freeman3 wrote:Yeah, the Democratic Establishment is desperate to stop the Bernie train so I think we can presume that there was pressure brought to bear. There really was no reason for Steyer, Buttigieg or Klobuchar to get out before Super Tuesday. I am changing my vote from Warren to Bernie because it really annoys me how the Democratic Party...is so dang undemocratic! Biden wins one state--a state whose demographics are atypical--and all the moderates get out? Ridiculous.

This is completely messed up, right? There are truly stupid people running the Democratic party.

It sounds like the beginning of a new convert to the "Dark Side"

bbauska wrote:It sounds like the beginning of a new convert to the "Dark Side"

Stupid is better than evil.

But neither is any good.

I understand the desperation to beat Trump. He is a plague on America, the damage that he has done to our democracy. But this is the second time the DNC (or the big shots, donors, etc that have influence in the Democratic Party) have basically tried to stack the deck against Sanders and his supporters. And that just alienates those voters when they think their candidate is not getting a fair shot. And I think a lot of those voters (from 18-44) will just say the heck with it and not vote in the general election if Biden is the nominee because of it.

Personally, I am kind of disgusted with my party on the national level right now. I don't think there is a home for progressives/liberals. The party establishment sabotaged Howard Dean in 2004, Sanders in 2016 and again in 2020. Heck, they tried to tried to stack the deck in favor of Hillary against Obama in 2008 but he was too popular (and, more importantly, not very liberal).

Do you see Dems holding back and not voting? That is what I am seeing in the NW.

freeman3 wrote:Personally, I am kind of disgusted with my party … sabotaged ...stack the deck .

Although I appreciate the frustration (I was all ready to vote for Amy on Tuesday, and then voted for Mike instead), I don't think your characterization of this as undemocratic, etc. is correct.

Party politics isn't just about 20 individuals competing to be the party nominee; party politics is also about a democratic tussle to see which policies of the party prevails. (Perhaps the Republicans should have done this in 2016.) Moderate democrats are scared about what Bernie can mean for the party, both as it relates to the presidency and down ballot. We also disagree with many of his policies.

Perhaps Amy and Pete were offered something in a Biden administration. Perhaps they are more comfortable with his policies. What's wrong with moderates coalescing to make sure they secure one of their own for the nomination? Why should moderates split their vote amongst 5 candidates who lose against 1 progressive? This is what happens in parliamentary systems in Europe.

I'm not saying that Biden is a great choice. I think he is aging and never was particularly clever to begin with. I could see why many will not be enthusiastic about his candidacy and the move may actually backfire. (Biden will look feeble next to Trump.) But I wouldn't characterize the Democratic Party as unethical or unfair in how this came about. It's a chess game. Maybe they made a good move; maybe a bad move; but not an unethical move, unless one is naïve about what politics is really about.

When politics becomes heads I win tails you lose why should progressives continue to play? I have no problem if the moderates got together and said Sanders is going to win if we all stay in let's rally around Biden. But when this is done top down from party leadership or the powers that be in the Democratic Party then it actually leads to someone like Trump getting elected because people get so sick of the party leadership controlling things. I have no actual proof that was went on here, but it certainly looks that is what happened. And past elections indicate that is what happened. That's not essentially any different than decisions that used to be made in smoky back rooms

Biden is a very weak candidate. He offers nothing to get anyone excited at all. Primaries are supposed to weed out bad candidates. He was being weeded out! And now he is going to be the choice because party leadership doesnt want Sanders because donors are pressuring them? It's not going to work. He was kind of hidden when they are so many candidate but when it's down to two candidates and the spotlight is on him he is going to look really bad. But he'll probably still win over Sanders because everything is stacked against Sanders and he will lose to Trump. Because he is a really bad candidate. The bankruptcy bill, the Ukraine stuff. His response so far has been how dare you ask but there was an apparent conflict of interest when he is trying to oust a prosecutor investigating a company where is son is getting a check for doing nothing--probably because that company wanted some kind of tacit influence in US policy--and he should have recused himself even if he was acting for reasons unrelated to his son (and I assume he was). That is why you recuse yourself when there is an apparent conflict of interest because we cant read minds as to why you're doing it. He has yet to face the music on that. His behavior during the Anita Hill hearings, his gaffes, voting for the Iraq War, serving corporate interests at the expense of consumers. I guess we'll hold our nose and vote for him but my God. This is the best America can do?

Freeman:

I have no actual proof that was went on here

It sounds like you are angry at and believe in a conspiracy with no evidence. Maybe you are right, but perhaps wait for and/or provide the evidence?

P.S. Yes, politicians are often corrupt, even the ones who claim to be the good guys.

Honestly, I hadn't even looked it was so obvious. There is no conspiracy theory here...just a conspiracy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... y.amp.html

freeman3 wrote:Honestly, I hadn't even looked it was so obvious. There is no conspiracy theory here...just a conspiracy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... y.amp.html

I see your point :)

But isn't pushing your agenda the very essence of politics? It's a legal conspiracy by central Democrats to prevent progressive Democrats from taking over the party. Isn't that what politics is all about? You have a view, and you use the tools at your disposal to push it. There hasn't been illegal activity, right?

The funny part of this conversation is that I've been way cynical of the Democratic Party for years and deregistered with them about 10 years ago when it slowly hit me that all the talk of caring about people was about obtaining power and influence, and not actually helping people.

That's interesting. I didnt realize you were a Democrat at one time. And I think your statement is accurate and why people get so cynical about it all. From my perspective, the Democratic Party abandoned working people on the national level after Clinton came to power. Clinton advocated moving to the center and if I recall correctly that was a movement within the party. So the party has become a centrist party, with the exception of being liberal on social issues. And so they are able to raise lots of money from Wall Street and corporate interests. The party does not want to rock the boat with demands on economic issues that would upset their corporate/wealthy donors. At best, incremental/modest changes in economic policy are allowed.

So people in positions of power/influence in the Democratic Party are largely that have those moderate views...because if they didnt they wouldnt be in positions of power within the Democratic Party.

So progressives are on the outside looking in and dont have a fair shot at getting the nomination. So, yeah, I expect that moderates will try to manipulate things to make sure a moderate gets elected, but then why should progressives be part of a party they are excluded from? The party leadership assumes we'll go along with it because we have no place to go, but maybe we'll just say forget it.

The Democratic Party at the state level in California is different. It's progressive. But nationally...forgot those guys.

That all makes sense. (I was an anarchist when I was 19 and have been moving an average of 2% to the right every year since.)

Here's another angle: at some point you realize that by its very nature (fractious, inefficient, bureaucratic, unengaged), the government does things so poorly and can only do so much, that the best response is to encourage people to solve their own problems.

So, I do believe in some government activity (some regulation, some compassion), but you have to recognize that given its inherent inability to solve everyone's problems, or really anyone's problems, we are better off with a society that tells people they can actually solve their own problems by focusing less on government solutions and more on personal solutions.

Well, that's the crux of the matter, isnt it? This idea that government is the problem and if we just give people freedom with as little regulation as possible that they will create this economic prosperity. The problem is that idea underestimates human greed, the desire to manipulate things to take as much of the pie as possible while doing as little as possible. And since Citizen's United there has even more control of the political system by those with almost unlimited economic resources (created by the existing unfair system) .When labor is just a cost to be avoided you wind up with much of societal wealth going to a few people, some more worthy of it than others (but no one deserves a billion dollars for a couple of thousand hours of work--that's getting paid $500,000 dollars an hour).

We have a much higher GDP than we did 40 years ago, but I am not sure that most people's lives have improved. Most people are barely getting by; many people still do not have health insurance. Sick time at work is a luxury; vacations for many workers are minimal. Pensions are a memory and 401(k) plans for most do not make up for them. There is no private sector solution to solve these issues.

I just believe that work is fundamental. Your contribution to society entitles you to make a withdrawal of societal resources. How do you value work? I don't know how do you that except through markets. But government certainly can intervene at the margins. We don't need to promote billionaires making huge amounts of money for little work and paying a low percentage of taxes. People that follow the rules and work 2,000 hours a year should be able to support themselves, have adequate food, shelter and access to health insurance. (And if a company's business model requires paying workers less than liveable wages, then that business model needs to go in the trash can and another company will take their place.) Have adequate vacation time and an ability to save for retirement. A lot of these things were actually obtained by unions during their heyday but that time is past. It is up government at this point or it simply will not happen

And I do not believe that our economic policies are unrelated to the rise of Trump. He is pure greed. He doesn't care anything else but winning and amassing more money. He has no loyalty to country; he doesnt care about other people. It's not Mr. Smith goes fo Washington; it's Gordon Gekko.

The frustration I feel is that the corporate interests and Wall Street who of course support the prevailing economic ideology have so corrupted the Democratic Party with their money that on a national level the party will not tolerate anyone who wants to change the existing system, which is unfair to so many people. And they are supposedly the party that represents ordinary people. And even when a progressive like Sanders would win the nomination if it were fair, the powers that be in the Democratic Party will not let it happen.

With an existential threat like Trump I am not going to pout about it. I'll vote for any Democrat with a pulse. But I am not happy about the freezing out of progressives. I just wish we had someone with tremendous charisma like a JFK to carry the banner. But Sanders will do if he is given a shot.

Thanks; I think that is very compelling.

In the last 40 years our public sector has gotten much more active. There are more government regulations and more government spending. There are more housing programs and more farm programs. There are tons of rules on labor and public safety. You would not believe how many regulations there are for our economy. (Well, perhaps since you are a lawyer you would.)

Is it just a matter of changing the Democratic Party or is there something more fundamental at work here? (This is my real question … not meant to be rhetorical.)

BTW, one of the ironies of your post is that median wages have made decent progress under Trump. Low unemployment and immigration restriction has created upward forces for low wage earners. I cannot stand Trump but his policies have helped low wage earners as far as I can tell.