The Future of the Democratic Party

[Flex]

I think a formative mode of thought for me was part of a Noam Chomsky lecture, when asked about conspiracies, he said something along the lines of "the powerful don't need to obscure what they're doing, they can operate out in the open." To that end, with the Democratic Party, while I tend towards skepticism on elaborate plots of subterfuge to rig voting systems when gross incompetence would also fit as an explanation, this kind of stuff seems like very obvious fuckery to me: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/1 ... ket-110524

Have poltical operatives leak bullshit to access journalists stoking fears of red tides in potentially competitive parts of the country. See also Pelosi's recent comments about Sanders and Biden. For all the talk about how "Dems fall in love, Republicans fall in line" the Dem party, since McGovern, has been pretty solid on the "party decides" theory of things. Even Obama, who ostensibly bucked the trend by winning the day over Clinton, did a lot to strengthen the Dems powerful interest in the minds of the partisan Dem voter. He brought in all insiders and operatives and elevated their voices and interests at the expense of outsiders and insurgents. And Dem voters, who LOVE Obama, have a strong instinct to take their cues from Obama-approved leadership, almost all of whom loathe Sanders and any insurgent-adjacent wing of the party. So now the coordinated attacks on how it will ruin down ballot races and jeopardize the Dem majority to nominate him begin, and primary voting dems.- who love pelosi and think Chris Matthews isn't full of shit - will potentially listen. It's so obviously cynical and calculated, but historically it works. We'll see if it will yet again. For the first time in a long time, I'm optimistic that Dem leadership doesn't have stranglehold on the process it once did.

[deny]

Another question from pure ignorance please.
Where can I get impartial US political news without either a left/right wing bias?? From what I have seen & read so far the bias is unbelievable one way or the other.
Thank you.

Such a source does not exist. And I'd argue news with a left wing lean is pretty rare here in the US. Even the supposed left leaning MSNBC is filled mostly with reactionaries like Joy Ann Reid and Chris Matthews.

This is a recommendation that comes with a lot of caveats, but for the kind of reporting you're talking about you probably want the news sections of the Washington Post and the New York Times. Their writing still has bias (towards institutionalism more than anything else) and a lot of problems but they're probably the gold standard in this tallest midget competition.

Thank you Flex.

[Dr. Medulla]

I think a formative mode of thought for me was part of a Noam Chomsky lecture, when asked about conspiracies, he said something along the lines of "the powerful don't need to obscure what they're doing, they can operate out in the open." To that end, with the Democratic Party, while I tend towards skepticism on elaborate plots of subterfuge to rig voting systems when gross incompetence would also fit as an explanation, this kind of stuff seems like very obvious fuckery to me: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/1 ... ket-110524

Have poltical operatives leak bullshit to access journalists stoking fears of red tides in potentially competitive parts of the country. See also Pelosi's recent comments about Sanders and Biden. For all the talk about how "Dems fall in love, Republicans fall in line" the Dem party, since McGovern, has been pretty solid on the "party decides" theory of things. Even Obama, who ostensibly bucked the trend by winning the day over Clinton, did a lot to strengthen the Dems powerful interest in the minds of the partisan Dem voter. He brought in all insiders and operatives and elevated their voices and interests at the expense of outsiders and insurgents. And Dem voters, who LOVE Obama, have a strong instinct to take their cues from Obama-approved leadership, almost all of whom loathe Sanders and any insurgent-adjacent wing of the party. So now the coordinated attacks on how it will ruin down ballot races and jeopardize the Dem majority to nominate him begin, and primary voting dems.- who love pelosi and think Chris Matthews isn't full of shit - will potentially listen. It's so obviously cynical and calculated, but historically it works. We'll see if it will yet again. For the first time in a long time, I'm optimistic that Dem leadership doesn't have stranglehold on the process it once did.

It's very amusing see orthodox liberals—media and DNC types—behave the same way the GOP insiders did with Trump four years ago. Deny that Sanders has sufficient appeal, that he'll split the party, that they know what voters really want (despite what voters are saying), that the experts understand this better than the outsiders. You can understand how Trump caught the GOP offguard because of how unconventional he was, and it was easy to believe he'd fail, but when it happens again four years later, what are liberals' excuses for running out the same shit that didn't work to stop Trump?

[Flex]

It's very amusing see orthodox liberals—media and DNC types—behave the same way the GOP insiders did with Trump four years ago. Deny that Sanders has sufficient appeal, that he'll split the party, that they know what voters really want (despite what voters are saying), that the experts understand this better than the outsiders. You can understand how Trump caught the GOP offguard because of how unconventional he was, and it was easy to believe he'd fail, but when it happens again four years later, what are liberals' excuses for running out the same shit that didn't work to stop Trump?

It annoys me that these people are so stupid and unimaginative but have so much wealth and power.

[Dr. Medulla]

It's very amusing see orthodox liberals—media and DNC types—behave the same way the GOP insiders did with Trump four years ago. Deny that Sanders has sufficient appeal, that he'll split the party, that they know what voters really want (despite what voters are saying), that the experts understand this better than the outsiders. You can understand how Trump caught the GOP offguard because of how unconventional he was, and it was easy to believe he'd fail, but when it happens again four years later, what are liberals' excuses for running out the same shit that didn't work to stop Trump?

It annoys me that these people are so stupid and unimaginative but have so much wealth and power.

It's suggestive that, contrary to the myth that it's the people who break from conventional thinking that get rich and powerful—the talented individual who rises above the mooing herd—it's those who can properly network within a certain part of the herd and protect its interests that prosper. Sure, there are always oddities who seem to support the the theory of the individual, but it's really the exception that proves the rule. Learn whose ass to kiss, kid, and demonstrate your loyalty and you'll get your turn. You ain't an individual, but you could be a well-compensated drone.

[Dr. Medulla]

It's always a pleasure reading or listening to Ralph Nader. It's remarkable his longevity as a thorn in the side of the monsters.
https://theintercept.com/2020/02/16/ral ... democrats/

[FarawayTowns]

What do people think of these polls I saw today.. I find them hard to believe from across the pond. Is Bernie really likely to win the democratic nomination?

Poll (2/13-16): Sanders 31% Bloomberg 19% Biden 15% Warren 12% Klobuchar 9% Buttigieg 8% Steyer 2% Gabbard 0%

National USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll: Who do voters feel ''share their values":
Among Democrats: Sanders 64% Warren 55% Biden 53% Buttigieg 50% Bloomberg 46%
Among All Voters: Sanders 39% Warren 31% Trump 31% Buttigieg 30% Biden 30% Bloomberg 28%

[Kory]

What do people think of these polls I saw today.. I find them hard to believe from across the pond. Is Bernie really likely to win the democratic nomination?

Poll (2/13-16): Sanders 31% Bloomberg 19% Biden 15% Warren 12% Klobuchar 9% Buttigieg 8% Steyer 2% Gabbard 0%

National USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll: Who do voters feel ''share their values":
Among Democrats: Sanders 64% Warren 55% Biden 53% Buttigieg 50% Bloomberg 46%
Among All Voters: Sanders 39% Warren 31% Trump 31% Buttigieg 30% Biden 30% Bloomberg 28%

I would be VERY surprised if the DNC didn't find some way to keep him out of it. They'll throw him under the bus before the nomination, or kill him afterward.

[FarawayTowns]

What do people think of these polls I saw today.. I find them hard to believe from across the pond. Is Bernie really likely to win the democratic nomination?

Poll (2/13-16): Sanders 31% Bloomberg 19% Biden 15% Warren 12% Klobuchar 9% Buttigieg 8% Steyer 2% Gabbard 0%

National USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll: Who do voters feel ''share their values":
Among Democrats: Sanders 64% Warren 55% Biden 53% Buttigieg 50% Bloomberg 46%
Among All Voters: Sanders 39% Warren 31% Trump 31% Buttigieg 30% Biden 30% Bloomberg 28%

I would be VERY surprised if the DNC didn't find some way to keep him out of it. They'll throw him under the bus before the nomination, or kill him afterward.

Thanks that confirms my thoughts. I don't think it will be allowed to happen the establishment are too entrenched and powerful to dislodge. I read the following written by a Centrist British journalist that also reinforced my view.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... cas-corbyn

[WestwayKid]

What do people think of these polls I saw today.. I find them hard to believe from across the pond. Is Bernie really likely to win the democratic nomination?

Poll (2/13-16): Sanders 31% Bloomberg 19% Biden 15% Warren 12% Klobuchar 9% Buttigieg 8% Steyer 2% Gabbard 0%

National USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll: Who do voters feel ''share their values":
Among Democrats: Sanders 64% Warren 55% Biden 53% Buttigieg 50% Bloomberg 46%
Among All Voters: Sanders 39% Warren 31% Trump 31% Buttigieg 30% Biden 30% Bloomberg 28%

I would be VERY surprised if the DNC didn't find some way to keep him out of it. They'll throw him under the bus before the nomination, or kill him afterward.

Thanks that confirms my thoughts. I don't think it will be allowed to happen the establishment are too entrenched and powerful to dislodge. I read the following written by a Centrist British journalist that also reinforced my view.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... cas-corbyn

There is a long way to go. I think it's hard to say anything feels certain at this point.

[Kory]

What do people think of these polls I saw today.. I find them hard to believe from across the pond. Is Bernie really likely to win the democratic nomination?

Poll (2/13-16): Sanders 31% Bloomberg 19% Biden 15% Warren 12% Klobuchar 9% Buttigieg 8% Steyer 2% Gabbard 0%

National USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll: Who do voters feel ''share their values":
Among Democrats: Sanders 64% Warren 55% Biden 53% Buttigieg 50% Bloomberg 46%
Among All Voters: Sanders 39% Warren 31% Trump 31% Buttigieg 30% Biden 30% Bloomberg 28%

I would be VERY surprised if the DNC didn't find some way to keep him out of it. They'll throw him under the bus before the nomination, or kill him afterward.

Thanks that confirms my thoughts. I don't think it will be allowed to happen the establishment are too entrenched and powerful to dislodge. I read the following written by a Centrist British journalist that also reinforced my view.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... cas-corbyn

Flex and Doc know more about this than me, this is just my cynical outlook. I trust democrats less than republicans at this point.

[Silent Majority]

Freedland is a fucking idiot tbf.

[Flex]

I've been a little skeptical of deliberate, coordinated ratfucking in the caucuses (incompetence and pure grifting seem to address a lot of issues), but I think of the DNC wants to they'll just sabotage primary votes in other states. I'd be stunned if DNC operatives didn't "lose" a bunch of Sanders votes in NH for example. Unlike the caucus system, there's really no way to check this shit. If Sanders underperforms his polls consistently in the next few states, I'll take it as circumstantial proof the primary is rigged.

[Low Down Low]

One big difference seems to me is sanders is a lot harder to smear than corbyn, if it takes something more than just being labelled the big bad socislist. Is there long-standing mud that freedland like opponents can fling at him? Have yet to see anything substantial anyway so figures they are going after him on health grounds right now.

[Flex]

One big difference seems to me is sanders is a lot harder to smear than corbyn, if it takes something more than just being labelled the big bad socislist. Is there long-standing mud that freedland like opponents can fling at him? Have yet to see anything substantial anyway so figures they are going after him on health grounds right now.

He has a bunch of kinda goofy stuff recorded from an old public Access show he had in Vermont, but it's really esoteric. As far as I'm aware, no "death to America" type statements from that. I dunno, I always assume national politicians are evil creeps, so I'm sure there's some literal or metaphorical skeleton buried in his basement somewhere but as far as these senator types go, he seems pretty clean (partly a function of operating well to Corbyn's right as a politician for most of his career).