Why is there no 'Democrat Elite' pointed out?

ATS members are well aware of the split between the Republican Establishment and the Grassroots of the Party.

The anointed Candidates were slaughtered in the Primaries, by 'we the people'. That fight is ongoing with a few overlapping points of agreement.

Then why hasn't a similar delineation happened within the Democrat party? I have friends that are Liberals. In most cases, but not all, there's little love lost for the Democrat elite. It varies, some don't like Hillary. Some don't like Obama. The subject of Pelosi and Schumer never come up when visiting with my Democrat friends. Never the Financing elites.

What seems absent is any sense of connection between the individuals mentioned. Nary a word about the machine of the Democrat party just individuals disliked/disagreed with. Not a group that could be labeled the Party Elite, per say. As a result, little to no angst from it's members, apparently, of a rather obvious and virtually identical group of elites.

Some would claim that Sanders was a similar phenomena as Trump was for the Republicans. Perhaps to a degree. Yet as Schultz has stated in her book, she told Sanders he was being shafted by the Hillary supporters in the nomination process. Yet he has steadfastly maintained his party loyalty and hasn't spoken a word about that effort. Can anyone reasonably conclude anything other than he's part of the 'Democrat elite'?

So I ask why?

There are brilliant liberals. This cannot be lost to all the liberals whatsoever.

Just curious about this point. I hold no expectation of changing minds, politically, with this. Again, just curious.

I had no idea anyone else sees this

breath of fresh air reading that, it's even tangled by evil tricks to pack on the confusion.....the world is full blast doin in your face rooky slaps in the face ripping society to shreds

originally posted by: nwtrucker
ATS members are well aware of the split between the Republican Establishment and the Grassroots of the Party.

The anointed Candidates were slaughtered in the Primaries, by 'we the people'. That fight is ongoing with a few overlapping point of agreement.

Then why hasn't a similar delineation happened within the Democrat party? I have friends that are Liberals. In most cases, but not all, there's little love lost for the Democrat elite. It varies, some don't like Hillary. Some don't like Obama. The subject of Pelosi and Schumer never come up when visiting with my Democrat friends. Never the Financing elites.

What seems absent is any sense of connection between the individuals mentioned. Nary a word about the machine of the Democrat party just individuals disliked/disagreed with. Not a group that could be labeled the Party Elite, per say. As a result, little to no angst from it's members, apparently, of a rather obvious and virtually identical group of elites.

Some would claim that Sanders was a similar phenomena as Trump was for the Republicans. Perhaps to a degree. Yet as Schultz has stated in her book, she told Sanders he was being shafted by the Hillary supporters in the nomination process. Yet he has steadfastly maintained his party loyalty and hasn't spoken a word about that effort. Can anyone reasonably conclude anything other than he's part of the 'Democrat elite'?

So I ask why?

There are brilliant liberals. This cannot be lost to all the liberals whatsoever.

Just curious about this point. I hold no expectation of changing minds, politically, with this. Again, just curious.

Honestly, I don't think the run of the mill Democrat is all that informed politically. Also, they don't seem to really have the alternative media that promotes or informs voters of the inner workings and also willing to actually go against the party establishment.

The Dem's have to know that new blood is needed to advance in today's society. The "same ole" isn't cutting it today. Maybe they are waiting to see what comes of the midterms. Someone may stand out. Maybe not. Obama went from obscurity to president rather quickly so it's possible.

a reply to: Edumakated

That I never thought of. A very good point. Thank you!

originally posted by: intrepid
The Dem's have to know that new blood is needed to advance in today's society. The "same ole" isn't cutting it today. Maybe they are waiting to see what comes of the midterms. Someone may stand out. Maybe not. Obama went from obscurity to president rather quickly so it's possible.

They very well may be hanging their hat on that possibility. Good point.

Yet is that view the Democrat elite's thinking or the grass root's? Both?

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: nwtrucker
ATS members are well aware of the split between the Republican Establishment and the Grassroots of the Party.

The anointed Candidates were slaughtered in the Primaries, by 'we the people'. That fight is ongoing with a few overlapping point of agreement.

Then why hasn't a similar delineation happened within the Democrat party? I have friends that are Liberals. In most cases, but not all, there's little love lost for the Democrat elite. It varies, some don't like Hillary. Some don't like Obama. The subject of Pelosi and Schumer never come up when visiting with my Democrat friends. Never the Financing elites.

What seems absent is any sense of connection between the individuals mentioned. Nary a word about the machine of the Democrat party just individuals disliked/disagreed with. Not a group that could be labeled the Party Elite, per say. As a result, little to no angst from it's members, apparently, of a rather obvious and virtually identical group of elites.

Some would claim that Sanders was a similar phenomena as Trump was for the Republicans. Perhaps to a degree. Yet as Schultz has stated in her book, she told Sanders he was being shafted by the Hillary supporters in the nomination process. Yet he has steadfastly maintained his party loyalty and hasn't spoken a word about that effort. Can anyone reasonably conclude anything other than he's part of the 'Democrat elite'?

So I ask why?

There are brilliant liberals. This cannot be lost to all the liberals whatsoever.

Just curious about this point. I hold no expectation of changing minds, politically, with this. Again, just curious.

Honestly, I don't think the run of the mill Democrat is all that informed politically. Also, they don't seem to really have the alternative media that promotes or informs voters of the inner workings and also willing to actually go against the party establishment.

I would have to agree with that. Something I've noticed over the years is the Dem establishment is very good at keeping their people in line. They rarely go against party leadership. On the few occasions that they do, they tend to lose in the primaries. Funny how that works. They know better than to buck the system because it tends to be the end of their political career.

I think they are genuinely concerned that if they (the Dems) split like that, it will be game over for a long time. Even as a unified party, they couldn’t get HRC elected, even spending north of ONE BILLION DOLLARS.

If they split their votes (imagine if Bernie had decided to take his campaign independent after being robbed of the Dem nomination by the HRC machine), it makes the R a shoe-in. Even with the split on the right, most on the right understand how to keep Rs in office and likely follow the party.

They really do need to get back to grass roots and out of identity politics sooner than later. Well, for their interests. I would rather changes be made where you don’t have to have millions or be a D or R to have an honest chance at being elected. An actual candidate of the people, not a political machine. Pie in the sky, I know, but a thought.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
ATS members are well aware of the split between the Republican Establishment and the Grassroots of the Party.

The anointed Candidates were slaughtered in the Primaries, by 'we the people'. That fight is ongoing with a few overlapping points of agreement.

Then why hasn't a similar delineation happened within the Democrat party? I have friends that are Liberals. In most cases, but not all, there's little love lost for the Democrat elite. It varies, some don't like Hillary. Some don't like Obama. The subject of Pelosi and Schumer never come up when visiting with my Democrat friends. Never the Financing elites.

What seems absent is any sense of connection between the individuals mentioned. Nary a word about the machine of the Democrat party just individuals disliked/disagreed with. Not a group that could be labeled the Party Elite, per say. As a result, little to no angst from it's members, apparently, of a rather obvious and virtually identical group of elites.

Some would claim that Sanders was a similar phenomena as Trump was for the Republicans. Perhaps to a degree. Yet as Schultz has stated in her book, she told Sanders he was being shafted by the Hillary supporters in the nomination process. Yet he has steadfastly maintained his party loyalty and hasn't spoken a word about that effort. Can anyone reasonably conclude anything other than he's part of the 'Democrat elite'?

So I ask why?

There are brilliant liberals. This cannot be lost to all the liberals whatsoever.

Just curious about this point. I hold no expectation of changing minds, politically, with this. Again, just curious.

Because the democrats like where the party is going. There is nothing to split them. They walk lock step...

a reply to: Martin75

So that's what that noise is! lol

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
I had no idea anyone else sees this

breath of fresh air reading that, it's even tangled by evil tricks to pack on the confusion.....the world is full blast doin in your face rooky slaps in the face ripping society to shreds

Cool. Now where's the glorious mug shot you promised to show me?

a reply to: Martin75

Yet it's as much a coalition as the right is. Or at least, apparently....

There is a big split in the Democratic party...it's a big reason that Hillary Lost. The far left didn't vote for her, they either didnt' vote or voted Green Party. Many "Progressives" like Tim Canova are distancing themselves...I think he just declared himself independent to go against Debbie Wasserman Shultz in Florida. Many Bernie progressives decided to run for office themselves with many getting elected, at least in smaller positions or local positions.

It's the News/Media/talking heads to blame again though. Just like those that watch Fox news get brainwashed by agents like Sean Hannity, Those on the left get brainwashed by agents like Rachel Maddow. One of my closest liberal friends refuses to believe anything unless Rachel tells her it's true. LOL She isn't even aware that there was a lawsuit over the rigged primaries.

a reply to: nwtrucker

There is a lot of discord, they just happens to be more cohesion amongst talking points. It's more about the right being the bigger enemy. They believe they can work with the policies a little easier to better their situation. In the end it's all about control you have to be in the fold to allow yourself positioning. Silent coups are always in the works they just need the platform or market to enact their own policies. It actually goes for both parties, but they do seem tow the line better.

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: nwtrucker

There is a lot of discord, they just happens to be more cohesion amongst talking points. It's more about the right being the bigger enemy. They believe they can work with the policies a little easier to better their situation. In the end it's all about control you have to be in the fold to allow yourself positioning. Silent coups are always in the works they just need the platform or market to enact their own policies. It actually goes for both parties, but they do seem tow the line better.

Those 'talking points' you cite are basically the Party Elites,or at least their version of PR people, then?

The Democrats seem to be more strongly brainwashed. Especially the Liberal ones. The concervative elite used to try to give their workers opportunity to make a living wage and benefits to survive, the Democrats are more into a power government where the government provides benefits and structures the economy kind of like the old Roman government did.

We had better benefits and wages around here under the conservative way, most people did not need subsidies for health insurance and the food stamp program in the past. There are more people hungry around here now than there was in the seventies even during that small depression we had for ten years.

I do not think that the liberal democrats can see the error in their ways, they need to look at things and evaluate them better, they are not looking at history and human nature well enough. They are creating more deceitful people in our society, people who keep getting everything given to them wind up wanting more and more lots of times. Not everyone is like that, but the ten percent of people who are can drain society dry.

originally posted by: rickymouse
The Democrats seem to be more strongly brainwashed. Especially the Liberal ones. The concervative elite used to try to give their workers opportunity to make a living wage and benefits to survive, the Democrats are more into a power government where the government provides benefits and structures the economy kind of like the old Roman government did.

We had better benefits and wages around here under the conservative way, most people did not need subsidies for health insurance and the food stamp program in the past. There are more people hungry around here now than there was in the seventies even during that small depression we had for ten years.

I do not think that the liberal democrats can see the error in their ways, they need to look at things and evaluate them better, they are not looking at history and human nature well enough. They are creating more deceitful people in our society, people who keep getting everything given to them wind up wanting more and more lots of times. Not everyone is like that, but the ten percent of people who are can drain society dry.

When you're talking about being brainwashed, both sides do it well. I think the Fox news and Talk radio guys are more skilled at it though. Anyone who listens to talk radio, Watches Fox News or MSNBC is being brainwashed. Any "Political or News analysis" show is propaganda and manipulation. The only way you get out of that cycle and free your mind is to turn off the TV, youtube channel and Radio and podcast. Stop believing what other people tell you to believe.

Bernie is raisibg money for the parry so he can buy a 4th house

originally posted by: toysforadults
Bernie is raisibg money for the parry so he can buy a 4th house

Every politician...liberal and conservative is raising money to buy a 4th house. I don't think we have any congressmen or women that aren't rich. Why single bernie out?

originally posted by: rickymouse
The Democrats seem to be more strongly brainwashed. Especially the Liberal ones. The concervative elite used to try to give their workers opportunity to make a living wage and benefits to survive, the Democrats are more into a power government where the government provides benefits and structures the economy kind of like the old Roman government did.

We had better benefits and wages around here under the conservative way, most people did not need subsidies for health insurance and the food stamp program in the past. There are more people hungry around here now than there was in the seventies even during that small depression we had for ten years.

I do not think that the liberal democrats can see the error in their ways, they need to look at things and evaluate them better, they are not looking at history and human nature well enough. They are creating more deceitful people in our society, people who keep getting everything given to them wind up wanting more and more lots of times. Not everyone is like that, but the ten percent of people who are can drain society dry.

Yet, in the '70s I was a Democrat. That level of economic freedom was as much Democrat, more so actually, than Republican. Both parties have moved left- at least until recently.

I'm not saying your wrong here, but citing the '70s omits that the Democrats controlled the Congress 'forever' with forays of republican Presidents.

Trouble is that Democrat Party is a wee bit different than today's. Yes?... Republican party, as well.