What a sad state of affairs.. So many people were counting on being able to vote for Bernie Sanders in the general election in 2016. They counted on Sanders being able to win the Democratic nomination. They pointed to the way Obama won out over Clinton the first time. They want to "be on the winning team".
What they did not realize, and would not hear,was that they would NEVER be able to vote for Bernie Sanders in the general election 2016. Why? Because the Democratic party would NEVER let someone who is as honest as Sanders be their nominee. They would NEVER let someone who has a voting record of supporting the 99% over the 1% be their nominee.
It's not that Democratic voters would not get behind Senator Sanders, it's that the Democratic Party, itself, controls who runs in and is successful in their party. They make the rules, and whomever runs under their banner is subject to those rules. Did you know that the party can use Superdelegates to make sure the person they want to win, does win...no matter what the vote really is?
Did you know they can actually throw out the entire vote, if they don't like the results in states that have an open primary? They can do both things, and they're both perfectly legal.
That's one of the reasons it was very difficult to believe the Senator would win the Democratic primary. The party has complete control over the procedure.
In 2008, Dennis Kucinich was excluded from the Democratic primary debate in a sudden change of rules for inclusion. This is possible because the Presidential Debate commission is a private corporation run and administered by the Democratic and GOP parties. They can make whatever rules they wish, or even change them at will
“In a statement included in the Kucinich release, the Register said it "was our determination that a person working out of his home did not meet our criteria for a campaign office and full-time paid staff in Iowa." The person they are referring to is Kucinich Iowa Field Director and State Coordinator Marcos Rubinstein, "who coordinates campaign activities from his home office in Dubuque, bolstered by a dozen-or-so other senior campaign staff who have traveled the state over the past several months," according to the Kucinich campaign.”
“In the latest Register poll of likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa, Kucinich came in at 1 percent support, the same as Chris Dodd. In the most recent CBS News/New York Times poll of Democrats nationally, Kucinich had 2 percent support – more than Dodd and the same as Bill Richardson and Joe Biden. Dodd, Richardson and Biden were all invited to Thursday's debate.”
Why do you suppose it is that it was the “progressive” candidate that was excluded, while those with less support were not? There is a big clue in the fact that corporations own both the media and the Democratic Party (the GOP, as well)...and that Kucinich was one of their vocal critics.
In the 2004 primary season, Howard Dean was the frontrunner in the party. He was the person who innovated internet fundraising, and did quite well at it. Dean, however, was considered by his own party as “too liberal”. He criticized the Iraq war that the party, itself, was solidly for, in spite of the views of the Democratic electorate. As a result, the Democrats funded a campaign to get his popularity down, as he did not advocate the policies favored by the leadership (and their financiers). They actually spent party money to defeat one of their own.
It is clear that the party itself decides who will win and who will not, no matter what the rank and file voters want. It is well known that Senator Sanders opposes many of the positions of the Democratic leadership, and it’s extremely doubtful that if they would sink one of their own (Howard Dean) for daring to oppose them, that they would allow someone FAR to the left of their positions, someone who would not even join their party, to become their candidate. Senator Sanders had a proven record of integrity. He seemingly fought for what he believed without the constraint of corporate funding to influence his words or actions. The Democrats (the politicians, not the voters) began lining up behind Clinton, and had already endorsed her. Those endorsers include the “progressive” Howard Dean, John Kerry, Sen. Chuck Schumer, former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Gen. Wesley Clark, Sen. Tim Kaine, and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) well as Democratic rising star Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) Every single female Democratic senator (including supposed “hero” of the everyman, Warren) signed and sent a letter to Clinton urging her to run.
She was their presumptive nominee, and was gaining more endorsements every day. They had decided to allow Senator Sanders to participate in THEIR primary, and it was for one purpose and one purpose only...to keep progressives who are disenchanted with their party from flocking to a third party to get REAL change. He would never be allowed to become their nominee and therefore on the general ballot in November. He seemingly could be bought, and that is unacceptable to the party and its financiers. The Democrats are a corporate backed and run party. They work for the good of their financiers. It's well known, and often brought up, that the GOP work for their financiers, corporations. The Democrats are financed by corporations, as well, and it is unrealistic to think that where the GOP supports their donors, the Democrats do not. Democrats have had fund raising parity with the GOP since Clinton. Senator Sanders promised he would not do what the other Democrats had done..support their financiers to the detriment of the people they supposedly represent. As a result, he would serve the purpose of steering progressives back into the party. And any perceived movement of Hillary to the left would disappear, had she been elected, and we would get exactly what we got with Obama...broken promises.
Sanders supporters seem to come in two flavors. Some think he can actually win the Democratic primary. They base this assumption not on facts or history, but on wishful thinking. They counter facts with enthusiastic bromides, as if the latter carries as much weight as the former. They would meet your “superdelegate system” with “we can do it!” Some readily admit he has no chance of winning the Democratic primary, but think he would spur the conversation toward progressive ideas, spreading knowledge to the American people, and moving Clinton “to the left”.
This is a little misleading. Has the conversation really changed? Yes, if what you mean by "change" is to start incorporating what the electorate has been thinking, and demanding, forever into the conversation in Washington. This does not actually "change" the conversation amongst the electorate, excepting the idea that now, a "self described socialist" is acceptable to the Democratic party. Nor does it change the actual conversation between the politicians and parties. This happens every election season. The parties actually know that their rank and file voters are extremely unhappy with their elected officials playing ball with Wall Street, instead of working for what they know the people they ostensibly serve want. What they neglect to consider is that any debate between Clinton and Sanders would only be for the primary, for consumption by their base, NOT the general election. That conversation would be over as soon as the primary season was over, having been heard by only those people who participated in the Democratic primary election, which is exactly the point. The people who would be participating in the Democratic primary already hold most of these progressive views. This is not "debate". This is rhetoric with a specific goal in mind. That goal is to make the Democratic base feel they are FINALLY being listened to. And every time, it works like a charm. THIS time would be different. THIS candidate can make the Democrats "go back to their liberal roots". No need to look outside this party we know is corrupt. We'll just trust them, who have betrayed us at every turn, to let someone come in and put a stop to their drunken orgy. How does that make sense to anyone? Keep in mind that although Senator Sanders had a plan of which you approve, the Democratic party had its own plan, and supporting Senator Sanders was not their first concern. The DNC is in the business of electing Democrats to further the agenda of their donors, not in helping the people get what they want and deserve or being "fair". If that were the case, states where Democrats are in control would have much easier ballot access and election laws. In case you don't know, they don't.
There are two cliches that apply here:
Once burnt, twice shy
and
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. (Yes, unlike W, I really do know the saying and what it means!)
Neither of these are being heeded. How many times have we been burned? How many times have we been fooled? And we are not ready to see the light, yet? We are still blaming those who aren't fooled? Cliches are cliches for a reason. They are true and you ignore these two closely related ones to your, and our, detriment. To paraphrase a very famous man, "learn from history or repeat it". Your choice.
People who are celebrating the supposed "new found progressive dialogue" also fail to realize that although the candidate chosen by the party may begin to speak more as a progressive, that candidate would move to the center in the general election, as all major party presidential candidates have, in order to appeal to swing voters. If you are happy with a temporary airing of your concerns, then by all means support whichever third party candidate is vying for the Democratic nomination. And truthfully, if that is your major concern, you may as well support the mainstream candidate, as they are speaking the same way and are in a much better position to "win", as they would be on the November ballot. But if you want real change, not just lip service, you cannot support either of these candidates. Both of them have horrid foreign policies (in practice, if not in rhetoric) that promote continued US imperialism, and therefore the continuation, and worsening, of our global line up of hostilities. But, the main thing for supporters of supposed independent candidates running in the Democratic to realize is this: even if all you say about the your preferred candidate is true, even if he is as honest as the day is long, even if he is "in it to win it", even if he gets scads of rank and file voters he would STILL not be on the ballot for the general election. And all the time, all the resources that could have been used to build truly independent movements and parties would all have been wasted, although with the best of intentions, on a campaign that will go nowhere and gains progressives nothing. That, I'm afraid, is the point. Your concerns are valid, your enthusiasm is unbridled and your discontent with the corporate Democratic party is well deserved. Why would you trust this corruption that drove you to the “independent” candidate in the first place, to bring about their own demise? Does that actually sound plausible, to you? If not, why do you suppose it is that in the 2016 race,the Senator was allowed to run in the party whose core policies he regularly and vociferously condemned, even as he refused to condemn even one Democrat for their complicity in getting us where we are today? How do you think someone becomes a Democratic candidate? You think they wake up one day and say, "I think I'll run as a Democrat", and they just let you? Especially for the office of president? No. The Democratic party has the say in who would run in and who would be successful in their own party, with whatever criteria or rules they like, just as they do in all other phases of party primary politics. In order to have a fair, fighting chance, Senator Sanders (and the voters) would have been much better served outside of a system where the party has complete control.
He did not just kind of slip in under their radar. They saw him coming a mile off, and when seen in the light of thousands, millions, leaving their corrupt party, thought he looked like a most excellent idea. Even better if he was sincere. As is always the Democratic party's way, dress it up in its Sunday go-to-meeting clothes, and what's underneath will slide right by the electorate as they gaze at its glory. They would likely never even realize when the switch was made. All they would know is that though he (and they) gave it their best, he didn't win and now they must protect the country by keeping it out of GOP hands. The same arguments made to support Senator Sanders, would be made to support Hillary. And if that's where your logic led you now, that is where that same logic based on those same arguments would lead you then. I've heard, more than once, "I'll never vote for Hillary no matter what!", but it's usually by the same ones who said, "I'll never vote for a Democrat again!", and are not only joining the party they don't trust, but encouraging others to, as well. Whether Democrats win or Republicans win, the American people lose, not to mention millions of people all over the world who find themselves considered "collateral damage" of our wars for oil. Why would you help either of them stay in power when you could help get them out of power? How can you possibly justify that to yourself? I, for one, would never again let them do what they do in my name. It's lazy, it's cowardly. You are complicit in what you allow. Want accountability? Maybe look in the mirror, gather your courage and say, “I refuse to comply!”, then DO.
Author’s notes:
*6 states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Florida, Minnesota and Nebraska) have non binding primaries or caucuses
*Since 1966, when more than 20 percent of the voting-age population voted in Democratic primaries, participation among Democratic primary voters has steadily declined. With the exception of a slight upward blip in 2002 (only one-third of a percentage point), a smaller and smaller percentage of the voting age population has voted in a Democratic primary each year
Comments