From Chris Hedges' article, Et Tu, Bernie?...

"Sanders delegates were deluged on the eve of the convention with messages from the Sanders campaign to be respectful, not to disrupt the nominating process and to support Clinton, messages that often turned out to have been written by Clinton staffers such as Mook and then sent out under Sanders’ name. Sanders was a dutiful sheepdog, herding his disgruntled supporters into the embrace of the Democratic Party machine.

The scope of fraud in the primaries was breathtaking. Donna Brazile, who took over the DNC after Wasserman Schultz was removed, later revealed the existence of a joint fund-raising agreement among the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

'The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Clinton would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,' Brazile wrote. 'Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.'

Sanders, although he knew by September 2016 that the process was rigged, said nothing to his supporters. He was tacitly complicit in the cover-up. It was left to one of the architects of the fraud, Brazile, to reveal the scam. But by then it was too late.

Sanders’ capitulation in the face of the overwhelming evidence of the rigging of the nomination process was political and moral cowardice. He missed his historical moment, one that should have seen him denounce a corrupt, corporate-dominated party elite and walk away to build a third-party candidacy."

This same scenario is guaranteed to recur. Sanders' every DNC-serving step since 2016 - his "Unity Tour" with superswine Perez, his jumping aboard the Party's McCarthyite Russiagate canard, and especially his chomping at the bit to be first to sign the revolting 2020 Democratic Party Loyalty Pledge - is proof of this.

Gird thyselves, Sandinistas. His ultimate betrayal is a mere 165 days away.

Thanks for this link. Hedges' article was written in June of 2018.

Probable.

My conversation with a friend today inspired a formulation that I wish I had thought of before publishing this: Bernie's greatest achievement is that he has created the conditions for a break with the two-party duopoly; his greatest failure is that he will do “everything in his power”to block that from happening.

So when Sanders again endorses the Party's Establishment Candidate, after months and months of campaigning against most everything s/he is sure to stand for, might that perhaps make Senator Sanders (D/I/LMT) the very worst candidate in the DNC's Primary Theater?

That would indeed be a fair characterization.

In 2016 Bernie flipped 180 degrees on immigration, conforming to the Democratic party line.

My guess is that he could have handily won had he not done so.

I'm not sure what speific policy changes you're referring to, but his position on immigration was not a reason he didn't win the nomination.

"This is nothing else but Bernie signaling submission to the Democratic Party, which is—and keeps telling him it is—the enemy of everything he claims to stand for. It’s telling the party it can betray him in any way and still get his support. A foolish forfeit in advance."

Oh, he's lucky that they let him run at all.

I find your analysis most cogent. I too, when ever I have the misfortune to hear Biden, think "zombie." And I'm fed up with the leftist "sheepdog" line. Haven't they got anything better to offer than despair and waiting for the perfect world to fall in their lap? Evidently not.

BS is a smart man who knows a lot more about politics than I ever will. His knows he is likely to lose the nomination. But it doesn't really matter. What DOES matter is creating a powerful and lasting organization. This is the only way the have nots are ever going to get anything, as opposed to having what little they have further reduced. Heck, the relatively small NRA is powerful. Look at that as a model. We can be bigger and stronger than that, easily. What is needed is persistence.

I think Bernie is a shoo-in for a plurality. If Bernie becomes a martyr, a rallying point, a focus of outrage at the abuse he is suffering and will continue to suffer, well sorry to say it but that's a good thing. I think he knows all this very well.

I had confidence for Liz Warren's delegates but everything she has done recently screams "sellout." Too bad. That means no Sanders nomination.

All in all, in the end it doesn't really matter if Sanders becomes President or not. He would be disobeyed frustrated at every turn, and very possibly impeached. What does matter is Congress and state legislatures. AOC's PAC is the way to go. Bernie doesn't matter in the end. It's the cause and the organization. Moses may not ever see the promised land. But does that make him less or does it make him all the greater?

There is every sign that the Democrats are doing their best to follow in the footsteps of the Whigs. All this stuff about a new party being impossible is defeatism. The GOP did it in 1854/1860. They say things have changed, it's harder now. More defeatism. I'm sick of it. Phooey on them. If they want to be useless, that's their business, but their groupthink jawbone can't stop constructive action. A good thing, that.

Thanks for the statistics on electoral cheating. Take control of state legislatures and put a stop to this. Focus on Ohio.

I feel quite confident of victory. Every year it will get worse. Sooner or later the people will have had enough. I say sooner. I say in the next ten years, easy.

Last February, shortly after Bernie announced, I published a brief piece on Mediun.comhttps://medium.com/@maxmast... speculating on his motivations for a second run. It struck me as obvious that Bernie, of all people, would be acutely aware that the ruling eites/DNC cabal would again undertake to sabotage his nomnation. He would understand that if he did not challange those forces directly, he would fail at the Convention, if not before. It was reasonable to conclude that since he chose again to run as a Democrat, he would not be inclined to take the necessary actions against the Party to fight for the nomination.

Jim, you too recognized that Bernie was not taking on that fight. That's why I find your other conclusion, that this time around he was in it to win it, a contradiction. Is there more to that belief than you expressed?

I think he enter this race to win this time, and is in it to win it, because he there is no candidate better placed than him, his campaign and support base are much stronger, etc.--all the reasons I gave. Really, in 2016, his advisors admitted he entered with no intention of winning, 'cause Hillary was inevitable. I do not think that's the case this year.

I think he also understands (mostly) the resistance he's going to get from the Dem establishment. I think he also believes he can win despite that resistance and without too militantly counter-attacking against that resistance--which is naive but actually not impossible this time. Really, a month ago I would have said it was impossible. I changed my mind a few times while wrtiting this. HIs opponents are proving themselves terrible., and the odds are changing weekly.

I also think he is committed in principle to not destroying the Dem party, or disrupting it too much, because he holds to the any Dem is better than Trump paradigm.

I think all of these things are running together in Bernie. They're his contradictions, which his base wants to avoid confronting--an avoidance that is enabled by how well he is doing. After all, if he wins, he will do full-tilt on Trump, and will discombobulate the whoe ruling class. (Then, as I say, we'll have to see what he does to the Dem party.) I'm trying, sympathetically, to get his base of supporters--who are the seeds of an anti-duopoly movment--to think about those contradictions now. Don't ignore his faults or strengths; think about where it's all going.

I repeat what I said in my pinned comment: Bernie's greatest achievement is that he has created the conditions for a break with the two-party duopoly; his greatest failure is that he will (probably) do “everything in his power” to block that from happening.

(BTW, his naivete is shared by many leftists. How many ignore, as if it counts for nothing, the scandalous cheating possiblities of electronic voting? Almost everyone. Everyone who does is just as stubbornly naive--thinking debating policy differences might not be rendered irrelevant by the possibilty of stealing votes.)

Given the increased DNC machinations of late, I just can't see a road to victory for Bernie, especially in the absence of a militant response from his camp. I view the DNC and its sponsors as determined and ruthless.

I basically agree. I would have given him 0% a month ago; By the time I fhinised this piece I generously gave him 10-15%. It will all change according to votes. If he doesn't win both Iowa and NH--and I'm now suspecting he won't win Iowa--his chances wiil decrease. And I think he will be cheated out of votes wherever they can. OTOH, the vacuity of all the others helps him. Biden is on the edge of a cliff.

We'll probably know by Super Tuesday whether he has any chance of gettting a majority of delegates, which is what he would need. If he does, then we'll see if the DNC has the chutzpah to change that rule. At any rate, everybody will end up showing their true colors. I don't expect it will be pretty.

What will make me cringe is if Bernie wins Iowa and NH, and the first or second thing in his victory speech--as it was after his NH win in 2016--is to emphasize to his followers that we all must vote for whoever the nominee is.

Yeah, we're in sync. I personally believe the DNC already demonstrated it's unlimited chutzpah in open court defending against in donor lawsuit.

Hedges' article referenced above strongly outlines the contradictions. I would like to ask why, given what we have in two utterly irresponsible parties today governing the election, it is not the perfect time for a third party to arise--and sweep away these deplorable relics. Why not?

Because of the way people like Bernie answer those questions at the end of the article. The hold of those answers is tenacious.

My assumption on Bernie's answers (from Jim's questions at the end of the essay):

Is there a dispositive ethico-political difference in kind between the Democratic and Republican parties? (Yes) Will any Democrat be decisively better than Trump? (Yes) Is the two-party system the best of possible worlds in the U.S. today and for the foreseeable future? (Yes) Do “yes” answers to all of those questions require putting away “the mass movement for political revolution”? (No)

I'm recalling the California primary 2016 (in June of that year). Obama and Warren endorsed Clinton on the eve of that election. Clinton won. Prior to, Bernie had stated he would fight to the last vote at the DNC..I recall this vividly, cheered him on (This is contrary to your memory of his "inevitability" attitude re Clinton, Jim.) After the loss in CA he indeed folded. He also refused an invitation by Jill Stein to head the Green Party. Suppose Sanders had been at the head of the Green or a Third Party starting with the current campaign in the summer of 2019. Might such a move have been possible?

This is what puzzles me on the why not question. Why not? It's been evident for at least the past 8 years that a People's Independent Party is direly needed to fight the corporate dual-winged vulture, hasn't it?

Sanders said, "I didn't want to end up like Nader." He can't get anywhere near to winning without the Blue Zombie vote. He would be lucky to get Teddy Roosevelt's 27%. "Poor people don't vote." - Sanders.

In these days of those abominable voting machines there's nothing you can do. Evidently they no longer care that the system even appears to be legitimate. Where else are you going to go?

Basically, unions and the left are poorly organized and have been for decades. A new party cannot be conjured or simply created. Just look at the Greens, which have been trying to put a national party together since 1986. After the 2016 primaries, former Bernie staffers first invited him to head up the creation of a new people's party, he declined. The belief there was that half the Dem Party would follow Bernie, creating an instant party. Next, they launched their own effort, Movement for People's Party, which continues to exist but has little to show.
I believe new parties must emerge organically from the people as they respond to conditions they face. Clearly, and sadly, we are not there yet.

I'd rate Bernie's chance of winning the nomination outright somewhat higher--maybe 20%--but I 100% agree with you that the experience of 2016 bodes ill. The DNC can have a heavy thumb on the scale, and you know they will press as hard as they can, because a traditional, left-leaning Democrat (which is what Bernie is) is anathema to their cold, neo-liberal, pro-war, pro-austerity, pro-Wall Street, anti-worker hearts. The Democrats would rather lose to Trump than allow anyone to represent the needs of the people. Another Trump administration will let them rake in donor cash while complaining--but doing nothing--about Trump's policies. And of course all Trump would have to do to get the Democrats totally on his side would be to officially declare war on Iran, Venezuela, or Syria. It's pathetic.

Agreed. The odds are changeable and changing rapidly. If Biden has a meltdown--and he is on the verge--it would be another whole new ball game.

Biden's campaign amazes me. How can such a loser be so high in the polls? With his obvious weak grip on anything and everything, he has no chance against Trump.