This is a really good point. For years, the Democrats have been scared to be seen as “too left” given that the words “socialist” is anathema here. Since Trump, however, if you look at the platforms of many Democrats who have either won or come close against Republicans, the platform is actually being far more aggressively vocalized. Beto O’Rourke (running against Ted Cruz in Texas) is a good example.
Democrats are great at running scared and trying to play nice. Maybe the younger ones coming through will show a little more backbone.
They aren’t ‘scared’ to be seen as ‘too left’. The Democrats are run by establishment who have ponied up to Wall Street and other corporate interests. The true progressives there are banished or told to shut the ■■■■ up.
Sanders is what I would call real left and he got shut down by the establishment of the Dems. IMO it was a big mistake, Hillary was not a very well liked person by her own side.
Sanders came second?
I don’t disagree that he had some blocks put in front of him, but it’s a bit weird to say he was shut down, or that he’s not representative of the party.
Dude came second.
He was actually going to win imo, but the establishment wanted Hillary not him. They felt the central to right side of the Dems would never go for Sanders and he would lose against Trump. So they set about trying to shut him down and get Hillary in.
Bernie represented a pretty fringe portion of the Democratic party. I don’t see how that can be denied. The actions of key Democratic power brokers over the last decade has shown what they stand for.
I don’t disagree that the Dems are frequently pro-corporate. That said, they introduced the new legislation restricting the banks which the Repubs watered down, it was Dems who have pushed moves such as increased minimum wages, minimum standards, and they’re pro-union. I would point out that it was Bush who signed the bank bailout, not Obama. TARP was passed before he was elected. The idea that Dems and Repubs are similar on this is the worst kind of Right wing propaganda, and very anti-democratic.
On anti-woman, you’re argument is because a protester (Stein) tried to enter a function she wasn’t invited to and was detained and then arrested, that they’re anti-woman? Really? And again, you think the Dems and Repubs are even in the same ballpark on this front? Hell, they’re not even in the same league. Dems have far more women representation, they tried to pass the fair-pay act (repubs stopped), are for woman’s choices, aren’t trying to shut down woman’s health programs like the Repubs, and are kicking guys like Franken out while the Repubs are nominating guys like Kavanaugh and Moore. Its pretty insulting to say the two parties are at all similar.
On Bernie, the Dems didn’t rig their own primaries. The rules were already in place, and the fact that Bernie didn’t plan ahead well enough (just as Clinton didn’t in 2008) and plan his strategy accordingly isn’t the parties fault. Superdelegates, the various state systems, were all in place before Bernie ran. Bernie’s issue was he didn’t actually initially run to win, just to make a point of difference. By the time he realised he might have some shot, he’d left things too late. And then whined.
Did the main party usually push against Bernie where they could? Yes. However, the fact Bernie is even allowed to run as a Dem is frankly a quirk of their system which shouldn’t be allowed, and they should have had every right to ban someone who had never run as a Democrat before in his life.
But heh, I’m glad you think the two parties are the same. I mean, Clinton & Obama are sooooo comparable to Bush and Trump, right? Exactly the same…
