The Race to be the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee

Written By: - Date published: 7:35 am, September 17th, 2019 - 38 comments
Categories: elections, International, Left, liberalism, social democracy, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, us politics - Tags: , , , , ,

It’s been on my mind for some time to write down some thoughts on the race within the Democratic Party for some time. So here are some thoughts.

There are just three candidates in the race who might make a reasonable claim to being progressive or left. They are Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren. As such, and because that’s the direction of travel in the world today, they’re really the three nominees worth any focus. Biden’s only worth mentioning, and only in passing, because he’s cutting such a tragic figure. He really needs to be instructed to stand down. Hell – he makes even Donald Trump look to be wrapped tight.

The majority of the rest of the candidates are just entrenched centrists or establishment figures like Biden. Some of them are simply using the nomination to raise their political profile for whatever other political goals they have. And, of course, there are a couple of atypical candidates in the shape of Yang and Williamson.

So need it be said that mainstream/corporate media has been rubbish in presenting the nomination process to the public at large? Besides waxing lyrical over initial and decidedly sketchy polls that gave Biden a huge lead over the rest of the field, they have tried and failed in turn to talk up and propel establishment types like O’Rourke, Harris and Buttigieg, while ghosting, gas lighting and smearing the likes of Gabbard and Sanders.

Of the three progressive candidates, Gabbard resigned her chair on the DNC in 2016 to endorse Sanders, while Warren, possibly because she had her sights set on being Hilary Clinton’s pick for VP didn’t. It’s worth noting that Sanders only ran in 2016 after failing to convince Warren that she should.

I’ll cut to the chase here. Warren is the dead rat the establishment are willing to swallow if that’s what it takes to avoid the possibility of a Sanders Presidency.

Now, I don’t believe they’ll get the chance to experience that gastronomical delight, because Sanders is going to be the nominee. Tulsi Gabbard’s stated intent is to stay in the race until the convention, (then endorse Bernie?) but the DNC have lumped her with dead weight through their arbitrary and opaque use of “DNC recognised” polls to exclude her from the debate stage.

Putting aside any possibility of their being a grand strategy playing out between the progressive candidates, the question to be asked is whether Warren fancies her chances.

I’d guess she does, or she wouldn’t be talking to the ‘Clinton machine’ – presumably to secure the nod of Super Delegates should they come into play. Here’s the thing though. They say you should have a long spoon when you sup with the Devil. But I’m not sure Warren has any kind of a spoon at all. What payment might Clinton and her cohorts extract from Warren for helping her bid to be the Democratic nominee? They’re certainly not in the business of doing things for free. And it’s worth remembering that Clinton played Warren right out of the game back in 2016 by simply suggesting she might be a VP pick.

That aside, Warren has stated (from 3:38 in the linked vid) she’ll be taking corporate money and PAC money and any ‘dark money’ she can get her hands on should she be contesting the Presidency. That simply isn’t going down with the burgeoning progressive base of Democratic voters.

Should Warren’s possible optimism not be misplaced, the question is whether the US needs an Obama Presidency redux – one that leaves the left stonewalled for the duration of a President’s term in office? Because that’s what a Warren Presidency would probably be. And beyond that, the world doesn’t need Trump 2.1.

Looking further afield than just the borders of the US, the world certainly doesn’t need the US intelligence and foreign policy establishment continuing to run amok and filling peoples’ heads with bullshit through its mainstream propaganda outlets. And while Sanders has said he will take on the fossil industry, the pharmaceutical industry and Wall Street, he remains decidedly patchy on foreign policy. As is Warren. Gabbard is the only nominee who has their head screwed on when it comes to US foreign policy/relations and the US intelligence community. But besides being marginalised by the DNC, when not being ghosted by msm she’s been relentlessly vilified (variously and interchangably) as an Assadist/a Putin Puppet/a Hindu Nationalist/a Trump 2.1/a homophobe… and that’s been by both msm and more than a few fauxgressive news sites.

When all is said and done, I’m optimistic that something not too far removed from a Sanders/Warren/Gabbard triumvirate will come to pass in 2020. Certainly, barring a catastrophe, Sanders will be President. And it’s worth noting that besides Warren and Sanders ‘tag teaming’ on the debate stage, when it comes to foreign policy, it’s been very much the case that Gabbard has been the ice breaker clearing a passage for Sanders to safely speak up on aspects of US foreign policy. Gabbard would make a fantastic Foreign Secretary in a Sanders cabinet, just as Warren would do great things were she to be empowered and unleashed on Wall Street and corporate monopolies.

In the meantime, we’ve got – how much longer!? – msm dispensing nothing but garbage and rubbish – of illustrating how it’s just another wagon in a long train of various liberal, corporate and establishment wagons that have stopped forging on and begun circling.

38 comments on “The Race to be the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. roblogic 1
    17 September 2019 at 8:12 am

    There's some seismic stuff happening in US politics when the lead candidates openly endorse Socialism, criticise Wall St, and don't pay homage to US militarism & world hegemony.

    But is it enough to dislodge Trump? I have my doubts. The Democrat brand is very tarnished.

  2. Kevin 2
    17 September 2019 at 8:51 am

    I have serious concerns for Biden's mental health. He does not come across as someone in full control of their mental state.

    • mosa 2.1
      17 September 2019 at 9:16 am

      " He does not come across as someone in full control of their mental state "

      I thought that was a pre requisite for the job.

      • KevinTrue. 2.1.1
        17 September 2019 at 10:02 am

        True.

        When you pose a rhetorical question like "imagine if President Obama was assassinated" then the writing is definitely on the wall.

  3. Tiger Mountain 3
    17 September 2019 at 8:55 am

    Feel the Bern! Some say Bernie is too old, but there is not much he can do about that… He would have one good term in him at least going by his demonstrated energy level and commitment.

    He has been with the people for so many years, it really would restore some faith in US citizens if he made it through–the DNC and Superdelegates firstly, and then the gerrymandering and voter suppression and Electoral College.

    One thing is for sure, if he defies the odds and is the candidate, Trump will not be menacing him on a TV stage.

    • aj 3.1
      17 September 2019 at 9:50 am

      One thing is for sure, if he defies the odds and is the candidate, Trump will not be menacing him on a TV stage.

      And for this reason alone he should be the pick. He is the strongest debater by far, he's called BS on Trump the longest, and the clearest. Good luck Bernie.

      • Phil 3.1.1
        17 September 2019 at 10:15 am

        And for this reason alone [Trump will not be menacing him on a TV stage] he should be the pick.

        If you're solely looking for a nominee with the best ability to stand up to Trump on a debate stage, it's hard to look past Kamala Harris.

        • KevinTrue. 3.1.1.1
          17 September 2019 at 10:49 am

          I am guessing you have never seen her in a debate then. Her record might appeal to republicans, because democrats have seen through her bullshit and the polls show it.

    • Phil 3.2
      17 September 2019 at 10:13 am

      Feel the Bern!

      In 2016 Bernie won more than 40% of the primary vote. He's currently somewhere between 10% and 20% depending on the pollster.

      ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    • Adrian Thornton 3.3
      17 September 2019 at 11:58 am

      I know this is pretty low brow of me, and politics should be about more than a couple of managed debates…but Trump vs Sanders would have to be one of the epic political debates of all time, like Ali/Foreman, a big heavy hitting ring bully vs a seasoned ring warrior. If it happens it will without doubt be the most viewed debate in history that is for sure.

      Lets just hope the DNC don't find a way to screw him, we all know that they will if they can…I guess the question they are asking themselves right now is..how?

      • Phil 3.3.1
        17 September 2019 at 1:31 pm

        Trump vs Sanders would have to be one of the epic political debates of all time

        Anthony Atamanuik and James Adomian already did it.



  4. Dukeofurl 4
    17 September 2019 at 8:56 am

    "He really needs to be instructed to stand down. "

    Thats why they have primaries so the voters decide who continues.

    Has any even heard of Gabbard being in any sort of serious contention. She has been on Faux news to wave all sorts of conspiracy allegations about the campaign process…that will convince dems for sure

    The Debate threshold that Gabbard said wasnt transparent is listed here
    1) The polling threshold: A candidate must have hit 2 percent or more in at least four polls released between June 28 and August 28.

    — These can be either national polls or early state polls (of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina).

    — These polls must be conducted by one of these organizations: CNN, Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Associated Press, NPR, the Des Moines Register, Monmouth University, Quinnipiac University, the University of New Hampshire, or Winthrop University.

    — One catch is that a candidate cannot use multiple polls by the same organization covering the same geographic area. (For example, if there are two NBC national polls showing a candidate meeting the threshold, only one of them will count).

    2) The donor threshold: A candidate must have received donations from 130,000 people. Also, they must have at least 400 donors each in at least 20 different states
    When you dont comply you go on Fox News to say the DNC is using ‘secret rules’ ?
    https://www.vox.com/2019/8/30/20840530/tulsi-gabbard-dnc-september-debate-exclusion

    • Adrian Thornton 4.1
      17 September 2019 at 12:05 pm

      "Has any even heard of Gabbard being in any sort of serious contention."

      That is exactly what Bill didn't say, but maybe you are more insightful than the rest of us so how about pointing out to us where that was said?

      Or maybe you are just using the opportunity to attack Gabbard, as instructed by your handlers at The Washington Post .

  5. Stuart Munro. 5
    17 September 2019 at 9:01 am

    Yall can take Biden from the DNC’s cold dead hands.

  6. Dennis Frank 6
    17 September 2019 at 9:11 am

    I predicted a while back that Trump would win a second term. Nothing has happened since to change my mind. The failure of any of the Dem contenders to impress thus far is tempting me to go even further. So I will now predict that Trump wins decisively.

    If you think the Dem contenders are all trying to underwhelm everyone to lull Trump into a false sense of security, I hope you're right but doubt any are that clever!

    If you think any are worth rating as potential winners, read the appraisal by three Vox reviewers talking to each other after the recent debate featuring all those contenders in a group event, and see if your faith evaporates…
    https://www.vox.com/2019/9/13/20864951/democratic-debate-september-2019-biden-warren-sanders-podcast

    • Dukeofurl 6.1
      17 September 2019 at 11:16 am

      No President can be reelected with Trump like approval ratings

      • Dennis Frank 6.1.1
        17 September 2019 at 12:30 pm

        Obama had Trump-like approval ratings & got re-elected! https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trump-hits-50-percent-approval-in-new-poll/

        "Trump has scored 50 percent with Rasmussen several times this year, and has even hit 51 percent. Other polls, though, tell a similar story: Trump’s approval rating is ticking up. He’s at 47 percent according to The Hill, 44 percent with Reuters, 44 percent with The Economist, 43 percent with Politico. The RealClearPolitics polling average gives Trump an overall score of 44.1 percent. On this day in 2011, then-President Obama’s approval rating according to the same metric was 44.0 percent."

        • Dukeofurl 6.1.1.1
          17 September 2019 at 2:15 pm

          Rasmussen is well known robo polling , but numbers are often not in line with the others.

          Trump has consistenly been unfavourable , just cherry picking a few dates doesnt prove anything

          • Dennis Frank 6.1.1.1.1
            17 September 2019 at 2:27 pm

            But I don't see how you think an average of polls is cherry-picking. Trump 0.1% ahead of Obama at the same stage of the electoral cycle is the point. Obama came from that level to get re-elected, so Trump can do likewise…

            • Phil 6.1.1.1.1.1
              19 September 2019 at 2:16 pm

              Obama came from that level to get re-elected, so Trump can do likewise…

              One key difference is the economy. Approval of Obama's handling of the economy was lower than approval of his handling for other functions (foreign policy, crime, immigration etc), and when the US got properly clear of the GFC his approval rating overall, and on the economy specifically, picked up.

              Trump, on the other hand, has a higher approval rating for his handling of the economy, while being weighed down with poor ratings on almost every other presidential function. If the economy tips into recession (which, as president, he can't really do much about) and his approval rating on the economy then falls, it's impossible to see him suddenly doing a better job elsewhere to make up for that.

              • Dennis Frank …
                19 September 2019 at 2:38 pm

                Good reasoning. I had a look at Marty Armstrong's blog: "Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell stated during a press conference this Wednesday… that the FOMC is prepared to lower rates later in the year in the event of an economic downturn. However, Powell does not foresee an economic decline in the near-term."

                "Today’s rate decision was met with expected criticism. “Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve Fail Again. No ‘guts,’ no sense, no vision! A terrible communicator!” President Trump tweeted after the Committee’s official statement. Trump has repeatedly pointed to other nation’s low or negative rate policies, claiming that the US is at a disadvantage. However, the data indicates that measures to artificially lower rates have not prevented economic declines." https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/market-talk/market-talk-september-18-2019/

                So the Fed aren't fussed about a recession. The loose cannon-in-chief bitches at the top capitalists – to a hammer, everyone else is a nail…

  7. mosa 7
    17 September 2019 at 9:38 am

    If Bernie is sworn in as president then he would have overcome the biggest challenge's any candidate would have faced in recent history.

    It will be miraculous event for him too get there and even more astonishing if he gets to implement his programme.

    He must win decisively as a close election would not be helpful in terms of his authority.

    Of course that would come down to numbers in the congress and senate and the intense pressure a lot of elected members would be under to thwart his domestic agenda.

    No one but a few believed Trump would become president but here we are.

    The outcome of this Democratic race will decide the future prospects of this party and its long term survival.

    It is a pivotal moment.

  8. Adrian Thornton 8
    17 September 2019 at 10:52 am

    Good piece there Bill, for sure Biden won't make to the end of the primaries, I cannot for the life of me understand why his people haven't pulled him already. A while ago I spent a few years going around the country interviewing old cycle racers in their late 60's to early 90's, quite a few in rest homes. Age related cognitive degeneration isn't hard to identify, and Biden unfortunately has it quite badly.

    As to Sanders being 'decidedly patchy on foreign policy' I would say that Sanders is playing this one as he should, we have to remember sitting here that the US population has been well and truly propagandized into being extremely paranoid about the outside world. With that in mind, Sanders is doing enough to keep his progressive base happy, and at the same time not freak out that huge base of voters who could be swayed by a seemingly 'weak on defense' candidate.

    I happen to believe sanders will be excellent on foreign policy, he has said and done enough in the above mentioned climate to assure me for one, that his world view is by far and away the best and most sane of any US president in the past 50 or so years (probably a lot longer) that I can think of anyway.

    The US liberal media and DNC establishment has already started to fall in behind Warren, hell even the Koch funded center-left think tank 'Third Way' have come down on Warrens side…

    'Warren emerges as potential compromise nominee'

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/19/democratic-establishment-elizabeth-warren-1369874

    And of course we have this ..but they won't be able to Stop Sanders this time.

    'The Incredible Belief That Corporate Ownership Does Not Influence Media Content'

    https://fair.org/home/the-incredible-belief-that-corporate-ownership-does-not-influence-media-content/?awt_l=CnT3e&awt_m=iP7iJWAjrYR._TQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss7tjLZKdMQ

    • Dukeofurl 8.1
      17 September 2019 at 2:10 pm

      "The Incredible Belief That Corporate Ownership Does Not Influence Media Content'

      Thats why Sanders spent a bit more than Clinton, $220 mill….in the primaries alone to tell voters directly. because you can read news stories online doesnt mean many US voters are reading the Washington Post

      And yet with all that money to give his message didnt win. He wont even get 43% this time either as he has competition for that side of Democratic politics. No real path for him to get momentum and win the nomination

  9. McFlock 9
    17 September 2019 at 9:22 pm

    Biden's the king everyone takes a swipe at to show how awesome they are. I think the odds are well against him.

    A Sanders:dolt45 debate will be two old men with crazy hair yelling at each other. Advantage:the orange mindwander.

    Most of the bland candidates come across as too polished. Advantage: the rapey prez.

    Warren could do it, but she comes pre-primed with taglines from the dementia demagogue: "Pocahontas", for example. She could pull it back, but it'll be a fight.

    That leaves a bunch of folk who are all adequate, but each has a policy shortcoming. But I reckon they'll have good odds of beating the fuckwit, and if the dems turn the senate with some #metoo wave candidates, a lot of the executive power so fundamentally abused will go back to the legislature. And if the dems don't turn the senate, there will be no fundamental change anyway.

    • Adrian Thornton 9.1
      18 September 2019 at 12:29 pm

      Man your above comment really exposes how much you really hate the idea of a real progressive project being allowed the chance of rocking your safe world, and thereby helping and working for the working classes for a change. It also shows that Sanders is exactly on the right track if it obviously scares and threatens you and people like you so much.

      • McFlock 9.1.1
        18 September 2019 at 2:00 pm

        Dude, if either Sanders or the orange shitgibbon are known for their soft-spoken delivery or well-ordered flowing locksI will gladly concede that my characterisation of their debate as "two old men with crazy hair yelling at each other".

        Are you guaranteeing that if Warren gets the nom the twistie won't keep calling her "Pocahontas"? He's spent the last few years preparing a raft of lines like that specifically aimed at her.

        You confuse an assessment of unfavourable ground with criticism of the competitors.

        The only dem candidates I criticised were the ones I didn't name. The bland & polished, or the left but with a policy blank. Maybe wanting to keep corporate healthcare, or a foreign policy I'm not overly enamoured with.

        But you obviously saw someone prodeicting something other than a righteous Sanders victory and decided that this was horrendous neoliberal criticism of him. People like you are part of the reason we have the pootus in chief with his tiny hands on the nuclear trigger.

  10. TheBlackKittenReturns 10
    20 September 2019 at 9:23 pm

    Trump will win 2020. Just watch him campaign and sway those middle American voters with the same populist bullet point topics he used to entice them to go to the polls and vote for him in 16. As much as you may despise Trump, you have to give him his due in knowing what to say and how to get those people to vote for him. He is good. You may hate him but he is good.

    I can’t see Warren overcoming Trump and power he has over middle America. The only one I can think of that may is Sanders. Sanders also talks to middle America about their concerns. But I think Trump will overcome that when he starts bringing up things like Mexican boarder immigration, China, jobs back to America, America being the king of the world. Middle America love that.

    I am surprised with Biden. I remember watching him in a debate years ago when he was Obama’s vice president and he was not too bad. Quite surprising.