Yes! Political scientists call it oligarchy.
No! Transnational corporations should have their say in politics.


brrrrk's picture
brrrrk 4 years 26 weeks ago

We should keep in mind the title of the Clash's third album...... London Calling

dianhow's picture
dianhow 4 years 26 weeks ago

Dem Win of 2 seats is not a loss ! Not when it was done is an area that went Republican for eons . This was a test . CON judges Citizens United vs We the people WE Must keep fighting hard Money talks loudy but votes & action talk louder ! Corps are NOT persons Money is NOT speech Speak out often  Hammer them till they listen Demand an End to : ALL wars - ALL Bush tax cuts- ALL Corp cuts and loopholes. End SS tax cap That will save trillions without gutting SS Medicare, education, disabled, old and sick on medicaid . GOP Tea Baggers forced a unfair bill under duress, threat of default, They have again tanked the economy, jobs and US values, the ones we used to live by .

David J. Cyr's picture
David J. Cyr 4 years 26 weeks ago

As usual with Hartmann's polls, this one too provides no answer for any intelligent, well informed, honest person with good intentions to choose, and the question is deviously framed... implying that it's not oligarchy when Democrats are managing it.

If the eco-fraud Al Gore wasn't the obedient corporate party distraction he was, he would have publicly refused to take any corporate contributions in 2000, and from that received a massive popular vote mandate. If Howard Dean wasn't the corporate party tool he was, then he would have sought to eliminate money from elections (to make elections about ideas instead of money sums from bribery and extortion), but he didn't. The madman Howard Dean escalated the demand for greater sums in campaign funding. And then Obama's deep plastic astroturfed 2008 campaign MovedOn to more than double corporate party candidate demands for BIG Money to purchase elections. 3 of the top 6 "contributors" to Obama's ("historic" in its intensity of money-grubbing) 2008 corporate-state predetermined installation were the financials firms Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and JP Morgan Chase. The banksters got huge short-term gain returns on their investments in the "change" banksters could believe in Obama... though not nearly as much as their long-term gain returns on their investments in the boy-POTUS Clinton.

If the corporate party's Democrat voters were actually concerned about money buying elections they would have used the leverage of their numbers to take money completely out of elections when they could have, but what the "progressive" voters instead chose to do was earnestly strive to have depraved Democrats get more corrupting money than retrograde Republicans. The liberals' answer to too much money in elections was to put far more money into elections. RESULT: Democrats didn't do the good they could have when they could have, because they were owned by their corporate donors... they never had any intention to do any good.

No truly good intentioned person would be a member — let alone a candidate — of the corporate (R) & (D) party. No good, sensible and sane person would vote for any of the corporate (R) & (D) party's candidates... ever.

The Devolution of Liberalism:

2950-10K's picture
2950-10K 4 years 26 weeks ago

Pretty simple math......[undocumented big money] + [low info voters] = [desired] election results! The [desired] part is anyone willing to serve their masters the Oligarchs, and thus far it seems like one party in particular is jumping at the chance. Their proposed legislation is a dead giveaway. Can you say Paul Ryan? Thom is right, the Supreme court has really ffffffdddd up our Democracy!

DeanOrff's picture
DeanOrff 4 years 25 weeks ago

Completely reality-free post from David Cyr here. According to the Associated Press, Barack Obama took in $60 million from Wall Street in 2008, John McCain $52 million. That's a very insignificant difference: 54% - 46%. And that's Ancient History now, with the January 2010 Supreme Court decision in favor of the cleverly-named Wall Street Lobbying group called Citizens United. In the 2010 elections, Republicans, Wall Street, and conservative groups combined spent $4 Billion dollars to defeat congressional Democrats. Unions and Democratic groups raised 10% of that amount -- about $400 million.

As to your other points, Wall Street took complete control of Washington D.C. during the George W. Bush administration. The Big Banksters basically put a gun to the head of the American Economy and extorted the March 2009 2nd round of Bail-Outs from the Obama administration. Senate Republicans protected and secured Wall Street's power as soon as President Obama took office by using the Filibuster to Block the Democrats from using their majority on 93% of all votes. ..........But I'm sure it makes you feel real smart to condemn both parties as being exactly the same

DeanOrff's picture
DeanOrff 4 years 25 weeks ago

I was phonebanking for the Wisconsin Democratic Party from Pittsburgh this past week. One thing I learned that I Do Not Hear people saying:

The 4 Republican Senators who held on to their seats have all been in office for 20 - 30 years ! Think of how Big a Lift that is to get a whole bunch of rural people to Change the Way they've been voting for 20 - 30 years --- all in just a few months. It's awfully hard to get people to do a 180-degree turn that fast.........and then on top of that, you have the tidal wave of corporate money manipulating the voters.

One question: Do you know if all or some of those Wisconsin state senators will be up for re-election again in 2012 ? Because if they are, that's one more shot........ And you have to keep faith that people might eventually wake up as the damage caused by our new Corporate Monarchy keeps piling up.

Dean O.
Pittsburgh, PA

DeanOrff's picture
DeanOrff 4 years 25 weeks ago

.......and The Clash also did a song on their self-titled debut called "London's Burning."

DeanOrff's picture
DeanOrff 4 years 25 weeks ago

.........and The Clash also did a song on their self-titled debut album called "London's Burning."

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

If You Want to Win, Go Progressive

The big question right now is whether to call Hillary Clinton a progressive, or a "moderate."

And then there's the question of who is more electable in a general election: an unabashedly progressive democrat, like Bernie Sanders; or a "centrist" democrat, like Hillary Clinton.

Latest Headlines

One Iowa Caucus Delegate Comes Down To Coin Toss

The Iowa caucus convener flipped a coin. Bernie Sanders supporters called "heads" and it landed on tails.

Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton by 31 points in N.H.: Poll

Sanders was at 61 percent support in the University of Massachusetts Lowell/7News poll, followed by Mrs. Clinton, at 30 percent

Martin O'Malley suspends presidential campaign after Iowa caucuses

The announcement came after O'Malley barely registered in Iowa against his better-known rivals Clinton and Sanders, failing to meet already low expectations
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Through compelling personal stories, Hartmann presents a dramatic and deeply disturbing picture of humans as a profoundly troubled species. Hope lies in his inspiring vision of our enormous unrealized potential and his description of the path to its realization."
David Korten, author of Agenda for a New Economy, The Great Turning, and When Corporations Rule the World
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann seeks out interesting subjects from such disparate outposts of curiosity that you have to wonder whether or not he uncovered them or they selected him."
Leonardo DiCaprio, actor, producer, and environmental activist
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"If you wonder why and when giant corporations got the power to reign supreme over us, here’s the story."
Jim Hightower, national radio commentator and author of Swim Against the Current