"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Berniecratic Party?"
"You're damn straight I am!"
It's time for a third political party — or maybe even fourth and fifth party. The current Democratic Party and the Republican Party didn't always have a dual-chokehold on American politics. The United States has had many other different political parties before — some successful, some not so much.
But our current two parties have operated as though the American people have no other choices, using all their financial, political and government power with their ties to the media , large corporations and the big banks to keep themselves entrenched in power. They are all in cahoots together in varying degrees, hence the term "the establishment" — a term I remember from the 1960s. Some of the politicians we have today used to rail against the establishment, but are now a part of that establishment.
Some CEOs, who are against unions, used to belong to unions when they benefited from unions — when they were first working their way up the corporate latter. People like Glenn Beck belonged to a union, and now calls union members Socialists. Just like Beck, the mega-wealthy actor George Clooney probably belonged to the union SAG-AFTRA as well. But now that these guys are multimillionaires, their ideologies have changed, their morals corrupted by excess wealth. Now Clooney holds fundraisers for Hillary Clinton, maybe because he knows Bernie Sanders (with an honest Congress) would probably raise his taxes.
Boycott Cher too, because she supports Hillary Clinton, because the super-rich are circling their wagons and supporting the super-rich. She says she's rich and supports the poor, those people who made her so rich. But instead of Bernie, she supports someone who takes money from Wall Street.
Just look at the campaign finance laws and voting laws and unfairly gerrymandered congressional districts we now have ... the entire system is rigged. We've seen how the state caucuses and primaries have been so far in 2016 ... chaos and confusion in many places, when it could all be done easily, quickly and more honestly and efficiently online. First-time voters used ink-stained fingers in Iraq, and probably had a more honest election than we do. It's ironic that the U.S. promotes "democracy" all around the world (usually by starting wars and/or overthrowing regimes), when we ourselves don't practice what we preach. (Some have argued that we haven't been promoting democracy at all, but only exerting our influence to expand our military might to protect trading to benefit our largest corporations to expand trade in "emerging markets".)
Once in government power, the two major political parties have used their political monopoly to write laws and rules to sustain their political power perpetually, and use "superdelegates and "unbound" delegates to keep "political outsiders" such as Senator Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (and whoever else who doesn't want to play by THEIR rules) out of the political process — denying THE PEOPLE a real choice in their form of government. (Even the State's allocated delegates aren't fairly proportioned to the popular vote, because the political insiders wants the power to do what THEY think is best for all of us, as though the rest of us were all naive and ignorant young children.)
These same two political parties, for decades, have rigged the tax code, and everything else, to favor the most wealthy, those who finance their political campaigns (bankers don't go to jail). Hillary Clinton claims that when people give her millions of dollars, it has no influence at all on her. Give me $20 to jump and I'll ask "How high?" So who does she think she's kidding? Bernie asks, then why do they give them so much money?
The Federalist Party (or First Hamiltonian Party) was the first American political party. It existed from the early 1790s to 1816. Today, Americans are fed up with our current crop of politicos and want other viable alternatives. The next major political party in the U.S. should be the Berniecrats — or something similar to commemorate Senator Bernie Sanders.
Obama "ran" as a Progressive Democrat in 2008, but for many people who voted for him, he turned out to be a major disappointment, being more "moderate" and "centrist" than he had presented himself on the campaign trail in his moving speeches. But in 2012, for many disfranchised Democrats, they had no other choice. It was either Obama or Mitt Romney (another choice of the least bad candidate, not the best candidate.)
Today, Hillary Clinton (meant as a jab at Bernie Sanders) is saying that she's been a life-time Democrat (even though, while in college, she was once a Barry Goldwater Republican). But is bragging to be a establishment moderate Democratic all their life REALLY something to even brag about? After all, they, just like the Republicans, have been just as guilty for rigging the political and economic system.
Too often, after a primary, presidential candidates always "move to the middle" to garner votes, rather than sticking to their core principals or beliefs — and/or too often "compromise" too much while governing as President (Obama, good example). Hillary, seeing how much support Bernie Sanders has gained, has "evolved" on many issues and "moved to the left" (or so she's behaved).
But after Americans vote for one candidate, all too often they get stuck with someone else (for at least 4 years ) who is quite different afterwards. As we've seen with Hillary Clinton, to pander for votes she's moved to the left. But it is 100% guaranteed that, after the general election (or maybe even sometime during the general election debates), if she becomes the Democratic nominee, she will move away from the left and right back to her more moderate/centrist positions. You can bet on that.
Bernie Sanders would not sell out his progressive values (or change his positions like Obama or Hillary, like on "free trade") and will not move to the mythic center. Obama campaigned like FDR and ended up being another Republican LITE. Bernie has campaigned on the values he's believed in all his life, and he won't change if he's elected as President. With him, what you see is what you get.
Hillary Clinton thinks Bernie Sanders' supporters don't do their own research — but yet, she wants their vote. She thinks that if we were "smarter", we'd vote for her instead of Bernie Sanders. I did my own research, and I'm voting for Bernie Sanders in November (whether the party machine nominates him or not).
On election day in 1948, the Dixiecrats received 1,169,021 popular votes and 39 electoral votes. The Progressive Party nominee, Henry A. Wallace (FDR's third-term VP), drew a nearly equal number of popular votes (1,157,172) from the Democrats' left wing (although he did not carry any States with electoral votes.) The split in the Democratic Party in the 1948 election had been expected to produce a win by the GOP nominee Tom Dewey, but Harry Truman defeated Dewey in an upset victory.
Since that time, the Democratic Party has been perceived by many as abandoning the White working-class, even though they claim to be the party of diversity (and need to rely on the African-American vote to win elections). The Berniecratic Party, on the other had, would be truly all inclusive. But a split in the Democratic Party could again be a real possibility in 2016, and some pundits might tell you to expect a Republican victory if that were to happen (unless the Republican Party also splits, which also looks to be the case).
But for Democrats, this doesn't have to be . . . not with the Bernie or Bust theory:
Maybe if Bernie Sanders can catch up to Hillary Clinton in the popular vote by June 24 (when the last vote is counted), we can assume he will also have more votes than the Donald Trump by that time. That would mean that, by the time of the Democratic and Republican conventions in July, Bernie wouldn't need a single superdelegate, because he wouldn't need to be nominated by (have the blessing of) the Democratic Party machine; and instead he could run as a third party Independent candidate.
He wouldn't need to depend the Democratic Party machine for financial backing to fund his campaign for a general election either, because he will still have plenty of campaign donors. And he wouldn't need to worry about splitting the Democratic vote either, because most Republicans who don't like Trump or Clinton will either vote for Sanders or they won't vote at all (especially women); whereas turnout for Bernie would be YUGE, because Independents and young people who weren't registered as Democrats or Republicans to vote in closed primaries could vote for Bernie in November.
President Harry S. Truman had said in 1952 (and he could have been speaking to Hillary Clinton today):
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing [a "moderate" Democrat — someone not like FDR], the people will choose the genuine article [like Bernie Sanders], every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign. But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are — when he stands up like a man [or a woman] and puts the issues before the people [like Bernie Sanders does] — then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again. We are getting a lot of suggestions to the effect that we ought to water down our platform and abandon parts of our program. These, my friends, are Trojan Horse suggestions. I have been in politics for over 30 years, and I know what I am talking about, and I believe I know something about the business. One thing I am sure of: Never, never throw away a winning program. This is so elementary that I suspect the people handing out this advice are not really well-wishers of the Democratic Party."
I'd rather vote for an authentic person and an authentic progressive candidate, rather than a "moderate" Democrat or a phony progressive who relies on big corporations and big banks to finance her campaign. Hillary Clinton would just be another 8 more years of the same old cattle excrement. And I would NEVER vote for any "small government" Republican today.
Myself, I'm a card-carrying "Bernie or Bust" Berniecrat. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, so I would have no reason at all to vote for a Republican or Hillary Clinton.