Are machine politics what is killing the Democratic Party.

[kristopher]

I found this comment on an econ blog and the idea is haunting me. Thought it was worth sharing.

Brian | February 21, 2016 at 3:10 pm |
Here is what I think is the most important issue. In 2008, Clinton dominated the Democratic National Committee using the same machine politics she is using today. So to win, Obama built a new, separate organization, and didn’t allocate much of those funds to congressional races. Because of this, the DNC did not have money to pour into critical races nor get out the vote and Republicans won 69 seats. Today, the DNC has 63% of the permanent staff it had in 2007. (115/183)

The Clinton vs. Sanders race is doing the same thing. Clinton is again using machine politics to control the DNC, and Sanders supporters have run campaigns to kill donations to the DNC to force changes and make the system fair.

Someone needs to hit the democratic presidential candidates with this problem as a debate question. Ask them what they are going to do about it, and ask why anybody should vote for either of them if they are just going to continue to rip apart funding for the congressional offices that matter more.

Hilary – When are you going to stop wrecking the DNC and killing democrats in Congress by treating DNC as your personal fiefdom?

Sanders – How are you going to ensure that congressional seats are funded if you get elected?

And separately, for Barack Obama: You became the first black president, great. But by spitting off a huge donor pool and hoarding it, you destroyed your chances of working with congress completely, put Republicans in charge, and made climate change denial the norm in Congress. So what are you going to do about that from this point forward? How will you rectify that?

First comment below article at http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/02/krugman-gang-4-need-apologize-smearing-gerald-friedman.html

The DNC doesn't even do national voter registration drives! Do you think they don't want high levels of voter participation?

[elleng]

1. Sounds about right to me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Yes, and you can see it in what happened in Nevada

that was a new level of Tammany Hall

[kristopher]

3. Can you imagine being an employee at a casino...

...and getting called into a room by your boss and told you are going to be allowed to caucus on company time. The boss tells you who they are voting for (in this case HRC) and tells you that you can vote for who ever you wish.

You get to the caucus and they (including your boss) rush you into the room where you have to publicly state who you are voting for.

What are you going to do?

Yes, that Harry Reid is a real gent, he is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Well those are the kinds of games that were common with the Tammany Hall machine

I had flashbacks to primary sources from THAT period.

[onecaliberal]

4. Corruption is the problem. The party is bought and paid for.

[kristopher]

5. Agree but that doesn't explain downstream losses.

It has been a bloodbath.

[onecaliberal]

8. It really does because people are TIRED of corruption and fail to vote. They don't feel

Like anything is going to change so why bother. If you don't give people something to vote for Theyre not going to vote. Couple that with voter suppression and gerrymandering.

[kristopher]

9. All true, but not mutually exclusive

[deathrind]

7. The one thing republicans

Have been doing consistently right for long time. State and local (small l) races matter just as much as the national level.

I would love to see all three questions asked of each person.