otherwise seem to have common sense.

 

[DrDelirium]

LBJ got a lot of things done- or did he? Vietnam was a massive failure on every level. Civil Rights? Well, something got done, but the situation we have now is a consequence of what got done. One might argue about what different people's intentions were, and how much of our on-going struggle with racism was a design rather than a bug, but certain aspect were predictable- combining affirmative action hiring preferences while wages and job creation stagnate was bound to fuel racism- and the supply-and-demand math suggests strongly that when you markedly increase the labor pool while per capital productivity increases, there will be at best wage stagnation, so this was a predictable consequence of putting non-whites and women into the same labor pool as traditional white working men. The post-war arc of real wage growth was undercut by inflation, stag-flation, etc, as a direct result of the combined policies of war and 'civil rights,' with an increasingly permissive tax environment for corporations. LBJ didn't do all of this and he didn't do any of it by himself, but he definitely helped set the stage for Nixon/Reagan union-busting.
He did it cleverly by getting people to focus on individual morally-righteous pieces of legislation whose details, in the larger context, contributed to results opposite of what was nominally desired. It really doesn't matter if it was deliberate or just short-sighted, we still have to deal with the legacy of it.

 

[ishtat]

LBJ got a lot of things done- or did he? Vietnam was a massive failure on every level. Civil Rights? Well, something got done, but the situation we have now is a consequence of what got done. One might argue about what different people's intentions were, and how much of our on-going struggle with racism was a design rather than a bug, but certain aspect were predictable- combining affirmative action hiring preferences while wages and job creation stagnate was bound to fuel racism- and the supply-and-demand math suggests strongly that when you markedly increase the labor pool while per capital productivity increases, there will be at best wage stagnation, so this was a predictable consequence of putting non-whites and women into the same labor pool as traditional white working men. The post-war arc of real wage growth was undercut by inflation, stag-flation, etc, as a direct result of the combined policies of war and 'civil rights,' with an increasingly permissive tax environment for corporations. LBJ didn't do all of this and he didn't do any of it by himself, but he definitely helped set the stage for Nixon/Reagan union-busting.
He did it cleverly by getting people to focus on individual morally-righteous pieces of legislation whose details, in the larger context, contributed to results opposite of what was nominally desired. It really doesn't matter if it was deliberate or just short-sighted, we still have to deal with the legacy of it.

Probably good stuff Doc but missing the basic point: the basic point being that some - a very few pollies have the ability to get things done. I'm not debating whether those things were good or bad. I'm just saying that Sanders and his ilk are all talk and no action.

 

[DrDelirium]

Probably good stuff Doc but missing the basic point: the basic point being that some - a very few pollies have the ability to get things done. I'm not debating whether those things were good or bad. I'm just saying that Sanders and his ilk are all talk and no action.

I don't dispute that. I guess the question is whether you want your government to fail at doing good things or succeed at doing bad things.

 

[sr71plt]

It's not a question of fully good and bad. Other than the war, which LBJ inherited and that much venerated JFK was screwing too, LBJ's legislation was pretty good for civil rights and progressive needs at the time. So, better than zero results.

 

[dan_c00000]

There are certainly racists on the right

Yup. Go and read a few of the books I suggested. You might get a much clearer picture as to why Trump won.

Civil rights had nothing to do with inflation or stagflation. Vietnam did play a huge role in helping to destroy the U.S. economy but fools like Reagan did just as much.

 

[JackLuis]

And yet you can't "get it" when I post being in favor of backing someone who, although no homecoming queen, can get something progressive done (or at least hold onto what has been accomplished) as opposed to someone with nice ideas and no history--or prospects--of doing anything and all pie-in-the-sky talk. I've even used the example of LBJ several times. Your naivete and stubbornness on this issue have been quite irritating. You otherwise seem to have common sense.

Oh, I understand what you are talking about, but I don't believe that blaming Bernie for Hillary's defeat has any merit. The three key states she lost were states she did not campaign in, to any extent. She, and the DNC, thought they were solid Blue and ignored them.

As for Pie in the Sky, her concentration on "I'm not Trump" rather than her platform played right into his hands.

However as I said, the 12% that voted for Bernie but not for Hillary in the general were never going to vote for her. The DNC lost the election thru hubris. Your stubbornness to not accept that fact is irritating.

 

[muycurioso]

yep, the DNC screwed over Bernie and.....

Bernie Sanders voters helped Trump become President





How different the election would have been if the DNC hadn't fucked over Bernie? Bernie had a much better chance of beating Trump by more than Princess Hillary and in the three states that pushed Trump over the top, more people defected from Bernie to Trump than the margin of victory!

How many other Democrats would have won if the DNC hadn't pissed off so many voters? Perhaps the Senate would have a Democratic majority?

what did the left do about it? NOTHING!!!!

 

[Hypoxia]

what did the left do about it? NOTHING!!!!

* Bernie was never a Democrat.
* The Democratic Party hosts centrists, not leftists.
* Dum and Gup parties are private Delaware corporations ruled by Delaware commercial laws, which apparently don't sanction the partys' internal affairs.

Dums legitimately denied Bernie's nomination. Gups could have denied Tromp's nomination but they're too chickenshit. Gups got what they deserve but the rest of us don't.

 

[muycurioso]

dems are cowards

Bernie Sanders voters helped Trump become President





How different the election would have been if the DNC hadn't fucked over Bernie? Bernie had a much better chance of beating Trump by more than Princess Hillary and in the three states that pushed Trump over the top, more people defected from Bernie to Trump than the margin of victory!

How many other Democrats would have won if the DNC hadn't pissed off so many voters? Perhaps the Senate would have a Democratic majority?

Bottom line. America picked the guy that everyone said couldnt win. The outsider. Democrats were afraid to pick a real progressive. They wanted RUSSIA Uranium One, war mongering, Wall St loving, Pro TPP (like Obama), yes on war with Iraq, last to support gay marriage, and bossy Hillary.

Also in CA the DNC chair is a big pharma lobbyist. That person also cheated to win via the CA DNC

 

[JackLuis]

‘A collective groan’: Democrats dread Clinton’s book tour and another round of the 2016 ‘blame game’

Many Democrats are dreading Hillary Clinton’s book tour and the re-litigation of her 2016 loss that will ensue, calling it “the final torture” — a reminder of a year most of them would rather forget.

Politico reported on Thursday morning that “Democratic operatives can’t stand the thought of her picking the scabs of 2016, again” and political reporters are loath to return to the topic of a campaign that seemed endless and soul-crushing the first time around.

“Alums of her Brooklyn headquarters who were miserable even when they thought she was winning tend to greet the topic with, ‘Oh, God,’ ‘I can’t handle it,’ and ‘the final torture,’” wrote Politico’s Edward-Isaac Dovere and Gabriel Debenedetti.

Clinton will appear on “CBS Sunday Morning” on Sunday to promote her campaign memoir What Happened. Barnes and Noble is helping plan a major rollout and book tour. Politico, however, was hard pressed to find anyone outside of the former Secretary of State’s inner circle who seems genuinely excited about the book.

“Maybe at the worst possible time, as we are fighting some of the most high-stakes policy and institutional battles we may ever see, at a time when we’re trying to bring the party together so we can all move the party forward — stronger, stronger together,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA). “She’s got every right to tell her story. Who am I to say she shouldn’t, or how she should tell it? But it is difficult for some of us, even like myself who’ve supported her, to play out all these media cycles about the blame game, and the excuses.”

The Democrats should just acknowledge that they are not FDR Democrats any longer and change their name to the Neo-Liberal Party of Reagan, NLPR.

 

[Hypoxia]

Bottom line. America picked the guy that everyone said couldnt win.

America did not pick Tromp. Ten million more people voted against Tromp than for him. Hillary got three million more votes than Tromp, who won in the electoral college with a few tens of thousands of popular votes in three counties. Without popular support a Prex can't accomplish much. Can you say "dysfunctional system" ??

 

[jaF0]

I don't blame Bernie or the Bernie-ettes.


I blame Washerwoman-Schwantz who perverted the primary process to stick thumbs in the eyes of the voters. And the likes of Belosi and Firewhine who tried to shame everyone into not voting against a woman, any woman, even the most horrible of all possible women (IF that Clit'n thing really IS a woman).

 

[sr71plt]

Once again, Bernie wasn't a Democrat and isn't a Democrat. The original "stick it in the eye" was performed by Bernie and his fans who tried to steal a party they'd never done a damn thing for.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Since you continue to say that the DNC fucked over Bernie, I'll continue to point out that Bernie wasn't (and isn't) a member of the Democratic Party and never did anything for another Democrat in the way of elections (other than supporting Hillary Clinton during the subsequent campaign after he didn't get the nomination)--and that a preponderance of his backers weren't Democrats either--or doing anything to back Democrats in the election--and, as the article you quote from, didn't stay around to support the Democratic Party for ten minutes after Bernie didn't get the nomination. The DNC party staffers who worked against Bernie inside the primaries, were working for the Democratic Party--which is more than he or most of his supporters were doing for any Democrat.

And, no, I don't think he would have done a damn bit better--even though the DNC wouldn't have deserted him if he got the nomination as some of his supporters deserted the DNC when he didn't get the nomination.

The Republican/Trump knives would have just come out full force for a 74-year-old, far-left Jew (most harmful because he doesn't support Israel), who had no record of accomplishing anything for all the time he already had been in the Senate. His main activity was Veterans Affairs, which was a goldmine for criticism in lack of support and health care for veterans for decades.

The "Bernie could do it" cheerleaders are just naive--he's been all mouth and no delivery with proposals that are two far left for the American public without moving toward them progressively in smaller steps.

Agreeing with what he'd like to do is neither here nor there in getting any of it done. In getting it done, he's a dud. He and his supporters should have worked to get Congress under Democratic control if they were at all serious about him doing anything he wanted even if he became president. There's no way in hell the Republicans were going to give him anything, and he's shown no ability to winning votes for anything but the names of post office buildings in his own state.

I have nothing against Bernie and I like most of his ideas. But if I'd been a DNC staffer under the circumstances given, I'd go with the candidate who had earned the support of the party and who, if the swiftboating could be stripped away--some of it by Bernie supporters--was the most prepared person for the office since, probably, before her husband. (And I don't particularly like Hillary Clinton as a person. We wouldn't be in the chaos we now are in if she were president now, though, and I don't have the least bit of a doubt that that is true).

I'm not interested in getting involved in this debate but I will say that if the DNC wasn't going to support Bernie as they should with every candidate running for the nomination of the party in a free election process, they should have refused to accept him as a candidate. I contributed to Bernie's campaign and feel like I got ripped off by the DNC. However, I understood the disaster that donald dickhead would be and supported the only true opposition to him and I never looked back.