As the Democratic Party gears up for a second presidential primary without a real challenger to the predetermined candidate, one has to wonder why it’s called “democratic.”

14 Comments. Leave new

  • Tyler Durden
    May 4, 2015 7:51 AM

    B for Bernie,

  • The Democratic Party has as much to do with democracy as the Miami Dolphins have to do with aquatic mammals.

  • “The only way you can get the parties’ attention is if you take votes away from them,” Ralph Nader told [Cris Hedges] by phone. “So,” he said of [Bernie] Sanders, “How serious is he? He makes Clinton a better phony candidate. She is going to have to agree with him on a number of things. She is going to have to be more anti-Wall Street to fend him off and neutralize him. We know it is bullshit. She will betray us once she becomes president. He is making her more likely to win. And by April he is done. Then he fades away.”


    • I understand the reasoning – I’ve even made similar points myself.

      OTOH, there’s no way I’m voting for a Repuglican, and no way I’m voting for Hillary. Bernie’s got my vote.

      I don’t live in a battleground state so my vote doesn’t actually count for anything anyway. Might as well “send a message.”

      • @ CrazyH —

        Your post puzzles me. If Hillary becomes the nominee, how do you propose to vote for Bernie? (I agree that Hillary will not get my vote and it’ll be a cold day in hell before I vote Republican; so that means 3rd party.)

      • Write in. I’ve written my own name in, or Mickey Mouse’s on a number of occasions.

        I figger that writing in Bernie’s name will have about the same affect.

      • Supporting Bernie means doing nothing toward having a third party candidacy until it is too late to build one that has a chance at threatening the status quo.

        I ran as a delegate for an inside-the-party opposition candidate in 2004.

        After the party candidate was selected, the road was cleared for him because the effort diverted to a candidate that could threaten the votes of the party candidate in the run-up to the election was already spent and wasted.

        That election was the one between dumb and dumber, Mr. “you’re with us or against us” and Mr. “reporting for duty.”

        Bernie’s function is to sink third party candidates chances, finances, and support (Which are already sunk under this corrupt duopoly system anyway).

        Our only hope is that a meteor strikes Washington so we get a chance to all pitch in and buy a totally new government.

      • > too late to build one that has a chance at threatening the status quo.

        I figure that’s been the case for at least fifty years…

      • @ CrazyH —

        I hadn’t thought about “write-in” — I’m not even certain that’s an option for the ballot in Arkansas. But I certainly will keep it in mind.

        If we could start a ground-swell with the same motivation, we might actually be able to make a difference!


    • But, Glenn, how can Hillary «betray us», if we are aware of who she is and what she represents (anybody unaware has not been doing his or her homework) ? In the event any «betrayal», other than self-betrayal is going on, it would not be Hillary Rodham Clinton doing the dirty deed, but Bernard Sanders. Or does he really believe that announcing his candidacy for the Democratic nomination will do any more than what Ted describes in his third pane above ?…


  • I love Berrie, we just need Hillary to slip up so badly that he gets in…..very small chance…if does get in 95% of what he wants to do will be blocked…often by members of the democratic party
    My though, real change can only happen if a major depression hits and congress is running scared

    A major depression may happen soon, too much wealth is tied up in too few hands
    If a depression waits 20 years I maybe gone but those that want change maybe battling a robotic security force that protects the interest of the wealthy

  • Here a trenchant analysis, which well repays close reading, of how «democratic» the Democratic Party (but, of course, not merely the Democratic Party) is : http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-clintons-citizens-united-and-21st-century-corruption/2015/05/08/7f11a0d6-f57b-11e4-b2f3-af5479e6bbdd_story.html….


  • prolecenter
    May 19, 2015 12:47 PM

    Probably the best thing to do at the moment and for the foreseeable future is to boycott the vote entirely. Why vote for a third party that absolutely cannot win? Also, casting a mock vote or write-in could still be perceived as participating in, and lending legitimacy, to a completely illegitimate system. The elites pay close attention to voter turnout numbers. Let’s make those numbers go down and show the world that the U.S. is not a democracy since the government does not have popular support.

    • What makes you believe, prolecenter, that a further reduction in the low proportion of eligible US voters who actually cast their votes – much of which is due to deliberate obstacles placed on prospective voters who on demographic grounds are deemed likely to vote the «wrong» way – would influence the way the US is perceived around the world ? Among governments, at least, it is not illusions concerning the «democratic» nature of how the country is governed which determine how one deals with that state actor, but rather such matters as a military-intelligence budget that dwarfs that of the rest of the world combined, more than 1000 military bases outside its own territories, etc, etc. Dealing effectively with the plutocratic system in the US is unlikely to prove to be so simple as staying at home on election day….


You must be logged in to post a comment.