I’m talking about what it would take to win the Democratic Party nomination. So many of you are arguing as if the process was actually democratic. It’s astonishing how people with considerable political acumen can suddenly become naive when we’re talking about electoral processes. There’s a reason why the Electoral College system persists, for instance, despite its blatant anti-democratic character: because it renders the entire electoral system opaque, and keeps the process under the control of the leadership of the major parties.
They’re letting Sanders be a candidate because it will pull some of the left towards the Democratic Party. They won’t let him win unless he abandons the principles for which you admire him.
Sanders is gaining steam because he is keeping to his principles:
Poll Reveals Bernie Sanders Shocking The World By Pulling Close To Clinton In New Hampshire
link:
Wait… THIS shouldn’t be happening!! He had no chance of winning! That’s what the corporate media told me!!
more:
If Sanders can win Iowa and NH, he may win it all. That’s how Obama vaulted over Hillary.
Yep, Bernie Sanders can win and he’s on track to pull it off very much without abandoning his principles. He hasn’t abandoned his principles for decades, he’s not going to start doing it now.
And, that’s yet another reason why I will vote for Bernie Sanders.
[quote=“Purplecat, post:60, topic:59394, full:true”]
That’s the fundamental paradox of electoral reform, though. In order to get the power you need to change the system, you have to win under the current system.
[/quote]I think what we’re seeing in this campaign is something pretty heavy.
Corporatist DINO Hillary Clinton has promised to raise TWO BILLION dollars (mostly via corrupt banksters) for her campaign. Other Republicans are now well-documented in scrambling to find billionaires to “sponsor” them and are discounted by some of the corporate media when they don’t.
Sanders has outright refused money from corrupt corporatists. His average donation is around 40 bucks and is counting on word-of-mouth and a passionate progressive, activist base to spread the word. He’s working for the people and by the people. (what a concept)
In this election we are truly seeing a battle of epic, historic proportions between a true grassroots movement versus a corrupt, corporatist, monied class pushing cynicism, ignorance, fear and apathy.
If Sanders loses, this will have been a major victory for the wealthy status quo that’s degrading our country and a huge loss to the American public at large.
With so much at stake, I’m honestly repulsed and flabbergasted that the Boing Boing writers aren’t showing support for Sanders by at least covering his campaign to some extent. Their silence is deafening.
Similar (except on scale) to what Kshama Sawant is doing in Seattle in her city council run. Raising the most money but with the smallest average donation.
As far as Clinton goes, I think Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has said he’d be happy with either Clinton or Bush. 'nuff said.
If he keeps making inroads as he has been, there might be something more to all this and they might pay attention.
Well, I expect most media outlets will join the bandwagon and cover Sanders down the road. It’s getting increasingly more difficult to ignore the impact of our grassroots campaign. There will be a point in the near future where media outlets like Boing Boing will appear a bit “out of touch” if they still haven’t at least mentioned the Sanders phenomenon.
If Boing Boing was going to show support for the Sander’s campaign, I figure they would’ve likely done so by now – but, I dunno.
On that note, I sincerely doubt they would backtrack on supporting a campaign and refrain from putting a campaign on the front page because I wrote a post they didn’t like. That would be bizarre.
For their own reasons (collectively or otherwise), they’re choosing not to support Sanders publicly on their blog and AFAIK they’re keeping silent about their reasoning. I’m not going to conjecture here as to why, but my compatriots and myself have our various theories.
Frankly, we’re pretty much over it now, anyway.
We’re actually doing very well without support from media like Boing Boing. Bernie Sanders has surpassed Clinton in many ways both offline and online ([just one example of many][1]).
Sure, it would have been nice if Boing Boing was a part of that, but they chose to sit it out on the sidelines thus far. Since they won’t even bother to (seriously) reply to anything I’ve posted about Sanders one way or another, I really doubt I have any influence whatsoever on whether or not they’ll post about Sanders. Except for @beschizza, I have no idea if they’ve even read any of my posts on Sanders or not, anyway. They’ll do it if and when they feel like it, I suppose.
In other words, it would have been cool of Boing Boing to have shown support for Bernie during this critical time, but they obviously aren’t cool, should be deported and forced to join Paula Deen in a hoedown.
Meanwhile, here’s another reason why to vote for Bernie Sanders and join his grassroots campaign to defy the status quo:
Yeah, I think that’s been their status quo for the most part. However, the status quo gets a bit boring, antiquated and perhaps even a little regressive after a while.
IMO, they can get into a format rut by limiting themselves this way. I think it would be newsworthy in itself if the Boing Boing writers went wild and took some solid, political stances on a candidate like Bernie. I could even see it having a positive effect on their overall traffic and bottom line.
However, we’re not anywhere near that territory anyway. For the most part, I’m just wondering why they’re not bothering to cover Sanders’ campaign at all. I find the radio silence to be quite odd.
I mean, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out all the candidates they don’t like:
But, how about they start talking about candidates they do like a bit more? Take a chance and break away from the status quo rut…
Well, anyway…
I didn’t want it to have to come down to this…
But if the writers don’t post an article on Sanders within 5 business days I’m going to have a talk with this guy:
I will advise him to take away their red staplers and turn the corporate screws on them until they submit.
Too little, too late. I’ve already contacted their boss and the red staplers are going to be collected. Perhaps if they post Sanders again next week I can pull him back from sticking them down in the ground floor storage closet.
Here’s some media “predictions” from that time that ring very familiar…
Joe Scarborough:
On Clinton:
" … .Regardless of their hand wringing, Hillary Inc. will grind up and spit out any Democratic challenger that gets in its way. "
On Obama:
" … Obama’s shot at the top will be short lived."
Via this 2007 article:
Via an article called, “Hillary the Inevitable”:
" … In recent election cycles, any time a candidate has had as much as 35 or 40 percent of the vote consistently across polls in a multi-candidate field, that candidate has gone on to win the nomination."
I’m sort of enjoying the contrast between the dashed hopes of a young black President changing everything, and an actual glimmer of real hope for good government from a geriatric white bloke…
