Once again, liberals are being taken for granted by the Democratic Party (cartoon)

[HomerRamone]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/ted-rall/56952/cartoon-for-july-16-2014-lemmings-moths-to-flames-and-liberal-democrats

Once again, liberals are being taken for granted by the Democratic Party. This time, they’re presenting the possibility of a lame, poorly-funded and thus merely symbolic primary challenge to Hillary Clinton from the left, via Bernie Sanders or possibly Elizabeth Warren, as ersatz democracy and a way to make progressives, whose concerns are ignored by the party bosses, feel less badly about holding their noses and voting for Hillary in the fall of 2016.

[badtoworse]

1. Perfect!

[frazzled]

2. Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat

The premise of this post is pretty obscure altogether. It doesn't even make sense. Primaries are precisely for people to choose who they would like the party to nominate. Then, people support the winner (unless they're obdurate and myopic).

The only explanation for this cartoon is to advocate that liberals abandon the Democratic Party altogether for some as yet unnamed Third Party (Let's call it the Third Way Party, I guess.) That's not something we advocate for here on DU.

[former9thward]

10. If Sanders runs he will run as a Democrat.

So the cartoon is very appropriate.

[Eleanors38]

21. Someone needs to.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

49. In exactly the same way the libertarian Ron Paul ran as a Republican

Unless there are special circumstances, a third party does not work in the US -- see Duverger's Law for an explanation.

In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt ran as a Progressive because he didn't like Taft's policies. All he managed to do was split the Republican vote between him and Taft, and thus the Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected. In 2000, Ralph Nader took enough votes away from Al Gore to put Bush into the White House. The last time a third party succeeded in getting the presidency was in 1860, when the Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected, basically because the Whigs had disintegrated over the expansion of slavery in Kansas and Nebraska in the 1850s. Even then, the Republicans needed a split among the Democrats to win.

No, if he has even a prayer -- which, realistically, he doesn't -- Bernie Sanders needs to run as a Democrat.

[former9thward]

50. Third parties have only worked at the local level.

We have had mayors of third parties and in the case of Sanders -- a third party Senator. But at the national level it would take a charismatic leader who was extremely rich to pull it off. Perot in 1992 almost pulled it off but he imploded and he was not exactly charismatic.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

52. Perot also came across as a paranoid fruitcake

He left the campaign, allegedly because the Republicans were going to sabotage his daughter's wedding if he stayed in. The head of the Republican National Committee (I don't remember the man's name and can't be bothered to look it up) said essentially, "Why would we do something stupid like that? When it came out that we had done it, it would only gain sympathy for Perot." I had no trouble believing him.

Perot got 20% of the popular vote and no electoral votes.

[Johonny]

15. +1

I love me some Bernie but the biggest problem for liberals ATM is all this worrying about a mythical primary in the future while they have a chance to try to take back congress today. This artists cartoon's message does nothing to help bring out the vote in Nov. We lose when people feel powerless, we win when people feel involved and engaged. How does lamenting the loss of a candidate that hasn't declared and isn't even in the same party currently to another candidate that hasn't declared for an election far in the future during the current mid-terms become a resounding message. It sounds like defeatism and liberals only lose when they give up hope.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Yep. And, they will blame the left that doesn't fall for it if Hillary loses.

[bigtree]

4. what's the alternative?

. . . who is to blame if Bernie doesn't gain enough support or fails to get on the ballots?

Sanders, himself has said he recognizes the challenges of exposure and ballot access as an independent. What makes his potential bid so different from anyone else who expects to run and win a presidential election? It's not the Democratic party's fault if he ultimately fails to garner that support.

If he wants to make a serious run for the presidency he needs to decide and get busy; either make an independent bid - organize and rely on that effort - or avail himself of the benefits of our Democratic coalition that he's admitted would advantage him in that campaign effort.

This is the same kind of nonsense as complaining that Hillary supporters say she's inevitable. What happened to competing? Is he up to it or not?

I hope he is up to it. The race isn't going to be a coronation; nor is it going to offer some consolation prize for good intentions.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Exactly. And, it's up to the nominee to get the votes of the left if he fails.

If Hillary should get the nomination she has to convince the left to vote for her. If she doesn't, and she loses the election because she didn't, no-one should blame the voters.

[bigtree]

7. I alway place responsibility on the candidates

. . . if she loses, it's her own fault.

I can't find much about her early efforts that would indicate to me that she's an 'inevitable' campaigner. I think her recent rhetoric sounds stale and overly cautious. There's almost nothing there for a progressive-minded voter.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. She has a lot of baggage on the unstoppable, inevitable, train she's riding.

I think the "Not as bad" allure of moderate/conservative candidates has lost it's punch for many progressives. The usual reaction is to ignore the left and seek the votes of the "middle" by appearing to be the less awful. Which doesn't appeal to anyone and ensures, not victory, but voter apathy and a "why bother" view of politics.

"Not as bad" is a piss poor way of campaigning and a piss poor way of running a government.

Compromise in a Democracy is inevitable. But, parties should have some tenets that define it and are uncompromisable. I can abide my legislators voting to approve an airport named after Reagan or Nixon, but if they "compromise" on, for example, abortion or civil rights, or prove themselves too eager to burnish their "tough" image by voting to kill people, they lose my vote.

[Katashi_itto]

43. It's all ok. We Rad Libs are not needed. After all we've been told repeatedly that Hillary is..

inevitable. So they don't need us.

[MisterP]

13. but the mark of a true Dem lefty is the highest support for Hillary at the same time

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

31. There is a difference

in my mind, between a Dem lefty and a Dem. I 'd amend your statement to leave out lefty and it would be accurate. IMHO

[Capt. Obvious]

39. And if she wins

it's a clear refutation of liberals.

[xchrom]

6. Ha! Nt

[conservaphobe]

9. The cartoonist who was banned from some liberal blogs

for portraying the first African American president in a racist manner doesn't speak for liberals.

[former9thward]

11. Who exactly "speaks for liberals".

I am not aware of that person.

[Eleanors38]

23. ^^^!!!

[HomerRamone]

12. Banned unfairly (compare with the style of his other, white characters)

or is being accused enough for some kind of McCarthyism from this side nowadays?

[bigtree]

30. you making a list?

[reddread]

14. liberal blogs dont blacklist

or does that elude you?

[MohRokTah]

16. Ah, Ted Rall.

I stopped reading his cartoons when he changed his style for drawing Obama from his standard style to drawing him to look like a gorilla.

IIRC, he was banned from posting his cartoons at DailyKos when he altered his style on Obama. He even objected (he hasn't been banned as a poster, just his toons have been banned from the Comics section) claiming that he was drawing Obama like he always has, then people provided the proof that he changed his style and he hasn't posted there since.

[HomerRamone]

17. his Obama looks like Gerald Ford to me

http://www.progressive.org/daily-kos-bans-cartoonist-ted-rall-for-imaginary-racism

As Ruben Bolling, creator of "Tom the Dancing Bug," notes: anyone familiar with Rall's work knows that crude, “ape-like” depictions of all races is basically his shtick. We're primates, after all. And while a lot of the irrational anger directed at Obama is undoubtedly rooted in the irrational fear of melanin, it's a bit tragic when the left cannibalizes one of its own.

[hfojvt]

56. he does look like Ford, a lot

except why make the nose so wide? Be interesting to see the "change" though, since he supposedly "changed" the way he drew Obama.

Ted might not like me saying so, but it seems to me that Rall puts more thought into the WORDS of his cartoons than he does to the pictures.

[conservaphobe]

18. Yep. And it's sad to see so many liberal defenders of him.

There's plenty of left-wing cartoonists who criticize President Obama without drawing him in such a racist/disrespectful manner...

And their work should be applauded. Rall's? Hell no.

[frazzled]

19. Don't forget his the 9-11 widows contretemps

long before that:

That cartoon, "Terror Widows," depicted some of the relatives of September 11 being crass. In one panel, Rall has Larry King ask: "So, when your husband called you from the 104th floor, he knew he was going to die?" And in the next panel, the widow says: "Oh, yes-He was on fire! By the way, Larry, that's a bitchin' tie!" Another panel has a widow saying on TV, "the $3.2 million I collected from the Red Cross keeps me warm at night."

- See more at: http://www.progressive.org/mag_mcrall#sthash.bc8G5sqr.dpuf

Poor misunderstood Ted Rall.

[Scuba]

20. ...

[treestar]

24. Shouldn't it be right to take the "base" for granted.

This is getting very confusing.

[gratuitous]

34. Depends on how you mean that

If a candidate takes the votes of the base for granted - that is, the registered Democrats who endorse the party platform and its historic programs - then, yes, it's right.

But if that candidate takes the votes of the base for granted, figuring that simply because the candidate is registered as a Democrat then it doesn't matter what positions or policies the candidate endorses, and the candidate will still get the votes of the base, then the candidate should have a problem.

Sen. Merkley can take it for granted that I'll vote for him because of his record as a Senator. Other Democratic candidates ought not to take my vote for granted simply because they're Democrats.

Does that make it less confusing?

[treestar]

51. Well people are claiming to be the base

and at the same time, demanding that the party "woo" them, so to speak.

It seems the base would be the ones trying to get the less politically active to vote for the party.

That's what sounds more like a base to me. Something solid that can be counted on.

[gratuitous]

54. A politician can count on the base

When the base can count on the politician. A politician who strays too often from party principles without a cogent explanation can expect the base to be suspicious if not hostile. The base also has any number of single issue voters, who will gladly overlook all manner of party infidelity as long as the politician remains loyal on the One Issue (whatever that is, it will be a different issue for different voters). But even One Issue voters can become disenchanted with a politician; cf. Joe Lieberman.

How can the base encourage other people to vote for the party when the candidate isn't in sync with the party platform? "Yes, we know that X is anti-union, in the pocket of Wall Street, and against women's health, but he's better than Republican Y in some unspecified way." Not exactly a clarion call to the reluctant voter.

[WillyT]

25. K & R !!!

[randys1]

26. Karl Rove created this issue...

[Marr]

27. Sometimes I wonder if our more conservative posters realize how predictable they are.

I mean, they roll out the smear talking points in such a Pavlovian way.

See Name I'm Suppose to Hate: Repeat Assigned Smear

No consideration of message, no thought, nothing. Just stimulus/response.

[randys1]

28. This is a well thought out plan by rove and the right...it is all over

today everywhere

[HomerRamone]

32. Links, please? nt

[randys1]

33. Links to what, Karl Rove's meetings or whichever rightwing ass thought this up?

[HomerRamone]

36. where you have seen it all over today nt

[randys1]

37. here on DU in several places and heard rightwing script callers to Ari Rabin Havt sirius show

all saying the same thing

[treestar]

55. And our other posters aren't?

Smearing the Democratic Party in the same way, and more likely to be Rovian as hilariously claimed in another post, because well, they are trying to divide the harm the Democrats.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. This is a remarkably anti-Democratic OP

You appear to be saying, along with Rall, that it doesn't matter who runs for the Democratic nomination, they're all dupes of Wall Street anyway.

If that's how you feel, why do you stay on this site? You don't appear to have any respect or support for any Democrat. Are you lost?

[FiveGoodMen]

35. I think the point is that we have to back better people.

Just putting anyone registered as a Democrat into office doesn't solve the problem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Sanders and Warren aren't good enough, according to the OP

The OP actually says it's going to be Hillary, whoever runs in the primaries, and her campaign is a 'Wall Street colossus', so I think it's saying no Democrat is good enough.

[FiveGoodMen]

44. The way I read it, it says that Sanders and Warren aren't being taken seriously by the party

Not that they aren't good enough.

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. It calls them 'merely symbolic' (nt)

[FiveGoodMen]

46. ...to the party (not to us).

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. It's saying it's not worth organising for them

Rall does hate the Democrats:

Ted Rall: ‘Progressives’ Are Too Liberal to Be Democrats
SYNDICATED COLUMN: At Some Point, Progressives Need to Grow a Pair and Stop Having Anything To Do With the Democratic Party

The purpose of the cartoon is to stop progressives having anything to do with the Democrats.

[HomerRamone]

38. Sanders and Warren (and Grayson and others) aren't dupes

but they will be victims of the Republican Lites unless we figure out a way to get them a *serious* chance and not be dupes for warmongering Wall Streeters ourselves...

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. And yet you post the OP saying Sanders and Warren are 'merely symbolic'

and that the primary process is 'ersatz democracy'. You don't give any suggestions how to stop them being that, either in the OP or later (and neither does Rall). You just moan that Ted Rall was 'unjustly' thrown off a website.

As I said, it's an anti-Democratic Party OP. What party do you support? Is there any reason that a site that is clearly about supporting Democratic Party candidates should listen to you at all?

[HomerRamone]

42. If I post something you, don't like, it's moaning

I don't have the solution by myself, but I see a bad result coming if none is found. I don't have the solution to climate change denial, either--does that make me anti-environmental, too?

[hfojvt]

57. yeah the point about an "underfunded" campaign seemed silly

Sanders would be responsible for raising his own funds, Warren too. If they cannot compete with the Hillary money machine, then how are they gonna compete against the Republican money machine?

The cartoon, oddly, seems to be saying that the Party itself is supposed to fund Sanders campaign. Or something.

Although, unfortunately, I have seen a party take a side in a primary in Kansas. Probably more than one. And each time they did that, the losing candidate quit the party.

[aikoaiko]

48. And the jury results are in...

On Thu Jul 17, 2014, 01:06 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

This is a remarkably anti-Democratic OP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5249305

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Attacking posters for not being your "Democratic" enough for the alerter, and suggesting that they don't belong on the site, is disruptive, rude, and insensitive, and inappropriately assumes some kind of authority as site police.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jul 17, 2014, 01:16 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yeah I'm hiding all "you're not Democratic enough" and "you're not progressive/liberal enough" replies.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Dont see anything hurtfull. This is a Dem site after all.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This isn't an attack -- it's a valid question.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: muriel_volestrangler has 73,000 posts. The OP hasn't even hit 800 yet. I defer to the longer-term poster.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Roy Serohz]

53. In Other News...

Pissing Off Hell's Angels Not Conducive To Good Health