American financial aristocracy will select the candidates of the two big-business parties, using its vast wealth and control of the media. This will culminate on November 8, 2016, when the voters will be given the “choice” between two individuals with nearly identical right-wing views, committed to the defense of Wall Street’s interests at home and abroad.

A staggering amount of money is required to be considered a “viable” presidential candidate. Ultra-right Texas Senator Ted Cruz vaulted onto that list by raising $31 million in the first week after announcing his candidacy. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, brother and son of former presidents, reportedly plans to raise $100 million in the April-June quarter alone, even before announcing his campaign for the Republican nomination.
By one published estimate, Hillary Clinton will raise and spend between $1.5 billion and $2 billion in the primary and general election campaigns, twice the amount Barack Obama and Mitt Romney each spent in 2012.

To raise these vast sums, all potential presidents must thus pass through a screening process that involves a few thousand billionaires and near-billionaires. According to a revealing report in the Washington Post last week, so-called bundlers who played a vital role in earlier campaigns by combining donor checks into bundles totaling $100,000 or more are now generally ignored by the top candidates. Their cash input is considered insignificant compared to what the “super-PACs” can obtain in one check from billionaires such as the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson and George Soros.

The financial oligarchy selects the possible candidates, a process now referred to as the “invisible primary,” and puts them through their paces, using various media-generated attacks and pseudo-scandals to determine which ones are best able to shake off external pressures, ignore public opinion and do the bidding of their corporate masters.

Those selected are invariably right-wing, reliable defenders of corporate America, usually themselves millionaires or multimillionaires. On the Republican side, the announced or likely candidates include four US senators—Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham—and numerous governors and former governors, including Bush, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Rick Perry of Texas, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Mike Huckabee of Arkansas.

The Republican Party has moved so far to the right that Jeb Bush, who viciously attacked public education and supported the ultra-right campaign over the comatose Terri Schiavo, is now regarded as the leading “moderate.” His main competition for that role is Christie, promoted by the media as a “moderate” despite his savage attacks on social services and bullying of teachers and other public employees.

Those based primarily on ultra-right Tea Party and Christian fundamentalist elements include Cruz, who provoked a partial shutdown of the federal government in 2013, and Rand Paul, who recently called for a $190 billion increase in military spending.
Those appealing to both the ultra-right and the Republican establishment include Rubio, set to announce Monday, and Scott Walker. The Wisconsin governor, now running even or ahead of Bush in most polls, is best known for his attack on public employees in Wisconsin, which provoked a stormy mass movement in 2011.



SNIP



While the American media—itself owned by giant corporations or billionaires like Rupert Murdoch—will portray the 2016 presidential as an exercise in democracy, the US political system can be more accurately described, paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln, as government “of the billionaires, by the billionaires and for the billionaires.”
There is little or no correlation between the political sentiments of the working people who constitute the vast majority of the American population and the policies advocated by the Democratic and Republican candidates for president.

By large margins, even in opinion polls conducted by the corporate-controlled media, the American people support sharp increases in taxes on the wealthy to fund social programs and provide jobs for the unemployed; they oppose cuts in Social Security and Medicare and view education, health care and other public services as basic rights; they oppose government spying on the telephone and Internet usage of ordinary Americans, as well as other police-state measures; and they oppose overseas military interventions in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates stand on the other side of the barricades on all these issues.



This political straitjacket has become increasingly intolerable.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/04/11/pers-a11.html

but the truth. And the beneficiaries are mostly the media, who will get to run an avalanche of false advertising.

Billions will be spent on misleading advertising, smears, and fearmongering.

The media will focus on personalities and the horse race.

This is a sick perversion of what our nation's Founders had in mind -- a well-informed electorate engaged in their own governance.

Ultimately, the policies enacted in Washington will reflect this dysfunctional electoral process engineered and paid for by billionaires.

HRC, Cruz and Paul are all equal evils , you have bigger problems than voting!

Then the illusion would be self evident.
No, one is evil to one side and the other is evil to the other...that is how the game works.
The biggest problem is to pretend you are not seeing a game in any of it, and it is the simple good verses evil clear choice...and vote out of fear instead of for something...that means they never have to deliver anything but relief of your fear of the boogie men.

Blame People who sat on their ideologies and refused to vote for lesser evils allowed the GOP to take control of SCOTUS which in turn has enabled this ,,,,,, btw it has also insured that a Progressive Democrat can not ever be elected Prez !

So How do Progressives have any influence on policy making now? sit on their ideologies and refuse to vote?

... that sit home and don't vote; that's a canard.

I do not see how you could have looked at the people he had around him and come to that conclusion, still I am glad McCain and Mitts were defeated.

He helped tremendously with alternative energy, aka advanced energy, i.e., renewables. He's clearly been a friend of LGBT rights.

No, he hasn't been a perfect progressive, but he's been the best president I can remember.

regretted my voting for Obama, but I never considered him to be a progressive.

McConnell, funded in part by Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan, is the legislative analog to street-cop assassins.

Supporting marriage equality, providing universal health insurance, providing a path to immigration, pushing for stimulus after stimulus, appointing Kagan and Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, negotiating with Iran are conservative positions?


If that's the case the Republicans should push to repeal or overwrite the 22nd Amendment before the 2016 presidential election and endorse him.

... of this guy!

It's the middle of the roaders who sit out elections.

Nationwide, 21% are either consistently liberal or consistently conservative in their political values. But these people make up a larger share of the electorate – 28% of people who say they always vote and 34% of those who always vote in primaries.

This pattern is even stronger at higher levels of activism. Consistent liberals and conservatives make up 41% of the people who have made a campaign donation over the past two years – double their presence in the public at large.



http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-5-political-engagement-and-activism/

Or pretty close. I thought Borowitz was satirical. Guess that's no longer the case.

I would much rather hang out with Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, and Oprah than the Koch brothers...

Pretty much the same situation with professional sports.

but we got more people that will give $25, $50, $100 and a real reason to take action.....rid our country of the conservative money driven blight

I'm not giving a dime to the billionaires club.

nm