The DNC is the problem. Or is it?

[marc]

It is people with more loyalty to the status quo than to people who will seek positive change in the basis of the needs and desires of the constituency.

It is the appointment of establishment friendly campaign insiders to pivotal roles in both 2016 and 2020 elections and giving conflict-of-interest laden sweetheart deals on party appointments.

Exactly. And on these points here I would add the insider-only policies where if you want to run as a Democrat then you have to use the approved Democratic consultants, and can never challenge any sitting Democrat no matter how much they suck up to republicans. HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP WARNS IT WILL CUT OFF ANY FIRMS THAT CHALLENGE INCUMBENTS

 

[Jarhyn]

It is people with more loyalty to the status quo than to people who will seek positive change in the basis of the needs and desires of the constituency.

It is the appointment of establishment friendly campaign insiders to pivotal roles in both 2016 and 2020 elections and giving conflict-of-interest laden sweetheart deals on party appointments.

Exactly. And on these points here I would add the insider-only policies where if you want to run as a Democrat then you have to use the approved Democratic consultants, and can never challenge any sitting Democrat no matter how much they suck up to republicans. HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP WARNS IT WILL CUT OFF ANY FIRMS THAT CHALLENGE INCUMBENTS

Because nothing says "democracy" like fighting democratic activity. The DNC should gladly and happily encourage primary activity, because it fosters democratic decisions and support of the constituents. It's not representative government if you don't give real choices of who represents people.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

^ And this is why I call it the Democrat party instead of the Democratic party. It is not Democratic. It could be. It isn't and those currently at the helm of it don't want it to be. I recall there was a court challenge and a ruling that they don't have to be.

The concept of super delegates is proof of that as well. And no, it doesn't matter if these people have ever used their power to overrule the will of the majority. The mere fact that they can is enough. They cut back on the power of these people this time around, which shows that progress can be made.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

People respond to your complaints with facts about how the process works in America

No they don't. They respond by telling me I don't know how your system works, as if the DNC's corruption is somehow excused by this adhom allegation.

And no they don't show that they know how your system works and I do not. They merely state that, over and over, because I am a foreigner. There is no explanation of your system or fact revealed here about it that I don't already know. And certainly none that speaks against points or opinions I have given.

You and your fellow conservative Democrats merely disagree with my opinions and rush to my being a foreigner to try to show I am wrong. It is nothing but adhom. And I can only conclude it to be based on either conservatism or learned helplessness.

Moreover for the points and opinions I have expressed here, very little knowledge of your system is needed. You have elections. I encourage you to vote in progressive legislators and policies. That's it. And to this I am met with cries of how I must not understand your system. You have a first past the post system. You have Congress critters and senators who won't agree. You have conservative low information voters who keep them in power. A president can't by themselves make all the change you need. No shit Sherlock. None of that means you can't do as I have encouraged.

And yes, I am a foreigner. That means short of military invasion and "regime change" USA style, the most I can do is encourage you, and I am. The vote is yours. It's your fault as American citizens, not mine, that you have the policies in place that you do. And it's up to you to make the change.

 

[Toni]

We're not the ones ignoring evidence. You are. Clearly. By ignoring the fact that voters vote based on the information they get from the sources they have, and that corruption seen takes the form of manipulating who, what, when and where people can access information.

I didn't know that you and JP were partners?

Who is the problem in a car dealership, the person who buys the lemon or the dealer who sells it as a reliable car?

Caveat emptor? That's bullshit.

I'm not sure why you think that's a good metaphor but I'll play: The DNC would have been wrong to try to sell Sanders as a Democrat, just as an Audi dealership would be wrong to try to sell a VW Camper as its new mini-van.

It's not "some cabal". Bloomberg bought his way into an election, and (albeit rather foolishly) onto a debate stage. That was 100% the DNC.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you that Bloomberg bought his way onto the debate stage. In a very real sense, every single candidate running under the DNC umbrella has purchased their place on the Democratic primary ballot by coughing up donors money. Bloomberg is self-financed. Personally, I think both the DNC's pay to play and Bloomberg's abiloty to just pay out of his own pocket change are obscene.

Hillary Clinton bailed on debates, and the DNC denied access to the voter rolls for a primary candidate. Then when debates DID happen, they were scheduled to happen when nobody would be viewing them. That was also the DNC.

This is weird because I clearly remember watching some of the debates.

It is blocking debates on widely demanded topics because some candidates with establishment support are weak on them.

Is the DNC trying to control the narrative? Maybe it is. But sponsors of the debates are who actually run the debates. If they didn't play along, the DNC would have to change its demands.

It is giving over debate moderation to biased organizations, and setting up rules that don't actually foster debates (even if they do foster some delicious roastings at times).

First of all, in all honesty, I don't think that debates matter that much. In any election. I've helped set up/run debates in local, non-partisan elections and from what I can tell, people either don't watch or don't care because they will still vote for whichever candidate they decided they liked before the debate, even if said candidate is ignorant of any information or issue pertinent to the contest. On a level everyone will recognize: I give you Donald Trump v Hillary Clinton. But the same happens at every level, every where.

I'm sorry if you don't feel your candidate is acquitting himself well enough in the debates. Since he's regarded as THE frontrunner, I'm not sure I can say he's being hurt by the debate rules.

It is people with more loyalty to the status quo than to people who will seek positive change in the basis of the needs and desires of the constituency.

In general, most people feel more comfortable with an imperfect scenario they know to an unknown scenario which may or may not be better than what they have now. Small changes, incremental changes are safer. Revolution is dangerous. What you end up with may be better than what you started out with--or it may not. But it is certain that there will be serious losses and not all of those losses will be things most people wanted gone.

It doesn't take a cabal for people... Well, people clearly like you who disdain progressives... To want to block a progressive from getting the power to reform their positions away. That's just good old fashioned zeitgeist. It's the corruption of a thousand small parts for self-interest that don't necessarily need to work in concert, but can.

I dunno. Rhea's politics seem pretty progressive to me. Or maybe you are referring to me? I think of myself as relatively progressive. Caring about the details of how policies and legislation would work and who would be affected and how is not being anti-progressive. Disagreeing with you or JP is not being 'anti-progressive.'

Calling people names and hurling accusations at them, particularly false accusations, is not a way to convince anyone of your POV.

You don't need to be an American to watch all that happening just like you don't need a Brit to see how Tories ratfucked their country right in the Brexit.

Nobody said otherwise. Other people from other countries, including Canada have offered commentary on US politics and elections, not always in terribly flattering ways. When commentary is based on a poor grasp of actual facts about how US politics, elections and laws governing elections comes into play then I think it deserves to be called out, as does an attempt to behave as though someone who is from a nation which is not the US attempts to behave as though they are part of the process.

If you don't see how campaign interference DRIVES those 'voter decisions' that's just willful ignorance the likes of which I would expect more from Half-life.

I think you are imputing and attributing ideas and beliefs where they are not held.

 

[Politesse]

Why are we assuming that there is a "the" problem? I look around this country and I see a fuck ton of problems. Deeply distressing problems

 

[Rhea]

Why are we assuming that there is a "the" problem? I look around this country and I see a fuck ton of problems. Deeply distressing problems

We are assuming that when people wrote, “The DNC is the problem” that they thought so, and we are discussing whether that is true.

 

[Rhea]

People respond to your complaints with facts about how the process works in America

No they don't. They respond by telling me I don't know how your system works, as if the DNC's corruption is somehow excused by this adhom allegation.

And no they don't show that they know how your system works and I do not. They merely state that, over and over, because I am a foreigner.

Well, they say it when you make claims that are objectively wrong in our local experience. So, there’s that. But you don’t need to pay attention to that if it harms your ability to tell us what voters (us!) think and want.

You and your fellow conservative Democrats merely disagree with my opinions and rush to my being a foreigner to try to show I am wrong. It is nothing but adhom. And I can only conclude it to be based on either conservatism or learned helplessness.

Now this is just stupid. Repeatedly stupid. You keep throwing out this label to people on the basis of - what, that we don’t agree with your solutions?
You’ve been told again and again that we are not “conservatives” but you like the petty, juvenile, act of labeling people something that they are not, over and ovver and over again, to try to make a square into a round.

But I know me, and I know what I have actually accomplished that is progressive to the point of anger and threats from actual conservatives, and your stupid 101st Keyboard Division actions will never change what I’ve already done. You can pretend and make false statements and repeat them until the “C” letter wears out on your keyboard, but that will never make me a conservative. Let us know when you make an actual policy change from regressive conservative to actual progress and we can talk. I am proud of fighting to get our public library re-opened, proud of my fight to keep it open, proud of my fight to get poor rural children a free parks program, proud of my fight to keep the senior luncheon funded. I have put myself out there among actual American voters and your stupid deliberate mis-labels will never ever take that away. They just make you look like you know nothing at all about American Politics or American Voters.

Moreover for the points and opinions I have expressed here, very little knowledge of your system is needed. You have elections. I encourage you to vote in progressive legislators and policies. That's it.

You are seriously claiming that is the content of your posts?

And to this I am met with cries of how I must not understand your system. You have a first past the post system. You have Congress critters and senators who won't agree. You have conservative low information voters who keep them in power. A president can't by themselves make all the change you need. No shit Sherlock. None of that means you can't do as I have encouraged.

I’ve already done far more than you’ve “encouraged”. You’re 15 years behind me, dude.

And yes, I am a foreigner. That means short of military invasion and "regime change" USA style, the most I can do is encourage you, and I am. The vote is yours. It's your fault as American citizens, not mine, that you have the policies in place that you do. And it's up to you to make the change.

Yeah, 35 years behind me, dude.

 

[laughing dog]

Political parties are institution. They exist to help those candidates who agree with the party platform to win elections. They are not bound by any particular set of ethics or laws in their pursuit. If a significant portion of the party members want to change the rules or behavioral expectations, they have to work within the party to accomplish their goals. Candidates who wish to run in the party's name agree to abide by existing party rules and agree to work within the established structure to change those rules.

The idea that the DNC is "corrupt" because current rule favor party insiders is pure rhetoric at this point. Any set of rules favors someone. That does not make them "corrupt". Mr. Sanders is not a Democrat. It is silly to think that the Democratic Party should change their rules to favor him.

I wonder if the same faction whinging about the DNC would be making the same arguments if Mr. Trump had decided to run as a Democrat. I also wonder if the GOP party is having second thoughts about its rules for nominating the POTUS candidate.

 

[Rhea]

We're not the ones ignoring evidence. You are. Clearly. By ignoring the fact that voters vote based on the information they get from the sources they have, and that corruption seen takes the form of manipulating who, what, when and where people can access information.


It's not "some cabal". Bloomberg bought his way into an election, and (albeit rather foolishly) onto a debate stage. That was 100% the DNC.

You are claiming that it’s the DNC’s fault that Bloomberg is “buying a seat at the table”.
He *IS* buying a seat at the table, but he is using his own money to buy information dispensing from commercial sources. I don’t like him, and I don’t like his campaign. I don’t like his arrogance in parachuting in with $50B to buy advertising. But the DNC is not the problem here.

Why do I say that? He got 10% approval in polls. The DNC had to look at that and say - will of the people? Is it really appropriate for us to keep someone away from the debate stage when 10% of the voters want him? How would I have felt if they did that to Bernie? Say he raised practically NOTHING, say his supperters were all the working poor - but got 10% in polls. I’d feel the DNC should include him on the stage, even though he is not a Democrat.. I don’t like Bloomberg, but he has 10% support. That’s significant and people-based. Maybe you think it should be more about money than people support, I dunno.

Frankly, I’d rather the debate stage popularity be measured by Democratic voters, not random phone polls.

the DNC denied access to the voter rolls for a primary candidate.

You think the Democratic nominee should be decided by non-democrats.
Not me. This is a party, trying to determine shared values among reliable supporters. You think it should be set up so that Republicans can come in droves and decide to elect someone THEY want? There are more of them than there are of us progressives. The PARTY nominee should be decided by PARTY members. If people want to join the party to decide the nominee, it’s free and open. I know lots of people have argued that non-Democrats should be able to define the Democratic party nominee. I cannot imagine a more useless scenario. It would be like Americans deciding that Canada should open a coal plant in every province.

Then when debates DID happen, they were scheduled to happen when nobody would be viewing them. That was also the DNC.

I have complaints about the DNC decisions on debates. I’ve contacted them to point out the deficiencies. More issues than you have, actually.

It is blocking debates on widely demanded topics because some candidates with establishment support are weak on them.

How do you know that is the reason? Or are you speculating?

It is giving over debate moderation to biased organizations, and setting up rules that don't actually foster debates (even if they do foster some delicious roastings at times).

What’s your debate format proposal? I have complaints about this, too, but I often observe that most Americans don’t actually want what I want out of debates. Typically the thoughtful, well versed, scholarly information I want is derided by the voting public, alas. So people like me tend to peruse campaign web sites for that info, and people that don’t want it wouldn’t listen even if the debate format was better and on popular nights or during super bowl halftime.

It is people with more loyalty to the status quo than to people who will seek positive change in the basis of the needs and desires of the constituency.

I want a solid single or double every time. A home run would be great, but you lose a game by only swinging for the fence at every at-bat.
I have personally changed the status quo. I am proud of that, and I want more change.

It is the appointment of establishment friendly campaign insiders to pivotal roles in both 2016 and 2020 elections and giving conflict-of-interest laden sweetheart deals on party appointments.

It doesn't take a cabal for people... Well, people clearly like you who disdain progressives...

This is bullshit and you can see my answer to Jolly on the topic. I don’t pass the purity test for you? Too bad. I’ve been fighting in the trenches and making change.

If you don't see how campaign interference DRIVES those 'voter decisions' that's just willful ignorance the likes of which I would expect more from Half-life.

As someone who has been elected to office twice, I know very well what drives voter decisions. What experience informs your opinion? I campaigned in a district where my party is outnumber 3:1, and I made progress. Your purity test would have left my town in the wild west with no public services at all.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well, they say it when you make claims that are objectively wrong in our local experience.

Such as? Typically I say something like I support progressive candidates or progressive policy, that you have a vote and can make a difference, and I get this response that I don't understand your "local experience". That's pure adhom. It is a pointing at me instead of addressing what I write. You have yet to point out something I actually don't know that actually is relevant to a point I make or opinion I give.

Now this is just stupid. Repeatedly stupid. You keep throwing out this label to people on the basis of - what, that we don’t agree with your solutions?

I call you conservative Democrats when you back the conservative, and less progressive, less liberal end of the party and when you stand against the progressives. And when you stand against calls to make the DNC better and more liberal. Your whining OP to this thread is a prime example.

But I know me, and I know what I have actually accomplished that is progressive to the point of anger and threats from actual conservatives

So you say. It may even be true. But it isn't what you display to us here. What you display to us here is your standing in the way of progressives. You bitch and whine about Sanders and other progressives running as Democrats instead of starting their own 3rd party that would be toothless in your first past the post system. And you keep whining about people who criticize the DNC and want to improve it, making it more transparent and democratic and less corrupt. This is what you are putting on display here. This is all you give us to judge you on.

 

[Toni]

Such as? Typically I say something like I support progressive candidates or progressive policy, that you have a vote and can make a difference, and I get this response that I don't understand your "local experience". That's pure adhom.



I call you conservative Democrats when you back the conservative, and less progressive, less liberal end of the party and when you stand against the progressives. And when you stand against calls to make the DNC better and more liberal. Your whining OP to this thread is a prime example.

But I know me, and I know what I have actually accomplished that is progressive to the point of anger and threats from actual conservatives

So you say. It may even be true. But it isn't what you display to us here. What you display to us here is your standing in the way of progressives. You bitch and whine about Sanders and other progressives running as Democrats instead of starting their own 3rd party that would be toothless in your first past the post system. And you keep whining about people who criticize the DNC and want to improve it, making it more transparent and democratic and less corrupt. This is what you are putting on display here. This is all you give us to judge you on.

[

So you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So you have no idea what you are talking about.

You're stupid and know nothing Neener-Neener.... is not an argument, nor a response with any relevant content.

 

[laughing dog]

Such as? Typically I say something like I support progressive candidates or progressive policy, that you have a vote and can make a difference, and I get this response that I don't understand your "local experience". That's pure adhom. It is a pointing at me instead of addressing what I write. You have yet to point out something I actually don't know that actually is relevant to a point I make or opinion I give.

People have repeatedly pointed out how your "analysis" ignores the realities of the situation.

I call you conservative Democrats when you back the conservative, and less progressive, less liberal end of the party and when you stand against the progressives.

That is pointing at the person, not their position. More importantly, labelling anyone who does not agree with "progressive" proposals or "progressive candidates is ignorant rhetoric because it is an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle.

So you say. It may even be true. But it isn't what you display to us here. What you display to us here is your standing in the way of progressives.

There we have - the cardinal sin.

You bitch and whine about Sanders and other progressives running as Democrats instead of starting their own 3rd party that would be toothless in your first past the post system.

Instead of whining your learned helplessness, why not start that 3rd party and get moving?

 

[Rhea]

What you display to us here is your standing in the way of progressives.

Yeah, that’s me, out giving seminars on how to run and win as a progressive in rural America - standing in everybody’s way.
Like you’ve never heard this before. “What I show here”? Yeah if you ignore most of what I say and pretend I’m some stereotype that conflicts with my actual posts.

You bitch and whine about Sanders and other progressives running as Democrats instead of starting their own 3rd party that would be toothless in your first past the post system.

My goodness, how can you read what I wrote and take that from it?
I’m not whining about Sanders himself, I like his ideas. As I’ve said and as you’ve read. I’m asking why the people who complain so vociferously about the DNC still want a part of it so badly, and why the ONLY activity they seem to have is in chasing the DNC.
It’s not toothless to build a rock solid local base. You pathologically avoid that reality. What would American federal politics look like if 50% of all local offices were filled with Progressive Party^TM candidates? It would be amazing. I’m doing my party teaching seminars on how to get elected.

You?

This is what you are putting on display here. This is all you give us to judge you on.

If you ignore 80% of my posts, and misinterpret the rest.

 

[Toni]

You bitch and whine about Sanders and other progressives running as Democrats instead of starting their own 3rd party that would be toothless in your first past the post system.

Instead of whining your learned helplessness, why not start that 3rd party and get moving?

Well, JP says he's a Canadian so I'm not sure he has any standing at all to start a 3rd party in the US.

Whatever he'd like to start in Canada is his business, of course.

 

[Toni]

So you have no idea what you are talking about.

You're stupid and know nothing Neener-Neener.... is not an argument, nor a response with any relevant content.

Then you should adopt better arguments.

 

[PyramidHead]

Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders

They are in panic mode and considering historically unprecedented tactics.

While there is no widespread public effort underway to undercut Mr. Sanders, arresting his rise has emerged as the dominant topic in many Democratic circles. Some are trying to act well before the convention: Since Mr. Sanders won Nevada’s caucuses on Saturday, four donors have approached former Representative Steve Israel of New York to ask if he can suggest someone to run a super PAC aimed at blocking Mr. Sanders. He declined their offer.

“People are worried,” said former Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a former Democratic National Committee chairman who in October endorsed former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “How you can spend four or five months hoping you don’t have to put a bumper sticker from that guy on your car.”

That anxiety has led even superdelegates to suggest ideas that sound ripped from the pages of a political drama.

In recent weeks, Democrats have placed a steady stream of calls to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who opted against running for president nearly a year ago, suggesting that he can emerge as a white knight nominee at a brokered convention — in part on the theory that he may carry his home state in a general election.

“If you could get to a convention and pick Sherrod Brown, that would be wonderful, but that’s more like a novel,” Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee said. “Donald Trump’s presidency is like a horror story, so if you can have a horror story you might as well have a novel.”

Here is what they don't yet realize. If this happens, and Bernie gets the most votes but is denied the nomination in favor of someone who got less votes or no votes, the party will suffer a historic defeat in all branches of government and will never govern again. Fuck around and see if what happens.

 

[fromderinside]

The DNC is like Archie Bunker. They bitch if Meathead sits in their chair but they don't ensure he can't sit there. When he does they go all arm wavy as if it's some commandment being broken complete with wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth. Everybody knows it means nothing so the smoke rises eventually blowing away. We enjoy waving our arms at the sight of smoke. It's temporary. Nothing will come of it. MOVEON.org.

Our goal is to oust Trump. We will wrap Bernie into platform cocoon that leads him to expose Trump as the killer of Obamacare. We'll saddle him with a young centrist VP candidate. Sure Bernie will wave his populist banner, tone down his political leanings and receive funding enough to ensure both a democratic presidency and Senate.

Hell, we elected a leftist peacenik prof from Princeton back in the day who declared war on The Axis during the time of antiwar sentiment based on the unfortunate sinking of a tour ship so Britain could come out as victor in WWI. He was re-elected in 1916, proposed the League of Nations then vetoed our joining it.

If you haven't been paying attention the economy is going into the coronavirus dumper because of Trump's incompetence and worship of dictators. He's going for the same reasons the Chinese let the genie out of the bag, fear of lost adulation.

 

[PyramidHead]

The DNC would rather lose and blame the left than win and be accountable to the left