Democratic elite rally around Hillary Clinton

[ericson00]

Last edited Fri Aug 28, 2015, 10:15 PM - Edit history (3)

Source: Politico

MINNEAPOLIS — Hillary Clinton delivered a show of force on Friday meant to make one thing abundantly clear to Democratic leaders, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden: She is the boss.
Coming off two weeks of breathless speculation about the vice president’s ambitions, Clinton now looks like she’s nearly locked up the support of party elites, something she critically failed to accomplish in 2008.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-2016-democratic-elite-213148

---

Clearly, the party has basically spoken. Its also obvious Biden is not gonna run, and America's not gonna vote for a self described socialist. Bernie is still down 25+ points in most serious non-Quinnipiac polls. Lets just get this primary contest over, while her loyal voters marching onward to victory!

[ram2008]

1. When do they bring out the crown?

To complete the coronation?

The party and the elites have spoken; Let's just get rid of elections all together! Hillary and Jeb! Which family will sit on the throne? Exciting stuff.

[riversedge]

5. golly gee-Lets roll--I have never seen a clown do a coronation.

[daleanime]

27. So that's why you're in a hurry...

it all makes sense now.

[virtualobserver]

6. Truly she is the rightful heir to the throne....who can doubt it?

[ericson00]

7. better a crown car than a clown car

and the Clintons are not a dynasty; Bill and Hillary are not blood related, born middle class, didn't need legacy to get into elite schools, and both made their own names in their careers before Bill became president. That is very different than the Bushes, who had their rich parents give them all their opportunities and fifth chances.

[merrily]

81. LOL! The posts just keep getting more cynical, yet funnier, every day.

[BooScout]

19. so are you voting for a clown then?

If voting for Clinton means I'm voting for a crown in your mind.....I say better a crown than a clown. You have said you would vote for Trump over Clinton. Sorry, but I could never vote for a clown.

[ram2008]

39. I said if Democrats overturn the will of the primaries...

That I would have to re-evaluate my vote. Yes, it was hyperbole, but apparently people on these forums would be OK with a bunch of party elites overturning what the primary electorate decides-- so DEMOCRATIC. If the super delegates go with whoever wins the most pledged delegates in the primaries then I don't see the issue.

I would probably stay home, rather than vote for the clown though.

[Thinkingabout]

52. So you may be one of the ones Bernie is talking about?

[ram2008]

59. Huh? N/t

[Thinkingabout]

72. Guess you did not know Bernie is talking about people staying home and not voting.

The results of the 2010 and 2014 resulted in more republicans, not helpers for the progressive cause.

[Thinkingabout]

75. Here

[NowSam]

38. Exactly

We the People want to vote first.

[ChiTownDenny]

44. The polling indicates

the people want Clinton. All this talk about a coronation is silly.

[truebluegreen]

53. The calendar indicates that nothing is decided

no matter what the polls say.

[freshwest]

68. It fits all the GOP memes made to put down Democrats by the 'Oligarchy Are Us' GOP.

Who can forget the many coservative photoshops of 'Emperor (or King) Obama?

They don't have any fresh material, so rightwingers keep recycling their old slurs to demoralize Dems. Some would rather we lose and let the GOP have all three branches of federal governance again.

Since people will die from that, I'm not for it. Some many be immune, so they can afford to play games and depress the vote of Democrats here.

As 1SBM said:

And "Mission Accomplished" ... could be heard whispered throughout the land. (It seems)

GOP: "Government doesn't work" ... Check!

Libertarians (right and left): "Government is evil" ... Check!

Tea Party: "Government doesn't work and there is no difference between establishment republicans and establishment Democrats" ... Check!

"Liberals/Progressives": "Government is evil and there is no difference between establishment republicans and establishment Democrats" ... Check!

The media has played this narrative on a 7-day, 24-hour loop.

Result: Only 15% of the American people pay close attention to the only mechanism for change.

Nicely played, Oligarchs!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025631843#post133

[cascadiance]

104. They were saying this about the same time of the election in 2007 too!

Did the people ultimately mostly "want Clinton" then? A long way before you can try to force us to the coronation stage just yet!

[mpcamb]

2. Ah, the smell of money....

[Depaysement]

4. "Like napalm in the morning . . . ". nt

[Depaysement]

3. Sure

Then we can be Democrats who aren't democratic.

Of course, no one has voted yet either. But "the Party has spoken."

[daleanime]

28. Well....

as much as allowed.

[Thinkingabout]

54. The primary elections have not started so what is this talk about the party has spoken?

[Thinkingabout]

79. Not necessary, the major of the delegates will come from caucuses and elections in the different

states. There are 4483 delegates available, a candidate will need 2244 delegates to win. Here is a link to the number of delegates and you can locate the number allotted to each state also;

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

[Lorien]

88. The big money in the party has decreed...

but guess what? WE are the party, and WE decide! They'll learn this the hard way...again.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. They might as well bring back the old smoke-filled rooms

full of cigar-smoking, bought and paid for party bosses, and dispense with primaries altogether - a procedure that came about in the first place because the non-boss people rebelled at party bosses picking the nominee. But I guess if you have enough money you can have a pretend primary so the proles don't notice that the game was rigged to start with.

[TygrBright]

11. Actually, it was CAUCUSES that were the antidote to smoke-filled rooms.

Back in the day, the bosses met in smoke-filled rooms to select those who would run in rigged primaries, then sent their "ward heelers" out to round up "reliable voters" to show up at the primary polls, with ballot-box stuffing in reserve as a last resort in case any "unwanted elements" showed up to vote.

Caucuses where anyone/everyone could show up to participate in an organized process to pick local delegates who then went to county conventions and then to state conventions were a way of circumventing the vote-rigging of corrupt "primary elections."

If you look at the history of the 2nd half of the 20th Century in the Democratic (and DFL, and Progressive) Parties, you'll see that the caucus mechanism for selecting nominees peaked in the Vietnam era and that McGovern wouldn't have had a chance to make it as far as he did without them. It was 1968 that scared the party bosses so badly they started to buy the votes to "restore primary voting," because primary elections were way easier to rig.

reminiscently,
Bright

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. Minnesota still does it that way, been to a bunch of them.

But some complain that the caucuses are undemocratic, too, because you have to be there in person for an evening. Still, the current primary/caucus system at least seems to have the semblance of fairness - at least until DWS decided to limit debates. I do remember the controversy over the whole system in the late '60s.

Warren G. Harding was the perfect example of a nominee selected by the bosses way back in 1920.

The night of June 11–12, 1920 would become famous in political history as the night of the "smoke-filled room", in which, legend has it, party elders agreed to force the convention to nominate Harding. Historians have focused on the talks held in the suite of Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Will Hays at the Blackstone Hotel, at which senators and others came and went, and numerous possible candidates were discussed. Utah Senator Reed Smoot, before his departure early in the evening, backed Harding, telling Hays and the others that as the Democrats were likely to nominate Governor Cox, they should pick Harding to win Ohio. Smoot also told The New York Times that there had been an agreement to nominate Harding, but that it would not be done for several ballots yet. This was not true: a number of participants backed Harding (others supported his rivals), but there was no pact to nominate him, and the senators had little power to enforce any agreement. Two other participants in the smoke-filled room discussions, Kansas Senator Charles Curtis and Colonel George Brinton McClellan Harvey, a close friend of Hays, predicted to the press that Harding would be nominated because of the liabilities of the other candidates.

...The reassembled delegates had heard rumors that Harding was the choice of a cabal of senators. Although this was not true, delegates believed it, and sought a way out by voting for Harding. When balloting resumed on the morning of June 12, Harding gained votes on each of the next four ballots, rising to 1331?2 as the two frontrunners saw little change. The ninth ballot, after some initial suspense, saw delegation after delegation break for Harding, who took the lead with 3741?2 votes to 249 for Wood and 1211?2 for Lowden (Johnson had 83). Lowden released his delegates to Harding, and the tenth ballot, held at 6 p.m., was a mere formality, with Harding finishing with 6721?5 votes to 156 for Wood. The nomination was made unanimous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding

[TygrBright]

18. Yes the bosses used the "too much work" argument to ram primaries back into the system.

Minnesota being a major case in point (I grew up there.) How long has the DFL hung on, after all?

They REALLY do not want us talking among ourselves. It's way better to have butts in front of teevees drinking in the "party line" and then pulling a lever.

Making people come out to a neighborhood venue and discuss actual ISSUES with their neighbors is a recipe for total disaster to the Oligarchs.

sadly,
Bright

[dflprincess]

56. Klobuchar is an example of the party hacks picking a candidate

I still think Ford Bell would have made a better senator, but the powers that be both at the state and national levels decided they wanted Amykins and effectively shut Bell out. I was at the Central Committee meeting when it became clear the fix was in. That's the last of those meetings I attended.

I'm waiting to see what rules the DNC comes up with that all the state parties will need to comply with if they want their delegates seated at the national convention. There was a time when the DFL took a certain amount of pride in being a thorn in the side of the national party - but those days are long gone and the people running the DFL are firmly in Wasserman-Schulz' camp.

[OrwellwasRight]

94. Those caucuses got us FDR.

The age of the primary gave us Clinton, Kerry, and Obama. Corporate Democrats all.

Give me FDR ANY DAY! I'm not against smoke filled rooms.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

95. Caucuses aren't smoke-filled rooms. They are open to the public.

My state still has them, and I've been to many. The smoke-filled room phenomenon is the old party bosses choosing a candidate in secret without public input. The classic situation was the selection of Warren G. Harding as the Republican candidate in 1920: Harding, at the time a relatively minor candidate, was chosen as a compromise candidate by Republican party bosses in a private meeting after the convention had deadlocked. That's the kind of thing we don't want, but the DNC seems, in its own way, to be trying to control the outcome in favor of their establishment candidate.

[OrwellwasRight]

98. My point is primaries don't work.

I won't denigrate a system that got us FDR in favor of the system that gave us John Kerry, who was an extremely poor candidate.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

108. They sure don't work very well with the DNC and the likes of DWS running them.

But since each state can set up its own primary/caucus procedures, it will be hard to change the system. IIRC, it was the Iowa caucus that started Howard Dean on his downward slide and gave Kerry an edge so I'm not sure it was the primary system itself that resulted in Kerry's nomination. What I think is stupid is that these early primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire have a ridiculous amount of influence even though they don't have a lot of delegates. Seems to me all the state primaries should happen at once.

[OrwellwasRight]

110. And the two states you mention are particularly unrepresentative of the rest of the US.

For example, NH is far more white, Iowa is far more evangelical. Until fairly recently, the late CA primary (it used to be in June) meant that the most populous state had zero influence at all. The last time the CA primary really mattered at all was in 1968, when CA voted for RFK (and even then it didn't matter, for obvious reasons). Leaving CA's influence out of the mix made the primary system even more ridiculously unrepresentative. CA now votes in March, but even that change has not undone the overwhelming influence of NH and IA.

I think the Democratic primary is designed to pick the most milquetoast, middle of the road, boring, mainstream, establishment candidate. And it usually does. FDR would NEVER have been elected in today's system. Never. He would have been left behind just like others who speak truth to power, like Paul Simon and Jesse Jackson in 1988, Jerry Brown in 1992, Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich in 2004. The system ensures those who challenge the system never get anywhere. And I predict the same will happen to Bernie, though I am no fan of HRC. The system is not designed to give average people a voice.

On the contrary, I think it is designed around the myth of the median voter and the efforts of people like Terry McAuliffe, Al From, Donna Brazile, Rahm Emanuel, and now DWS to ensure the primaries yield a milquetoast centrist candidate that plays to that mythical voter.

[Control-Z]

9. I'm recommending for the article you posted.

We need our debates and primary voting before we can elect our nominee. It is the democratic way. Frankly, I'd like to sleep on through to Super Tuesday.

It used to be that the Republican party was the party of mean. We've become the same on this board. Mean and mean spirited. I hate that and hope the damages aren't too great once it's over.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. The Party speaks at the ballot box, chum and don't you forget it. Those 'elites' can suffer at that

same ballot box for unduly arrogant behavior as well and this they know. When it comes to people like McCaskill it's like an endorsement from a Republican, these are all people who sneered at marriage equality for years and for that they can go fuck themselves, these are people who have done nothing about the justice system, and for that they can go fuck themselves. Mediocrity defined. So who cares what such tepid, cowardly, bigoted and amoral creatures think? Not me. Not even one little bit.

[Throd]

12. Elites will always cling to money and power at all costs.

[IVoteDFL]

13. After Hillary is defeated the "elites" are next

There is no place for them in the People's revolution.

[ericson00]

50. "People's revolution?" Maybe in the People's Republic of the Bern, yes

but socialism doesn't work. Yes, some principles carried over to our mixed economy do work very well, but not socialism on the whole.

[arcane1]

57. You're in luck! Nobody whatsoever is supporting "socialism on the whole"

So you can put that false belief to rest

[OrwellwasRight]

97. What is the basis of your statement?

Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland all doing better than the good ol' US of A. Better health th outcomes, literacy rates, infant mortality rates, free college, free worker retraining, more modern infrastructure, etc. What exactly isn't working?

Not only is your statement incorrect, it is inapt. I don't know of anyone who has proposed "socialism" for the US.

[cascadiance]

103. And whether they know it or not, Americans WANT a wealth divide closer to what Sweden has...

As noted in this study:

http://www.rawstory.com/2010/09/poll-wealth-distribution-similar-sweden/

The Korporate Media Propaganda dumbed down populace here doesn't realize how bad our wealth divide is, or how much more they would want to be like a country like Sweden's wealth divide. There will be hell to pay for it later by the elites if they at some point don't let democracy run its course and try to move to fascism instead.

The longer they wait, the more apt they are to suffer the fates of the victims of a "French Revolution" style of rebellion here with a lot of costs to everybody.

[TygrBright]

14. Is anyone else both baffled and squicked by the oxymoronic "democratic elite" thing?

[HappyPlace]

17. I am.

Elite? Democratic elite? Why?

They are the problem among our ranks.

befuddledly,

HappyPlace.

[Scuba]

69. /\_/\_This right here_/\_/\

[HappyPlace]

16. "Clearly, the party has basically spoken."

Well, if they don't learn to LISTEN, there isn't going to be a party much longer.

[PFunk1]

20. Note: Democratic elites, NOT the democratic base hince the problem.

It's this crap that has many dems becoming indies before Bernie showed up. The dictating from high days are over.

[Fred Sanders]

22. Dictating from high places.....Clinton or Tump? Thanks for the laugh, new poser! Are you on the right thread??

[Live and Learn]

30. Isn't calling someone for a low thread count against TOS? nt

[Fred Sanders]

31. Depends on the nature of the post. I guess we will soon find out!

The new poster's familiarity with the ToS at their new member site is impressive.

[Live and Learn]

32. No idea what you are implying.

I was simply pointing it out to you in case you wanted to edit your post.

Do what you like. It is pretty rude though.

[Le Taz Hot]

84. You were a new poster too once

and we let you stay. Now would be a good time to pay it forward.

[Le Taz Hot]

85. I absolutely agree.

And welcome to DU.

[bucolic_frolic]

21. Breathless?

Who writes this stuff?

[Fred Sanders]

23. Paid propaganda staff writers toiling for minimum wage for the corporate media owned by and protecting the 1%, is my guess.

[Indepatriot]

24. Clearly the Wall Street Wing of "the party" has indeed spoken. The Party however, has a little thing

called a "primary" where the rabble get to have a say....the media calling Hillary "The Boss" is like them calling Michael Jackson "The King Of Pop', or the GOP calling Benghazi "a scandal"...they can say it all they want but it won't make it the truth.

[peacebird]

101. ^^^this!^^^

[EEO]

25. Oh good. She has the support of the people who will make sure she changes nothing.

NOTHING.

[Lorien]

89. Except to funnel more of our money and labor to her donors

and destroy the planet at an ever faster pace.

[still_one]

26. As I have said to Bernie supporters for similar like posts, is this really LBN?

[MADem]

37. This is totally LBN--there was a meeting, and support was re-pledged.

The quotes from those in attendance might make some happy, and others not so happy.

People who aren't happy will cry that this isn't LBN, because they don't want it to be highly visible. People who are pleased with this news will say "Glad I read that brand new information right here on DU."

[still_one]

42. The source is coming from Politico which is a gossip rag, not what I would call a major Newspaper.

Incidentally, the article is actually putting a negative slant on Hillary, not surprising from the history of Politico, by referring to the "Democratic elite"

However, I am not too concerned, since I have no doubt the Bernie supporters will ad nausum be sure to post some LBN on "The emails", or how "Biden is getting close to making a decision".

I just don't consider any of this really LBN, that's all

By the way, the use of the word "elite" is not a positive connotation, and I have no doubt that is intentional from Politico

[ericson00]

48. this is latest breaking news because its breaking as not many expected so much Party support early

for Hillary Clinton. It's latest because the event was today. And its news because she was supposed to be sinking!!!

[still_one]

62. I hear you, I just never bought the nonsense that she was sinking.

[MADem]

63. So only POLITICO articles that feature Sanders are OK for LBN?

This isn't gossip. A meeting did happen, and words were spoken.

If "incidently, the article is actually putting a negative slant on Hillary" then why the frantic rush to shut it down?

And if someone doesn't know the difference between the contextual use of the word "elite" when dealing with party leaders v. rank and file, and attempts to ascribe the 'monied' definition to the term, I just can't waste my time with that foolishness. The word 'elites' has been used in a political context long before Politico was a shitstain idea on Albritton drawers.

It has to do with influence-makers, people who have been around for a long time, who are party insiders, who know how things work, who know how to organize and influence events.

I'm flummoxed at how obtuse people on the internet have gotten in less than eight years. No one knows what a political elite is, they think it means something other than the obvious; no one is aware of superdelegates, they wrongly believe this is a new thing....it's like a junior high school civics class up in here all of a sudden.

We'll have to get someone to teach the class all about the electoral college--that'll freak 'em out, too, I'm guessing.

[still_one]

65. I said just the opposite: "As I have said to Bernie supporters for similar like posts, is this

really LBN", meaning that the politico articles for Bernie are not LBN either.

As for your positive view of elite, here is how i iviewed it politically:

"In political and sociological theory, an elite is a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth or political power. In general, elite means the more powerful group of people."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite

Now of course you may have a different connotation, such that political elite are the "most informed, educated and politically active people who have a strong influence.

However, I will admit based on your post, that I probably misinterpreted the term, and the second meaning is the most likely.

I'll also admit I have a bias against Politico, since I think they produce more negative stories on Hillary than are warranted

I think it is a borderline whether it should be General Discussion : Primaries or LBN

[MADem]

70. It's not a "positive" or "negative" view of the term. It is simply descriptive.

It references those who have done the hard work and put in the time to become functionaries in the political machine. They are the ones who make decisions about the direction that the party is headed, how the party will prosecute an agenda, how the platform will be rolled out. Yes, they do "control a disproportionate amount of political power" but that's only because they get off their asses and get to work.

Most Americans don't even bother to VOTE.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

[still_one]

71. good points.

[Live and Learn]

29. She is the boss??? And here I thought, we the people, got to decide that.

I find this utterly disgusting.

[nichomachus]

33. "Elite" -- that's all you need to know.

Hillary -- chosen by the "elite."

Bye-bye democracy.

[msongs]

34. another opinion piece masquerading as LBN nt

[RiverNoord]

35. Two words to use when you really want to sink your argument...

1) "Clearly"

2) "Obviously"

Both are words describing inherently subjective perceptions.

It may be clear to a general, for instance, that a battle is won, because he hasn't noticed the well-concealed flanking forces about to reveal themselves and destroy him.

It may also be obvious that a friend is a good, kind, generous person, lacking knowledge of the friend's late night KKK activities.

Judges groan when they hear lawyers use either word. Someone trying to convince others that something is or is not true, using the words 'clearly' and 'obvious'(ly), are failing to recognize the nature of their circumstances - if the truth of a thing was either obvious or clear to others, there would be no need to persuade them of it in the first place...

Finally - I'm not a Democratic 'elite,' although I've never seen the qualifications list. I suspect that the top qualification is 'wealthy.' Regardless, the perspectives of the 'elite' mean nothing whatsoever to me as my opinions and beliefs form. The very concept of a class of political 'elites' is anathema to a democratic form of government. Which is probably why we don't really have one - at least in the 'reality-based' sense.

[MADem]

36. And the spoiler crowd can cry in their beer. One organizer sums it up:

“[Biden] doesn’t reach out to me for seven f---ing years and then he wants me to help him out? I don’t think so,” said Florida committeeman and Clinton backer Jon M. Ausman, lamenting the vice president's lack of party activity compared to Bill Clinton, who invited him to the Lincoln Bedroom as president. “I don’t really give a shit. I don’t care if he gets into the race or not."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-2016-democratic-elite-213148#ixzz3k9wmITrs


Some people know how to coalition - build.

Some people don't.

[Hotler]

40. I've said before and I will say it again.....

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton period. I will write my own name in if need be.

[ericson00]

49. you sound very Republican.

show some honour to party heroes such as the Clintons, will ya.

[Hotler]

99. I'm far from a republican.

"show some honour to party heroes such as the Clintons, will ya."
That's fucking funny.

Have another glass of that kool-aid.

[Geronimoe]

41. She already had the Party Elites

She had them before she announced and of course she and Bill are two of the biggest elites in the Party.

And of course she had the Party elites in 2008.

However the isn't England and she isn't the Queen. The Party only holds one of three branches of Federal Gov and isn't doing well on the State level.

[ericson00]

47. this ain't 2008

?w=610&h=474

[cascadiance]

105. And big money contributors are FAR MORE concerned about Bernie than they were of Obama then...

Money can be used to do a lot of things to persuade people to endorse certain candidates early as well as to not endorse certain candidates early too. Especially with Citizen's United in place now, and the big advertising machine waiting to go after whoever doesn't do their bidding, it's not hard to see what is happening. I think Bernie with zero announcements is more of an indicator that this is happening than if he had a few endorsements with Hillary still having a heavy lead. That's why in my book endorsements as a measure of candidate popularity is useless, but it is useful to show the extent of corruption of our system now.

[mak3cats]

43. Salami, salami, baloney...

Not. The party doesn't speak for me. I reserve the right to cast my own vote.

[left-of-center2012]

45. "She is the boss. She’s nearly locked up the support of party elites."

Many of us see that as the problem and why Bernie's support grows daily.

[Billsmile]

46. So When Do The People Who Actually Do The Voting Matter?

Seems like the Democratic Party doesn't need the voting public to choose their candidate anymore.

Good luck getting people excited about a candidate that was preselected for them. Alienate people much?

[Truprogressive85]

51. Lol

March and follow the orders of the elite !!

DO NOT DARE QUESTION THE PARTY BOSSES

This not how democray work the elite do not tell voters how they should vote


The Party =the people

What's crazy I have yet to make my mind on who I will vote for ,but if Sen.sanders is a socialist fine I rather vote for a socialist than a coward who couldn't speak up against Bush and his invasion. That goes for every democrat that vote for the war !!

[cantbeserious]

55. No Citizen Need Settle For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils - Go Bernie Go

eom

[Thinkingabout]

58. I will still rally around Hillary, she is strong, smart and has lots of foreign experience.

She is polling well because many has confidence in her ability, just as the endorsements she has received from current Congressional members and former members of Congress who have worked with Hillary, Bernie. Webb, and Chaffee. She has also been endorsed by governors and former governors, former SOS, and many others. She is a good advocate for women's rights, children's rights, civil rights, education and health care.

[cascadiance]

106. Like presenting the TPP and other free trade bills to other countries as SOS...

... that she "still needs to study" before she can give the public her opinion on it.

[SoapBox]

60. I will not vote for her under any circumstances.

The "party" has spoken?

Guess the "party" forgot about tens of MILLIONS of us Dems...

In other words, the entrenched, bubble, belt-way crowd, DINO, billionaire Bankster crowd has selected their same old-same old Queen and is giving the rest of us the finger.

No more Clinton.

[ericson00]

61. so you're for President Trump?

not exactly Democratic, seeing that this is Democratic Underground, not Green Underground, Socialist Underground, Republican Underground, etc.

[still_one]

66. Anyone on DU who decides not to vote for the Democratic nominee if that Democratic nominee is

Hillary, obviously does not believe there is a difference between the republicans running and Hillary, and that type of thinking, means they are ignoring the Supreme Court, Women's rights, Civil Rights, and a lot of other issues, that in THEIR view they do not think means very much.

Ignoring that because of the SC, bush became president, Roe V Wade is very close to being overturned, and Citizens United along with other terrible decisions, are because of the Supreme Court, and the republican appointments on that court.

The facts remain that those who do not see the difference between republicans and any of the Democratic candidates, are not the vast majority of Democrats.

[still_one]

100. Then they will make themselves irrelevant

[Lorien]

90. Me either. I'll vote Green before I vote for pro TPP

pro Keystone pipeline Hillary. I'm Left of center, she is not. I "owe" her nothing!

[LiberalElite]

64. Glad to know this - now I can sleep late on Election Day,

stay in to watch the soaps and go to bed early - and not bother to vote.

[McCamy Taylor]

67. When the "elite" anointed Obama, no one seemed to mind.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

77. The "elite" did not anoint Obama.

He fought hard for the nomination, and IIRC Hillary even refused to concede for several days that he had the majority of delegate votes.

[merrily]

83. Depends on whom you believe.

http://www.politico.com/story/2010/01/book-disputes-reids-obama-timeline-031318

Yes, Obama did fight hard for the nomination but that is not the issue. Also, Hillary refused to concede for much longer than a few days after it was no longer mathematically possible for her to win the primary. However, that is not the issue, either. The issue is, who was the choice in 2008 of the Party's leaders? And that depends on whom you believe.

In 2008, I heard Daschle recount a conversation between him and Obama in which Daschle was urging Obama to run and Obama was saying it was too soon, but Daschle did not mention a date for the conversation.

[Proud Public Servant]

78. People, party elite support matters

Don't believe me? Ask President Kerry.

[question everything]

86. And Obama (nt)

[Lorien]

87. If I wanted another 1980s republican in office I would vote for one

POLICY MATTERS, and "you'll find out when I'm President" is NOT a "policy". She's a corporate boot licker; another Trojan horse for the wealthy elite whose purpose is to ram through the corporate agenda under the guise of the big "D". Enough is enough. She'll lose; if not the primary, then the general election. Most of us are DONE with voting for "the lesser of evils", or didn't you DLCers learn that in 2014?

[sadoldgirl]

91. Well, if the elite has spoken,

say good bye to the vote of millenials in the GE.

[bobthedrummer]

92. A kick for Bernie-not "the elite" aka DLC or other euphemisms

http://berniesanders.com

[4dsc]

96. No the PArty hasn't spoken

only those elitist at the top have spoken. The people are slowly warming up to Bernie and the populist message that is lost on the centrist and 3 way democrats.

The party has just started.

[cascadiance]

107. I think some here are confused about how a democracy works... Elections are becoming "passe"...

... with them. Why bother with that tough crap of an election when they've already preselected who will win with both parties annointing candidates, and rigging the voting machines and campaign spending in their favor. It seems rather meaningless and a waste of money to them.

That's why the populace is starting to gravitate to Bernie on the Democratic side, and Trump (ugly as he is on many things) on the other side as the only candidates in the race that aren't being "bought" by outside money! ALL Americans are SICK of that crap, and at some point those using money to try and buy our government are going to pay for their crimes. How long they wait will determine how big a price they pay!

[cascadiance]

102. Let's just do away with democracy as a process! Corporatists HATE having to deal with it!

We can just cheer "Il Duce" that is appointed for us! Just have to give an illusion of an election by having a choice with another "annointed" one that will also do the bidding of "the boss" in power!

[Puzzledtraveller]

109. They think they will win with her.

That's the part that concerns me. They have become blinded by their singular objective. Her likability is staggeringly low and in the general, legions of people vote purely on who they like the most, hate the least, think is coolest, best looking, funnier, people who do not even know what party the candidate belongs to. I used to register people to vote as part of my job as a SNAP and Medicaid caseworker. You have no idea how clueless a large part of the electorate is. She is not well liked on the national stage,even by many in the know democrat voters!

[restorefreedom]

111. the sad part for them

is that they completely don't get that this is the exact reason why the establishment is going to lose big time in this election. Nobody wants the elites to be in charge anymore.....that's the whole point. so bragging about how you have the support of the elite is probably going to have the opposite effect of what they think it will. But they don't see that. And that makes the point all over again