Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - Printable Version +- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora) +-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html) +--- Forum: DPF Articles Discussion (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-39.html) +--- Thread: Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? (/thread-14690.html) |
Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - Peter Lemkin - 10-06-2016 2,400,000 California primary votes remain uncounted and may never be counted - the entire electoral system in the USA is rigged - not news - just more proof, if more proof needs to be presented........ [Clinton's lead is by about 440,000 votes] 55.8% votes- 1,940,580 Delegates- 338 43.2% votes- 1,502,043 Delegates- 207 http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president On Friday, June 10[SUP]th[/SUP], California Secretary of StatePadilla announced that over 2,400,000 ballots- mail-in and provisional, had notyet been counted! http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-primary-20160607-htmlstory.html Preciseturnout figures for this year won't be known for days because mail ballotspostmarked by Tuesday will be counted if they're received in election officesby Friday. Los Angeles County alone estimated it had 570,000 ballots left tocount. Nearly650,000 Californians registered to vote in the last 45 days before thedeadline, giving the state a record primary election registration of 17.9million. http://www.kcra.com/news/surge-in-ca-voter-registration-didnt-lead-to-more-voters/39967166 Thenew voters probably got provisional ballots, as some of those went to peoplewho were not yet on the voting rolls. Otherprovisional ballots went to nonpartisan voters who requested Democraticballots. Both of these groups of voterswere mostly Bernie supporters. Theprovisional ballots were set aside, and not included in Tuesday's total. Alawsuit has been filed to make sure all the provisional ballots are counted. "Ithas been learned from poll workers that 50% to 90% of voters who were supposedto have been eligible to vote in the Democratic primary were told they wouldhave to vote provisional ballots. There were two irregularities leading to theforced use of provisional ballots instead of regular ballots. The first wasthat previously registered voters' names had been removed from the rolls. Thesecond was that someone (in most cases, not the voter) had marked them as voteby mail voters but they had received no ballot in the mail. Oddly, virtuallyall of those not allowed to vote and forced to vote provisional ballots wereBernie Sanders supporters. Thenext oddity is even more curious. Poll workers in Los Angeles and Orange Countyreport that Bernie won the electronic votes in their precincts by well over a 2to 1 margin, the opposite of the result of the vote count. The contrast betweenthis and the outcome is indicative of vote-flipping. Also the outcome.. outcomedoes not match what anyone who has conducted polling in this state knows: Belowthe election night video is a video about black box voting (Hacking Democracy), The Democratic Party has essentially endorsed this video, showing it atvarious conventions and another video of a computer programmer confessing tocreating a vote-flipping program." http://yournewswire.com/lawsuit-filed-as-bernie-sanders-wins-california-by-landslide Itmay be a while before all the California ballots are properly counted, and whenthat happens, it may well turn out that Bernie won. If so, it will be a huge embarrassment toHillary, the Democratic Party, and the press. The disgust with this deceit will be widespread, and Bernie may win theDemocratic nomination for president after all! Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - R.K. Locke - 10-06-2016 Hillary Clinton most dangerous' presidential candidate - Stephen Lendman http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/06/10/469854/Stephen-Lendman-Clinton-Obama-Democrats Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - Peter Lemkin - 11-06-2016 R.K. Locke Wrote:Hillary Clinton most dangerous' presidential candidate - Stephen Lendman I find it very sad that so many 'liberals' and women are charmed [for some unknown reasons] by Clinton II - seemingly forgetting both her own track record and that of her husband. Yes, it is nice that a woman finally made it to be a candidate to that position...but one can much better celebrate that by voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party than the venomous war monger and intelligence/big-finance operative that is Hillary. Many Americans really don't have a clue as to their own history - even that of yesterday or today, let alone a few years or decades ago. I actually believe, however, that more people who don't want Trump would like Sanders than Clinton - but the 'vote counting' is done by the Oligarchy and 'Men In The Back Room', not in the ballot box - to make sure it is 'business and war/dirty tricks as usual'. The MSM, of course, played its essential role in this part of our 'Dumbocracy'. What Sanders does now will be pivotal to the future of the USA. He will take his 'fight' to the Democratic Convention where I'm afraid he will just loose by a tad [the fix is already in]...then what? I think and hope he runs on the Green Party ticket, as there is not time enough to get on the ballot in most states under another 'third party' line. Would Americans vote for a Green Party in sufficient numbers? Would the 'System' pull out all of the dirty-trick stops? Well, only one way to find out.......and see if we can save America. While I think Stein the better person and candidate than Sanders, Sanders is still way way way better than Clinton, not to mention Trump. It is time to move forward and time to break the stranglehold of the 'two' party system......IMHO. Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - David Guyatt - 11-06-2016 It's an awful thought to imagine that woman in the Oval Office doing as she's told and signing off on more war. Awful. Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - Peter Lemkin - 11-06-2016 David Guyatt Wrote:It's an awful thought to imagine that woman in the Oval Office doing as she's told and signing off on more war. Awful. The 'Thatcher Syndrome'.... Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - David Guyatt - 12-06-2016 Peter Lemkin Wrote:David Guyatt Wrote:It's an awful thought to imagine that woman in the Oval Office doing as she's told and signing off on more war. Awful. Even the thought hurts... Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - Peter Lemkin - 17-06-2016 It seems Sanders has given up without a fight even at the DNC. Very very disappointing!....::doh:: Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - David Guyatt - 17-06-2016 Peter Lemkin Wrote:It seems Sanders has given up without a fight even at the DNC. Very very disappointing!....::doh:: The following might explain why. Elections are a fixed roulette wheel: Quote:Voltaire Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - Peter Lemkin - 17-06-2016 Peter Lemkin Wrote:It seems Sanders has given up without a fight even at the DNC. Very very disappointing!....::doh:: I [slightly] overstated Sander's position - due to the skewed reporting by the BBC [famous for their skewed reporting done in impeccable English style]. When I actually heard his speech to his followers, he asked them to carry on the fight to change the Democratic Party, but that he would then [implying he would not become their candidate] support whoever was [gee, wonder who was unnamed] in the necessary fight to defeat Trump. Still, a disappointing speech, but he has not [totally] given up his fight just yet...only partly, IMHO. Quote: We turn now to the presidential race. On Thursday night, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders addressed supporters in a live webcast, vowing the continuation of what he called his political revolution. The speech came two days after Hillary Clinton won the last primary in Washington, D.C. While Clinton has claimed victory in the Democratic race, Sanders announced he would stay in until next month's convention. He did not endorse the former secretary of state, but vowed to work with her to defeat the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump. Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work? - Peter Lemkin - 23-06-2016 Yet Another Failed Attempt to Discredit Bernie Sanders, Courtesy of the New York TimesbyJake Johnson (Photo: Shelly Prevost/flickr/cc) Democratic Party liberals have made quite a show of their desire for Bernie Sanders to leave the presidential race so that, the story goes, Hillary Clinton can focus her energy solely on the looming threat of Donald Trump. But, judging by their behavior, and by the writings of pundits and analysts, it is these very same liberals who cannot resist a daily whack at the Sanders campaign and at Bernie Sanders, himself. Liberals who frequently articulate both their horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency and the role we all share in preventing him from reaching the White House still, somehow, muster the energy to take pot-shots at the democratic socialist they so breezily dismissed as a non-entity just a few months ago. Needless to say, legitimate criticism of the Sanders campaign of its ideas and of how the campaign was run is both fair and necessary. But the sneering that can be witnessed in some of the nation's most lauded journalistic outfits is a far-cry from legitimate. Take, for instance, the examples compiled by Adam Johnson: Back in March, in a span of sixteen hours, the Washington Post ran sixteen stories lambasting the Sanders campaign from a variety of angles, none of which were charitable. The Post's editorial board has gone further, denouncing Sanders for running a "fiction-filled campaign," one that is merely telling progressives "everything they want to hear." In a short period, major outlets underwent a sharp tactical turnaround from granting Sanders little attention at all, having dismissed his candidacy as symbolic and thus unworthy of mention, to launching baseless tirades at a furious pace. And tirades, I think, is an accurate portrayal, as many of the critiques put forward by the anti-Sanders crowd are not critiques at all. Rather, they are polemics filled with musings on the motives of Sanders and his supporters musings that are rarely grounded in data. Sanders backers have been classified on the basis of this flimsy framework in a variety of ways: Racist, sexist, conservative, Trump sympathizers. Then, of course, there is the famous "Bernie bro" narrative, a tall tale that purports to demonstrate that Sanders supporters are motivated not by left politics or by a desire to improve the material conditions of Americans, but by their incessant drive, as young, white males, to regain their status in a rapidly diversifying society. When one takes little more than a cursory glance at these claims, however, they fall apart. Sadly, otherwise insightful commentators have latched onto these lines of attack: Paul Krugman, for instance, gleefully seized upon a faulty interpretation of survey data, exclaiming on one occasion that he had found "the truth about the Sanders movement," and on another that Sanders, himself, is becoming a "Bernie bro." In terms of their factual weight, these smears are easily brushed aside; but, because they have been pushed by influential voices, these narratives, fraudulent as they are, have shown tremendous staying power. But perhaps more pernicious than the strange, speculative musings and left-right combos coming from the anti-Sanders crowd are the flippant dismissals of Sanders's platform, one that contains elements that liberals are usually happy to embrace: Like, say, single-payer healthcare, (much) higher taxes on the wealthy, and an overhaul of the nation's disastrous campaign finance system. Some commentators, in the face of a politician who seems genuinely determined to move forward with the agenda he has articulated throughout his campaign, have twisted themselves into knots to justify their emphatic rejection of the most progressive candidacy in recent history. For instance: Last week, political scientist Mark Schmitt, writing for the New York Times, offered up a critique of the Sanders campaign that, upon examination, is ultimately as baseless as the poisonous, speculative takes that have dominated major newspapers and media outlets over the last several months. Schmitt's beef with Sanders is that the Vermont senator is "still running the Windows 95 version of progressive politics," and that his proposals are "consistently out of step with the ideas that have been emerging from progressive think tanks like Demos or the Center for American Progress or championed by his own congressional colleagues." First, it is fascinating that Sanders, despite, in Schmitt's view, "running the Windows 95 version of progressive politics," has been able to bring overwhelming numbers of young people into the political process, winning their support by large margins over his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Perhaps Schmitt, not Sanders, is the prisoner of an outmoded ideological framework, one guided by the missives of progressive think tanks rather than the needs of the population. Further, as Matt Bruenig thoroughly demonstrates, Schmitt's objections to the Sanders platform don't hold weight from an individual policy perspective, either. The fundamental problem is laid bare in Schmitt's criticism of Sanders's support for single-payer healthcare. "Schmitt paints Sanders's interest in single-payer healthcare as quaint and out of touch with modern progressivism," Bruenig notes. "But this is only true if you equate modern progressivism with the foundations that set the priorities of liberal think tanks. The largest union of nurses in the country, National Nurses United, aggressively promotes single-payer health care, and the AFL-CIO unanimously endorsed single-payer a few years ago." The problem, Bruenig concludes, is not that Sanders is "behind the times"; rather, it is that Sanders is "in line with different modern progressive constituencies than Schmitt is." This gets at the more subtle point that underlies Schmitt's disagreement with Sanders, one that Schmitt, himself, does a fantastic job uncovering: Self-styled progressives are willing to go to great lengths to defend status quo liberalism represented by think tanks like the Center for American Progress from its critics on the left, often resorting to misrepresentations, baseless character assaults, and outright falsehoods in the process. Democratic Party loyalists cannot bring themselves to admit that the so-called pragmatic liberalism (otherwise known as centrism) of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has been inadequate and ineffective in its attempts to address growing inequality and corporate plunder. In fact, this form of liberalism one that has, over the past several decades, moved ever closer to the open arms of business has often made these problems worse. Today, as a result, the Democratic Party is overrun with what Doug Henwood calls "doom and gloom," a philosophical attitude that has led Democrats to abandon ambitious policy goals along with their blue-collar base in favor of a meager, unappetizing, and often actively harmful platform. "Hillary Democrats," Henwood contends, "are running against hope." A great strength of the Sanders campaign has been its ability to expose this thinly-veiled rift between the left and the Democratic Party, thus differentiating between "doom and gloom" liberalism and the revolutionary goals of the Vermont senator and the progressive movements that have coalesced around his successes. "Unlike fortress liberals or professional elites," writes Matt Karp, "Sanders and his young backers recognize that the vital element in any progressive struggle is the ability to generate energy from the bottom up." Far from running on an outdated version of progressivism, the Sanders campaign has broken through the barriers set by the Democratic Party, raised the expectations and ambitions of voters, and motivated them to reverse "the atrophy of political imagination" that has, over the past several decades, infected the Democratic agenda. In doing so, Sanders has thrown into sharp relief the ideological bankruptcy of 21st century liberalism and has articulated an inspiring alternative. Try as they might, analysts like Mark Schmitt cannot reestablish the legitimacy of an ideological framework that has long overstayed its welcome. |